It's understandable that the vast majority of non-Muslims would not know the difference - after all, their primary source of information (Corporate Media) chooses to overlook such 'nuances'.
But I'm more worried about us Muslims and how we're slowly falling into the same confusion.
Most of us will label our Chechen brothers fighting against Russian aggression as Mujahideen. Same with our Palestinian brothers. As long as their efforts are utilizing legitimate means, directed towards legitimate targets.
Fine.
But are we as clear in our convictions when it comes to our fellow Iraqis and Afghanis? As Western Muslims, are our perspectives affected by the fact that they are resisting American and European forces?
It's funny how so many of us were so vocal in support of the Afghani jihad when it was the Russian in the 80's, but when the same resistance is taking place against NATO forces, we've turned silent.
OK, let's say that we support our brothers in Afghanistan, as it's their right to resist foreign occupation. What then do we think of outside Muslims who travel to Afghanistan to join the resistance?
Just because these folks are constantly termed as foreign fighters linked with Al-Qaeda, are we to blindly condemn them? Or should we look upon their struggles and sacrifice as praiseworthy and admirable?
These are the questions that we all need to ponder over as we read this recent story of a group of European Muslims who traveled to Afghanistan to join the jihad.
The story chronicles the strange journey of a group of Muslims from France and Belgium. This group had no gripe with their adopted nations (as they weren't looking to carry out terrorist activity in Europe). They simply felt the need to support their brethren in Afghanistan. Of course, as the story details, their struggle was not rewarded:
"After getting ripped off in Turkey and staggering through waist-deep snow in Iran, the little band arrived in Al Qaeda's lair in Pakistan last year, ready for a triumphant reception.
"We were expecting at least a welcome for 'our brothers from Europe' and a warm atmosphere of hospitality," Walid Othmani, a 25-year-old Frenchman from Lyon, recalled during an overnight interrogation in January.
Wary of spies, suspicious Al Qaeda chiefs grilled the half-dozen Belgians and French. They charged them $1,200 each for AK-47 rifles, ammunition and grenades...Then the trainees dodged missile strikes for months. They endured disease, quarrels and boredom, huddling in cramped compounds that defied heroic images of camps full of fraternal warriors."
So I'm left wondering, should we be supporting them or denouncing them? As citizens of the West, are we to sacrifice our loyalties to our faith in order to save face in our local communities?
I guess we can always fall back on the fail-safe method of denouncing them for 'attacking civilians' and carrying out 'indiscriminate bombings', as reported to us by the occupying forces and their media henchmen.
Yeah, that would seem most safe.
[Inspired by this TalkIslam exchange]
WAW
3 days ago
14 comments:
The first issue is those Europeans would be entering a conflict where they are fighting against treaty-bound allies (NATO) of their own country. So from a legal point of view, they were clearly in the wrong. This isn't John Walker Lindh anymore.
The second issue is that you are way simplifying things into Yes: support or No: condemn when the situations in all the countries you mentioned are way murky. Chechnya in particular is hideously complicated and by saying you endorse the rebel factions you are taking sides in what is essentially a muslim-on-muslim civil war at this point. I can't stand Kadyrov myself, but there stopped being any good guys over there for me personally after Maskhadov died.
We could go on with every other conflict you mentioned, but the bottom line for me here is that deciding whose side God fights on is clearer and clearer the farther away you sit from the conflict, and more and more messy the closer you look. In the end, only Allah knows which muslim dies on the battlefield as a martyr and which muslim does not.
(blank followup - forgot to sign up for emailed comments)
Salaam Brother Naeem,
Personally I never accuse them of them of terrorism because I don't know how they engaged in fighting the enemy. Here in KSA I was told that a local Yemeni imam's brother was killed fighting in Afghanistan leaving behind his wife and child. Now I don't know the circumstances under which he fought so I can't assume he was a terrorist simply because he left his ancestral home to fight in a foreign Muslim land. To me he sacrificed his life for a great cause (resisting foriegn invasion of Muslim lands).
And as a Muslim who grew up and currently has family living in the West (although we're not currently living there ourselves) I understand the reluctance Muslims in the West currently face in openly espousing their views towards the war. I understand how easily they'll come under suspicion if they say something like not all insurgents fighting in the war are terrorists. To that I say fine you don't have to tell everyone your views. But I think it is necessary to publicly criticize the war in front of those you trust (friends, family members, good neighbors, trustworthy coworkers, etc). We shouldn't stay silent regarding this unjust war against two Muslim lands. We should educate ourselves over the causes and motivations behind this war (read "Welcome to Pipelinistan" by Pepe Escobar over at Asia Times Online for an analysis). And we should confront and educate those who don't know all the real facts behind the war; while most people have an idea of the oil connection in the Iraq war, they are unaware of the petroleum connection of the Afghan war (pipeline from Afghanistan to the rest of the Central Asian states). We should also engage in online discussions with others in political/military discussion forums. I find it sad that most prominent Muslim organizations in America have resorted to only defending Islam against the label of terrorism. While this endeavor is by itself good, it is not enough. If you really want to defend Islam against unjust attacks over its character, educate people over how terrorists are formed in response to the creeping colonialization attempts by the American military and government into Muslim lands. As long as America engages in state tryranny and colonial oppression of Muslims, there will be people who'll resist whether as terrorists or as fighters for the cause of Islam.
AA- BinGregory,
Excellent points.
To what level does our citizenry of invading nations trump our loyalties to our faith? Without getting too preachy, I wonder if that legal argument will fly when we are questioned by Allah why we didn't lend a support to our oppressed brothers?
BTW, I believe that the individuals in the story were in fact prepared to revoke their passports (if that matters in our discussion).
Secondly, I can't say I agree with your depiction of those struggles as murky, simply because the occupying force has installed a puppet Muslim ruler or has supported Muslims factions amicable to said occupation. Mahmood Abbas in Palestine, Karzai in Afghanistan, Sharif in Somalia and your example of Kadyrov in Chechnya come to mind.
I agree that absolute declarations are a dangerous game, but c'mon, let's stop being so politically correct and call a spade a sellout when we see it.
Finally, when someone shows sincerity to their faith (as these guys in the story) and alot more guts than many of us could ever dream of, shouldn't we be supporting them, instead of writing them off?
AA- R (there, that's your new nick!)
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you 100%.
Assalamu Alaikum br. naeem. we really should not be like the West were special-interests have succeeding in mixing haq and batil. the Muslim prays as the prophet(SAW) prayed "oh' Allah show us the haq as haq ... and show us the batil as batil. we should not choose to fall into the trap of either supporting people who "have good intentions" but do terrrible things. a muslim has no excuse of ignorance he is a mukallaf and should seek knowledge first;with regard to the fiqh of Jihad or the situation about where he is going to for Jihad. we also should not find excuses for Western nations who invade and occupy Muslim lands. America in both Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be fought against. but the people who have became posters for the "jihad" against them are mostly people who do not count on Allah's Nasr but count on their ability to shock western tv viewrs. so they will pressure their govenments to leave. they kill more Muslims than they kill kuffaar. I have first hand experience with one such group. they are the Al shabaab of Somalia. they are basically takfiris. the other day the killed a woman I know because she took food to an injured relative in the hospital. the relative was fighting for the govenment forces when he was injured. the somali govenment has recently adapted sharia as the law of the land. but the alshabaab being an anarchist group keep killing, with the blessing of OBL, for God knows why. the bright side to the alshabaab story is that they are know confronted with a serious uprising against them. the uprising is coming from traditional sunni Ulima people who know real jihad. this will be replicated all over the Mislim world insha Allah. So far the al Shabaab have lost nine battles and did not win one single fight. the sufi Ulima who are fighting the al shabaab are people who are known as scholars among the communtiy.check out this story from the NYT from this link: http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2009/may/for_somalia_chaos_breeds_religious_war.aspx
Actually, this is the link. you may have copy and paste:
http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2009/may/for_somalia_chaos_breeds_religious_war.aspx
sorry its seems there a proplem ith the link try this u'll have copy and paste:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/world/africa/24somalia.html?_r=1
Salaam
Is it not true that an Islamic state is a prerequisite for military "jihad?"
AA- Abdullah,
"we should not choose to fall into the trap of either supporting people who "have good intentions" but do terrrible things."
Thank you for the reminder bro, but I don't believe that I've ever supported the carrying out of evil actions for the purpose of achieving positive goals. I've never believed that the ends justify the means - that is against core Islamic teachings.
" but the people who have became posters for the "jihad" against them are mostly people who do not count on Allah's Nasr but count on their ability to shock western tv viewrs. so they will pressure their govenments to leave. they kill more Muslims than they kill kuffaar. "
I would not be so quick to make such a general statement. Indeed, there are many shadowy factors playing significant roles in these struggles, so its difficult to tell who is on the right and who is on the wrong.
The issue in Somalia wreaks of straight up divide and conquer. The strategy is clear to align the salafis against the sufis (or in the case of Pakistan, deobandis vs barelwis).
I'm not buying it.
Look, the Shabab are not the Sahaba and thus their actions should be properly scrutinized. But I would like more to read from local unbiased sources instead of the NYTimes and what not.
AA- Amy,
Not sure, that maybe in reference to offensive jihad. I'll leave that questions for the scholars to argue.
Are you telling me that if my land is attacked, I have to wait for an Islamic state to be created before the resistance can be considered a valid jihad?
My other question is are the same scholars who showed undying support for the Afghan jihad against Russia in the 80's (when no Islamic state existed) doing the same now?
Assalamu Alaikum,
I agree with u bro Naeem that there are nefarious forces(i.e CIA, MI5) that are manipulating the the conflicts in the Muslim world. but us Being like the west and "showing our concern about Israel's excesses(thousands of palastenians" I mean Al qaeda, Al Shabab, Taliban Excesses( thousands of Muslims) while we approve of them generally. this shows moral ambiguity that is not becoming of a Muslim. the otherday I was wathing al Jazeera when I heard a report that a certain Taliban leader announced that they will kill the families of Pakistani govt officails unless they resign. I said to myself this must be something that the Pakistani Intel. made up. Later in the day I listened to the full report. It turns out that the said leader himself made the proclamation to an al Jazeera rporter. then I decided that that man must be a fasiq( unless the reporter is also in on it) who needs to be hunted down and put down. He has nothing to do with Jihaad. I know that there is a great need for reforms in Pakistan. that the current Pak. Istablishment exists for its own interests and western interests. while the people of pakistan are getting a raw deal. these people are not the people who will bring reforms to pakistan. there is a saying that goes: a haram cow does bear a halal calf. these people will only delay a real movement for an Islamic order. there are anarchists, and they are not able to create any sustainable movement or organization. with regard to your comment that there is a divide and conquer thing going on with sufis and "salafis" that is just you blinding your self to the actions of these mad-cow infected Takfiris who kill great ulima, who dig the graves of the awliya,and openly proclaim it. they reject all the teachings of Islam with regard to jihad and the implementation of the sharia. I did not get my info about them from news I have first hand experience with them. I do not know about the Taliban in Afghanistan. If I hear about a legitimate Jihad with legitimate means I would definitely support it. Oneday I saw Ramsfeld proclaim on tv that he would not allow sharia law to be implemented in Iraq. I said to myself this guy just made a perfect case for Jihad to be launched against his troops.There were many Muslims who stood up for that Jihad; then came Al zarqawi. killing iraqis by the hundreds just to spite Bush and Ramy. his haram actions did not just kill iraqis it also killed the jihad in Iraq. I knew that the iraqi people would choose the lesser of two evils and hope( as I hoped because I really felt the pain of the Iraqi Muslims) that the Americans would bring some sort of stability were people would be able to live. so br Naeem put yourself in the should of normal people in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan. suppose you were living in those places with ur children(may allah keep them safe) would you let these anarchist deny them peaceful lives so that they might establish a Qutbist state? I would love to see Muslims all over the word wrest their destiny away from western interests and bring peace, justice, and prosperity through Islamic system and Law. that would require serious people who emprace the prophetic example and who desire that the kalima be uppermost. not these idiots who kill muslims and give the kuffar more amunition to subjugate and exploit the Muslims.
So, br Naeem Allah gave us a furqan we should use it. and not fall into maral ambiguity. by the way I am not theorizing. only a few weaks ago my nephew who was 10 years old was killed, toghether with fifteen others, by a shell fired from al shabaab positions. one of them was a muezzin, an other was the Muezzins daughter. let me remind you the government was declared that that they would rule the country by sharia. they did not even use the ambigous wording that the "sharia would be a source of law" as in Iraq. so don't even mention the Shabaab in the same lines with the sahaba(ra).
I opologize for the long article and anything you find offensive Assalamu alaykum.
AA- Abdullah,
I don't beleive that I'm being the least bit ambiguous in my morals. I'm very clear of what I support and what I condemn.
What is ambiguous when it comes to these groups (Taliban, Shabab) is the facts. Both sides are NOT equally represented. So that doesn't allow us to make fact-based conclusions. We are left to rely on biased sources.
Your example of the Pakistani Taliban leader on Jazeera is a good example. It is unequivocally deplorable to target family members of government officials.
But should that statement trump the support for the overall mission of the Taliban? Was it representative of all the various factions of the Taliban?
If that is moral ambiguity on my part, then so be it. I refuse to allow myself to be forced to one side or the other. I know its cliche (although based on the Quran), but I'm for the truth and justice, even if it means going against fellow Muslims.
"suppose you were living in those places with ur children(may allah keep them safe) would you let these anarchist deny them peaceful lives so that they might establish a Qutbist state?"
But why must it be either/or? Why cannot the endeavor for an Islamic state be carried out peacefully? Because that is the sunnah of Allah (swt). Kufr and Taghut will always resist, so should we choose peace under Kufr or struggle under Islam?
"only a few weaks ago my nephew who was 10 years old was killed, toghether with fifteen others, by a shell fired from al shabaab positions."
Very sorry to hear that, but how does that only reflect poorly on the Shabab? Why not place blame on the government as well?
"the [Sharif] government was declared that that they would rule the country by sharia."
That's meaningless. Puppet governments all over the Muslim world have made equally hollow declarations. The proof is in the pudding my friend.
BrNaeem-
I am fully behind you with the "I refuse to pick sides".
I agree, the facts are so biased living in the west that we DON'T know who is right and who is wrong.
Yet, I do think that you are too uncritical of these forces(i.e. Taliban). I'm sure they commit atrocities on a regular basis.
If their goal is legitimate yet their methods are un-Islamic; their ways are wrong. The ends dont justify the means. Sure we can say that the facts are bias, but we can also say that they DO commit crimes regularly; so should be critical of those actions?
It seems that no matter the incident, you just label it as, "its too bias, how do I know whats true and whats not?" and dont condemn any of their actions.
And that question, if the Somali government accepts Sharia as the rule of law, then why should there be Jihad. Same with Afghanistan?
-The Muslim Kid-
Post a Comment