The Disease Of Moderate Muslims
08-03-2008
Life is not always black and white, but there are times when we are forced to
adopt a certain position. The words of George Bush after 9/11: “ you are either
with us or against us ” is one such example, when it became necessary for
Muslims and non-Muslims to state their position. Because, when a vicious
criminal gangster demands loyalty or compliance, a response is required,
otherwise silence will constitute acquiescence.
For the Muslims as followers of Islam, the response should be naturally along
the following lines: we are not with you Mr. Bush, make no mistake about it, we
will never be with you, because our allegiance will always lie with Islam.
Let alone being an ally, why would anyone want to be even associated with: an
illiterate drunk, a mass murderer, a religious-fanatic who talks to ‘god’
(Satan), a liar (WMD in Iraq), a cheat (Florida election 2000) and a known thief
[1]. Mr Bush, you are no different to the savage adversaries of the noble
Salahuddin al-Ayubi (Saladin). Like your ancestors you have a fork tongue,
whilst you talk of being a friend, your media is full of hate-filled preachers
inciting the masses to commit acts like flushing the inimitable Quran down the
toilet to the obscene porn-torture that we have seen in Iraq (Abu Ghraib).
Those Muslims who chose to ally with Bush will be classified as the moderates
and the rest by de facto are the radicals. For the radicals there are numerous
other pejorative labels like extremists, fundamentalists, militants, and
terrorists. This bifurcation of radicals and moderates is one that has been
defined to suit the interests of the West, long before 9/11.
Being a moderate or radical has no relationship with how devout the individual
is. The distinction is marked by how one views the American led adventure and
its role in the Muslim world. If you oppose the American agenda, you are a
radical, otherwise you are a moderate. Depending on the level of opposition
expressed to the US-led foreign policy it determines ones position within the
radical spectrum. For example, those who confine to political activity are less
of an extremist than those who engage physically.
So what is the response of the moderate camp with respect to the demands made by
Bush? Many of them will claim to oppose Bush and the so-called ‘terrorists ’,
showing their confused mindset; the more sly ones will use different language
depending on whom they are addressing, they call it ‘diplomacy’, ‘wisdom’ etc.
Some of the more extreme moderates will claim to sit on both camps and they do
not see a contradiction since Bush is pro-Islam according to them. Yes, you can
even have Iftar at the White House, naturally it must be true! One of their
leaders with beard like a Rabbi or an Orthodox priest even claimed that even
Hilary Clinton embraced Islam at his hands! They elaborate their position by
stating that the father of George Bush, who led the first Gulf War as the leader
(Ameer) of Jihad to liberate Kuwait from the infidel Saddam Hussein. So, George
Bush junior is simply continuing that ‘Jihad’, thus supporting Bush is
supporting real ‘Jihad ’!
However, the vast majority of the moderates see the source of the problem as
being an internal one, they argue, if the Muslims, especially the radical ones
altered their behaviour by ceasing physical resistance, Islam would not get a
bad press, and the west would eventually embrace Islam, the conflict would cease
to exist. Listed below are some of their main arguments which elaborate their
position.
a) The good Muslim image syndrome and the media.
The moderates argue that acts of resistance gives Islam and Muslims a bad image
in the media, but the media is not a neutral body; it is the mouth piece for the
American led imperialism. In fact, it is the media that is constantly inciting
and legitimising the much greater levels of violence against the Muslim masses.
The journalists, editors, and commentators are the real violent pack of wild
hyenas, who write with the ink drawn from the innocent blood of the women and
children of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Like a pack of ugly hyenas, they
devour those who are voiceless whilst singing songs of free speech to them from
their monopoly position as columnists and editorials. They are constantly
encouraging state-terrorism against the Muslims, preaching a message of hate
under the toxic influence of militant liberalism.
From the recent Danish cartoons episode, one would have thought the moderates
would have learnt by now that the media and the fanatical liberal camp does not
need a reason to attack Islam and Muslims.
The media's portrayal of the violence is biased by any standards and it
functions to justify colonial violence; for example it conveys the image that
the F16 Pilots dropping huge bombs displaying shock-and-awe as a justified
response of a ‘just’ war (remember those real WMDs in Iraq facing the mythical
WMDs of Israel!), but the suicide bombers in Iraq with their tiny bombs are
criminals. These simpleton moderates should know that the acts of resistance are
not unilateral or one-sided; the context is the retaliation to much larger
levels of violence inflicted by the West.
b) Retaliation
Even as the bombs drop in Baghdad, seeing the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Palestine, and the porn-torture in Abu-Ghraib by the soldiers of freedom and
democracy, the moderates argue against those who are engaged in the noble acts
of resistance. Their logic is that Muslims should not lower themselves to the
level of the Americans by retaliating in kind. In other words, these moderates
are happy to march into Jenin, Fallujah, and Kabul, then wave their so-called
moral flag of victory standing over the dead bodies of the innocent Muslims
rather than defend them in the first place! They derive their so-called higher
‘moral’ values from the cowardice nature of turning the other cheek, which
defies human reason and contradicts Islamic values.
War and peace between nations is a bilateral relationship at the very least, so
how can one argue for adopting a unilateral position regardless of how the other
party is conducting. Yet, the confused moderates expect the Muslims to have an
absolute moral position in warfare regardless of how the enemy is behaving. This
means if the enemies bomb our cities, we should not bomb theirs, because the
‘wisdom’ of the moderates is that Muslims should have higher values and not kill
civilians. This type of advice sounds like the ethos of the Dodos that marched
to their own extinction. If we apply the above logic to say trade, this means if
a nation supplies faulty goods, the Muslims should still pay them as they have
an absolute moral position of keeping to their side of the bargain.
International relationship whether it is trade, diplomacy or warfare is based on
reciprocity, and this the reality of how it function. This is why the Quran says
clearly “fight them as they fight you” and not how you think they should be
fought! If they use explosives we too use that. If they kill our civilians we
too retaliate in kind to deter them from killing more of our civilians. This
conforms to reason, reality of life and to Islamic texts.
c) The killing of innocent people.
The moderates selectively and out of context cite the evidences, where the
Prophet (SAW) and His successors (Khalifs) forbade the killing of women and
children in the course of war. However, that was the initial position adopted by
the Muslim army and it is not absolute, otherwise it would contradict other
evidences. For example, the Prophet (SAW) also permitted the use of catapults in
war knowing that it would lead to the killings of non-combatants. Likewise,
under that absolute prohibition of killing non-combatants, Muslims could not
engage in warfare today, as the use of high explosives would inevitably lead to
losses of non-combatants. Therefore, adopting such a position would result in
instant capitulation, which is forbidden, as Muslims are required to defend
themselves adequately. The Quran explicitly commands the Muslims to defend and
to deter the enemy, and to deter the enemy one must match or excel the firepower
of the enemy and be prepared to use them in retaliation of kind. The notion of
innocent people in times of conflict is not defined by any laws or principles
but by the conduct of the parties involved. If a nation attacks the civilians of
another nation then by definition their own civilians become legitimate targets.
These shameless moderates will selectively point out the far fewer numbers of
civilians (who are collectively re-electing war mongering governments) killed in
retaliation, and concurrently remain silent towards the much greater number of
innocent Muslims killed by the Anglo-US-Israeli axis of evil. Of course, the
moderates will tell you of their opposition to the killing of innocent people by
pointing the retaliatory acts of 3/11, 7/7, 9/11, whilst the killing of Muslims
as simply a foreign policy that they dislike!
d) Armchair Jihadist versus the armchair hypocrites (traitors).
Some of the moderates feeling no shame in their lack of support for resistance
to the Anglo-American-Israeli aggression take a step further by criticising even
those who provide political support. They use the slur of armchair-Jihadist in
describing them, and demand that they should practice what they preach. Voicing
support is also part of Jihad and thus they are practicing what they are
preaching. Likewise not everyone who was pro-War over Iraq ended up in the
battlefield. This shows their hypocritical nature as these moderates make these
arguments only to the Muslims and not the non-Muslims who are voicing support
for war, perhaps a natural consequence of suffering from the good Muslim image
syndrome!
If one is unable to engage physically for any reason at the very least one can
provide support by voicing their opinions. That is far better than the moderates
who sneer at them, thus they show disdain for Jihad or any from of resistance to
the aggression; this is an act of cowardice and treachery. Like cowards and
hypocrites, their so-called support for Palestine or Iraq is a lie, as they are
constantly calling for resistance to cease without providing an alternative.
Such shameful language and behaviour is not even seen in the non-Muslims who are
openly supporting the resistance against imperial aggression.
by Yamin Zakaria
[1] Look at his failed corporate records, where many of the companies that he
ran like Spectrum 7 Energy Corp, which collapsed whilst he made millions. Add to
that is the oil piracy in Iraq where most of the contracts have gone to the
American firms like Halliburton, Bechtel, and MCI/WorldCom.
Submitted by a Mujahid