Extremism is Extremism
This is probably the most difficult post for me so far.
For a long time, I preferred remaining on the sidelines of this issue. Mainly because it is something that runs deep to many muslims. The Jihad. Or rather The Jihad?
I feel that a spade should be called just that, a spade. That suicide bombings, indiscriminate killings and murders, and blatant aggression should be acknowledged for what it is: extremism.
How strange I felt on the steps of the State Library last week, as the demonstrators applauded
'the resistance' of Iraq.
Are they celebrating the same 'resistance' that detonated a 'car-bomb' using children to pass through security checkpoints.
Is it the same 'resistance' that blows bombs during religious festivals?
So comes the question, is this Islam?
Yes, muslims are oppressed the world over;
yes, muslims are in a position of weakness;
but is this how the Prophet S.A.W taught us to act?
Is this how he reacted?
I cannot convince myself anymore that Islam condones indiscriminate murder. Or that it condones the murder of child who has never raised a weapon against a muslim. Nor of anyone who does not aggress us.
Saddam was a tyrant, but no one deserves the current anarchy. It is said that a ruler, even a tyrant, is a blessing from God. One only has to ask those living outside the Green Zone to know what that means.
Here's the link:
Former Jihadist Renounces Violence
6 comments:
(Good topic. Now this is more like it.)
In my opinion, ‘resistance’ is as misused a term as ‘terror’. It is being used as a stamp on everything, which serves to blur its meaning and confuse the world. And now more than ever, the Western media chooses to turn what once used to mean defense into unjustified offense.
The things is, however, that when we study the current situation under a microscope, we find that it is more convoluted and far more corrupt than the media would let us believe. Take for instance Ustaz Azhar Yaacob’s visit to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon with Amal Palestin.
He gave a first-hand account of how the city came to a standstill during a joint demonstration between the Sunni-Syiah front, led by Fathi Yakan and Nasrullah respectively, against the corrupt Lebanese government. There were casualties, of course, but that was the result of the violence inflicted upon the demonstrators by the police (kalah FRU; mana nak letak muka?).
The next day, however, the AP stated that it was a clash between the Sunni and the Syiah. The Amal Palestin contingent were surprised, among them an NST editor, who declared that he would start to use al-Jazeera as a more reliable source from then on.
A documentary called ‘Control Room’ covered al-Jazeera’s coverage during the early days of the Iraqi Invasion. It showed the games played by the US military in presenting the ‘facts’ to the press, which proved a tense point even with the oft-favoured CNN and NBC channels. It also revealed how the US military effectively ‘directed’ the farce that was the invasion, for the entire world to see.
What I’m trying to say is that we are being fed indiscriminate labels that are being redefined to fit entirely different, and often heinous purposes. As Muslims, we should not allow such names to cloud our judgement of what is right or wrong. As feeling humans, we should also always reconsider what we are told – to analyse everything before we absorb it in. In the case I mentioned above, it proves that nowadays, things are seldom what they seem.
On another note, I feel that Hyder Gulam got it right when he explained the meaning of jihad, and how Islam permits military force only in the occasion of defense. And if you keep track of the news, you’ll see that the most recent unprovoked suicide bombings in occupied Palestine were not the doings of HAMAS, but rather the responsibility of militant wings of Fatah, who have nationalistic rather than Islamic importance at stake, with the independence of al-Quds (regarding your denouncement of suicide bombings).
You have a valid point though. I just feel that we should rely less on others’ interpretations of ‘jihad’, and rely more on what God has given us, in the example of the Prophet (PBUH). In other words, when people who don’t know any better, tell us that ‘sectarian violence’ = ‘Islamic resistance’, we shouldn’t blindly pick up the labels and accept it as thus.
I guess the problem with us is that when the press tells us that something is black when it is actually blue, we close our eyes and repeat after them.
(I have no idea if I made myself clear)
I've revised the terms used in the post as I agree with your point. Terrorism is being used as a blanket term to vilify anyone acting against Washington's wishes.
Nevertheless, perhaps what I'm really trying to say here is we need a rational and well-thought out response to all the problems we face today. So far, I feel very much that our actions have been too emotional (though with sound reason) and reactionary, that we actually end up playing into the hands of the same 'enemies of islam' that we so zealously oppose.
There is a great deficiency of intellectualism in our reactions, I would even say minimal strategic meaning. All that matters is we do something because we're so angry. Ok, so we achieve that, and then what?
I will not pretend to have the slightest inkling of what to do in this situation, but I know who does. The scholars. The genuine, qualified and competent scholars who understand the Islam beyond the printed pages.
One more thing, I would yield to scholarship when dealing with Islam. The Hadith and the Quran is not something that is understood through mere readings of its renderings. It is a science, and like all sciences, there is a method in learning it.
In response to the last comment, which I feel is in direct reference to my statement about Hyder Gulam, I agree that scholars precede the everyman. However, I felt that he dealt well with the most basic explanation of it, especially to a mostly non-Muslim audience.
Granted, his was more simplistic than academic (which was Prof Abdullah's thing), but he presented it without compromising the fact that it is derived from religion. I find that many academicians lose the heart of the matter by dissecting Islamic law in a way that almost strips it of the humanity and its characteristic fitrah, which is at the core of Islam.
And speaking about over-emoting, you should have been here during the whole hoopla with Sheikh al-Hilaly. It was a media circus, and not of the Cirque du Soleil standard, either. Which reminded me once again of how true it is in Islam, that women are not allowed to hold the highest position of authority. Because if even men can be that emo, imagine how dysfunctional a country would be under a woman's rule?
(Never expected that last post-feminist ayat, did you?)
Yang ini, insyaAllah, relevant.
http://radicalmiddleway.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88&Itemid=79
Kalu nggak. Minta ampun, pak.
Thanks for sharing Anon. I like the final sentence of that article.
Post a Comment