I find it strange and comical that people come out and claim that they know Islam and its teachings. They have associated "Jihad" with terrorism and a backward, inept mentality. Many have spoken ill of Islamic history, which, although imperfect, was far from brutal and bloody every step of the way. Certainly, Islam and Muslims were in a much better condition during these times than they are right now, falling subservient and succumbing to hindrances in their political progress.
I came across many biased sources bashing Islam for "terrorism", denigrating it and associating it with the worst kinds of crimes, along with prejudiced calls against Muslims, who are classified as people who "behead" or "kill" or "riot" or "murder". I found this particular article, which I am going to address right now in debunking these lies.
"Jihadi terrorism is as old as Islam. Jihad war, death and destruction have followed in the wake of Islam for hundreds of years. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Spain, Persia, India and several societies have experienced the deadly Islamic conquest."
This is not true at all. Ancient Egypt was under Byzantine (East Roman) rule, which at its time was one of the bloodiest. The Copts of Egypt requested help from the Muslims, particularly 'Amr ibn Al 'Aas. Islamicity.com speaks of Abu Bakr's accomplishments in these regions:
Abu Bakr's caliphate was short but important. An exemplary leader, he lived simply, assiduously fulfilled his religious obligations, and was accessible and sympathetic to his people. But he also stood firm when, in the wake of the Prophet's death, some tribes renounced Islam; in what was a major accomplishment, Abu Bakr swiftly disciplined them. Later, he consolidated the support of the tribes within the Arabian Peninsula and subsequently funnelled their energies against the powerful empires of the East: the Sassanians in Persia and the Byzantines in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. In short, he demonstrated the viability of the Muslim state.
These empires were quickly spreading out, and threatened the existence of Islam as a whole. However, the rule over these regions was tolerant to the degree that tolerance was unheard of at that time. Regarding Egypt,
the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them.
Persia was ruled by the Sassanians, of which Rustum was a leader. Rustum was brutal: he sent soldiers to assassinate Muslims and even the Caliph Umar. With reverence to Umar's reign,
He astounded them still further when he set their fears at rest by negotiating a generous treaty in which he told them:In the name of God ... you have complete security for your churches which shall not be occupied by the Muslims or destroyed.This policy was to prove successful everywhere. In Syria, for example, many Christians who had been involved in bitter theological disputes with Byzantine authorities- and persecuted for it- welcomed the coming of Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which 'Amr ibn al-'As took from the Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them.This pattern was repeated throughout the Byzantine Empire. Conflict among Greek Orthodox, Syrian Monophysites, Copts, and Nestorian Christians contributed to the failure of the Byzantines - always regarded as intruders - to develop popular support, while the tolerance which Muslims showed toward Christians and Jews removed the primary cause for opposing them.'Umar adopted this attitude in administrative matters as well. Although he assigned Muslim governors to the new provinces, existing Byzantine and Persian administrations were retained wherever possible. For fifty years, in fact, Greek remained the chancery language of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, while Pahlavi, the chancery language of the Sassanians, continued to be used in Mesopotamia and Persia.'Umar, who served as caliph for ten years, ended his rule with a significant victory over the Persian Empire. The struggle with the Sassanid realm had opened in 687 at al-Qadisiyah, near Ctesiphon in Iraq, where Muslim cavalry had successfully coped with elephants used by the Persians as a kind of primitive tank. Now with the Battle of Nihavand, called the "Conquest of Conquests," 'Umar sealed the fate of Persia; henceforth it was to be one of the most important provinces in the Muslim Empire. His caliphate was a high point in early Islamic history. He was noted for his justice, social ideals, administration, and statesmanship. His innovations left all enduring imprint on social welfare, taxation, and the financial and administrative fabric of the growing empire.After the death of 'Umar an advisory council composed of Companions of the Prophet selected as the third caliph 'Uthman, during whose rule the first serious strains on Islamic unity would appear. 'Uthman achieved much during his reign. He pushed forward with the pacification of Persia, continued to defend the Muslim state against the Byzantines, added what is now Libya to the empire, and subjugated most of Armenia. 'Uthman also, through his cousin Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria, established an Arab navy which fought a series of important engagements with the Byzantines.
While I admit that Islamic history is not perfect, it was far from "terrorist" as well. Muslims presented several choices to the people they supposedyl conquer: convert to Islam, live and pay the Jizya (poll tax, which is what Muslims pay as well), or die/run off. The second choice was the most accepted, in which people, regardless of background or religion, enjoyed peace and security under Islamic rule. Even in Greece, the Sarakenoi (hence Saracen, my namesake) have brought progress and prosperity.In the cases of Palestine and Syria, the Byzantinians were warded off. The Caliph Umar did not subdue Jerusalem, but came to Jerusalem and set forth a new admnistration that was to prove more survivable to live under than the former Byzantinian grasp.
Now, on to the second part of this nonsense article:
"Now Jihadi terrorism has propelled to dangerous proportions and is a major threat to public health and world peace."
To tell you the truth, every combatant out there is a threat to world peace and "public health". However, with health care regulations and 2 wars being engaged, along with 50 years of interventionism, I'd say the American government is the only real threat to world peace.
"Jihadi terrorists are said to have the unique ability to perpetuate their deadly terrorism wreaking havoc in every city in the world. It's destructive impact on the economy, public health and public safety is widespread, and on the increase."
Unique? Considering that many terrorists simply behead or bomb themselves, I'd say its unique, but it's not better or worse than what the Coalition in Iraq is doing, by napalming the hell out of places like Fallujah, or threaten attacks on neutral Iran. There is also the Coalition's control over the Iraqi economy, destruction of hospitals and medical relief centers in Iraq, and much, much more. However, beheading and other acts have no effect on economy whatsoever, more than security.
However, this part caught my eye and needs to be rooted out.
"Liberal left wing social scientists attribute Jihadi terrorism as a product of "labeling" and social causes including economic deprivation and interference of non-Islamic countries. They romanticize Jihadi terrorists as involved in protest against social injustice. In their eagerness to promote the irrational doctrine of "political correctness", left wing armchair speculators see Jihadi terrorists as victims of reactionary, reductionist "conspiracy theories" that make the terrorists the real victim of unjust society. For phony, left wing, liberal social scientists, suicide bombing, mass murder, riots, arson and public beheading of non-Muslims by Jihadi terrorists are the negotiated product of formal responses to political injustices."
The article itself is a joke in the sense that it is simply rightwing babble that seeks to insult leftists for pointing out that terrorists are "freedom fighters". While I may not agree with the left, I certainly can't accept such a denigrating. It is said that these terrorists are in fact acting out of resistance to the Coalition and its aims, but have taken it to an edge far beyond Islam.
Dr. Suseelan continues to write:
"Numerous empirical evidence and case study analysis of Muslim terrorists proves the unbalance of this equation. Such malicious "politically correct" statement is misleading and mischievous. The unified left wing explanation of Jihadi terrorism as a social phenomenon in the changing political, economic context is false and falls far short of explaining reliable and stable psychological and religious variables influencing Islamic terrorism."
"Islamic" terrorism is by definition unstable. As par unstable, the mindset that has unleashed this instability is the continuing interventionism that has befallen the areas where suspected "terror" operations are being carried out. You look at the case of Iran and see a radical group that has just been elected to power after the deposition of the brutal Shah who was installed by the imperialist Anglo-American Coalition.
But that's not what really exposed Suseelan for the idiot that he or she is. What really did was this gem of a quote:
"Focused studies have revealed unusual ways of Jihadi's thinking, asocial attitudes, cruelty, and indifference to the feelings of victims, paranoia and aggressive hostility."
Asocial attitudes are attributed to many people who have not even hurt a fly. Therefore, this can't be used as a factor. Cruelty and indifference to feeling of victims is a lot of what the Coalition has done by killing civilians and dismissing such cases. Paranoia... yeah, if your people were being killed left and right (Palestinians, for example), then I suppose you would be paranoid. And what about aggressive hostility? You are hostile to those who are hostile with you, and then again, every religion has its extremists.
If you take a look at Christian extremists and Hindu extremists, you will find the same thing. In fact, what Dr. Suseelan has just outlined were the negatives of human behavior. Technically, the rest of his article was the same old lame old BS I debunked several posts ago.
However, the mentality of Muslims is not being hindered at all, but in fact being expounded to new possibilities in accomodating with the modern world. A book, Crisis in the Muslim Mind, was published to address this issue. The author argues,
Throughout the world, the adversaries of Islam continue their aggression against Muslims, in places like Bosnia, Kashmir, Kurdistan, southern Sudan, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, Palestine, Afghanistan, Algeria, and in many other places. Such dreadful conditions serve only to magnify the Ummah's crisis. While Muslims may react to these situations in the short term, we must never lose sight of the fact that the malaise lies in our own weakness and incompetency. Perhaps the most striking difference between the early Muslim generations and those that have followed is that the early Muslims were raised to be strong, both physically and psychologically. The dynamics of the Prophet's instructions (to strut and show their strength) to those performing tawaf before the conquest of Makkah were not lost on the early Muslims.
The author is using collectivism, which is technically akin to racism, but that can be shoved aside by raising the point that incompetency is on part of those who have not followed Islam correctly. It is not the incompetence of Muslims as a whole, but the incompetence of those who have either participated in acts of terrorism, or those who have not spoken out against the injustices of the West as I and many bloggers on the net have done. But what Muslims need to learn as a whole is that we, as Muslims, have been blessed with a religion that teachs compassion, progress and resistance to oppression, as well as seeking knowledge. The summary of this author's work continues as follows:
It is the contention of this work that while the political leadership used force to keep the masses in order, the intellectual leadership used emotional and psychological means to keep them in check. The net result of such pressure was the creation of inhibitions within the Muslim mind, which caused the mentality of the Ummah and its character to develop in such a way that it lacked initiative and the ability to innovate and think for itself.
Collectivism is dangerous, but considering that many elements in the Ummah have not heeded Islam and have strayed away from it, I would say that much of the Muslim community has failed to reach to its standards. However, this issue needs to be addressed. As stated before, Islam does not need reformation nor "reclamation": Islam hasn't been "hijacked", but its perception has been marred by propagandists and terrorists alike. What we need to do is call out and teach Islam the way it is meant to be taught, and form a unified school of thought centered around the four schools of Sunnite thought (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki). Hopefully, as a Muslim community, we can unite again, reform our political systems, revert Islam to its greatness, and remove all signs of oppression and corruption from the Middle East.
Allaahu akbar!
Salaam, from
Saracen
P.S. "Jihadi" makes no sense in Arabic. The word you're looking for is "mujahed".
Comments
Post a Comment