5 January 2010 By El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan In last month's edition of The Muslim Link,
an article titled "Spokespersons Busy in Fort Hood
Aftermath" (November 20, 2009) raised some serious
concerns for this writer. The article quoted Imam
Johari Abdul Malik, Imam Yahya Hendi and Asra Nomani
in ways that required a response - both in the
interest of balance and justice. The focus of the article centered around the
controversies generated by Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki's
response to the Fort Hood tragedy. In brief, Sheikh
Awlaki praised the shootings and considered them
justified because America was at war in Muslim lands
and the victims were American soldiers on the verge of
being deployed. The purpose of this article is not to debate that
argument, per se, but to examine the response to
Awlaki's argument from a number of well known figures
in the Muslim American community. In the opinion of
many, including this writer, these very public
reactions went too far in condemnation of Awlaki, and
served little to clarify Islam's position on one of
the major issues of the day (war and peace). In preparing my own response, I was reminded of an
essay that I wrote years ago titled "Five Mistakes of
U.S. Policymakers in the Muslim World." The article
was published in the March 1999 edition of The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. (For
those who possess a copy of my book titled
Islam &
Terrorism: Myth vs. Reality, it is also
republished there beginning on page 11.) Under Mistake #5 one finds the following cautionary
note to America's political establishment: "Our major
organizations and mainstream leaders serve an
important function and are appreciated for what they
do. However, they are not always the people you should
be listening to; for they will sometimes tell you what
you want to hear, and not what you need
to hear." We witnessed this tendency in the immediate
aftermath of the Fort Hood tragedy, and again
immediately following the controversy surrounding the
five young Washington area Muslims now being
interrogated in Pakistan (i.e. the Muslim
establishment telling America's political
establishment what it wants to hear.) My friend and brother in Islam, Johari Abdul Malik,
was quoted as saying "something changed" in Sheikh
Anwar al-Awlaki since his tenure ended as resident
imam at Dar Al-Hijrah. Of course something
changed! Awlaki, like the rest of us, witnessed a very
costly American-instigated war in the Muslim world,
and he himself was victimized by 18 months of
political imprisonment (and probably torture) in the
process. When Awlaki argued that Nidal's assault was
justified because the victims were soldiers about to
be deployed into the theater of battle, and "America
was the one who first brought the battle to Muslim
countries," a more thoughtful response should have
come from Muslim leaders in America, as opposed to the
blanket denunciations that ensued. When asked, for example, if there was a
conflict between being a Muslim and being deployed to
fight other Muslims? Of no consequence to Imam Hendi, perhaps, is a
verse in Al-Qur'an that reads: "Never should a
believer kill a believer... If a man kill a believer
intentionally his recompense is Hell, to abide therein
forever; and the wrath and the curse of ALLAH are upon
him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."
(S. 4: 92-93) There is a hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon
him) which is also highly relevant to this issue. It
reads as follows: "He who is killed under the
banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which
he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride
and fights for his tribe - is not from my Ummah. And
whosoever from my followers attacks my followers
(indiscriminately), killing the righteous and the
wicked among them, sparing not even those who are
staunch in faith, and fulfilling not his promise made
with those who have been given a pledge of security -
he has nothing to do with me, and I have nothing to do
with him." (Sahih Muslim, Volume 3) When journalist Bob Abernathy raised the
following question with Hendi - "There's a
concept, if I understand it correctly, within Islam
called the Ummah, which is a sense of intense
brotherhood with all other Muslims. Now does that
conflict with having to go into Afghanistan?" -
Hendi's response on this question was just as flawed
and disingenuous. HENDI: Actually, no. If I love my
brother and when my brother does something wrong,
Islam requires me to stop him from his wrongdoing. You
know, Prophet Muhammad-and in the Koran we are told
that we have to enjoin good and forbid evil. What
happened on September 11 and the aftermath of that
terrorism, extremism...what is happening in Pakistan,
suicide bombing, and in Afghanistan, is against the
teachings of Islam, and Muslims are required to join
any military in self-defense and to defeat terrorism. Asra Nomani was also quoted in The Muslim Link
as follows: "It's critical that we ditch the concept of the "ummah"
with a capital "U" and recognize that we are an "ummah"
with a small "u," meaning our religious identity
doesn't have to supersede other loyalties and
identities. This attempt to push an "Ummah" is the
politics of ideologues of puritanical Islam who want
to mollify dissent. Sadly, too many moderates have
bought into it." ("Inside the Gunman's Mosque", The
Daily Beast, 11/9/2009) In response, I once again return to the 1999 essay
("Five Mistakes of U.S. Policymakers in the Muslim
World"), to an observation made in the summary
conclusion: "Sincere Muslims in every corner of the globe are
threaded together by an ideology which is consciously
or unconsciously imbedded within the very fiber of
their being. No matter how uneducated,
unsophisticated, or illiterate the Muslim you happen
to meet - and conversely, no matter how educated,
sophisticated or westernized the Muslim you
happen to meet - there is always this instinctual
awareness of being part of a global family, a global
community with an accountability to God. This is
something that the U.S., and its respective allies,
would do well to consider. "No nation can indiscriminately bomb, maim and kill
innocent Muslims without the pain, grief and anguish
being felt on some level by Muslims the world over. No
matter how many disclaimers are issued - 'This is not
to be taken as an attack on Islam or all Muslims' (or
as President Obama recently stated, "America is
not at war with Islam") - the ACTIONS are going
to be seen for what they are, and the impact is going
to be felt!" This is the message that should be conveyed to the
establishment by the Muslim community's
"spokespersons" in America. If it were, both we (the
North American branch of the Muslim Ummah) and
America would be in a much healthier state. On a final note, I return to a highly
counterproductive remark attributed to Imam Johari in
the same edition of The Muslim Link: "In other interviews, Abdul-Malik advocated
that the Muslim community create a list of speakers
parents should be wary of, adding Al-Awlaki to the
list. Al-Awlaki's Seerah (biography of the Prophet
Muhammad, peace be upon him) lectures are among the
top sellers among English speaking Muslims worldwide." In a number of e-mails, blogs and online chats,
I've noted a growing number of young Muslims now
debating the value of Awlaki's past and present
intellectual output, and whether or not they should
retain his products. Such debates remind me of just
how little Islamic understanding there is
among Muslim American youth - despite all of the
Seerah conferences, "deen intensives," etc. And this
does not reflect well on "Muslim scholars" in America. Johari's suggestion has other ominous implications,
however. This writer knows how it feels to be shut out
of certain places because of the perception that he's
too militant, too controversial,
or too "political" - and how counterproductive
this is to Muslim-American development and
self-defense. A number of Muslim organizations are talking about
producing a website and other mechanisms by which
Muslim youth will be able to access scholars who might
mitigate radical tendencies. Who will these
"scholars" be? The same ones who say it's alright for
Muslims to join the military and go overseas to fight
and kill fellow Muslims? Or the "scholars" who argue
that the only politics suitable for the masajid are
flag waving enterprises approved of by the state? If
so, such initiatives are doomed before they even
begin! Our youth must be able to respect the
advocates of "moderation." May God help us. And feel free to add your voice to the dialogue
which has begun at The Muslim Link website (i.e.,
reader's comments at the end of the article). El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan serves as Director of
Operations for The Peace And Justice Foundation. He
can be reached at (301) 762-9162 or
peacethrujustice@aol.com
Comments 💬 التعليقات |