Dear Imam Johari,
You probably don’t remember me. Actually, I’m certain you don’t. I think I’ve met you only twice; once at an MSA Iftar dinner we shared a table, and the other time I attended a campfire lecture you gave at Dar al-Taqwa, where, I might add, you displayed quite a beautiful voice in singing some nasheeds.
And eventhough we’ve only met twice, I’ve known you for quite some time, as is true for most of the American Muslim community. Your reputation precedes itself and I humbly acknowledge that your years of service at the national level for the cause of Islam dwarf my meager local community efforts of years past.
And that is why it has pained me to read your past few posts.
You started with an open declaration calling for Muslims to adopt the principle of non-violence. Surely, non-violence has its place in a larger movement of resistance, but it cannot be its sole strategy. There must be, as it always has been, space at the table for resistance by force. Surely, you are intimately aware of the American civil rights struggle with the existence of the black power effort in conjunction with the non-violence movement. Also, armed resistance played a significant role in the other example you cited, the South African anti-apartheid struggle.
And the same type of armed resistance has been playing a vital role in defying the authoritarian control of Israel over both the Palestinians as well as Lebanon. It can be argued that if not for the constant thorn-pricking by Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in South Lebanon), Israeli forces would still be firmly established in those territories.
Dear Imam Johari, you would be well served to read this excellent piece by Max Ajl on the inability of a purely non-violent movement to affect positive change, especially in the I/P conflict.
“But the sort of non-violence Taylor supports is the sort that castrates resistance, and takes resistance out of the realm of history and into the realm of religion. What would Taylor have recommended to the Vietnamese? There is nothing nefarious about defending oneself from armed attack. Making it nefarious writes the Palestinian right to resist out of history, reserving righteous violence and force for the Western powers that already almost monopolize it.”
As the writer notes, look at the emasculated example of the MV Rachel Corrie, the June 5 ship that attempted to break the Gaza blockade. The IDF swiftly diverted the ship and the activists quietly complied with nary a cry. How effective was that?
In your call for non-violence you have mysteriously conflated the issue of illegitimate violence (e.g. suicide bombings of civilians) with the strategic usage of force employed by resistance groups. While the former is clearly indefensible, the latter is essential in opposing oppression.
It is a bit dispiriting to hear from a prominent American Muslim leader as yourself the unconditional call for non-violence by the Palestinians, as if such tactics have never been employed by the weaker side. For years, non-violence has played a leading role in the resistance against Israeli aggression, especially with the increased participation of foreign peaceful organizations.
So, for you to state your thoughts as you have, you are (unknowingly) bolstering the argument that Israel is justified in its actions to defend itself against this delusional ‘barrage of violence’.
Surely, that is not a sentiment you wish to express.
Ajl sums it up in the end of his article: “Those who resisted violently were brave. Those who resisted non-violently were brave. All were right. All were just. Solidarity organizations can agree in advance to resist or not to resist, as Taylor instructs us. But most oppression in human history has been thrown off by horrible violence. Frankly, if a man has a gun pointed at my head on my own territory and has shot the person standing next to me, and I can disarm that man, I will disarm him. And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me. Writing about it admittedly makes for good copy and good employment for those living and writing in Western countries where power is eager to dissolve an internationally-sanctioned right to resist. For those living under the gun, Taylor’s prescriptions may seem a little odder.”
My other grievance is with regards to your blog post on the topic of Imam Anwar Awlaki. You write that Islamic bookstores and other businesses should stop selling his famous lectures, such as Lives of the Prophets, due to his recent calls in support of unIslamic acts of violence. You cite your concern that innocent Muslims who may be positively affected by his lectures, which you acknowledge as being extremely beneficial, could be led down the slippery slope towards his more recent lectures advocating unIslamic acts of violence.
How ironic is it that your warning of a slippery slope is itself leading you down another slippery slope. If we begin to advocate the censoring of Islamically legitimate material due to questionable views held by the author, where will this take us? You are creating a precedent that can be used in future calls to ban such revolutionary authors such Syed Qutb or Maududi.
Surely, that is not a precedent you wish to set.
As intolerable as Imam Anwar’s views on suicide bombing may be, it is equally intolerable to censor his legitimate work in fear of leading astray the ‘naïve’ and ‘ignorant’.
This reeks of paternalistic totalitarianism. Because lay-Muslims are too stupid to tell right from wrong, the Muslim leadership must censor the good stuff from the bad stuff.
Huh?!
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of all the Shia material. And all that goofy Sufi stuff as well. These books could really lead people astray, no?
I’m sure you realize that such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of a free society.
Many know you as a man of serious principle and strong leadership. But I must say that your past few posts have come off as someone trying to appease more than lead. I don’t think even Fox News has made such demands of the Muslim American community. So why would you? Also, what gives with you admitting that you've learned from Steve Emerson? The clown journalist has no interest in creating a working relationship with the Muslim community, as evidenced by his obnoxiously condescending response to you, yet you are touting his approval?
These past few posts seem like some ill-conceived PR campaign attempting to win over the distrusting American public. ‘Hey, look at us American Muslims. We understand you all are afraid of us, so watch us bend over backwards to prove our allegiance by cutting all relations with this new bogeyman, Imam Anwar, no matter how positive his work may have been to thousands and thousands of young Muslims. And we won’t stop there. We’ll throw in a complete rejection of all forms of violence resistance, choosing the more acceptable (to the American Empire) approach of non-violence. Now can someone please call Michelle Malkin so we can schedule a nice photo-op?’
In conclusion, while my letter is addressed to you, my thoughts are not solely restricted to you. They are more intended to address a trend I am fearful may be growing in the American Muslim community in specific, and the international Muslim community at large. That is why I chose to share my thoughts on my humble blog instead of writing to you in private.
Your brother,
Naeem
WAW
2 days ago
20 comments:
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
In my observation, non-violence is the type of "resistance" that oppressors and their friends love, because it means that they can continue oppressing or doing business with the oppressors. Look how the British intelligentsia pours adulation on Aung San Suu Kyi, who is supposedly a pacifist yet derives her "authority" from being the daughter of a founding general in the Burmese army, a woman who left her family (including a 10- or 11-year old son) in 1988 and has spent most of the time since running an entirely futile campaign in Burma, while the generals have only entrenched their position and used the country as a private fiefdom ever since. They will only be defeated by force of arms and, probably thanks largely to ASSK, that has never been forthcoming. (I wrote about this recently here.)
Excellent post Naeem. I also read Imam Johari's posts and was surprised that as a Muslim that one would call for non-violence, when the very occupying forces in some parts of the world use some of the most highly sophisticated military equipment, chemicals and bombs to fight an under-equipped civilian army of part-time resistance fighters. Namely in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would have expected Imam Johari to:
1. Denounce suicide bombings and killing of innocent people.
2. Denounce Al-Qaeda and its global Jihad.
3. Ask people not to read beyond Imam Anwar's pre-extremist publications. But not an outright ban, as that violates freedom of thought and speech.
Islam is a religion that strives to seek the peaceful method of resistance and non-violence is integral to that. But it also, just like any secular nation or people are allowed to, will use force if necessary to defend itself (or its people).
The reality is that if you take religion out of the equation, all of these people in hotspots still have their birth-right to defend themselves in whichever way they want. America and the Britain constantly use this thinking to justify harsher security measures and fund some of the most costly wars. ALL IN THE NAME OF DEFENCE.
How can Imam Johari call on Muslims to stop resisting? I feel he is completely appeasing another authority and has gone against a fundamental right of a human being and a Muslim. His strategy is an ideal that in reality cannot be employed in any of the current unbalanced hotspots.
To end this, I denounce all forms of terrorism and killing of innocent people, it is both un-Islamic and against human nature. But the right to fight with arms is a human one to defend your home, country or family.
Jazakallahu Khair Br.Naeem. Excellent post. Fighting and physical Jihad is mentioned numerous times in the Quran and hadith, yet people are trying to deny those people their right.
Our history is rich with islamically legal violent resistance. Are you denying our history? Salahudeen (RA) obviously missed a trick there; he should have wrote to King Richard asking him to leave, or his soldiers should have lined up and sang "Kum ba ya".
It seems Naeem, you and many others didn't read Imam Johari's post or maybe didn't understand it.
The key points he stated were:
*Non-Violence is the only effective method to establish positive SOCIAL change.
*Violence cannot create lasting peace and it has been exposed again for what it is – a cruel deception.
You clearly, by design or by malice, stated Imam Johari said something else. You attack that idea and then act as though you defeat Imam Johari's original thought. That deception is the first trick that debaters who can't successful defeat an idea learn and use.
The Imam DID NOT call for non-violent resistance for MUSLIMS. Only in case of Palestine. That is topic of his post.
He did not state nor imply Palestinians do nothing. He clearly stated the concrete actions to be taken:
"Those in the international community must continue the pressure on the United Nations and all key allies of the State of Israel and especially my government, The United States, to end the blockade on Gaza, NOW! As we did in the South African Apartheid movement; artists and musicians, faith-leaders and public intellectuals most boycott the resorts and entertainment venues of the Israeli rivera. Divestment campaigns must be organized and the voices of moderate Israeli’s must be given attention. There are many organizations making recommendations to withdraw their ambassadors and to cut funding to the Israeli government. Each and everyone of us must commit to a plan of action and stay with it."
I will ask you to prove Imam Johari wrong. Specifically name a place where violence "has created a lasting peace". Also where in the world has violence created "POSTIVE SOCIAL" change?
I'm sure you can name plenty of places where violence has created POLITICAL change but not positive social change. Nor you can you name a place in history where lasting peace was established by violence. Any place in history where violence was used to force social change years later resistance groups formed to violent attack those regimes.
on Al Awlaki
Anwar is cleary out of his mind. From his writings you anyone can see he like many of so-called "salafis" look upon anyone who disagrees with them as hypocrites.
Because of his radical views Muslims should disassociate form that mad man. It's the responsibility and honor of those who have knowledge to speak the truth! What Al awalaki has stated is in clear contradiction of Qur'an & Sunnah.
He has praised two men who has indiscriminating targeted women and children. An immutable teaching of the Prophet. When one "scholar" has done things that harm Muslims (such as awlaki's words of encouragement) and teaches actions that totally go against the teachings of Islam. The Ulama must condemn such a person to minimize the harm that person can cause to entire ummah.
As well as there's nothing within anwar's lectures that hasn't said or can be said by another scholar.
Imam Johari said as much within his post:
"The life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the companions are not original ideas, they are taken from well-known sources. Removing them from the market will not sensor this content, only that people will have to look to other sources."
You would be wise to heed Imam Ghazali's statement:
Islam is commitment to principles not people.
Wanting anwar's material available under the guise of "free speech" is smoke screen. It's what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. One can not accept the notion that their idol is not the person they believe him to be. so they must form a new belief (rationalizations) to accept who he really is.... a mad man.
-to dynamic hamza:
-Palestinians should stop using physical force? I dare say you would disagree if u actually LIVED THERE and saw your OWN FAMILY DIE.
What yur basicaly saying is that when someone attacks your house, you should stand by like a mime, allow the burger/murderer to do his business, while you only get busy calling the authorities.
Resisting oppression is a God given right.
-I completely agree with br naeem on not censoring a person whose views you dont agree with.
Having said that, i can understand to some degree what would drive an american muslim to make such conclusions.
there is extreme pressure in the US to conform, to tone down your 'muslimness' .. to not support 'extremists'(duh).
So while the argument makes complete sense not to censor ppl, cuz then we'd have to censor so many scholars, BUT if we do not censor, then essentially FOX will be doing a nice news report on how muslims support anwar alawlaki cuz hey look they're still selling his stuff!
and they're not gona go into major detail about WHAT is being sold. And then the muslim americans just get targeted some more.
dudes...y'all gota think bout moving somewhere else in the world. the world of Allah is vast.
the muslims in the US THINK they are SO LUCKY. leme tell u..yu THINK that. u are not as FREE as u think. and i FEAR that with all this appeasing, the deen will be censored and lost.
is it fardh to keep living in the US when there is so much negative pressure to conform? shouldnt a muslim move elsewehre to protect their deen and heck im not saying the muslim world. there are other countries in the world ...
ummbudimary
Imam Johari's stance or suggestion for non-violence in Palestine is deeply ill-informed and clearly blind to the reality of the plight of the people living there.
Every single day thousands of people go through torture for the most basic services, from obtaining water, education to medical care. Along the way many are killed, jailed, maimed and assassinated. Yet Imam Johari, who has never lived with the Palestinians dares to advise them from his comfort zone in the US?
Aside from the fact that there are greater learned scholars who clearly carry more weight on this issue, Imam Johari still carries some influence in the US. But this judgement on Palestine is clearly misdirected.
The Palestinian people constantly protest non-violently, this is a principle that they have acted out and keep on doing so. But at times armed resistance is necessary and vital to the very survival.
This is why Hamas and Hezbolla have kept Israel out of their land (or cities). This is why they are still there and surviving (just).
The western world wants non-violent resistance, but all this means is NO RESISTANCE. The IDF is a powerful machine that strangles the life out of every Palestinian and I urge Imam Johari to make a visit and live a day with them, he will change his mind extremely quickly.
We do not need more Rachel Corrie's, who did use non-violence and guess what happened to her?
Look at the Flotilla non-violent AID ship - how did the violent Israeli navy react?
What about the countless situations and stories of non-violent protests by Palestinians, only to get shelled, shot and run over by the IDF? Just look up the video's, you will see men, women and children running for their lives from tanks - all because they protested non-violently.
So in conclusion, Imam Johari may be only speaking about Palestine, but he has made grave misjudgement and cannot speak for or advise the Palestinians who have their own imams, leaders and can judge their situation better.
At the end of the day, it is the US who supports blindly every act of Israel and does NOT have Palestinian interest at heart. It proves it by vetoing every anti-Israeli motion and by providing more AID to its beloved Zionists than to the whole of Africa combined (!!).
Either remain silent on this issue or speak justly and fairly and be fully informed. Remain an 'Imam' to your local community and the other great work you do. Leave the international and more complex fiqhi and external issues to those who are far more learned. By all means denounce terrorism and unjust violence against innocent people, but do not forget that 'violence' itself is not wrong it is only how it is used and applied. They, the secular world, wish to make you reject violence in all forms, yet they wish to use it to defend themselves and their livelihood. But they will smear you with the title of 'violent' if you dare to stand up for yourself.
Wa Allahu A'lam
==== "-Palestinians should stop using physical force? I dare say you would disagree if u actually LIVED THERE and saw your OWN FAMILY DIE."
Of course I would disagree because I would be basing my actions on emotions not reality nor truth. I would ask you to answer me this: has one Palestinian house not been destroyed,one Palestinian person not been arrested,one Palestinian person not be killed because of use of violence? I think not!
Also you fail to recognize Israel has no conscience when targeting civilians to achieve a political aim. More violence by Palestinians will only increase the viciousness of their response. As well as Palestinian don't have the means to sustain a war effort against Israel. And thirdly it is well documented that Israel viciousness has always been restrained by other Jews. The more violent the "resistance" gets the more that restraint will lessen and then you know how inhuman the Israeli regime can really be.
==="What yur basicaly saying is that when someone attacks your house, you should stand by like a mime, allow the burger/murderer to do his business, while you only get busy calling the authorities."
That analogy doesn't hold because a burgler is not a government like Isreal is. Also what can you do when the Israeli bulldozer come to your house to actually stop it from happening? Face the facts in life there are events where there is nothing you can do to change the situation.
When people use their emotions decide a course of action they usually fail.An action must undertaken to obtain a desired outcome. If an action will not result in a desired outcome what's point of doing it?
==="Resisting oppression is a God given right."
No one has stated otherwise but how that resistance will lead to the desired outcome is the topic.
==="the muslims in the US THINK they are SO LUCKY. leme tell u..yu THINK that. u are not as FREE as u think. and i FEAR that with all this appeasing, the deen will be censored and lost. "
Maybe because you live in Egypt you don't have the right picture of US Muslims. There's not one muslim in the US who wants to practice their deen who can't...nowhere.
From my experiences as Muslim for 18 years I think it's the opposite. Their's pressure for Muslims to display their "muslimness". More than likely this refers to wearing clothes from Saudiya or Pakistan. As though wearing clothes the prophet never wore is somehow more "Muslim" than wearing traditional western clothes. This usually comes from people ignorant of their deen and see it as ideology rather a way of living life. They don't understand the general principles so instead only focus on the particulars.
AA- Hamza21
I think you may have misread my post. I also made my comments wrt the I/P conflict. My referencing the American civil rights movement as well as the SA apartheid struggle was to counter the same references made by the good Imam.
"Specifically name a place where violence has created a lasting peace...I'm sure you can name plenty of places where violence has created POLITICAL change but not positive social change."
How exactly are you delineating this fine line between political change versus social change? As if one can happen without the other?
Regardless, just give me the type of change that will free the poor and oppressed from the hands of the tyrants.
AA- Hamza,
I'm not sure how you've come to the odd conclusion that Awlaki is my idol, but far be it for me to question your authoritative statements.
Nonetheless, you've simple restated Imam Johari's sentiments without addressing the slippery slope it eventually leads us down.
The free speech argument can be applied to his questionable lectures where he calls for unIslamic acts of violence. I have no desire to defend those talks.
I am simply talking about his lectures in which he has said absolutely nothing questionable. Why in the world should they be censored? Only a fool would deny that they have inspired thousands of Muslims. So let them be, I say.
@ Dynamic Hamza
I agree with other posters in that it's easier for those of us not living in Palestine to advocate non violence than the Palestinians living under such inhuman conditions. The situation in Israel/Palestine and South Africa is perceived differently in America thanks to the racist media propaganda. Americans generally were able to see clearly the racism being practiced in South Africa because of their own history of white-on-black racism.
In Palestine, Americans fail to see Palestinians as an "other". I even read once that Israel was not colonizing Palestine because Palestinians can racially be seen as "white" (as though white-on-white colonialism is acceptable compared to white-on-nonwhite)!
On top of that Palestinians are overwhelmingly Muslim so all those negative stereotypes of Muslims all being violent terrorists (even when Palestinians engage in peaceful protest) dirties American perception of them even more.
Palestinians are in a dire and unique situation where their suffering is never given attention to by racist Western media due to the above misconceptions and also due to the fact that Israel enjoys a special privilege with America. Alot of American mainstream media is sympathetic to Israeli coverage, the Israeli lobby is powerful enough to shape American policy concerning Palestine/Israel, and America needs Israel to act to as a thorn on the Muslims' side in the Middle East.
Due to all this, Palestinians have been needlessly suffering for many years. Thus it is understandable why Palestinians have had to resort to violence to achieve whatever little they can. I believe that the time is coming when they will receive even more help with their struggle when the Muslim Ummah finally unites under one Khilafah and fights to uproot the oppression not only in Palestine but elsewhere around the world Insha'Allah
@Dynamic Hamza
Also brother I notice you mentioned that Israel has no conscience when targeting civilians. So since you know Israel considers Palestinian lives as worthless and expendable, and its army will kill them anyway you still think Palestinians shouldn't fight back?
That sounds like a defeatist mentality to me brother and really accomplishes nothing in the end. The Palestinians will be killed regardless of whether they resist or not so they might as well die trying to protect their families from harm. Would you as a husband, brother, son, father stand by and allow a foreign invasion force to break down your doors, destroy your property, physically and sexually assault your family members, and possibly even kill one of them either out of malice or negligence?
how abt everyone stops giving their half-as*ed opinions and looks to the wisdom and truth of our Prophet and the One who sent him? believe it or not, he taught us everything we need to know in life, including this discussion about dealing with oppressors.
Assalam alaikum,
Asking Muslims to get rid of Anwar alAwlaki's CDs is the prudent thing to do. The way things are in the US, all the authorities need to do is find his CDs in someone's possession to label them a follower of Anwar alAwlaki and convict them likewise. In fact, mention of such CDs being found is already being made in the news whenever someone is arrested. So though your arguments about free speech maybe sound, the reality on the ground is different.
I agree with Anonymous of July 1. A story here in Singapore broke two days ago of a young Malay Muslim who's doing his National Service. He was arrested recently under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and given two years detention. Among this kid's offenses was the fact that he had contacted Al-Awlaki, who urged him to fight in Afghanistan. Two others have been given Restriction Orders (I don't know what that entails) under the ISA for similar offenses. The government has said that all three had been influenced by Al-Awlaki. (See MUIS Urges Vigilance.)
Personally I know next to nothing about Al-Awlaki; I hadn't even heard of the guy until last year, when he was mentioned in the Fort Hood shootings. However, regardless of whether his views on other subjects are legitimate or not, the fact of the matter is that Al-Awlaki's name is toxic and any of his materials should go straight to the trash.
Greetings Naeem,
I ask that you write about the book "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali as it is getting so much play in the West; after all, nothing better than when one from the "enemy" camp defects.
I especially hope that whatever you write provokes some discussion as this post has.
I see the book as very opportunistic in that it states what Americans, in particular and the West, in general want to hear. But, it also seems quite clear to me that the author has really written a story against ancient clanism and how that stays the hand of progress; not to mention that the author seems completely ignorant of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; its asymmetrical brutality inflicted daily giving cause to so many Muslims around the globe.
How can Imam Johari call on Muslims to stop resisting?
Changing the tactics of resistance is not the same thing as not resisting. The first intifada employed non-violent civil disobedience with greater success that PLO stunting and terrorist hits. One of the leaders, Mubarak Awad, was an admirer of Ghaffar Khan (aka Frontier Gandhi).
See also Eqbal Ahmed in The Question of Palestine, and the writings of Edward Said. Here is something Said said:
It is simply inadequate to keep repeating cliches about struggle and resistance that imply a military programme of action when none is either possible or really desirable... We have refused interaction and debate, disparagingly calling them only normalisation and collaboration. Refusing to compromise in putting forth our just position (which is what I am calling for) cannot possibly be construed as a concession, especially when it is made directly and forcefully to the occupier or the author of unjust policies of occupation and reprisal. Why do we fear confronting our oppressors directly, humanely, persuasively, and why do we keep believing in precisely the vague ideological promises of redemptive violence that are little different from the poison spewed by Bin Laden and the Islamists? The answer to our needs is in principled resistance, well-organised civil disobedience against military occupation and illegal settlement, and an educational programme that promotes coexistence, citizenship and the worth of human life.
I think Imam Johari in principle agrees that non violent resistance can only materialise eventually with some form of violence. I believe his article has got carried away in opposing Anwar's views.
Naeem's mix of violence and non-violence is the most appropriate form of resistance.
However there is no way we can support the killing of innocent civilians. But what frustrates me even more, when a terrorist kills 25 Israeli clubbers, 500 people will get killed by Israeli air bombs.
So I can't support any terrorist groups on two fronts. A) Killing innocent B) Strategical flaw of suicide bombing.
The art of warfare is not the art of fighting, but the art of choosing the battles to fight.
Currently I think terrorists are ineffective and making matters worse.
AA- Anon,
"I think Imam Johari in principle agrees that non violent resistance can only materialise eventually with some form of violence."
I actually believe the same. It's just that the pressure that is building up surrounding the American Muslim community is so intense that many are being forced into corners they would much rather avoid.
Post a Comment