The Godfather is one of those iconic movies which teach you something new every time you go over them. Every classic does that - movies, books, music. The learning from The Godfather was immense this time because I noticed many things this time about gangsters' mores and values and compared these with different societies.
To be sure, there is so much overlap between gangsterism, politics and organized religion, that any gangster story, well told, will remind you of the other two. While there are important differences between a genuinely civil society engaged in a political struggle and gangland values and behaviors, there are eerie similarities between the stark, death shadowed world of The Godfather and, say, Pakistan's mindset towards India, or that of Hamas towards Israel.
More importantly, you realize that Pakistan and Hamas are not pariahs to the Muslim mainstream society. The worst terrorists do not arouse revulsion in Muslim common people, the way Mafia gangsters do in free civil societies in India and the West. One is reminded of the marriage between a prominent Pakistani cricketer's son and Dawood Ibrahim's daughter. Not that the terrorist's daughter should not be allowed to marry and live normally like others. But there is a difference. A truly civil society like India would expect a distance between the bride and the gangster, terrorist father. And between the Pakistani civil society, to the extent it can be called a “civil society” and the same “don”.
When the marriage actually took place, one did not see such a distance. From all that is known about the event and the celebrations, the gangster and the famous cricketer were buddies and the Muslim society of Pakistan accepted the gangster as a normal bride's father. He was not only not in hiding (except for not being available for photo shoots, so Pakistani government could maintain the fig leaf of denial of his existence in Pakistan), but greeted and was greeted by all as a “normal” citizen of the Pakistani ummah.
It is important to notice and register such behavior by Muslim mainstreams all over the world. It is one of the dots that needs to be connected with other dots, most notably the primary texts of Islam – Koran, Hadith and Sira, to understand what Islam and Muslim societies are all about. Muslim societies are not civil societies in the sense that a civil society is understood in free countries. They have more overlap with gangland mores and values than with a typical civil society in India or Europe or North America.
As I watched the movie, the ideas kept crystallizing and I tried to make a mental list of similarities between Islam and gangland which are also dissimilarities between civil societies and Islam / mafia world. Here is an attempt at elucidation of those:
1. There is no favor done by one “gang” to another. If there is a concession made to one mafia family by another, it is purely because the favored one is more powerful. Islam too shares this gangland value and that makes it easy to understand why Muslims never expressed any gratitude for getting equal rights in India after partition on religious lines. In Muslim mind, the rights they enjoy in India are either because Hindus are afraid of their capacity for violence, or because Hindus are politically blind, commit grave political errors and do not deserve any kind of reciprocation. This view is completely opposite of how Hindus viewed it – that we Hindus are decent people and we want to create a free and equal society and in which all will have a stake in maintaining and enhancing those freedoms.
Muslims, however, saw it differently and never really joined Indian mainstream, they continue to believe in the power of violence (or, as in Indian democracy, of numbers and collective voting) to get material benefits and have now advanced a fresh set of demands on Indian state and society.
2. An atrocious strike by one gang to another is not to be viewed as an atrocity in the sense that civil society understands it. If the father of a man or his is killed brutally by any group of individuals (as happens in the movie), a civil society response would be to bring the killer to justice in accordance with law and morality. Not so in the gangland. In that world, it is purely business. Once such an act is done, the leaders have to make a cool evaluation of relative powers and submit if they have too little power, or fight if they think they have sufficient power for a gang-war.
How does Islam view such “strikes”? Their view is certainly not same as a civilized people. In the wake of most atrocious terror attacks – from New York to Mumbai, their refrain has been that since Muslims are aggrieved people, such events will happen. You hear it not only in the recordings of Osama bin Laden, but also in the views of influential Muslims such as Fareed Zakaria in USA and MJ Akbar in India. In fact, after an encounter with terrorists in Delhi, in which a heroic Indian cop was killed, the VC of the Islamic institution in Delhi whose students were responsible for the killing, declared that he wants to use Indian government's money for their legal defence !!
Muslims are NOT outraged by “strikes”, such as the ones we see in gangland warfare, or such as the ones carried out by terrorists all over the world.
3. On the subject of “strikes”, in gangland as well as in Islam, strikes of all kinds are currency for maintenance and / or advancement of a group's power. Groups are constantly planning and executing “strikes” against other groups for show of power. The “struck” group, as noted above, has to make a cool evaluation and submit or fight depending on the evaluation.
Much of group's effort centers around developing the power to “strike” at others and save itself from others' strikes. Seen in this light, all kinds of Muslim behavior makes sense. The demolition of others' revered places and building mosques on them, carrying out massacres, enslavements to establish the power of the deen and so on. In today's modern world, the “strike” is not necessarily violent. Muslims have learned to use modern day systems to carry out acts that can later be shown up as humiliating “strikes” on kuffar, and enable Muslims to feel that they are powerful. We can put the clamor to build a mosque on Ground Zero in America in that category.
In fact, there is a popular name for this ability to “strike” at other groups. It is known as terrorism. And as you watch The Godfather, you can feel the atmosphere of terror all around. And how many Muslim countries DON'T give that feeling to non- Muslims living there. Please mail me if you can find one.
4. There is a complete absence of any kind of 'spiritual' feeling in gangland. That emotion God gave all normal human beings that makes us feel the same pain as another being does, and out of that emotion, do something for others without expecting anything in return.
In the gangland, no one does a favor to anyone else, as noted above. No one is to be moved by another's pain. Doing so is to show a lack of “business” sense. All actions are to be interpreted on the basis of the relative power equations and nothing is done, nor supposed to be, out of pure goodness of heart.
A likely response to this, by a believing Muslim, could be that there are many injunctions in Koran and Hadith that Muslims should do charity and help poor. It is said somewhere in Hadith, that a good Muslim won't eat peacefully if his neighbor is hungry.
However, Islamic charity is purely reserved for Muslims. All injunctions for charity are directed towards Muslim brothers, and not towards human beings in general. There are incidents, where charitable institutions in Muslim societies denied it's services to non-Muslims. Gangland too takes care of members of it's own gang and family in similar ways. Within a gang, so long as there is no treason, it is all for one and one for all. The gang is a brotherhood, quite like we hear of Muslim Brotherhood.
5. The gang can achieve material prosperity only if there is a civil society around it. The gang is like a parasite that fattens on civil society's productive capacity. In the movie, you see the opulence of Godfather's office and house, and contrast it with a land which has no civil society, only gangs – that is Sicily. In Sicily, virtually all citizens are part of gangs one way or the other. There is little development of the society. The place looks is as if you have moved back 2 or 3 centuries back in time.
Compare now the Muslim communities' way of life in USA or Europe or even India and their lives in non-oil Muslim states. It is safe to say that Muslim societies are like what one sees of Sicily in the movie. Muslims either have a civil society to feed on (Hindus in India, modern Christians in Europe and USA, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia), or there is oil (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), or the society is dirt poor, existing on doles from Kaffirs (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan).
6. Finally, the condition of women brings out clearly, the overlap in Islam and gangsterism and dissimilarities between civil societies and Islam / gangs. In USA, where most of the movie is set, women are mostly in the background. Almost non – persons, not having say in most of the matters. If one has read the book, women's subdued existence is explicitly mentioned.
In the part set in USA, however, the gangland women still have some personality. Once the scene moves to Sicily, women barely smile, dress soberly and won't go out unchaperoned (let alone with an unrelated man). The only woman in the entire movie, with some personality, vocal and demanding equal treatment, is a North American lover of the mafia prince. She isn't from the gangland, she is an American civilian.
How often do we hear Muslim apologists talk about women's need to dress soberly, preferably with hijab / burqa ? How often that they need to be respectful in their carriage and demeanour ? How often that if a man assaults them sexually, they are responsible since they made themselves too tempting.
There are women in Muslim societies with personality and voice in public life. But the difference between the status of a common Muslim woman and that of a common non-Muslim one is a contrast. Even as early as 11th century, when Al-Beruni visited India and studied the lifestyle and culture of Hindus, he observed with great surprise that Hindus always “consult” their wives in matters of life, unlike Muslims. It seemed to be a matter of wonderment to him that anyone should so much as seek the advice of his woman in his affairs !
Of course, all of the above will be denied by Muslims and Muslim apologists. None of them, however, will venture to debate with someone who has studied their scriptures and history thoroughly – Robert Spencer has issued challenges to almost all prominent ones. They won't address any of such points directly, and try to pretend that anyone questioning Islam thus is a hater of 1.4 billions people and not worthy of so much as an acknowledgment.
As I said in an earlier post, Islam never grew based on any kind of theological or moral superiority for it's way of life. It was always at the point of sword that Islam created spaces for itself all over the world. Let us put it bluntly, Islam is a religion founded on terror and it grew by and large through terror. Hence the close association between the religion (a political ideology actually, or shall we say, in view of the above, a criminal ideology), and crime and terror.
All those who see Islam with more clarity bear the responsibility to spread our views and bring as many non – Muslims and even Muslims into the fold of people who are determined to extinguish this gangsterism masquerading as religion and ensure the spread of modern civil society.
