Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Just one small exmaple of a true Muslim radical

People often wonder where the so-called “moderate” Muslims are. I say “so-called” because the people who speak out against violence often do so at some risk to themselves and with great courage. Of all of the words used to describe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I don’t think I have ever heard him called a “moderate.” Indeed, there is a wonderful scene in the film Gandhi in which he rejects the phrase “passive resistance,” arguing that there is nothing “passive” about his non-violent struggle (last year, his grandson recently went to the Palestinians bearing the same message).

No, “moderate” is not the right word. It is the people who reject violence as a means for political action, who condemn terrorism even when it is committed against their enemies, and who speak out against the culture of death that permeates their societies who are the true radicals. Theirs is the voice of sanity.
Khaled Duzdar, the Palestinian co-director of the strategic affairs unit at the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information in Jerusalem, is just one such voice. In an editorial today in the Daily Star, Duzdar joins in the emerging chorus of Muslims who have spoken out fiercely against terrorism.

“Islamic governments and scholars shouldn't stay passive. They should assume their responsibilities now and think and plan how to cure and secure our families and societies from this widely spreading disease. They must not close their eyes and ears to the growing danger and say it isn't our problem. The insane missionaries of death are now knocking at our doors. Governments should act immediately to uproot them from our societies. Serious action should include preparing plans to cripple these people and their freedom of movement, to impede their receiving shelter, to draw plans to cut them off from their financial sources and to deny them the capabilities to recruit people. The authorities should also prevent mosques from being misused. Islamic scholars should draft plans on how to defend real Islam from the distorted allegations of those wrongfully acting in its name, and should raise public awareness that today our enemies come from among us. Society should also act in ensuring their children don't join such groups, while also isolating the latter….

Our condolences are not just for the four senior Palestinians killed in the last suicide attack in Amman; not just for the people we knew or for the families of the innocents whose only crime was attending the weddings of loved ones. Our condolences are for Islam and for what Islam should really represent. Our condolences are for ourselves, who have fallen into the mud of madness.”

Although many Muslims who are outraged are hypocritically angry only at the fact that now, the monster that they nurtured and supported (terrorism) has come to their weddings rather than, say, Israeli weddings, a hypocracy noted by Dennis Prager, some are taking this opportunity to condemn all terrorism, even though they are up against a culture that teaches children to hate (check out this Iranian cartoon for more). Duzdar is only the most recent example, but he is certainly not the first Muslim making his outrage known, and one can be certain that he will not be the last.

2 comments:

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

There are those who call for restraint on behalf of Israelis, nellie. They're called B'Tselem, the Israeli Supreme Court, etc., and what's more, they exist within Israeli society. The Palestinians, on the other hand, and often on the account of their own selected leadership and partnerships, lack such equivalent institutions. So there's your consistency - it doesn't exist. It's decidedly not evenhanded, and not because anyone on this website deemed it that way. And that's precisely why cases such as the one mentioned are worth noting here. I'm wondering if it would really be so hard for you to wake up and see that reality.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Cram, if I am correct, I believe I saw you address the element of intent - a blatantly ideological and political cudgel to elevate those who possess free will above those who can't help running their electronic mouth and relying on the power (I thought power was a bad thing?) of an unusual sense of "professionalism," all in a ploy to get them to fumble an attempt at a real argument. It's not fair. Someday the one-law will remove the barriers between those who recognize and possess free will and those who don't. It's a form of discriminatory power politics at its worst. I urge all others who don't have free will to also rise up - well, at least until someone else with a different agenda asks this of them.

Me nellie. Me no believe in free will. Me no need arguments. You will do as I say and believe what I state because I proclaim free will to be non-existent. Boo-Yah!