Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Time for a New Resistance Tactic in Gaza?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 16, 2008 - As I write this essay, a new round of bloody warfare has engulfed the Palestinian territory in Gaza. This time, the culprit is not internecine fighting, it is the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Reports are that the IDF mounted an armored attack against Gaza's resistance fighters Tuesday, resulting in the deaths of some 19 Palestinians (including Hussam Zahar, 24, a son Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar), and wounding 52 others, mostly non-combatants.
The Hamas fighters, in return, reportedly fired a rocket into an Israeli border settlement that killed a young South American worker.
The scenario is depressingly familiar: Hamas fighters (and their comrades in struggle) attack a Jewish settlement, or an occasional Israeli military outpost, inflicting minimal damage, or no damage at all. Israeli military forces then retaliate with helicopter gunship and/or tank attacks on both civilian and armed targets deep inside Gaza, killing both civilians and combatants; succeeding, in any event, in inflicting even more devastating misery on an occupied people, and making them even more isolated - and desperate - in the world of power politics.
Few people, and certainly few Muslims, can deny the brutality of the occupation of Palestine, nor the illegality of the occupation under international law. Much of the world has demonstrated sympathy for the plight of Palestinians under occupation, and those millions more in the diaspora that are denied the right of return. Moreover, it is clearly evident that lasting peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike cannot possibly happen when the elected political leadership of Gaza is excluded from the negotiation process.
But I continue to wonder: what tactical, military textbook does Hamas refer to when they formulate an operational plan to resist the occupation?
Recently, at the national MAS convention in Chicago, I spoke on a panel discussion on the recent round of peace "negotiations" in Annapolis, MD between the Palestinian Authority (minus Hamas) and the Israeli government. There was an almost unanimous sentiment that these talks would go nowhere without, among other things, the eventual participation of the leadership in Gaza (not to mention the end of internecine Palestinian fighting and the abolition of Jewish settlements in the West Bank).
But I raised another question, namely this: is it possible to conceive of positive (and winning) Palestinian resistance using means other that the largely ineffective military force that we see today? And might these non-military - and as I prefer to call them, non-violent - potential tactics actually serve to better advance the Palestinian cause?
Now, I am certainly no military tactician, and neither do I pretend to have the right to speak for the people of Palestine. But I do know something about history, and the history of successful resistance movements. And I am convinced that any liberation struggle - whether violent or nonviolent - must nullify the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of an adversary.
In the case of the long Vietnamese war of national liberation, for example, the most successful tactic used by North Vietnamese General Giap, was to avoid conventional warfare and frontal attacks on the better-armed adversaries - first the French, and then the Americans - while relying upon guerilla tactics and popular resistance in the form of "People’s War". A variation of the theme is also evident in the tactics employed by Cuban revolution.
In both historical cases - and the objective conditions in Cuba and Vietnam were quite different, to be sure - the idea underpinning successful resistance was to tie up - not provoke - the violent retaliatory military power of the opponent.
An even more nonviolent resistance example is found in the history of the Indian independence movement led by Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, which used the tactic of nonviolent mobilization and resistance to overcome the (then) mighty British Empire and secure political independence for India in 1948.
While it is important to continue our opposition to the occupation of Palestine and the Israeli armed attacks against Gaza - which harm more civilians than resistance fighters - I believe that new resistance tactics are worth considering on the part of Hamas; that is, if symbolic resistance, or "Martyrdom" are less important in the final analysis than actual victory in the form of ending the occupation and securing a viable nation-state. And any form of non-violent mass mobilization and resistance will present a new, and formidable set of challenges to Hamas - and for that matter, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
But I believe that the preponderance of world opinion and material solidarity would be, again, on the side of the people of Palestine if the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians - however infrequent or ineffective they might be - would stop.
This tactical shift would nullify the labeling of Hamas as a "terrorist" entity, and garner more support for the Palestinian struggle among Israelis (many of whom are also tired of the occupation).
International support, and the increased flow of material aid for Gaza would also be a likely result. And in this possible scenario, massive U.S. military support for Israel would be seen in a different, and perhaps more unfavorable, light.
Is this wishful, naïve thinking on my part? Hardly. All that is required is for the people of Gaza, and their leaders, to apply the resolution and courage of their resistance to better, and more successful, tactics.
After all, it is not likely that Hamas can defeat the IDF on a conventional battlefield. But nonviolent mobilization and resistance could nullify their ability to wage war in Palestine, or use their conventional military-might as the primary instrument of domination.
And that, as they say, would be a very good development for the people of Palestine, and the world.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Civil Rights History Lesson for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
From The Desk Of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 15, 2008 - It is certainly no shock that the respective political camps of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are unusually anxious to engage in rhetorical rock-throwing in the heat of the Democratic party primary contests. That's what politics in America is about: wait for your opponent(s) to make some obvious misstep, or catch them on camera saying something that could potentially offend part of the electorate, and then go for your opponent's jugular.
So it's understandable that the Obama campaign vigorously responded to a comment about the civil rights struggle uttered recently by Senator Clinton. Namely, that, according to her account of history, it required the power and approval of a president (Lyndon Johnson) to realize the civil rights objectives of Dr. King's movement.
Presumably, the Senator from New York was referring not only to her understanding of the power of the American presidency, but to her evaluation of her own power - if she is to be elected - to act in a similarly altruistic and just way for the sake of racial and social equality.
But Senator Clinton's statement is packed with assumptions and historical perceptions that need to be unpacked and examined, not in juxtaposition with the Obama candidacy, but in comparison to the real truth of the institutions of American political power, as well as the nature of this particular mass movement that changed the course of the nation.
It should be worth remembering, especially by Senator Clinton, that the civil rights movement was more than a movement - it was, in every sense, a struggle. Southern Democrats like Lyndon Johnson (who was nurtured and supported by the very segregationist Dixiecrat establishment that Dr. King vehemently opposed), not only fought the movement for full African-American human rights, but used their legislative power to delay the inevitable de jure victory of civil rights (and in 1965, voting rights).
Johnson, if anything, was "dragged" to the signing of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964, not because of his incorrigible love for the rights of Black people, but because of the power of potential mass social disruption; not to mention his memory of the internal revolt and racial schism that rocked the Democratic Party at the Atlantic City convention in 1964, when the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party insurgents (led by the powerful and amazing Fannie Lou Hamer), reminded the world of the political disenfranchisement of Black democratic voters in Mississippi, and throughout the South.
There is also no real historical evidence to support the notion that President Johnson, himself, felt some deep personal commitment to the notion of Black social and political equality in America, even if the realpolitik of the times compelled him to sign legislation to that effect.
What Senator Clinton (and for that matter, Senator Obama and every other elected official in America) should also understand is this: Dr. King's movement, ultimately, was a human rights movement, not just a civil one. That is to say, while the movement had the legislative objective of dismantling legal (de jure) American apartheid, it's ultimate objective was the overturning of de facto (real) inequality in this nation - not only in terms of access to the ballot - but in every other dimension of the civic and social tapestry of the nation.
Legislation that protects the rights of citizens is critical, of course, and the legislative victory in 1965 was a seminal moment in American history. But it was a milestone in a yet-unfinished journey, and a moment in a struggle that no executive branch, or legislature, or judiciary, can ultimately win.
It can only be achieved by the total transformation of every fiber of a nation that still, 40-years after the murder of Dr. King, remains far too comfortable with the continued material benefits of white supremacy and the persistence of inequality in all aspects of civic life.
It would be unfair to suggest that Senator Clinton intentionally tried to disparage the legacy of Dr. King by implying that President Johnson's approval was necessary for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to become law. Hillary is, if anything, both a consummate politician and a very smart woman who knows her core constituency and the potential fallout from any statement that might be construed as diminishing the King legacy. (You will notice how quickly her African American supporters, like Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson, rushed in to circle the wagons and protect her from the Obama counter-attack).
But Senator Clinton, as well as both her supporters and detractors, should use this flap as an opportunity to study the history of the civil rights struggle in-depth, and realize that the movement for justice and equality in America is a work in progress, and that it did not begin, and will never end, in the Oval Office of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 15, 2008 - It is certainly no shock that the respective political camps of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are unusually anxious to engage in rhetorical rock-throwing in the heat of the Democratic party primary contests. That's what politics in America is about: wait for your opponent(s) to make some obvious misstep, or catch them on camera saying something that could potentially offend part of the electorate, and then go for your opponent's jugular.
So it's understandable that the Obama campaign vigorously responded to a comment about the civil rights struggle uttered recently by Senator Clinton. Namely, that, according to her account of history, it required the power and approval of a president (Lyndon Johnson) to realize the civil rights objectives of Dr. King's movement.
Presumably, the Senator from New York was referring not only to her understanding of the power of the American presidency, but to her evaluation of her own power - if she is to be elected - to act in a similarly altruistic and just way for the sake of racial and social equality.
But Senator Clinton's statement is packed with assumptions and historical perceptions that need to be unpacked and examined, not in juxtaposition with the Obama candidacy, but in comparison to the real truth of the institutions of American political power, as well as the nature of this particular mass movement that changed the course of the nation.
It should be worth remembering, especially by Senator Clinton, that the civil rights movement was more than a movement - it was, in every sense, a struggle. Southern Democrats like Lyndon Johnson (who was nurtured and supported by the very segregationist Dixiecrat establishment that Dr. King vehemently opposed), not only fought the movement for full African-American human rights, but used their legislative power to delay the inevitable de jure victory of civil rights (and in 1965, voting rights).
Johnson, if anything, was "dragged" to the signing of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964, not because of his incorrigible love for the rights of Black people, but because of the power of potential mass social disruption; not to mention his memory of the internal revolt and racial schism that rocked the Democratic Party at the Atlantic City convention in 1964, when the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party insurgents (led by the powerful and amazing Fannie Lou Hamer), reminded the world of the political disenfranchisement of Black democratic voters in Mississippi, and throughout the South.
There is also no real historical evidence to support the notion that President Johnson, himself, felt some deep personal commitment to the notion of Black social and political equality in America, even if the realpolitik of the times compelled him to sign legislation to that effect.
What Senator Clinton (and for that matter, Senator Obama and every other elected official in America) should also understand is this: Dr. King's movement, ultimately, was a human rights movement, not just a civil one. That is to say, while the movement had the legislative objective of dismantling legal (de jure) American apartheid, it's ultimate objective was the overturning of de facto (real) inequality in this nation - not only in terms of access to the ballot - but in every other dimension of the civic and social tapestry of the nation.
Legislation that protects the rights of citizens is critical, of course, and the legislative victory in 1965 was a seminal moment in American history. But it was a milestone in a yet-unfinished journey, and a moment in a struggle that no executive branch, or legislature, or judiciary, can ultimately win.
It can only be achieved by the total transformation of every fiber of a nation that still, 40-years after the murder of Dr. King, remains far too comfortable with the continued material benefits of white supremacy and the persistence of inequality in all aspects of civic life.
It would be unfair to suggest that Senator Clinton intentionally tried to disparage the legacy of Dr. King by implying that President Johnson's approval was necessary for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to become law. Hillary is, if anything, both a consummate politician and a very smart woman who knows her core constituency and the potential fallout from any statement that might be construed as diminishing the King legacy. (You will notice how quickly her African American supporters, like Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson, rushed in to circle the wagons and protect her from the Obama counter-attack).
But Senator Clinton, as well as both her supporters and detractors, should use this flap as an opportunity to study the history of the civil rights struggle in-depth, and realize that the movement for justice and equality in America is a work in progress, and that it did not begin, and will never end, in the Oval Office of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Stalking the Real 'Enemy Within'
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 6, 2008 - A great deal of the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment in America is now surfacing in the context of the presidential primaries.
This past week, one of my MAS colleagues directed me to a YouTube video taken at an Iowa home fundraiser for Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. Two attendees were giving on-camera comments about their vehement support for the former New York City mayor. One man said that Guiliani would lead the way for total American victory against "radical Islam", and the other called for bombing "them" back to the caves (presumably, those in the region of Tora Bora in Afghanistan).
Then, Rudy, not to be outdone, spoke to the video camera about the need for total victory against "Islamic Fascism". (Note: the particular variety of fascism promulgated by Benito Mussolini, also of Italian heritage, murdered far more innocent people than al-Qaida).
Rudolph Giuliani makes no bones about his contempt for Muslims, and his thinly veiled threat to do something about "them" if he is elected President. His vehement anti-Islamic crusade - and I use the term deliberately - is the bedrock of his political platform, and virtually the only thing, other that his hype for an even bigger Pentagon budget, that he finds worth talking about on the campaign stump.
But make no mistake about it: Rudolph Giuliani is hardly the only public personality who wants to drive-out, defeat, and possibly destroy Muslims, including, perhaps, a great many of those who, quite innocently and moderately, live in America. Add to this the animus directed by many against "illegal" immigrants, and you have the beginning of a perfect storm capable of a massive assault against the civil liberties of millions of people in America.
Think that it can't happen here? Think again.
The political climate of tolerance and respect for Constitutional civil rights is, in historical terms, a variable one. Laws against murder and extra-judicial killings did not save more than 1,500 African Americans, mostly in the South, from lynching and mob murder that extended into the early 20th Century. The 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection under the law" has not deterred some federal judges from presenting secret evidence against Muslim suspects in court, or giving "enhanced sentencing" punishments that far exceed the prison term guidelines for non-felony convictions. And fiercely anti-immigrant organizations and coalitions are springing up all over America, some backed by various Draconian local laws that make it almost impossible for undocumented workers, and their families, to survive.
When Muslims, immigrants, and political dissidents are targeted by some of those in authority, the repercussions spread to not only a few of us, but to potentially millions of people in America. This can happen, if the voracious appetite of the national security apparatus is allowed to devour the basic guarantees of the American Constitution.
It would be incorrect to assume that, even if elected to the presidency, Mr. Giuliani would have the power to dictate, on his own, the demise of civil liberties for Muslims. But the power of his - or any - presidency could influence the appointment of federal judges of like political persuasion, the allocation of resources used by law enforcement agencies, or, for example, the continuation or closing of places like the Guantanamo prison camp.
For (at least) one announced candidate for the presidency, the internal American enemy is "radical" Islam, and undocumented workers. For me, this yet unconquered enemy is racism, xenophobia, and the growing economic attack upon the poor and working people on whom the rich continue to feed. And I count Rudy, and his legions, among those who do the devouring.
I don't mean for this to be a diatribe against Rudolph Giuliani, or those (millions) who politically support him. But I do hope that it can serve as a reminder for Muslims, and people who believe in democracy and fairness, about the real danger to us presented by the extreme right side of the political spectrum.
And finally, I hope that it reminds us of why the 2008 election will, in all likelihood, be the most critical one in the history of the Muslim Ummah in the United States.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 6, 2008 - A great deal of the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment in America is now surfacing in the context of the presidential primaries.
This past week, one of my MAS colleagues directed me to a YouTube video taken at an Iowa home fundraiser for Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. Two attendees were giving on-camera comments about their vehement support for the former New York City mayor. One man said that Guiliani would lead the way for total American victory against "radical Islam", and the other called for bombing "them" back to the caves (presumably, those in the region of Tora Bora in Afghanistan).
Then, Rudy, not to be outdone, spoke to the video camera about the need for total victory against "Islamic Fascism". (Note: the particular variety of fascism promulgated by Benito Mussolini, also of Italian heritage, murdered far more innocent people than al-Qaida).
Rudolph Giuliani makes no bones about his contempt for Muslims, and his thinly veiled threat to do something about "them" if he is elected President. His vehement anti-Islamic crusade - and I use the term deliberately - is the bedrock of his political platform, and virtually the only thing, other that his hype for an even bigger Pentagon budget, that he finds worth talking about on the campaign stump.
But make no mistake about it: Rudolph Giuliani is hardly the only public personality who wants to drive-out, defeat, and possibly destroy Muslims, including, perhaps, a great many of those who, quite innocently and moderately, live in America. Add to this the animus directed by many against "illegal" immigrants, and you have the beginning of a perfect storm capable of a massive assault against the civil liberties of millions of people in America.
Think that it can't happen here? Think again.
The political climate of tolerance and respect for Constitutional civil rights is, in historical terms, a variable one. Laws against murder and extra-judicial killings did not save more than 1,500 African Americans, mostly in the South, from lynching and mob murder that extended into the early 20th Century. The 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection under the law" has not deterred some federal judges from presenting secret evidence against Muslim suspects in court, or giving "enhanced sentencing" punishments that far exceed the prison term guidelines for non-felony convictions. And fiercely anti-immigrant organizations and coalitions are springing up all over America, some backed by various Draconian local laws that make it almost impossible for undocumented workers, and their families, to survive.
When Muslims, immigrants, and political dissidents are targeted by some of those in authority, the repercussions spread to not only a few of us, but to potentially millions of people in America. This can happen, if the voracious appetite of the national security apparatus is allowed to devour the basic guarantees of the American Constitution.
It would be incorrect to assume that, even if elected to the presidency, Mr. Giuliani would have the power to dictate, on his own, the demise of civil liberties for Muslims. But the power of his - or any - presidency could influence the appointment of federal judges of like political persuasion, the allocation of resources used by law enforcement agencies, or, for example, the continuation or closing of places like the Guantanamo prison camp.
For (at least) one announced candidate for the presidency, the internal American enemy is "radical" Islam, and undocumented workers. For me, this yet unconquered enemy is racism, xenophobia, and the growing economic attack upon the poor and working people on whom the rich continue to feed. And I count Rudy, and his legions, among those who do the devouring.
I don't mean for this to be a diatribe against Rudolph Giuliani, or those (millions) who politically support him. But I do hope that it can serve as a reminder for Muslims, and people who believe in democracy and fairness, about the real danger to us presented by the extreme right side of the political spectrum.
And finally, I hope that it reminds us of why the 2008 election will, in all likelihood, be the most critical one in the history of the Muslim Ummah in the United States.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Assassination of Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: A Terrible Day for Pakistan and for Islam
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 27, 2007 - I am struggling to find words to express my grief and outrage after hearing the news of the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto earlier today in Pakistan.
Regardless of one's political sentiments, or support for any of the factions struggling for political supremacy in that nation, the killing of Mrs. Bhutto is a tragic blow to democratic rule in Pakistan.
And, make no mistake about it, while the identities of the culprits are not known at this time, one thing is a virtual certainty: they are Muslims.
Sadly, the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is not shocking news for a world drenched in sensational, mass violence; and the people of Pakistan are certainly no strangers to political intrigue or fratricide. But with Pakistan - the world's second most populous majority-Muslim nation - at the crossroads of political change, and with the promise of that change being electoral, and nonviolent - the consequences of this killing are both profound and immense.
Benazir Bhutto, to be sure, had both staunch supporters and vehement enemies, among them being Muslims who categorically rejected the idea of a woman possibly, once again, becoming the leader of their nation.
There were also numerous Pakistanis, of all ideological persuasions, who viewed Bhutto's previous terms of leadership with deep disfavor.
But the idea of political assassination as a legitimate expression of dissent is un-categorically haram.
For those of us who claim al-Islam as our way of life and call ourselves Muslim, murder is unlawful, and an abomination in the eyes of our Creator.
Now is not the time to deconstruct and interrogate the legacy of Benazir Bhutto's past terms as a Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nor should we speculate on who is responsible for her murder, or for the deaths of scores of her supporters in the suicide bombing and shooting that claimed her life.
We must recognize that the violent authoritarian and repressive government of Pakistan has created a climate of hostility and hatred that made the murder of Mrs. Bhutto not only likely, but perhaps inevitable.
The unconditional U.S. political support for the Musharraf dictatorship, coupled with massive American economic and military support, added fuel to the fire of extremism that ultimately claimed her life.
And now, as we offer our condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto and the people of Pakistan, we must pray for an end to the cancer of violence that has affected our Ummah, as we diligently work for the restoration of peace and democratic values that are vital to our collective survival.
RELATED:
Benazir Bhutto Killed in Attack
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 27, 2007 - I am struggling to find words to express my grief and outrage after hearing the news of the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto earlier today in Pakistan.
Regardless of one's political sentiments, or support for any of the factions struggling for political supremacy in that nation, the killing of Mrs. Bhutto is a tragic blow to democratic rule in Pakistan.
And, make no mistake about it, while the identities of the culprits are not known at this time, one thing is a virtual certainty: they are Muslims.
Sadly, the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is not shocking news for a world drenched in sensational, mass violence; and the people of Pakistan are certainly no strangers to political intrigue or fratricide. But with Pakistan - the world's second most populous majority-Muslim nation - at the crossroads of political change, and with the promise of that change being electoral, and nonviolent - the consequences of this killing are both profound and immense.
Benazir Bhutto, to be sure, had both staunch supporters and vehement enemies, among them being Muslims who categorically rejected the idea of a woman possibly, once again, becoming the leader of their nation.
There were also numerous Pakistanis, of all ideological persuasions, who viewed Bhutto's previous terms of leadership with deep disfavor.
But the idea of political assassination as a legitimate expression of dissent is un-categorically haram.
For those of us who claim al-Islam as our way of life and call ourselves Muslim, murder is unlawful, and an abomination in the eyes of our Creator.
Now is not the time to deconstruct and interrogate the legacy of Benazir Bhutto's past terms as a Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nor should we speculate on who is responsible for her murder, or for the deaths of scores of her supporters in the suicide bombing and shooting that claimed her life.
We must recognize that the violent authoritarian and repressive government of Pakistan has created a climate of hostility and hatred that made the murder of Mrs. Bhutto not only likely, but perhaps inevitable.
The unconditional U.S. political support for the Musharraf dictatorship, coupled with massive American economic and military support, added fuel to the fire of extremism that ultimately claimed her life.
And now, as we offer our condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto and the people of Pakistan, we must pray for an end to the cancer of violence that has affected our Ummah, as we diligently work for the restoration of peace and democratic values that are vital to our collective survival.
RELATED:
Benazir Bhutto Killed in Attack
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Who Is To Blame for Our Messed Up and Violent World?
By Ibrahim M. Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
For some time now, I've taken the position that we, as Muslims, must take collective responsibility for the actions of those who profess Islam. In my humble opinion, this is what our beloved Qur'an instructs us to do when we are told to be "witnesses for justice, even when we are witnesses against ourselves".
But some misguided people believe that this internal self-examination is tantamount to admitting that either (1) all Muslims are unjust, or (2) that Muslims are apologists for injustice, or (3) that Islam, itself, is the locus of evil in the modern world.
None of these things are true.
In response to one a recent blog critic otherwise known as 'Pundita', who slammed my essay on the "Teddy Bear" incident in Sudan, accusing me of not knowing "whay year we'in today" - I have written the following response.
For the record, I do, indeed, know what year it is, and what you mischaracterize as the "self-pity" of the title of my essay was actually meant to convey that Muslims should not "bear" the identification of involvement with injustice, which certainly characterized the actions of the Sudanese government in this issue.
Muslims do, indeed, need to collectively uphold human rights and democracy; as do the Chinese government, the ZANU-PF party of Robert Mugabe, Hindu fundamentalists, North Korean Stalinists, Burmese militarists, Russian nationalists, Christian fundamentalists (and their Israeli allies who have institutionalized the occupation and theft of Palestinian land), and many, many others.
This indictment doesn't even begin to examine the ongoing structural and environmental violence of an out-of-control system of consumption that drives the global poor into more poverty and desperation (Ghandi, I believe, taught us that poverty is the most extreme form of violence).
The world is full of injustice. Blood is on many, many hands.
Muslims are certainly guilty of our share of it, and we are certainly collectively responsible for overturning injustice and establishing a universal respect for human rights and individual dignity.
But not all of the unjust villains are Muslims, and I would suggest that you, yourself, look at what year it is, and how many other parties in our violent and divided world are complicit in the abominations and oppressions that you singularly heap on Muslims and "Islamists".
For some time now, I've taken the position that we, as Muslims, must take collective responsibility for the actions of those who profess Islam. In my humble opinion, this is what our beloved Qur'an instructs us to do when we are told to be "witnesses for justice, even when we are witnesses against ourselves".
But some misguided people believe that this internal self-examination is tantamount to admitting that either (1) all Muslims are unjust, or (2) that Muslims are apologists for injustice, or (3) that Islam, itself, is the locus of evil in the modern world.
None of these things are true.
In response to one a recent blog critic otherwise known as 'Pundita', who slammed my essay on the "Teddy Bear" incident in Sudan, accusing me of not knowing "whay year we'in today" - I have written the following response.
For the record, I do, indeed, know what year it is, and what you mischaracterize as the "self-pity" of the title of my essay was actually meant to convey that Muslims should not "bear" the identification of involvement with injustice, which certainly characterized the actions of the Sudanese government in this issue.
Muslims do, indeed, need to collectively uphold human rights and democracy; as do the Chinese government, the ZANU-PF party of Robert Mugabe, Hindu fundamentalists, North Korean Stalinists, Burmese militarists, Russian nationalists, Christian fundamentalists (and their Israeli allies who have institutionalized the occupation and theft of Palestinian land), and many, many others.
This indictment doesn't even begin to examine the ongoing structural and environmental violence of an out-of-control system of consumption that drives the global poor into more poverty and desperation (Ghandi, I believe, taught us that poverty is the most extreme form of violence).
The world is full of injustice. Blood is on many, many hands.
Muslims are certainly guilty of our share of it, and we are certainly collectively responsible for overturning injustice and establishing a universal respect for human rights and individual dignity.
But not all of the unjust villains are Muslims, and I would suggest that you, yourself, look at what year it is, and how many other parties in our violent and divided world are complicit in the abominations and oppressions that you singularly heap on Muslims and "Islamists".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
