The movie is set in Tsavo, Kenya, during the
building of the African Uganda-Mombasa Railway in 1898. Two lions roam in
pairs, drawing strength from each other. Locals have named them The Ghost and The
Darkness for the savagery with which they kill workers. When the hunters John
Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) and Charles Remington (Michael Douglas) enter
their den, they find human skulls arranged like trophies. That’s when they realize
these are no ordinary lions.These are lions that kill for fun and sport.
As the horrific scenes of the Boston marathon
massacre unfolded, I kept thinking of the Ghost and the Darkness. The Tsarnaev
brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, are no lions. They are, in fact, cowards but they converted their cowardice into savagery by working in pairs. It is possible that the 26-year
old Tamerlan was a master manipulator and the mastermind of the attacks but
even if that is the case, 19-year old Dzhokhar was a willing accomplice. That
makes both equally guilty of the terror they created on a glorious spring day
when Bostonians were out in droves to celebrate the city’s iconic event.
Much is being made about Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s six-month
long visit to Russia’s troubled province of Dagestan in March 2012 and the
time he spent in the capital, the Caspian Sea city of Makhachkala. Was he radicalized
during his visit? Was he in contact with terrorists who filled him with ideas
about creating mayhem in America? Was he planted as a cell in Boston, to strike
when the city was at its most vulnerable, to maximize death and destruction?
Although we may never know Tamerlan’s motive, given that he perished in a shootout with the police, it is becoming increasingly
clear that the brothers acted alone. They did what they did because these “nobodies” and "losers" (as their uncle called them and he was right on the mark) wanted to “redeem”
themselves through acts of brutality.
The wounded Dzhokhar has indicated from his
hospital bed that he and his brother acted to “defend the honor of Islam” and to
avenge the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Please, give us a break! Two alienated
losers want to give meaning to their empty lives by committing heinous crimes and then
the surviving criminal immediately tries to tie the motivation to a higher cause! This
is utter nonsense. I know that America will move heaven and earth to find a
connection between the brothers and one or more foreign terror groups but I hope the people in charge of the investigation will not clutch at straws.
For American Muslims, the actions of the Tsarnaev
brothers came as a double blow. They created terror and killed innocent Americans, first, and second, they gave Islam a bad name and shamed Muslims. I promised myself after the
9/11 attacks that I will not suffer any guilt if a fanatic commits crimes in the
name of my faith. Yet, as soon as the Boston marathon story broke, I fervently
prayed, “Please God, don’t let it be a Muslim!”
Within forty-eight hours, my hopes were dashed.
But as I come to grips with the
Boston massacre, I also sense that my resolve not to feel any guilt, though
shaken yet again, is slowly strengthening. No one can carry the burden of
another. If I had any contact with “the Ghost and the Darkness,” or if I were
privy to their inner thoughts, I would certainly have contacted the authorities.
It would have been both my right and my responsibility. But since I did not
know the diabolical brothers and what they were planning to do, there is no reason why I should feel guilty for
their action, even if they claimed to be Muslims or acting in the name of
Islam.
I will, however, protest the insidious suggestion of some pundits that becoming more religious (particularly when it comes to Islam when someone becomes more observant with respect to, say, prayers or visiting mosques) is somehow akin to becoming radicalized. Sure, if the so-called believer begins to act in a hostile manner and indulges in hate-mongering, authorities must be informed, but "becoming religious" is not synonymous with "becoming radicalized." Consider this: Just this week, an Imam in Toronto, Canada, recently found one of his congregants behaving strangely. He reported him to the police, thus foiling an attack organized apparently by Al-Qaida. "But for the Muslim community's intervention," said an official of Canada's counter-terrorism unit, "we may not have had the success."
I will, however, protest the insidious suggestion of some pundits that becoming more religious (particularly when it comes to Islam when someone becomes more observant with respect to, say, prayers or visiting mosques) is somehow akin to becoming radicalized. Sure, if the so-called believer begins to act in a hostile manner and indulges in hate-mongering, authorities must be informed, but "becoming religious" is not synonymous with "becoming radicalized." Consider this: Just this week, an Imam in Toronto, Canada, recently found one of his congregants behaving strangely. He reported him to the police, thus foiling an attack organized apparently by Al-Qaida. "But for the Muslim community's intervention," said an official of Canada's counter-terrorism unit, "we may not have had the success."
As it is, the only thing I feel is heartfelt sympathy for the victims and the only thing I know about the
Tsarnaev brothers is that they made a Faustian bargain. And the bargain they
made was with themselves.