A week after the 9/11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, my doorbell rang one evening. Gail, my neighbor and a devout Christian, stood apologetically, sorrow etched on her face. “I brought this for you,” she said. It was a miniature marble mosque with a golden dome. “I searched all over the Internet for it. Just wanted you to know we are with you and your family.”
I knew instantly where she was coming from. American Muslims were under siege. That’s how it felt in the immediate wake of the fall of the twin towers. My neighbor was trying to put me at ease. The same scene was playing out all over the country. Concerned neighbors and coworkers who had known Muslims in their midst were offering moral support against insults, injuries and death threats by a minority of Americans who equated us with the murderous fanatics who rained death and destruction on that serene Autumn day. For every American who shot at Muslims, hurled insults and splattered pig blood on mosque doors, however, there were several who threw a protective shield around us. The police were deployed to safeguard mosques. Christian and Jewish women wore hijab to accompany Muslim women on their errands. Interfaith dialogues sprouted everywhere and leaders demanded that citizens abide by the law.
But the besieged feeling persisted. Fox and other right-wing media outlets openly questioned our loyalty, accusing us of being a fifth column. Muslims who were coming of age in 2001 reacted to this onslaught in one of two ways: many embraced the faith more strongly while some were intimidated enough to abandon it. The shrill anti-Muslim voices rose and fell over the years and now, ten years later, they have metastasized into well-funded Islamophobia with the rise of the Tea party and the more extreme elements of the Republican Party. One consequence has been that most Muslims have come out of their cocoons and are engaging with the larger American society in many more ways than they used to before the 9/11 attacks. A recent Pew Research Center poll is instructive. 48% of American Muslims think the American people are generally friendly toward Muslims, 32% think they are neutral, 16% think they are unfriendly and 4% “don’t know.”
Ten years on, two things about the Sept. 11 attacks stand out.
The first is the rejection by the overwhelming majority of Muslims of al-Qaida and its nihilistic ideology. This murderous fringe group offered nothing but death and destruction. We were able to see through its sophistry and condemned its leaders and foot-soldiers in no uncertain terms, even though Islamophobes claimed that we did not raise our voice against the extremists, a canard if ever there was one. The failure of al-Qaida is evident in the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the revolutions sweeping Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria that has already dethroned some entrenched dictators. The uprisings have all been indigenous movements in which al-Qaida played no role whatsoever, an obvious indication of their irrelevance and insignificance.
The second is the catastrophic overreaction of the United States. The war in Afghanistan against the Taliban began in October 7, 2001, and had the support of most nations of the world. But when President George Bush, in concert with his diabolical VP Dick Cheney, decided to launch the Iraq war on false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection with al-Qaida, America lost its moral bearing and purpose.
I remember joining a demonstration on March 28, 2003, in San Francisco, a week after the war began. About 2,000 Americans from all walks of life gathered to denounce the war - Quakers, Franciscan nuns and monks, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and many others. Those who spoke, including one of America’s foremost Islamic scholars, Hamza Yusuf, explained how this was not a war of Islam versus the West but of America waging an unjust, preemptive war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Recently, the Nobel economist Joseph E. Stiglitz wrote that President Bush’s response to the attacks “compromised America’s basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security.” Truer words have rarely been written.
A conservative estimate puts America’s bill for fighting the two wars to at least $3.3 trillion, of which about $2 trillion accounts for the Iraq war. To put this in perspective, for every dollar that al-Qaida spent to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks, the cost to the United States has been an astonishing $6.6 million!
The deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, the erosion of values, and the staggering amount of money wasted, constitute one of the darkest chapters in U.S. history. How did values erode? Through repression of civil liberties, partisan definition of patriotism (“last refuge of the scoundrel”), wiretapping of American citizens, surveillance without judicial approval, torture, indefinite imprisonment, docile media acting as presidential mouthpiece, extraordinary rendition, and so on.
On this tenth anniversary of that infamous day, the question is: Did the 9/11 attacks make America weak? The attacks did not, but America’s overreaction and imperial overreach did. It is a lesson America can never afford to ignore.
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Missing the Big Picture
One of the profound paradoxes of life is that the average person can see through an issue with a clarity that eludes the best and the brightest.
Such is the case with deploying more troops to Afghanistan. What exactly is the strategic importance of Afghanistan to the United States at this time? The Soviet empire has collapsed, so there is no question of any contest for supremacy there. A reminder for Iran to behave and Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban? Questionable. To stop Al-Qaeda from returning to that graveyard of empires? What a laugh!
Yet our leaders and military commanders continue to act as if saving Afghanistan from Osama Bin Laden and warring warlords will translate into making the world safe for democracy.
What would happen if America were to withdraw from Afghanistan or reduce its footprint? Tom Friedman of the New York Times offers this analysis: In the Middle East, all politics happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and Bin Laden will issue an exultant video. And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country ..."
Judging from nationwide polls, this seems to be how many Americans feel. Yet President Obama is weighing requests by his top military commanders to send more troops and deepen America’s involvement in Afghanistan. Given his penchant for consensus, the president will probably not send as many troops as requested but overall, is likely to prolong the war there. Note that by 2010, America will have been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviets were in their catastrophic attempt to bring the country under their control.
Consider another perspective by Nicholas Kristof, also a columnist for the New York Times. “One of the most compelling arguments against more troops rests on this stunning trade-off: For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there. It is hard to do the calculation precisely, but for the cost of 40,000 troops over a few years – well, we could just about turn every Afghan into a Ph.D.”
Kristof also notes that “Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, has now built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan — and not one has been burned down or closed."
So there you have it. But an “expert” may say, “Well, these guys are not on the ground. They are armchair generals, as most of you are, so you really don’t understand the complexity and that’s why you offer these simplistic solutions.
Not quite. Consider Matthew Hoh, the Foreign Service officer and former marine captain, who resigned from a civilian post in Afghanistan this week to protest U.S. policy. We can’t win, he said in his resignation letter, and our presence is only fueling the insurgency. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
Indeed, why and to what end? The stark truth: There is none. Yet the cost in lives and wasted resources in Afghanistan are beyond calculation.
And democracy? Impartial observers have confirmed that Hamid Karzai stole the recent election and that his brother has been on CIA's payroll all along. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
We return, then, to the paradox: How is it that the smartest brains cannot see the forest for the trees, particularly when their claim to fame is that that’s precisely where they tower above you and me?
Is it because power and an inflated sense of self blind one to the obvious? Can it be because they think that the fate of the world depends on them and that their decisions today will change the course of history tomorrow? Or is it because they are such believers in technological superiority and manifest destiny that they have become immune to history’s lessons?
Humility and a sense of the big picture seem to be missing from our leaders and commanders. The solution: heed the wisdom of the average citizen, do not be goaded into prolonging this war by the exhortations of rabid right-wingers, and know that history keeps its own timetable, indifferent to the might and machinery of mere mortals.
Monday, April 10, 2006
The Case of the Afghan Apostate
Islamic Pluralism 1, Religious Dogmatism 0.
This is how I greeted the news that Abdur Rahman has been spared execution and freed by an Afghan court. He is the Afghan who converted to Christianity from Islam 16 years ago. When his apostasy came to light last week after a family squabble, a prosecutor threatened to execute him as mandated by what he claimed to be Afghanistan’s Sharia law.
Many Muslim media carried compelling articles about the illegality and immorality of apostasy-killing as the hapless Rahman’s impending fate filtered out of Afghanistan. The most powerful indictment comes, of course, from the Quran: There can be no coercion in matters of faith (2:256).
By citing a weak and dubious hadith, one that goes against the message of love and compassion that Prophet Muhammad preached and practiced throughout his life, a handful of Afghanistan’s frozen-in-time, pre-Taliban clerics sought to impose the death penalty on Rahman.
But worldwide outrage and a fledgling democracy’s resolve under President Hamid Karzai to do the right thing forced the clerics to retreat.
While Rahman’s travails remind us that we still have ways to go before the interpretation of Islam is loosened from the grips of dogmatists, we can also take some satisfaction from the progress that has been made.
Consider what would have happened to Rahman if the Taliban were still in power. Remember the harrowing video - widely distributed after the 9/11 attacks - of the woman who was publicly executed in a soccer stadium in Kabul, “cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa?” Can anyone doubt that Rahman would not have met the same fate, given the Taliban’s record in these matters, particularly the record of its "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice”?
Implementing Sharia, as the Taliban defined it, became synonymous with beatings and killings. Is it any wonder that anytime patriarchal clerics talk of implementing Sharia, it sends shivers down the spines of Muslims in the affected areas, particularly of Muslim women?
Consider also the question of stoning to death (unmarried) people accused of adultery, again based on a weak hadith. Remember the case of the Nigerian woman Amina Lawal, charged with conceiving a child while single? A Nigerian Sharia court declared in 2002 that for her crime of adultery, she was to be stoned to death. (The court couldn’t be bothered about the man who was her “partner in crime.” He was nowhere to be found in the Katsina district in Northern Nigeria where the Sharia court held sway and was also absent from any theological discussion!)
The Quran mentions stoning five times - 11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 26:116 and 36:18 - but it is directed against prophets Shuaib, People of the Cave, Prophet Ibrahim, Prophet Noah, and Companions of the City, respectively. When these prophets and the righteous servants of God began preaching monotheism, people used to polytheism threatened them with stoning. That is as far as the Quran goes.
International outrage across religious boundaries forced the Nigerian court to spare Lawal’s life in 2003.
Hopefully, killing for apostasy and stoning to death (only women need apply) for adultery will soon be a thing of the past as absolutist clerics realize that their hold over Muslim minds and hearts is rapidly dissipating. In the Age of the Internet, ideas travel with the speed of light and millions of Muslims are taking advantage of it to deepen their understanding of Islam and mobilize support for progressive and humane causes. Many new avenues of thought are opening up. One example is the complex nature of the relationship between mosque and state, as opposed to the reflexive and traditional view that the two must be conflated in Islam. Even in conservative societies, Muslims are beginning to recognize that faith is a matter of personal responsibility and not a consequence of authoritarian decree. The days of any religious leader thundering “I am right, you are dead” will soon, let us pray, be over once and for all.
Islamic Pluralism 1, Religious Dogmatism 0.
This is how I greeted the news that Abdur Rahman has been spared execution and freed by an Afghan court. He is the Afghan who converted to Christianity from Islam 16 years ago. When his apostasy came to light last week after a family squabble, a prosecutor threatened to execute him as mandated by what he claimed to be Afghanistan’s Sharia law.
Many Muslim media carried compelling articles about the illegality and immorality of apostasy-killing as the hapless Rahman’s impending fate filtered out of Afghanistan. The most powerful indictment comes, of course, from the Quran: There can be no coercion in matters of faith (2:256).
By citing a weak and dubious hadith, one that goes against the message of love and compassion that Prophet Muhammad preached and practiced throughout his life, a handful of Afghanistan’s frozen-in-time, pre-Taliban clerics sought to impose the death penalty on Rahman.
But worldwide outrage and a fledgling democracy’s resolve under President Hamid Karzai to do the right thing forced the clerics to retreat.
While Rahman’s travails remind us that we still have ways to go before the interpretation of Islam is loosened from the grips of dogmatists, we can also take some satisfaction from the progress that has been made.
Consider what would have happened to Rahman if the Taliban were still in power. Remember the harrowing video - widely distributed after the 9/11 attacks - of the woman who was publicly executed in a soccer stadium in Kabul, “cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa?” Can anyone doubt that Rahman would not have met the same fate, given the Taliban’s record in these matters, particularly the record of its "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice”?
Implementing Sharia, as the Taliban defined it, became synonymous with beatings and killings. Is it any wonder that anytime patriarchal clerics talk of implementing Sharia, it sends shivers down the spines of Muslims in the affected areas, particularly of Muslim women?
Consider also the question of stoning to death (unmarried) people accused of adultery, again based on a weak hadith. Remember the case of the Nigerian woman Amina Lawal, charged with conceiving a child while single? A Nigerian Sharia court declared in 2002 that for her crime of adultery, she was to be stoned to death. (The court couldn’t be bothered about the man who was her “partner in crime.” He was nowhere to be found in the Katsina district in Northern Nigeria where the Sharia court held sway and was also absent from any theological discussion!)
The Quran mentions stoning five times - 11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 26:116 and 36:18 - but it is directed against prophets Shuaib, People of the Cave, Prophet Ibrahim, Prophet Noah, and Companions of the City, respectively. When these prophets and the righteous servants of God began preaching monotheism, people used to polytheism threatened them with stoning. That is as far as the Quran goes.
International outrage across religious boundaries forced the Nigerian court to spare Lawal’s life in 2003.
Hopefully, killing for apostasy and stoning to death (only women need apply) for adultery will soon be a thing of the past as absolutist clerics realize that their hold over Muslim minds and hearts is rapidly dissipating. In the Age of the Internet, ideas travel with the speed of light and millions of Muslims are taking advantage of it to deepen their understanding of Islam and mobilize support for progressive and humane causes. Many new avenues of thought are opening up. One example is the complex nature of the relationship between mosque and state, as opposed to the reflexive and traditional view that the two must be conflated in Islam. Even in conservative societies, Muslims are beginning to recognize that faith is a matter of personal responsibility and not a consequence of authoritarian decree. The days of any religious leader thundering “I am right, you are dead” will soon, let us pray, be over once and for all.
Mar. 11, '06
Bangladesh Cracks Down on Militant Extremists
Moderate Muslims around the world, along with their supporters and well-wishers, should be inspired by the recent happenings in Bangladesh. Leaders of two banned militant Islamic organizations, responsible for unleashing death and destruction on an unsuspecting population, were finally cornered in their hideouts earlier this month by law enforcement officials known as Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and taken into custody.
As Abdur Rahman and Siddiqul Islam, respective chiefs of Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), await their fate, Bangladeshis are rejoicing. But there is also anger at the havoc these terrorists have wrought and the bad name they have given to a peaceful and progressive society.
On August 17 of last year, for instance, the two organizations were responsible for the synchronized explosion of over 400 crude bombs throughout Bangladesh, killing two and injuring more than 120. More bombings, grenade assassinations and suicide bombings (an unfortunate first for Bangladesh) followed in December, leading to more deaths and injuries and creating a sense of terror throughout the Wisconsin-sized country.
What motivated the terrorists? In the words of their leaders: “To establish Islamic law. It’s a pity that in Bangladesh, where about 90 percent are Muslims, Allah’s rules are not implemented.”
But Bangladeshis realized that their version of Islamic law was nothing but a hodgepodge of misogyny, violence, thirst for power and distorted interpretations of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. They rejected their call for a Taliban-style medieval theocracy and wished fervently for the government of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia to bring the radicals to justice. The arrests couldn’t have come sooner.
The young and vulnerable Bangladeshis who were lured into joining JMB and JMJB and engaged in bombings and other acts of random violence have destroyed not only their own lives but also the lives of their dependents. These victims are now speaking out. And they are not mincing words.
Hurrennesa Baby, 16, is the daughter of Nasir Uddin, a JMB member who blasted bombs and killed people last year and now sits in a jail. “Like many others, our family has been ruined as my father was the lone earning member,” she said. “My family is virtually starving. Our friends and relatives have deserted us. They (the militant kingpins) should be hanged in public.” Omar Ali, 65, is the father of detained JMB member Anisur Rahman. “I would like to see the two militant extremists executed as they ruined my family by misguiding my son into exploding bombs on August 17.”
Similar sentiments are being echoed throughout the country.
The events in Bangladesh are a reminder that moderate Muslim nations are working hard to root out extremists who wear the cloak of religiosity but whose goal is to spread anarchy and mayhem in the name of Islam. This message is sometimes lost on some in the West who tend to paint Muslims and Islamic nations in broad brush strokes and pin the “terrorist” label on all because of the actions of a few. A poll released this month by Washington Post and ABC News found that 46 percent of Americans have a negative view of Islam “fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists.” The latest Dubai fiasco only underscores this issue. Congress voted 62 to 2 to kill a deal that would have given Dubai Ports World the rights to operate six U.S. ports. United Arab Emirates (UAE) - Dubai is one of its seven emirates - has proven to be one of the staunchest allies of America in its war against terror and fundamentalism. Dubai services more U.S. military ship than any other foreign country. Yet the idea of linking Dubai to U.S. ports caused a huge uproar throughout America. The sentiment behind the uproar can be summarized as follows: “Arabs are coming. The sky is falling. We are about to be terrorized!” How can America ever hope to win friends in the Middle East, far less “spread democracy”, if it stereotypes all Arabs as suspects?
As an American Muslim of Bangladeshi origin, I draw an important lesson from the recent events in the country of my birth: the importance of Ijtihad in the practice of Islam. Ijtihad means informed independent thinking about theological issues, particularly in the context of the times. Many Muslims are sometimes content to practice Islam based on derivative knowledge, blindly following this sheik or that imam. It is important that we think about Islamic issues ourselves first and then seek opinions and guidance from religious leaders. That way, at the very least, we can engage in enlightened debates with them, thereby practicing a religion more resonant with our reasoning and intuition. Imam Reda Shata of the Bay Ridge mosque in New York explained it this way to his congregants: “Islam is a religion based on intellect. Islam says to you: ‘Think. Don’t close your eyes and just follow your emotions. Don’t follow the sheik. Perhaps you have a better mind than his.’ ”
Bangladeshi authorities are now interrogating the two terrorist leaders to find out who financed their organizations, where their members received training and how arms and ammunitions were smuggled into the country. Although the country has its share of problems - bribery, nepotism, red tape, financial shenanigans by the wealthy and the privileged, to name a few - Bangladeshis (population: 145 million) are solidly behind this effort, even though there is quibbling about whether or not the government could have taken such decisive actions months ago. But it is better late than never. Law enforcement officials are confident that Bangladesh will soon be free from the scourge of terrorism waged in the name of Islam.
Bangladesh Cracks Down on Militant Extremists
Moderate Muslims around the world, along with their supporters and well-wishers, should be inspired by the recent happenings in Bangladesh. Leaders of two banned militant Islamic organizations, responsible for unleashing death and destruction on an unsuspecting population, were finally cornered in their hideouts earlier this month by law enforcement officials known as Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and taken into custody.
As Abdur Rahman and Siddiqul Islam, respective chiefs of Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), await their fate, Bangladeshis are rejoicing. But there is also anger at the havoc these terrorists have wrought and the bad name they have given to a peaceful and progressive society.
On August 17 of last year, for instance, the two organizations were responsible for the synchronized explosion of over 400 crude bombs throughout Bangladesh, killing two and injuring more than 120. More bombings, grenade assassinations and suicide bombings (an unfortunate first for Bangladesh) followed in December, leading to more deaths and injuries and creating a sense of terror throughout the Wisconsin-sized country.
What motivated the terrorists? In the words of their leaders: “To establish Islamic law. It’s a pity that in Bangladesh, where about 90 percent are Muslims, Allah’s rules are not implemented.”
But Bangladeshis realized that their version of Islamic law was nothing but a hodgepodge of misogyny, violence, thirst for power and distorted interpretations of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. They rejected their call for a Taliban-style medieval theocracy and wished fervently for the government of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia to bring the radicals to justice. The arrests couldn’t have come sooner.
The young and vulnerable Bangladeshis who were lured into joining JMB and JMJB and engaged in bombings and other acts of random violence have destroyed not only their own lives but also the lives of their dependents. These victims are now speaking out. And they are not mincing words.
Hurrennesa Baby, 16, is the daughter of Nasir Uddin, a JMB member who blasted bombs and killed people last year and now sits in a jail. “Like many others, our family has been ruined as my father was the lone earning member,” she said. “My family is virtually starving. Our friends and relatives have deserted us. They (the militant kingpins) should be hanged in public.” Omar Ali, 65, is the father of detained JMB member Anisur Rahman. “I would like to see the two militant extremists executed as they ruined my family by misguiding my son into exploding bombs on August 17.”
Similar sentiments are being echoed throughout the country.
The events in Bangladesh are a reminder that moderate Muslim nations are working hard to root out extremists who wear the cloak of religiosity but whose goal is to spread anarchy and mayhem in the name of Islam. This message is sometimes lost on some in the West who tend to paint Muslims and Islamic nations in broad brush strokes and pin the “terrorist” label on all because of the actions of a few. A poll released this month by Washington Post and ABC News found that 46 percent of Americans have a negative view of Islam “fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists.” The latest Dubai fiasco only underscores this issue. Congress voted 62 to 2 to kill a deal that would have given Dubai Ports World the rights to operate six U.S. ports. United Arab Emirates (UAE) - Dubai is one of its seven emirates - has proven to be one of the staunchest allies of America in its war against terror and fundamentalism. Dubai services more U.S. military ship than any other foreign country. Yet the idea of linking Dubai to U.S. ports caused a huge uproar throughout America. The sentiment behind the uproar can be summarized as follows: “Arabs are coming. The sky is falling. We are about to be terrorized!” How can America ever hope to win friends in the Middle East, far less “spread democracy”, if it stereotypes all Arabs as suspects?
As an American Muslim of Bangladeshi origin, I draw an important lesson from the recent events in the country of my birth: the importance of Ijtihad in the practice of Islam. Ijtihad means informed independent thinking about theological issues, particularly in the context of the times. Many Muslims are sometimes content to practice Islam based on derivative knowledge, blindly following this sheik or that imam. It is important that we think about Islamic issues ourselves first and then seek opinions and guidance from religious leaders. That way, at the very least, we can engage in enlightened debates with them, thereby practicing a religion more resonant with our reasoning and intuition. Imam Reda Shata of the Bay Ridge mosque in New York explained it this way to his congregants: “Islam is a religion based on intellect. Islam says to you: ‘Think. Don’t close your eyes and just follow your emotions. Don’t follow the sheik. Perhaps you have a better mind than his.’ ”
Bangladeshi authorities are now interrogating the two terrorist leaders to find out who financed their organizations, where their members received training and how arms and ammunitions were smuggled into the country. Although the country has its share of problems - bribery, nepotism, red tape, financial shenanigans by the wealthy and the privileged, to name a few - Bangladeshis (population: 145 million) are solidly behind this effort, even though there is quibbling about whether or not the government could have taken such decisive actions months ago. But it is better late than never. Law enforcement officials are confident that Bangladesh will soon be free from the scourge of terrorism waged in the name of Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)