Osama bin Laden may be the world's most-wanted man.
Maybe the "Anti-Bin Laden" should be the second-most wanted.
For years, the non-Muslim world has been wondering where the outrage is inside the Muslim world when it comes to Islamic terrorism. To the non-Muslim, it has seemed pretty muted.
In fact, the outrage is there. Critics wonder, though, how loud, coordinated and convincing it is. Racism against Jews and other "infidels" has been taught in schools and perpetrated by heads of state. Young people are taught that blowing themselves up, along with as many innocent civilians as possible, is not only a good thing but will lead to martyrdom and 72 virgins in paradise.
Can you possibly, ever, speak out loudly enough or often enough against such madness? Or with too unified a voice?
It's a good bet most non-Muslims would like to see more -- well, counterterrorism -- from the Muslim world.
There are signs it is coming.
Pakistani Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri recently issued a fatwa in London that, in no uncertain terms, condemns suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism. While not the first such fatwa, it is "arguably the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date," says the anti-terrorist Quilliam Foundation of London that hosted his announcement.
"Terrorism is terrorism," ul-Qadri proclaimed at a news conference at the foundation. "Violence is violence. It has no place in Islamic teaching, and no justification can be provided to it."
Again, his is not the first denunciation of terrorism by a Muslim cleric. But it's already one of the most widely reported, and therefore may be the most important.
Is Tahir ul-Qadri the "Anti-Bin Laden"? The moral leader that Islam and counterterrorism has so long needed? Maybe. His organization, Minhaj-ul-Quran, said of his 600-page fatwa:
"He said (the) majority of the religious scholars condemn terrorism but the condemnation is merely rhetorical. No one has come forward with an authentic and intellectual response to terrorism in the form of a patent decree. Minhaj-ul-Quran International has told the world in no uncertain terms through issuance of this Fatwa that terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. It is a peaceful religion, which not only condemns but also prohibits every kind of terrorism at every level under any pretext."
How refreshing and encouraging. Again, it's been said before -- but never so loudly and clearly, as far as the non-Muslim world can tell.
Certainly it's a low bar -- to come out against killing innocent civilians. But the Muslim world, as well as the rest of the world, could sure use a high-profile good-guy to counter Osama bin Laden. Islam could stand to make a rock star out of Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri or someone like him.
The bad guys have had the stage long enough.
Researching Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri a little, he appears to be a humanitarian of the first order. He has been preaching tolerance and nonviolence of all kinds for quite awhile and he has a worldwide following. The fact that he had to present his condemnation of terrorism in London makes me wonder if the movement is that strong. But it's too bad a man like him is not the leader of Iran.
editorial is difficult to respond to.--unless a person holds a degree in arab studies. the names of these people--require a lot of research. the premise is hopeful. but i suspect a long time coming.
"For years, the non-Muslim world has been wondering where the outrage is inside the Muslim world when it comes to Islamic terrorism. To the non-Muslim, it has seemed pretty muted."
I imagine it has, considering a person blowing themselves up tends to get more media attention than a religious leader saying people shouldn't do that. This argument that the Muslim world (which is such a stupidly diminutive phrase) needs to "call out" terrorism is not new, and age has given no more truth to it's flavor.
1. There is no "Muslim world" anymore than there is a "Christian world". The Middle East is an incredibly varied (and ill-defined) place, demographically and religiously. There's no single religious head. Tahir is a good man, and this is a positive thing, but this Western expectation of a single guy standing up to denounce terrorism and turn it all around is incredibly silly on the ground.
2. "Certainly it's a low bar -- to come out against killing innocent civilians"
I'm not equivocating, so please refrain from accusing me of it, but when we're accidentally killing civilians by dropping bombs on their trucks and homes, how easy is it to tell the difference between us and those who are killing civilians intentionally? In the end their children, their sisters, their brothers and parents and cousins are dead, regardless of intention. No scholar's fatwa is going to change that, or the rage it brews.
3. "could sure use a high-profile good-guy to counter Osama bin Laden"
This is not a movie. Reducing this to a fight of good vs. evil belies the complexity of the situation, and it will only get more people hurt. Civilians and soldiers. We've been fighting this war (openly) for 9 years now; it's time you figured out that the people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Gaza, Iran, all of them are just as nuanced as we are, and if anybody's life is going to be improved by this whole thing, those nuances have to be accounted for.
Stop imperiously and arrogantly demanding an entire region behave as adults and then suggesting they're as easily led as children.
audioofbeing--very well written post, thanks. now my story. "nuclear radiation sensing helicopters", living on my sailboat for the winter. southern california . watching these guys protect us. the danger is real--very extreme. i see ever more security coming in. main l.a. harbor. container ships possibly having a bomb. by the way, augusta my original home. wyoming for the summer. hope my sailboat does not get exploded by these muslim nutcases.
audioofbeing, the 'difference' in when we make a MISTAKE and harm non-combatants in a COMBAT area and when someone straps a bomb on and INTENTIONALLY walks in a market to kill civillians should be plain to you.
YOu write well but stop trying to sound so deep.
There IS good and evil pal, and those of us who have seen it won't allow folks to even almost try "equivocating" and if you don't want to be called out on it, then don't do it.
The facts are, the situation in "Southwest Asia" ia about oil and who controils that oil. Has been since 1918 in Iraq (look it up).
There is NO "complexity" in what Saddam's Iraq was or Iran and are. That is what I always thaough Bush and his cronies looked foolish selling the World a rotten bill of gods about WMDs. What a crock of feces.
On a personal level, I could not care less why Osama does what he does, whatever his God is or any of it. There is no difference to me between any of the loons who take their personal beliefs to radical acts.
The situation is simple, if Islam IS peaceful then why not espouse it and teach it? Theological study groups should not be required to figure that one out.
Brad
P.S. FYI, WE invented the Taliban using the Paki Secret Service in the 80s so YES this is a situation that is not a SIMPLE fix, but there are simple lines draw between "good" and "evil" when it comes to tactics.
audioofbeing, your post is fine for a child with little or no world experience, like a college student. To say the least, very naive. You post as though a general statement and a specific statement is the same. It's not. You don't seem to realize there is a Muslim world. It's the world the Muslim believers recognizes as "correct". I could ramble on to respond to each of your well intentioned, but out of context, points, but to do so would be a waste of time. (Adults know where you drifted off the path and you feel your comments are intelligent deductions.) You only failed to take human nature into account. If you choose to move through life aware of your surroundings, you too will understand the naivety of your 1:12a post in just a few years.
Yes, good post, audioofbeing. Thank you.
Brad, your categorization of American tactics vs insurgent / resistance tactics into "good" vs "evil" shows binary thinking which is largely specious. How is a militarily inferior force supposed to fight against a militarily superior occupation force? They cannot do it head on.
I understand your argument of intent, but you must also consider the inevitable consequences of using technologically superior weapons. The effect of killing innocent civilians is largely the same in both cases.
The U.S. military admits that at least 19 civilians were mistakenly killed in Marjah by US/NATO forces and Afghan govt troops. When Afghan President Hamid Karzai went to Marjah he received an earful from the residents of the area. (Marjah isn't even a real city but a series of rural communities and not particularly strategically important). The resident of Marjah were angry about civilians being killed, about corruption by local officials, about their homes being raided at night, about the Afghan govt doing nothing to help them, and about the destruction to their property. They do not see this in terms of "good" verses "evil" tactics.
What gives America the right to occupy Afghanistan 8 years 6 months after the Taliban was overthrown and Al Qaeda training camps eliminated? How is this doing "good"? Last night I listened to a Lt. Col. named Jodi Nelson who has done two tours in eastern Afghanistan. She does not think the right people are benefiting from Americans' efforts in Afghanistan. The U.S. has brought some level of security but has not changed the culture of corruption that exists at every level of Afghan society. She takes it day by day but does not really think we are accomplishing anything.
Proclaiming ourselves "the good guys" and labeling the Taliban "the bad guys" is as anachronistic as labeling cowboys "the good guys" and Indians "the bad guys". If we kill civilians through our use of military power while occupying a foreign land, and this consequence of our actions is predictable, we are, in fact, no better than those who target civilians directly. "Evil" tactics vs "evil" tactics is more accurate than good vs evil.
A powerful figure(s) in the Obama or subsequent U.S. administrations must and will be forced to make the politically difficult but inevitable decision to end all U.S. wars immediately, bring all U.S. troops home forthwith, and slash the Pentagon's budget drastically. Who will be America's anti-Bush?
Good post Cain. It seems to lack much contact with reality and is deeply immersed in fantasy, but I can see a Miss America claiming your post as her one wish. "All I want is world peace and food for all".
It may be time that we explore nuclear options in dealing with terrorists states. Osama would have a hard time hiding from that!
Audio, your post is majorly flawed because you concentrate on minor, off the wall points, even though you do make a pretty post with numbered points and spacing, even if you do have a minor grammatical error or two. Maybe the next post you can get into subheadings even and develop valid positions.
Your first point that using the term “Muslim world” is not appropriate is bogus. It is common practice and well understood. If you do a search in the NY TIMES, you will find over 10,000 uses of the term.
You say don’t accuse you of vacillating, but then you say we create a rage among Muslims by our accidents of war. Wowza. When terrorists behead people and intentionally fly planes into civilian buildings our accidents (that we compensate) should hardly present the same level of outrage. I could forgive Al Qaeda for mistakes of war if they were truly that. I’m sure Muslims also see the difference.
Lastly, demanding Muslim leaders and countries take a more active role in fighting terrorism is something that has been screamed for a long time because of its logic. To say that call for action by Muslims is not a convincing and reasonable request represents a rationale that is flawed as is including Iran with the other countries.
When we start listening to the hallucinations of Iran’s leaders, I know the point has gone down the rabbit hole to be flushed out later into the sewers like a beheaded opponent of an Iranian cleric.
Good idea; let's back yet another yahoo from a culture different from ours just this once more so that they can come back and bite us in the rear ten years down the road. I'm sure it will all go well, this time.
So crates, good point. I don't want to sound mean like I don't care about people or societies. But if you study many ancient societies and times especially in the Biblical times, the thought was to destroy the enemy so that no one was left. Now I know that may sound heartless but the fact is that if you leave even a few to rebuild they will come back to bite you in the end. These terrorists and those who house them must be removed from the face of the earth if we are to remain safe. Talk about collateral damage!
"It may be time that we explore nuclear options"
"destroy the enemy"
"must be removed from the face of the earth"
Amusing yet of of course hyper-hypocritical for Christians to condemn anything, especially violence, perpetrated by any other organized religion or sect of that religion. History (documented history and not fairy tales) has shown the world who the most oppressive, violent, murderous cult has ever been to walk the Earth. Hint - it isn't Muslims.
The US/NATO war in Afghanistan is not a war for our survival. The Taliban are no threat to us. Al Qaeda's attacks on 9/11/01 were carried out by 19 men armed with box cutters. 15 or 16 of those men were from Saudi Arabia. 1 was from Egypt, and the rest were from Arab Gulf countries. They took advantage of lax U.S. airline security and poor communication between intelligence and law enforcement agencies in this country. Our bad!
The 8 year 6 month long U.S. war in Afghanistan is nothing less than a crusade designed to forever place that region of the world under the U.S. military security umbrella. Because this is a political war and not a war for our survival, total war is out of the question.
There will be no US/NATO military victory in Afghanistan. Eventually this will be settled through negotiations as all political wars are. This happens when one or both sides exhaust themselves, and the people endemic to that region will never quit fighting as long as they are occupied by a foreign power. The bogus U.S. war on terror has been counterproductive because it has destabilized the Middle East and South Asia. We create more enemies than we kill.
Talk about American superiority - moral, military, or otherwise - is war propaganda. United States has reached the limits of its empire and will exhaust itself trying to dominate the Middle East and South Asia. Meanwhile China is growing richer and stronger while we are exhausting our military and growing poorer by the day.
Baron, when you guys finally do start going after Christians for refusing to stop speaking out and being visibly loyal to our core beliefs, instead of your just spouting the same old lame stuff in forums like this, please, let it be you who shows up at my door.
Where are the Christians speaking out against all the wars United States is waging?
Some are doing it and some aren't, Cain, from pretty much every corner of the U.S. It just depends on whether they are against the wars or not.
Surely you don't think you represent the Christian position on a particular issue, do you? [rotfl]
Sorry. I just couldn't help myself.
"Where are the Christians speaking out against all the wars United States is waging?"
Simple: No need. Christianity in no way preaches against self-defense.
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. or Christians in any way shape or form nor did that country pose any threat whatsoever. Try again hypocrites.
Michael Ryan, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks on United States. Furthermore, AFAIK, there is no proof that the Taliban knew beforehand that Al Qaeda was planning to attack United States. In any case, today less than 200 and perhaps considerably less, Al Qaeda remain in Afghanistan. The U.S. Congress authorized the invasion of Afghanistan in order to pursue those directly responsible for 9/11. That was Al Qaeda. What justifies or makes legal United States occupying Afghanistan 8 years 6 months after chasing Al Qaeda out of that country?
Finally, Michael Ryan, you speak of self-defense. That right has been recognized for Iraqi resistance fighters (Sunni insurgents). Why don't Afghan resistance fights / insurgents have that same right of self-defense? Pashtuns in particular as well as other Afghan ethnic groups will fight us until the last foreign soldier is forced to leave Iraq. It was thus so in the the original crusades, and if history is any indication, it will be thus so this time around no matter how long it takes. Afghanistan isn't known as "the graveyard of empires" for nothing. I'm just trying to save us from unnecessary wailing and gnashing of teeth. The time to negotiate an end to this political war with the Taliban is now.
Baron, you must be older than 20, right? You obviously know how to read and seem to possess reasonable ability to express yourself in writing. I wonder, therefore, if you have any memory at all, or if you possibly ever read about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and their plea for rescue. Perhaps you might also have some faint recollection of the very public threats against the United States and our then-President, the manipulation of Americans living in Iraq--including young children-- before the Desert Storm invasion, and the regrettably incorrect information on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Does any of that ring a bell?
Well, if not, perhaps you remember reading about what the Iraqi leadership and their attendant toadies were doing to their own citizens, especially following Desert Storm? For example, imprisoning and torturing children as young a 4 years old, using poison gas on whole villages of Kurdish Iraqis, sending political enemies-- whether real or merely disliked-- through a shredder intend for plastic, all received plenty of coverage by the mainstream media.
If you believe the the United States should never react forcefully to international acts of horror and evil unless we are directly attacked, you should move to Europe and join those who share your cowardly, self-absorbed, self-protectionist notions on a nation's moral responsibility to the rest of humanity.
If Germany doesn't suit you, try France.
Randy, I just don't understand why the State Department hasn't scooped you up yet.
I suggest Michael Ryan and other "serious" people study what constitutes a just war. The U.S. war in Iraq was never justified. It is specifically classified as a preventive war which is NEVER just or legal. A preemptive war may be justified if there is in IMMINENT threat. Iraq never attacked United States or posed an imminent threat.
United States was justified in its initial invasion of Afghanistan in Sept (or Oct) 2001 because we had been attacked. United States had and still has the right and responsibility to bring those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks to justice. United States does NOT have the right to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely and to wage war there and in Pakistan at will. This is not self-defense. This is aggression. Again, where are the Christian leaders speaking out against these unjust, immoral, illegal wars?
The overwhelming consensus among historians now is that the U.S. war in Vietnam was a mistake. Trying telling that to U.S. warriors and war hawks in 1968. Today a consensus is rapidly forming in the U.K. and elsewhere that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was a mistake. In the not too distant future it will become clearer and clearer that a protracted U.S.-led occupation and long war in Afghanistan is a mistake both militarily and morally.
Hey I am just saying that I love my county and when we were attacked on 9/11 then I support any means necessary to protect us. I cannot understand why people in this country despise it so much when it has given them so much. Some people are so spoiled they don't know how good they have it.
Those leaders just don't happen to share your OPINION about these matters, Randy. You claim knowledge and insight on the events and reasons that I, personally, do not think you actually possess.
But at least you are consistent in your hippie hatred of the United States. You'd think that would count for something, wouldn't you?
Baron it is time you quit commenting on Christians since you obviously know nothing about it!
Vietnam never attacked United States, brimisjoshan. Neither did Iraq. Why is United States waging war in Afghanistan when those responsible for 9/11 aren't there? The excuse that we are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent the return of Al Qaeda is a bogus argument. That can be assured with stand off weapons with no U.S. military occupation needed and without to loss of American soldiers. The true reasons that United States continues to occupy Afghanistan have nothing to do with with self-defense or protecting us from terrorists.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
