Is Neo-Conservatism Rearing its Head in South Africa?
After 9/11, US intelligence identified South Africa, Nigeria and Somalia as the potential operating sites for al-Qaida in Africa. Since then, scores of security experts have tested theories on why, how and when the next terrorist cell will form and strike.
Recent speeches by Prof. Husayn Soloman of Pretoria University have taken this speculation to new levels. He has employed the familiar argument of American neo-conservatism that targets all the Muslims as potential and actual supporters of “radical Islam”. This alarmist argument has raised the concern of Muslims, and should raise the concern of South Africans in general.
The neo-conservative agenda has been prepared to hijack the rule of law, subvert human rights conventions and present lies as facts at the highest international forums. They have done all these things under the thesis that Islam poses a threat to civilization. More ominously, the thesis argues that all Muslims are probably guilty until proven innocent. Soloman is attempting to cultivate this scenario in South Africa.
Most researchers writing on the link between Muslims in South Africa and al-Qaida operations and plans have been more circumspect. They have regularly reported on the steady flow of allegations that Muslims sympathisers and/or operatives have supported radical projects in terms of finance, safe houses and jihad camps. Bar some exceptions, they have pointed to a general tendency towards exaggeration and misinformation. The few substantiated cases have rightly been the subject of South African courts, and others have slipped away from the journalistic radar.
Since last year, though, Prof. Soloman has recycled the allegations from newspaper reports, and presented them as incontrovertible fact. His recent speech at the Israeli Institute for Counter-Terrorism shows this neo-con argument in great clarity. He omits to mention that many of the allegations have shown to be hoaxes, or even that they are being tested in courts. He taints all the Muslims in South Africa with direct sympathy for what he calls radical Islam, or political Islam.
Soloman’s argument reaches beyond the present to the very foundation of Islam in South Africa. The political exiles who were brought in chains for resisting Dutch colonialism were involved in “a very militant Islam” and focussed on “anti-slavery rebellions.” And they were no different from PAGAD’s militant campaign in the 1990s to ostensibly rid the society of drugs and gangsters.
For Solomon, like his neo-con counterparts, historical developments in the history of Muslims in this country can be simply brushed aside. There is no historical record of anti-slave rebellions by Muslims. Even if there were, no self-respecting scholar will make the claim that PAGAD and these 17th century political exiles were part of one seamless agenda. Actually, only al-Qaida members and neo-cons claim make this ludicrous claim.
Soloman then moves to another favourite: higher education institutions. Muslims attended such madrasahs in diverse countries, from Iran to arch-rival Saudi Arabia. Once in South Africa, according to Solomon, graduates from these institutions promoted a common radical ideology in mosques and schools.
As he sacrifices historical depth, Soloman also collapses the differences among Muslims over law, theology, political projects and many, many other issues. Any cursory review of Islamic institutions will reveal ethnic, racial and class divisions, theological rivalry and endless petty squabbles. Again, only al-Qaida members and the neo-cons will see a common project, each to promote their political projects.
Surely there is diversity, admits Solomon. But it turns out that the only difference recognized by Soloman is the pursuit of revolution from the top, or from below. Without a shred of evidence for South Africa, Soloman borrows this common thesis from the history of modern Islamic movements over the last quarter of the 20th century.
In an attempt to ostensibly provide substance to this revolution from below in South Africa, Soloman speculates that South African Muslims have infiltrated social movements protesting against service delivery and injustices. At the same time, they have also infiltrated gangs in the Western Cape.
Such far-fetched and wild claims do not deserve serious attention. Such claims betray a shallow understanding of the rise and fall of Islamic movements, the complicity of Muslim governments, and the particular context of the Cold War in which radicals were supported by the leading superpowers. Moreover, applying this scenario in South Africa is laughable if it were not presented by an academic at a University.
Soloman’s arguments closely follows the method of American neo-cons who presented this scenario of Islam and Muslims to the Americans. With disastrous consequences, such analysis supports a perpetual war against Islam and Muslim. It demonizes Muslims, justifies their victimization, their profiling and in too many cases their languishing in jail beyond the right to a fair trial.
The neo-con arguments successfully divert attention away from the social-political contexts of conflicts, and the historical development of Islam and Muslim societies. It is no surprise to see that Soloman has presented his “findings” at Zionist meetings in South Africa, or at anti-terrorism platforms in Israel. The neo-con arguments divert attention away from Israeli occupation, settlements and the inhuman blockades faced by Palestinians.
The neo-con argument polarizes the debate over radical ideologies among Muslims. Muslims become defensive because they correctly see an attack on Islam, and refuse to probe the real trends of radicalization within their midst. A neo-con argument does not promote an open and robust debate among citizens, about the common good for all.
Like neo-cons, Soloman ends his speeches with appeals to the South African government to pour money into increasing the surveillance of Muslims. For a start, he wants a database of Muslims religious institutions. And he wants to increase the expertise of South African security services to keep a constant watch on Muslims. Of course, Soloman is the ideal person to provide this service. At a reasonable fee, or course.
Recent speeches by Prof. Husayn Soloman of Pretoria University have taken this speculation to new levels. He has employed the familiar argument of American neo-conservatism that targets all the Muslims as potential and actual supporters of “radical Islam”. This alarmist argument has raised the concern of Muslims, and should raise the concern of South Africans in general.
The neo-conservative agenda has been prepared to hijack the rule of law, subvert human rights conventions and present lies as facts at the highest international forums. They have done all these things under the thesis that Islam poses a threat to civilization. More ominously, the thesis argues that all Muslims are probably guilty until proven innocent. Soloman is attempting to cultivate this scenario in South Africa.
Most researchers writing on the link between Muslims in South Africa and al-Qaida operations and plans have been more circumspect. They have regularly reported on the steady flow of allegations that Muslims sympathisers and/or operatives have supported radical projects in terms of finance, safe houses and jihad camps. Bar some exceptions, they have pointed to a general tendency towards exaggeration and misinformation. The few substantiated cases have rightly been the subject of South African courts, and others have slipped away from the journalistic radar.
Since last year, though, Prof. Soloman has recycled the allegations from newspaper reports, and presented them as incontrovertible fact. His recent speech at the Israeli Institute for Counter-Terrorism shows this neo-con argument in great clarity. He omits to mention that many of the allegations have shown to be hoaxes, or even that they are being tested in courts. He taints all the Muslims in South Africa with direct sympathy for what he calls radical Islam, or political Islam.
Soloman’s argument reaches beyond the present to the very foundation of Islam in South Africa. The political exiles who were brought in chains for resisting Dutch colonialism were involved in “a very militant Islam” and focussed on “anti-slavery rebellions.” And they were no different from PAGAD’s militant campaign in the 1990s to ostensibly rid the society of drugs and gangsters.
For Solomon, like his neo-con counterparts, historical developments in the history of Muslims in this country can be simply brushed aside. There is no historical record of anti-slave rebellions by Muslims. Even if there were, no self-respecting scholar will make the claim that PAGAD and these 17th century political exiles were part of one seamless agenda. Actually, only al-Qaida members and neo-cons claim make this ludicrous claim.
Soloman then moves to another favourite: higher education institutions. Muslims attended such madrasahs in diverse countries, from Iran to arch-rival Saudi Arabia. Once in South Africa, according to Solomon, graduates from these institutions promoted a common radical ideology in mosques and schools.
As he sacrifices historical depth, Soloman also collapses the differences among Muslims over law, theology, political projects and many, many other issues. Any cursory review of Islamic institutions will reveal ethnic, racial and class divisions, theological rivalry and endless petty squabbles. Again, only al-Qaida members and the neo-cons will see a common project, each to promote their political projects.
Surely there is diversity, admits Solomon. But it turns out that the only difference recognized by Soloman is the pursuit of revolution from the top, or from below. Without a shred of evidence for South Africa, Soloman borrows this common thesis from the history of modern Islamic movements over the last quarter of the 20th century.
In an attempt to ostensibly provide substance to this revolution from below in South Africa, Soloman speculates that South African Muslims have infiltrated social movements protesting against service delivery and injustices. At the same time, they have also infiltrated gangs in the Western Cape.
Such far-fetched and wild claims do not deserve serious attention. Such claims betray a shallow understanding of the rise and fall of Islamic movements, the complicity of Muslim governments, and the particular context of the Cold War in which radicals were supported by the leading superpowers. Moreover, applying this scenario in South Africa is laughable if it were not presented by an academic at a University.
Soloman’s arguments closely follows the method of American neo-cons who presented this scenario of Islam and Muslims to the Americans. With disastrous consequences, such analysis supports a perpetual war against Islam and Muslim. It demonizes Muslims, justifies their victimization, their profiling and in too many cases their languishing in jail beyond the right to a fair trial.
The neo-con arguments successfully divert attention away from the social-political contexts of conflicts, and the historical development of Islam and Muslim societies. It is no surprise to see that Soloman has presented his “findings” at Zionist meetings in South Africa, or at anti-terrorism platforms in Israel. The neo-con arguments divert attention away from Israeli occupation, settlements and the inhuman blockades faced by Palestinians.
The neo-con argument polarizes the debate over radical ideologies among Muslims. Muslims become defensive because they correctly see an attack on Islam, and refuse to probe the real trends of radicalization within their midst. A neo-con argument does not promote an open and robust debate among citizens, about the common good for all.
Like neo-cons, Soloman ends his speeches with appeals to the South African government to pour money into increasing the surveillance of Muslims. For a start, he wants a database of Muslims religious institutions. And he wants to increase the expertise of South African security services to keep a constant watch on Muslims. Of course, Soloman is the ideal person to provide this service. At a reasonable fee, or course.
Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
