A Rejoinder to Joseph Shehan

By

Abdul-Razaq Ibrahim Fagge

abdurazaq_ibrahim@yahoo.com

 

 

              On Wednesday February 22, 2006, a paper titled “What’s in a name: Muslims should disavow radicalism,” was released on ntdaily.com by Joseph Shehan, a Fort Worth senior majoring in political science. In his attempt to show his dismay with regards to the Muslims’ pretests over the controversial cartoons world wide, Shehan posed some opened questions in which he said “I wish to know the answers to all these questions, but I do not.” It is in response to this statement that I convinced my self, being a Muslim that it is a duty to answer those questions that are either seem confusing to a friend or those that he is ignorant of . The questions are answered one after another, here under.

 

QUESTION 1:

Why is it that every time the Muslims in foreign countries are offended, they react with violence?

ANSWER:

            To explain why Muslims react with violence when offended we need to first of all understand the meaning of violence. The Oxford Advance Learner’s English Dictionary defined violence as a violent behaviour that is intended to “hurt” or “kill” some body: crimes/acts/ threats of violence. On the other hand, the word “hurt” is defined by the same book as 1: cause physical pain to some body/yourself. 2: to feel painful. 3: to make some one unhappy or upset. The last explanation implies a feeling of unhappiness because some body has been unkind or un-fair to you. This, however, used to be more devastating than the physical wounds and pains because it, more often than not, causes psychological and emotional imbalances.

            It is pity that most people used to capitalize on physical violence, neglecting the devastating effects of violent psychological, emotional or spiritual provocations and attacks.

            Secondly, the question itself is subjective. Thus, an objective mind could not have asked itself why Muslims react with violence when offended. Instead, it could have asked, why must they (Muslims) be offended? Why the provocations?

Thirdly, violent reaction is not peculiar to Muslims. Let us observe some cases where Jewish and Christians reacted violently.

 

The Jewish Reactions

           An Israeli raid killed 14 Palestinians and wounded many more on Monday, 7 October, 2002. Despite the international criticism, Mr. Sharon defended the raid. “I think that the operation was a success,” he said the next day. “We have to take into consideration that the Israeli forces are making every effort to contain raids and attacks by terrorist organization,” he added. The US state Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington was “deeply troubled” by the raid, in which it was reported that a missile was fired in to a crowd of civilians.

             An Israeli helicopter gunship fired Hellfire missiles at and killed the Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin and both of his bodyguards on March 22, 2004. They were killed instantly, along with six others.

             Rantissi replaced him as Hamas leader in the Gaza strip, and Rantissi himself was assassinated by Israel on April 17, 2004. Israel said the targeted killing was punishment for dozens of suicide bombings by Hamas against Israeli civilians and a mean to thwart further attacks by Yassin orders. Several other attacks with the use of tanks, helicopters and bulldozers were made by the Israeli army in the name of retaliations and reactions as termed by the western media.

 

The Christians’ reactions

             Following the protest over the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which led to the death of 11 people (mostly Christians), in Maiduguri northern Nigeria on Saturday February 18, 2006. The Christians in Onitsha, Southern Nigeria reacted violently by killing the minority Muslims in the city. “The Muslims started it when they attacked the Christians due to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. If they cartoon their god, well, they must endure it and not fight,” said Christian Ike, a 35-year old motorcycle taxi driver. The Christians’ reaction was a “genocide” where by one entire Muslim district of about 100 homes was burned to the ground in the Onitsha city. Thus, only God knows how many Muslims were killed there.

             Further, although armed hostilities, between Catholics and the Protestants largely subsided after the 1921 agreement, violence erupted again in the late 1960s; bloody riots broke out in Londonderry in 1968 and in Londonderry and Belfast in 1969. British troops were brought to restore order, but the conflict intensified as the IRA and protestant paramilitary groups carried out bombings and other acts of terrorism. This continuing conflict involves series of attacks and counter-attacks, actions and reactions. Thus, by early ‘90s more than 3,000 people have died as a result of the strife in Northern Ireland. The brutal murder on January 31, 2005, of Belfast Catholic Robert McCartney by the IRA further intensified the crisis.

QUESTION 2:

How is every problem they (Muslim) have America’s doing?

ANSWER:

             The main reason why Muslims associated almost every problem with America is due to the major role it plays in almost every attack on Muslims or Islamic interests. The US has routinely asserted the right to target its opponents (mostly Muslims) whether individuals, organizations or entire people for the ultimate sanction. In April 1986, US fighter planes bombed the palace of Libya’s colonel Gadhaffi, killing 15 civilians including one of his daughters. In August 1998, US planes bombed civilian targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, killing over 30 people and destroying Sudan’s only medical pharmaceutical facility. These criminal incidents were justified as a legitimate response to a terrorist threat (they claimed) in a manner virtually identical to that employed by Israel regarding the Palestinians.

< FONT size=3>              The US also led the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq as well as attack on Pakistan civilians on the bases of suspicion. The two main targets of the US and her allies now are Iran and Syria i.e. an Islamic and a Muslim nation respectively.

QUESTION 3:

Are all those who are committing violence that we see on TV radicals? If so, then where are the moderates, peace loving Muslims that are standing up against the atrocities being committed in the name of their faith?

ANSWER:

            An attempt at answering the first part of the question will require the conception of the word “radicals” Accord ing to the Oxford Advance Learner’s English Dictionary, the word radical can take the following meanings. 1: new, different and likely to have a great effect. 2: in favour of thorough and complete political or social change. 3: a person with radical opinions: political/religious radicals. In addition, radicalism is defined as belief in radical ideas and principles: political/social radicalism. Therefore, if you are convinced that the behaviours of those protesters, you have seen on TV, are in harmony with the above definitions and behaviours of radicals, then you have every right to call them radicals. If not, then you need to think twice.

             Moreover, with regard to the second part of the question, a critical examination of the word “peace” is very important. According to the same dictionary, peace means a situation or a period of time in which there is no war or violence in a country or an area. It implies calm, quietness, freedom from war e.t.c. Under a more critical and Islamic reasoning which is a more broader sense, the word “peace” is more appropriately conceive-up as presence of justice, equality, fairness as well as been free from servitude.                      The word Islam is derived from the Arabic word “salam” which means “peace”. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to promote and maintain peace throughout the world.

             Thus, injustice, inequality and unfairness are the axis of all evils; violence, chaos, crimes e.t.c. that consequently resulted in the absence of peace. In an Islamic tradition, silence in the face of injustice is crime. In other words, to see an injustice and pass without as much as a word is itself injustice. The Islamic perception of peace is neither shortsighted nor relegated to simple quietness, silence e.t.c it encompasses the process of promoting and maintaining justice throughout the world. As such, whenever Muslims are protesting against injustice some people, out of ignorance, used to conclude that Muslims are unreasonably coursing troubles, problems, violence e.t.c.

QUESTION 4:-