And as respected Islamic scholar John L. Esposito points out that the Islamic Terrorists are themselves operating in ways contrary to the Qur'an and Islamic Traditions concerning the rules applicable to a "Just War" ie a measured response to an act of aggression.
"...Terrorists like bin Laden and others go beyond classical Islam's criteria for a just jihad and recognize no limits but their own, employing any weapons or means. They reject Islamic law's regulations regarding the goals and means of a valid jihad—that violence must be proportional and that only the necessary amount of force should be used to repel the enemy; that innocent civilians should not be targeted; and that jihad must be declared by the ruler or head of state. Today, individuals and groups, religious and lay, seize the right to declare and legitimate unholy wars in the name of Islam."
From: "Struggle in Islam A Response to "The Place of Tolerance in Islam By Abou El Fadl " by John L. Esposito at boston Review Feb/March 2002
The mainstream Media in the West ignores the reality of diversity in the Islamic/Muslim world.
Shariah law for instance is applied differently from one nation to another.
It is a much more complex picture than that presented and promoted by the media and by so-called Islamic experts who are more often than not prejudiced against Islam.
So what we get is a rather distorted mostly negative view about Islam.
These experts portray Islam as fundamentally violent, backward, barbaric, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-semitic, bigoted, narrow minded , anti-human rights, misogynist , homophobic, anti-Christian, anti-science, anti-technology prone to a medieval mind-set and as not valuing life and as a "death cult" , and totalitarian and comparable to the Nazis etc.
As John L. Esposito who is a respected Islamic scholar points out that contrary to the narrow Islamophobic views of Muslims that in fact a Majority of Muslims outside the West admire many things about the west.
The problem many Muslims have is that they believe the West and especially America have a double standard when it comes to the criticism of human rights violations by Muslim and non-Muslim countries .
They argue that the US is very critical of Palestinians violations human rights but these same critics in the West ignore such violations of human rights and even War Crimes committed for instance by Israel.
While at the same time the US and NATO troops with impunity violate the human rights of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan etc.but condemn any such violations committed by the so-called Muslim insurgents and terrorists.
If American or NATO or Israeli soldiers are captured and abused and tortured by Muslim insurgents or terrorists the Western Media and leaders are very vocal in their criticisms and protest but when these Western nations abuse and torture POWs who are Muslims the Western Media and its leaders rationalize or minimize the severity or downplay how wide spread such human rights violations are.
The West will in such cases where these abuses come to light will fall back on various explanations, rationalizations or excuses ie " a few bad apples", soldiers gone "rogue" or in some cases actually as both the Bush and Obama administrations have claimed such actions are necessary ie the Ticking Bomb scenario (or fallacy).
Obama for instance has continued with some renditions and indefinite incarceration without having to formally charge individuals or prove that they have evidence against such individuals .
What the Muslim world sees is hypocritical Western nations that refuse to investigate and charge those guilty of the actual abuses and those who acted as enablers such as medical and psychiatric staff and those who gave the orders that "the gloves were off" ie Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice etc. and the lawyers who creatively twisted the law to appease their masters as it were.
Because Obama has continued some of these policies and because he refuses to go after these War Criminals and those who committed or stood by while Crimes against humanity took place Obama is now a co-conspirator at the least - though it can be argued his policy of drone attacks in the Pakistan Pashtun area are in fact War Crimes which knowingly kill innocent civilians and are used to terrorize the civilian population and are a disproportionate retaliation for attacks on NATO or American troops or civilians.
So the track record on human rights violations, War Crimes, and Crimes Against humanity etc, committed by the USA and NATO etc. are to say the least shameful and abhorrent .
So why should anyone not living in the West ever trust the leaders and the spokespersons or the Media in the West when it comes to issues concerning the War on Terror.
Since the West including the USA and Israel appear to believe that they can do whatever they want with impunity while holding other nations to a much higher standard.
We of course over and over again saw the same sort of hypocrisy on the part of the West in contrast to what the Soviet Union did. If a capitalist country such as Chile under General Pinochet committed human rights violations on its own citizens such as summary executions, kidnapping, renditioning and torturing any who opposed the regime then the Americans and Brits would always come to Pinochet's defense or other dictators who were under America's protection 9sort of like how the Mafia operates bribes , protection money or a member becoming "a Made Man" one who can act with impunity.
What the rest of the world also see is the West giving aid to those Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. which are authoritarian and where human rights are violated on a daily basis but as long as they are considered allies these repressive and even brutal regimes get a free pass. Saddam for instance for years was propped up and supplied with military equipment and weapons of mass destruction by the United States and NATO nations such as France, Germany and Britain. But when Saddam was no longer as obedient to the West as before the West claimed Saddam was the enemy and that he had always been an enemy of the West. To paraphrase George Orwell's 1984- we have always been at war with Eurasia .
The West has pursued foreign policies in the Middle East and elsewhere based upon their narrowly defined needs and had little interest in the well being of the citizens of these nations.
A world of battling experts in the media
Dr. John Esposito: The Future of Islam (Excerpt)
ProjectInterfaithusa | March 03, 2010
Watch the entire speech at http://projectinterfaithusa.org/video
John Esposito: Diversity in the Muslim World
carnegiecouncil | February 01, 2010
John L. Esposito details the diversity within the Muslim world, which often gets overlooked in the U.S. media.
This Carnegie Council event took place on January 27, 2010. For complete video, audio, and transcript, go to: http://www.cceia.org
also see:
America's Response to Terrorism: How to Fight Rather than Feed the Beast by John L. Esposito at Huffington Post ,Jan. 6, 2010
(John L. Esposito :Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University)
...Addressing issues of terrorism and framing de-radicalization programs requires paying attention not only to the war in cyberspace, but also to individuals' psychological and identity problems and political concerns. The point here is not to excuse or explain away but, most importantly, to understand and prevent.
Many bright, talented and otherwise well-balanced individuals are profoundly affected and changed by what they see as endless oppression, corruption and injustice in Muslim regimes and failed states and Western foreign policies. They see Western powers, particularly the US, as supporting and aiding autocrats or as using power and military force to threaten, invade and "occupy" Muslim lands. The perception of occupation and injustice in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine continues to be a catalyst heavily exploited in the rhetoric and ideologies of terrorist organizations.
As recent events in Yemen and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan underscore, capturing, killing and containing terrorists remains an ongoing, significant challenge. However, although counter-terror measures like drone strikes and special operations can be successful, they have also backfired. They often kill innocent civilians, providing powerful propaganda feeding anti-Americanism and recruiting future terrorists. Equally important, they also alienate the vast mainstream majority in the Muslim world. As the Gallup World Poll and PEW polling has shown, mainstream Muslims -- the primary victims of terrorism -- are as concerned, if not more concerned, about the dangers of extremism and terrorism as Westerners are. In addition, they admire Western democratic values and want better relations. They are indeed our natural partners against terrorist forces.
To make the administration less vulnerable to charges that, as in the Bush era, it is engaging in widespread military intervention and occupation, the President must more vigorously pursue his stated goal to emphasize diplomacy and development over a military response. Obama must emphasize and expand policies to reach out to local populations, tribal and religious leaders, and communities (such policies were advocated and implemented by senior military leaders like Generals Petraeus and McChrystal, and were supported in Iraq and Afghanistan). Protection and security should be offered more as a defensive than offensive force, in partnership with local security forces and the police who are primarily responsible for their country's stability. America's primary mission should be seen as building strong infrastructures through critical economic, educational and technological development, all areas for which America (and the West in general) are admired, and which are strongly desired by majorities in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Yemen.
At the same time, domestic political situations in the Muslim world can not be overlooked. While most governments move aggressively to counter terrorism, weak or autocratic regimes often do not address the systemic causes of radicalization: lack of real political participation, corruption, massive violation of human rights, and the growing gap between rich and poor.
Religion, used by extremists to recruit, legitimate and mobilize, also plays an important role. Thus, the political and economic causes of violent extremism as well as the use or abuse of religion must be effectively condemned. Muslim religious and community leaders, in the West and overseas, need to be even more active and aggressive in speaking out, issuing fatwas condemning terrorism in the name of Islam, and working with their governments to institute de-radicalization programs.
We live in a violent global context in which terrorism cannot be completely eradicated but its growth can be limited and contained. This requires recognizing the complexity of the problem, avoiding the knee-jerk reactions of increasingly profiling Muslims and escalating military intervention (which entails heavy human and financial costs). We must not align ourselves more closely with failed governments that can feed anti-Americanism. More emphasis is needed on the use of soft power, diplomacy, and economic and educational development. These provide the surest path to greater safety and security in that they develop our capacity to work in concert with our most natural partners in the multi-faceted fight against terrorism: -- the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims who make up the mainstream of this diverse and global community. The alternative approach tends to place them all under suspicion -- and in so doing injures and compromises their standing in their own communities and in our shared struggle against extremism.
and in another article Esposito argues that there are those in Islam who condemn publicly the acts of terrorism such as 9/11 and since then as being unIslamic and they have issued Fatwas against terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. But their statements and actions are overlooked by the Media due to the media's obsession with conflict and controversy which they b elieve makes for better reading and viewing. There are also those within Islam who are authoritative learned scholars who are respected who call for reform within Islam. They believe that certain attitudes and restrictions have been brought into Islam as innovations which are no longer useful or applicable in the modern world in which Muslims now live. In the same way as most Christians and Jews no longer have a problem with gender equality .(except of course for the backward Medieval thinking of the Evangelical Fundamentalists and their counterparts in Judaism the JDL/Khanist/Settler's Movement etc. )
Struggle in Islam A Response to "The Place of Tolerance in Islam By Abou El Fadl " by John L. Esposito at Boston Review Feb/March 2002
...The essential point, often missing from popular discussion, is that the debate about the virtues of democracy is not simply a debate between Islam and western liberalism, but a debate within Islam itself.And Esposito also points out that the Islamic Terrorists are themselves operating in ways contrary to the Qur'an and Islamic Traditions concerning the rules applicable to a "Just War" ie a measured response to an act of aggression.
Jihad provides a major example of this struggle within Islam. In the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries the word jihad has gained remarkable currency, becoming more global in its usage. On the one hand, jihad's primary religious and spiritual meanings, the "struggle" or effort to follow God's path, to lead a good life, became more widespread. On the other hand, in response to European colonialism, authoritarian regimes, and other contemporary conditions, jihad has been used by resistance, liberation, and terrorist movements alike to legitimate their causes and motivate their followers. The Afghan Mujahiddin, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance, have all waged jihads in Afghanistan against foreign powers and among themselves; Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, Daghestan, the southern Philippines, Bosnia, and Kosovo have all fashioned their struggles as jihads; Hizbollah, HAMAS, and Islamic Jihad Palestine have characterized war with Israel as a jihad; the Armed Islamic Group has engaged in a jihad of terror against the Algerian government; and Osama bin Laden has waged a global jihad against Muslim governments and the West.
Today, the term jihad has become comprehensive; resistance/liberation struggles and militant campaigns, holy and unholy wars, are all declared to be jihads. Jihad is waged at home not only against unjust rulers in the Muslim world but also against a broad spectrum of civilians. Jihad's scope abroad became chillingly clear in the 9/11 attacks, which targeted not only the American government but also innocent civilians.
"...Terrorists like bin Laden and others go beyond classical Islam's criteria for a just jihad and recognize no limits but their own, employing any weapons or means. They reject Islamic law's regulations regarding the goals and means of a valid jihad—that violence must be proportional and that only the necessary amount of force should be used to repel the enemy; that innocent civilians should not be targeted; and that jihad must be declared by the ruler or head of state. Today, individuals and groups, religious and lay, seize the right to declare and legitimate unholy wars in the name of Islam."also see: How To Win A Cosmic War: God ,Globalization. And The End of The War On Terror" Reza Aslan. pub. 2009.
At the same time, Islamic scholars and religious leaders across the Muslim world—such as the Islamic Research Council at al-Azhar University, regarded by many as the highest moral authority in Islam—have made strong, authoritative declarations against bin Laden's initiatives: "Islam provides clear rules and ethical norms that forbid the killing of non-combatants, as well as women, children, and the elderly, and also forbids the pursuit of the enemy in defeat, the execution of those who surrender, the infliction of harm on prisoners of war, and the destruction of property that is not being used in the hostilities."2
As in the modern reform processes in Judaism and Christianity, questions of leadership and the authority of the past (tradition) are critical to both debates. Whose Islam? Who leads and decides? Is it rulers, the vast majority of whom are unelected kings, military, and former military? Or elected prime ministers and parliaments? Is it the ulama or clergy, who continue to see themselves as the primary interpreters of Islam, although many are ill prepared to respond creatively to modern realities? Or is it modern, educated, Islamically oriented intellectuals like Abou El Fadl and others? Lacking an effective leadership, will other Osama bin Ladens fill the vacuum?
and so it goes,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment