By Sherri Muzher
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 31, 2009
All Islamic groups are allied with Al-Qaeda, right?
That has certainly been the wisdom accepted by so many in the post-9/11 years.
And though I am an American-Palestinian Christian, it is assumed that I am Muslim and therefore a Hamas supporter. This was made clear to me by a Detroit-area talk show host earlier this year when he chastised me for not knowing the names of the Hamas leadership. The producer later told me that it “was just hard to believe you didn’t know the names.”
I resented the implication but my guess was that they were not the only people to make this assumption. So I’d like to answer by default... no, not all Islamic groups share al Al-Qaeda’s vision or tactics.
When Hamas ruthlessly shut down an Al-Qaeda-inspired faction in Gaza recently, you can bet that most Palestinians were content with this result. Even when Hamas was elected in 2006, they won because the people wanted to punish the ruling Fatah for their corruption, not because they embraced a Taleban-like atmosphere.
I’m not saying there aren’t pangs of religious zealousness by Hamas. There are and it alarms the secular majority. The silver lining is that Hamas keeps tabs on the people’s pulse and has reversed itself, on occasion. An example of this was when Hamas tried to ban a Palestinian book of folktales, “Speak Bird, Speak Again” in 2007 for “sexual expression.” Palestinians were outraged and the ban was reversed after “re-examining” the book. And now there is the recent “urging” to Muslim women to wear head scarves. This has now been greeted with concern. It is safe to say that Al-Qaeda would disregard public opinion.
So why are there Al-Qaeda-inspired players now in Gaza?
The phrase, “oppression breeds extremism” is not psychobabble. It’s the reality. As the vice keeps tightening on Gaza and as the alienation from the rest of the world increases, so does the desperation and turning toward religious extremists. This happens everywhere; Gaza is no exception.
Supporters of Israel who have been gleeful at the Palestinian internal chaos ought to consider two points.
One, Hamas’ earliest support came from Israel in an effort to counter the secular and nationalist PLO. According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, “the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism.”
“The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it,” he said.
Second, mischief does not lead to good things and with Al-Qaeda growing in influence in Gaza, Israel needs to do some serious soul-searching. Using humanitarian goods against 1.5 million Gazans as a weapon, be it food or fuel, is unconscionable and illegal. If “security” is the name of the game, how does it help having Al-Qaeda next door in Gaza?
And what can we do as the superpower of the world?
Well, it would help if we leave the two powerful Palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas) alone to work out a national unity government, which the Palestinian public and diaspora have demanded. The factions actually agree on the principle of forming a state side by side with Israel on the 1967 Green Line.
Yet, unity has remained elusive. There is a bizarre notion that marginalizing Hamas and discouraging Palestinian unity somehow works in our interests or those of the regions.
It obviously doesn’t.
Finally, I’d like to end on a hopeful note. People understandably tire of the Mideast conflict. Nobody can “ditto” that more than family and friends. But with the increased “oomph” to solving the Palestine vs. Israel conflict, we are also one step closer to removing the biggest rallying cry for Al-Qaeda-like extremist groups. These groups often use the Palestinian cause to increase their memberships and then threaten the world.
Think about it.
What better way to serve US and world interests than by eliminating that rallying cry?
Sherri Muzher, JD is director of Michigan Media Watch, Michigan, US.
Showing posts with label extremism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extremism. Show all posts
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Yale's Misguided Retreat
By Mona Eltahawy
The Washington Post
August 29, 2009
In deciding to omit the images from a book it is publishing about the controversy sparked by Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, Yale University Press has handed a victory to extremists. Both Yale and the extremists distorting this issue should be ashamed. I say this as a Muslim who supported the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in late 2005 and as someone who also understands the offense taken at those cartoons by many Muslims, including my mother. After a while, she and I agreed to stop talking about them because the subject always made us argue.
For more than two months in 2006, I lived in Copenhagen, where I debated the issue with Danes — Muslim and non-Muslim — including Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the images, and Naser Khader, Denmark's first Muslim parliamentarian, who launched the liberal Democratic Muslims group just as the controversy unfolded.
Speaking at a conference that Khader hosted at the Danish parliament a year after the cartoons' publication, I warned of two right wings — a non-Muslim one that hijacked the issue to fuel racism against immigrants in Denmark, and a Muslim one that hijacked the issue to silence Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric.
Sadly, both groups are celebrating Yale's decision because it has proven them "right."
The controversy that many might recall as "Danish newspaper publishes cartoons of the prophet; Muslim world goes berserk" was actually much more complex. What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:
Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere.
Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press's forthcoming book, "Cartoons That Shook the World," recognizes that lag. According to Yale Press's Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated "first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria."
I'm perplexed why Klausen agreed — even "reluctantly" — to Yale's decision to pull the cartoons. Ironically, she told the Guardian that she wanted to publish the cartoons to make the case "that some of them are Islamophobic, and in the tradition of anti-Semitism" — the latter a view that would hardly inflame many Muslims.
Yale also cut from the book images of the prophet meant to illustrate the history of the depiction of Muhammad in Ottoman, Persian and Western art. Sunni Muslims observe a prohibition on depictions of the prophet — but since when has Yale? It says it pulled the images on advice from Islamic and counterterrorism experts that they could incite violence, but at least one author and expert on Islam, Reza Aslan, has criticized the move as "idiotic" (he also retracted a blurb he had written in support of the book).
The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region's media.
Does Yale realize that it has proven what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons — that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?
Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to "prove" who could best "defend" Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offense to the prophet's memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, "Behead those who offend the prophet.")
When a group of Danish imams flew to the Middle East in late 2005 with "offending images" of the prophet — some cartoons from the controversy and other images taken from the Web sites of extremist groups — the timing was ripe for the bandwagon of outrage to roll: The Muslim Brotherhood had become the largest opposition group in the Egyptian parliament. In January 2006, Hamas had just won the Palestinian elections.
One by one, regimes and Islamists competed in outrage, whipping up a frenzy that at times spiraled out of control.
Unfortunately, those dictators and radicals who want to speak for all Muslims — and yet care little for Muslim life — have found an ally in Yale University Press.
Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born commentator based in New York, writes and lectures on Arab and Muslim issues. She is a columnist for the Danish newspaper Politiken. Her e-mail address is info@monaeltahawy.com.
The Washington Post
August 29, 2009
In deciding to omit the images from a book it is publishing about the controversy sparked by Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, Yale University Press has handed a victory to extremists. Both Yale and the extremists distorting this issue should be ashamed. I say this as a Muslim who supported the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in late 2005 and as someone who also understands the offense taken at those cartoons by many Muslims, including my mother. After a while, she and I agreed to stop talking about them because the subject always made us argue.
For more than two months in 2006, I lived in Copenhagen, where I debated the issue with Danes — Muslim and non-Muslim — including Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the images, and Naser Khader, Denmark's first Muslim parliamentarian, who launched the liberal Democratic Muslims group just as the controversy unfolded.
Speaking at a conference that Khader hosted at the Danish parliament a year after the cartoons' publication, I warned of two right wings — a non-Muslim one that hijacked the issue to fuel racism against immigrants in Denmark, and a Muslim one that hijacked the issue to silence Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric.
Sadly, both groups are celebrating Yale's decision because it has proven them "right."
The controversy that many might recall as "Danish newspaper publishes cartoons of the prophet; Muslim world goes berserk" was actually much more complex. What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:
Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere.
Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press's forthcoming book, "Cartoons That Shook the World," recognizes that lag. According to Yale Press's Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated "first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria."
I'm perplexed why Klausen agreed — even "reluctantly" — to Yale's decision to pull the cartoons. Ironically, she told the Guardian that she wanted to publish the cartoons to make the case "that some of them are Islamophobic, and in the tradition of anti-Semitism" — the latter a view that would hardly inflame many Muslims.
Yale also cut from the book images of the prophet meant to illustrate the history of the depiction of Muhammad in Ottoman, Persian and Western art. Sunni Muslims observe a prohibition on depictions of the prophet — but since when has Yale? It says it pulled the images on advice from Islamic and counterterrorism experts that they could incite violence, but at least one author and expert on Islam, Reza Aslan, has criticized the move as "idiotic" (he also retracted a blurb he had written in support of the book).
The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region's media.
Does Yale realize that it has proven what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons — that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?
Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to "prove" who could best "defend" Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offense to the prophet's memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, "Behead those who offend the prophet.")
When a group of Danish imams flew to the Middle East in late 2005 with "offending images" of the prophet — some cartoons from the controversy and other images taken from the Web sites of extremist groups — the timing was ripe for the bandwagon of outrage to roll: The Muslim Brotherhood had become the largest opposition group in the Egyptian parliament. In January 2006, Hamas had just won the Palestinian elections.
One by one, regimes and Islamists competed in outrage, whipping up a frenzy that at times spiraled out of control.
Unfortunately, those dictators and radicals who want to speak for all Muslims — and yet care little for Muslim life — have found an ally in Yale University Press.
Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born commentator based in New York, writes and lectures on Arab and Muslim issues. She is a columnist for the Danish newspaper Politiken. Her e-mail address is info@monaeltahawy.com.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Trouble With Islam
Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.
By Tawfik Hamid
The Wall Street Journal
April 3, 2007
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name — Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals — who unceasingly claim to support human rights — have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria — which happened in the last few decades — or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand — but so far haven't — that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
By Tawfik Hamid
The Wall Street Journal
April 3, 2007
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name — Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals — who unceasingly claim to support human rights — have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria — which happened in the last few decades — or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand — but so far haven't — that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Into the Abyss
By Hussein Shobokshi
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 20, 2009
As if the Palestinians needed a new chapter to be added to their sad story! It seems, however, that the road is still full of sadness, shocks, and unpleasant surprises. How else can one explain the harsh bloody clashes between the "government" of the Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip and the new "alien" faction called Jund Ansar Allah? These clashes led to the killing of scores of people, including Dr. Abdul Latif Al Mousa, the obscure and controversial leader of this faction who is also known by his code name of Abu Noor al-Maqdisi.
The clashes erupted after the man [Abdul Latif Al Mousa] proclaimed the establishment of an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza Strip in an extremely radical style reminiscent of the same violent tone of the factions fighting the government in Algeria, the same tone used by the Taliban, and the same tone used by the Al-Qaeda organization. They use the same words, the same tone, and the same style and are all photocopies of the same harsh pseudo-ideologies that refuse to co-exist with anyone. The truth is that the chaotic style and odd narcissism adopted by these groups is no longer bizarre. One wakes up from his sleep, loudly proclaims himself the leader of the Ummah [Community of Islam], and asks for allegiance and blind obedience as did Abu Noor al-Maqdisi. The destruction, devastation, discord, and division that follow are not important! It is an ignorant and selfish style always paid for by the innocents. Nevertheless, it is a scene that is repeated in different forms and shapes in various parts of the world. The only losers are the Muslims that continue to constitute a silent majority. This silent majority needs to take firmer and stronger stands in confronting the "ideas" of these groups and in banning the publication and circulation of "heritage" books that are loaded with these ideas and that continue to be glorified as the mothers of all sources and the springs of thought.
Hamas created an extremist environment in the Gaza Strip and nurtured it with dictatorial management. It was natural for such an experiment to produce one that is even more radical and excessive in its practices. The result was this "provisional" Jund Ansar Allah that seems not to have been crushed completely. Fresh statements by "new" leaders were issued promising revenge and more "jihad". Only a few hours after the news that al-Maqdisi had been liquidated, a fresh group of the same "type" emerged also in Gaza calling itself "Suyuf al-Haq" [Swords of Justice] threatening Hamas to target its leaders and security centers. The Palestinians are presenting Israel with the biggest service in history. They are liquidating one another systematically and consistently without mercy. All the shame and criticism leveled against Israel about its ability to produce fundamentalist extremism can now also be leveled at the Palestinians themselves. The code names of armed organizations that hide behind religious epithets such as "Swords of Justice", "Jund Ansar Allah", and others are all plans for political destruction. A firm stand should be taken against such groups because their ideologies can only lead to plunging into one abyss after another.
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 20, 2009
As if the Palestinians needed a new chapter to be added to their sad story! It seems, however, that the road is still full of sadness, shocks, and unpleasant surprises. How else can one explain the harsh bloody clashes between the "government" of the Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip and the new "alien" faction called Jund Ansar Allah? These clashes led to the killing of scores of people, including Dr. Abdul Latif Al Mousa, the obscure and controversial leader of this faction who is also known by his code name of Abu Noor al-Maqdisi.
The clashes erupted after the man [Abdul Latif Al Mousa] proclaimed the establishment of an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza Strip in an extremely radical style reminiscent of the same violent tone of the factions fighting the government in Algeria, the same tone used by the Taliban, and the same tone used by the Al-Qaeda organization. They use the same words, the same tone, and the same style and are all photocopies of the same harsh pseudo-ideologies that refuse to co-exist with anyone. The truth is that the chaotic style and odd narcissism adopted by these groups is no longer bizarre. One wakes up from his sleep, loudly proclaims himself the leader of the Ummah [Community of Islam], and asks for allegiance and blind obedience as did Abu Noor al-Maqdisi. The destruction, devastation, discord, and division that follow are not important! It is an ignorant and selfish style always paid for by the innocents. Nevertheless, it is a scene that is repeated in different forms and shapes in various parts of the world. The only losers are the Muslims that continue to constitute a silent majority. This silent majority needs to take firmer and stronger stands in confronting the "ideas" of these groups and in banning the publication and circulation of "heritage" books that are loaded with these ideas and that continue to be glorified as the mothers of all sources and the springs of thought.
Hamas created an extremist environment in the Gaza Strip and nurtured it with dictatorial management. It was natural for such an experiment to produce one that is even more radical and excessive in its practices. The result was this "provisional" Jund Ansar Allah that seems not to have been crushed completely. Fresh statements by "new" leaders were issued promising revenge and more "jihad". Only a few hours after the news that al-Maqdisi had been liquidated, a fresh group of the same "type" emerged also in Gaza calling itself "Suyuf al-Haq" [Swords of Justice] threatening Hamas to target its leaders and security centers. The Palestinians are presenting Israel with the biggest service in history. They are liquidating one another systematically and consistently without mercy. All the shame and criticism leveled against Israel about its ability to produce fundamentalist extremism can now also be leveled at the Palestinians themselves. The code names of armed organizations that hide behind religious epithets such as "Swords of Justice", "Jund Ansar Allah", and others are all plans for political destruction. A firm stand should be taken against such groups because their ideologies can only lead to plunging into one abyss after another.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Hamas: Extremism Breeds Extremism
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat (London)
August 16, 2009
Armed conflict between Palestinians has returned to Gaza once more, however this time it is against the Islamic Hamas movement in the name of religion and under the pretext of Jihad. On Friday, an extremist group announced the establishment of a new Islamic Emirate; the group also announced that it considered Hamas to be a secular movement that had falsely laid claim to Islam.
The Salafist Jihadist group Jund Ansar Allah announced the establishment of the "Islamic Emirate of Palestine…in the heart of the Beit al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]." Dr. Abdul Latif Mousa AKA Abu Noor al-Maqdisi called for "acceptance and allegiance [to the new Islamic Emirate]."
In his Friday sermon, al-Maqdisi said that if Hamas follows the path that it is following then the movement is nothing more than a secular party with false affiliations to Islam in the same manner as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyup Erdogan. It also seems that the honeymoon between the Turkish government and our extremists has come to an end, and this is a subject that I will return to in a future article.
Al-Maqdisi said that Hamas fears the West, particularly America, and that the Hamas movement and government still has "time and opportunity so long as it does not move against the Sheikh al Islam Ibn-Taymiyah mosque" which is the Jund Ansar Allah stronghold [in Rafah].
The question here then is; is what happened in Gaza [following this sermon] surprising?
Of course not, this was only a surprise to those who were not paying attention [to the situation] and endorsed the Hamas movement, as well as accused of treason anybody who described the Hamas coup in Gaza as a mistake and a crime, and said that this would lead to the entire Gaza Strip becoming like Afghanistan under the Taliban, which is in fact what happened. This [outcome] may also seem strange to some, as a result of the censorship and control of information taking place in the Gaza Strop, not to mention the collusion of some Arab media outlets and figures with regards to the media coverage of the situation in Gaza following the Israeli war that took place early this year.
The extremist language used by the Salafist Jihadist group that was led by Al Maqdisi is no different than the language used by Hamas against the Fatah movement, from inflammatory language to putting forward accusations of treason and being agents [of foreign powers]. It is enough to recall what Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas said which was that Hamas was rushing to kill Fatah members believing that "In killing you, I will enter Paradise."
What happened is therefore normal because extremism breeds extremism, and division only brings further division and underdevelopment. As a result of this an extremist group emerged which viewed Hamas as being soft, secular, and treasonous. I wish there was a camera to show the reaction of the Hamas leaders and those who support this movement in our Arab world to this new extremist group describing them as secular and treasonous.
We are now at an important crossroads where we will see how the fanatical, and those that are fooled by them, as well as those who are dragged along with them, will deal with what is happening in Gaza, especially since Hamas threatened to destroy the site where the Jund Ansar Islam members were sheltering adopting the Israeli example of destroying the house of any Palestinian who takes up arms against it.
Today we are able to say to the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Hamas movement in Gaza, its members throughout the Arab world, and especially its defenders, from the writers in the Gulf media to the internet "Mujahedeen," that you reap what you sow, that extremism only breeds extremism, and that so long as Hamas underestimates the situation, things in Gaza will only get worse.
Asharq Al-Awsat (London)
August 16, 2009
Armed conflict between Palestinians has returned to Gaza once more, however this time it is against the Islamic Hamas movement in the name of religion and under the pretext of Jihad. On Friday, an extremist group announced the establishment of a new Islamic Emirate; the group also announced that it considered Hamas to be a secular movement that had falsely laid claim to Islam.
The Salafist Jihadist group Jund Ansar Allah announced the establishment of the "Islamic Emirate of Palestine…in the heart of the Beit al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]." Dr. Abdul Latif Mousa AKA Abu Noor al-Maqdisi called for "acceptance and allegiance [to the new Islamic Emirate]."
In his Friday sermon, al-Maqdisi said that if Hamas follows the path that it is following then the movement is nothing more than a secular party with false affiliations to Islam in the same manner as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyup Erdogan. It also seems that the honeymoon between the Turkish government and our extremists has come to an end, and this is a subject that I will return to in a future article.
Al-Maqdisi said that Hamas fears the West, particularly America, and that the Hamas movement and government still has "time and opportunity so long as it does not move against the Sheikh al Islam Ibn-Taymiyah mosque" which is the Jund Ansar Allah stronghold [in Rafah].
The question here then is; is what happened in Gaza [following this sermon] surprising?
Of course not, this was only a surprise to those who were not paying attention [to the situation] and endorsed the Hamas movement, as well as accused of treason anybody who described the Hamas coup in Gaza as a mistake and a crime, and said that this would lead to the entire Gaza Strip becoming like Afghanistan under the Taliban, which is in fact what happened. This [outcome] may also seem strange to some, as a result of the censorship and control of information taking place in the Gaza Strop, not to mention the collusion of some Arab media outlets and figures with regards to the media coverage of the situation in Gaza following the Israeli war that took place early this year.
The extremist language used by the Salafist Jihadist group that was led by Al Maqdisi is no different than the language used by Hamas against the Fatah movement, from inflammatory language to putting forward accusations of treason and being agents [of foreign powers]. It is enough to recall what Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas said which was that Hamas was rushing to kill Fatah members believing that "In killing you, I will enter Paradise."
What happened is therefore normal because extremism breeds extremism, and division only brings further division and underdevelopment. As a result of this an extremist group emerged which viewed Hamas as being soft, secular, and treasonous. I wish there was a camera to show the reaction of the Hamas leaders and those who support this movement in our Arab world to this new extremist group describing them as secular and treasonous.
We are now at an important crossroads where we will see how the fanatical, and those that are fooled by them, as well as those who are dragged along with them, will deal with what is happening in Gaza, especially since Hamas threatened to destroy the site where the Jund Ansar Islam members were sheltering adopting the Israeli example of destroying the house of any Palestinian who takes up arms against it.
Today we are able to say to the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Hamas movement in Gaza, its members throughout the Arab world, and especially its defenders, from the writers in the Gulf media to the internet "Mujahedeen," that you reap what you sow, that extremism only breeds extremism, and that so long as Hamas underestimates the situation, things in Gaza will only get worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
