SALAAM
CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE BELOW. HAVE A READ AND SHARE YOUR VIEWS?
ARE YOU A MODERATE? ARE YOU AN EXTREMIST OR RADICAL?
WHO DEFINES THESE TERMS?
WHERE DO YOU FIT?
WASALAAM

[b]
The Disease of Moderate Muslims[/b]

Life is not always black and white, but there are times when we are forced to adopt a certain position. The words of George Bush after 9/11: “you are either with us or against us” is one such example, when it became necessary for Muslims and non-Muslims to state their position. Because, when a vicious criminal gangster demands loyalty or compliance, a response is required, otherwise silence will constitute acquiescence.

For the Muslims as followers of Islam, the response should be naturally along the following lines: we are not with you Mr. Bush, make no mistake about it, we will never be with you, because our allegiance will always lie with Islam.

Let alone being an ally, why would anyone want to be even associated with: an illiterate drunk, a mass murderer, a religious-fanatic who talks to ‘god’ (Satan), a liar (WMD in Iraq), a cheat (Florida election 2000) and a known thief [1]. Mr Bush, you are no different to the savage adversaries of the noble Salahuddin al-Ayubi (Saladin). Like your ancestors you have a fork tongue, whilst you talk of being a friend, your media is full of hate-filled preachers inciting the masses to commit acts like flushing the inimitable Quran down the toilet to the obscene porn-torture that we have seen in Iraq (Abu Ghraib).

Those Muslims who chose to ally with Bush will be classified as the ‘moderates’ and the rest by de facto are the ‘radicals’. For the radicals there are numerous other pejorative labels like extremists, fundamentalists, militants, and terrorists. This bifurcation of radicals and moderates is one that has been defined to suit the interests of the West, long before 9/11.

Being a moderate or radical has no relationship with how devout the individual is. The distinction is marked by how one views the American led adventure and its role in the Muslim world. If you oppose the American agenda, you are a radical, otherwise you are a moderate. Depending on the level of opposition expressed to the US-led foreign policy it determines ones position within the radical spectrum. For example, those who confine to political activity are less of an extremist than those who engage physically.

So what is the response of the moderate camp with respect to the demands made by Bush? Many of them will claim to oppose Bush and the so-called ‘terrorists’, showing their confused mindset; the more sly ones will use different language depending on whom they are addressing, they call it ‘diplomacy’, ‘wisdom’ etc.

Some of the more extreme moderates will claim to sit on both camps and they do not see a contradiction since Bush is pro-Islam according to them. Yes, you can even have Iftar at the White House, naturally it must be true! One of their leaders with beard like a Rabbi or an Orthodox priest even claimed that even Hilary Clinton embraced Islam at his hands! They elaborate their position by stating that the father of George Bush, who led the first Gulf War as the leader (Ameer) of Jihad to liberate Kuwait from the infidel Saddam Hussein. So, George Bush junior is simply continuing that ‘Jihad’, thus supporting Bush is supporting real ‘Jihad’!

However, the vast majority of the moderates see the source of the problem as being an internal one, they argue, if the Muslims, especially the radical ones altered their behaviour by ceasing physical resistance, Islam would not get a bad press, and the west would eventually embrace Islam, the conflict would cease to exist. Listed below are some of their main arguments which elaborate their position.

a) The good Muslim image syndrome and the media.

The moderates argue that acts of resistance gives Islam and Muslims a bad image in the media, but the media is not a neutral body; it is the mouth piece for the American led imperialism. In fact, it is the media that is constantly inciting and legitimising the much greater levels of violence against the Muslim masses. The journalists, editors, and commentators are the real violent pack of wild hyenas, who write with the ‘ink’ drawn from the innocent blood of the women and children of Iraq , Afghanistan and Palestine . Like a pack of ugly hyenas, they devour those who are voiceless whilst singing songs of free speech to them from their monopoly position as columnists and editorials. They are constantly encouraging state-terrorism against the Muslims, preaching a message of hate under the toxic influence of militant liberalism.

From the recent Danish cartoons episode, one would have thought the moderates would have learnt by now that the media and the fanatical liberal camp does not need a reason to attack Islam and Muslims.

The media’s portrayal of the violence is biased by any standards and it functions to justify colonial violence; for example it conveys the image that the F16 Pilots dropping huge bombs displaying shock-and-awe as a justified response of a ‘just’ war (remember those real WMDs in Iraq facing the mythical WMDs of Israel!), but the suicide bombers in Iraq with their tiny bombs are criminals. These simpleton moderates should know that the acts of resistance are not unilateral or one-sided; the context is the retaliation to much larger levels of violence inflicted by the West.

b) Retaliation

Even as the bombs drop in Baghdad, seeing the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and the porn-torture in Abu-Ghraib by the soldiers of freedom and democracy, the moderates argue against those who are engaged in the noble acts of resistance. Their logic is that Muslims should not lower themselves to the level of the Americans by retaliating in kind. In other words, these moderates are happy to march into Jenin, Fallujah, and Kabul, then wave their so-called moral flag of victory standing over the dead bodies of the innocent Muslims rather than defend them in the first place! They derive their so-called higher ‘moral’ values from the cowardice nature of turning the other cheek, which defies human reason and contradicts Islamic values.

War and peace between nations is a bilateral relationship at the very least, so how can one argue for adopting a unilateral position regardless of how the other party is conducting. Yet, the confused moderates expect the Muslims to have an absolute moral position in warfare regardless of how the enemy is behaving. This means if the enemies bomb our cities, we should not bomb theirs, because the ‘wisdom’ of the moderates is that Muslims should have higher ‘values’ and not kill civilians. This type of advice sounds like the ethos of the Dodos that marched to their own extinction. If we apply the above logic to say trade, this means if a nation supplies faulty goods, the Muslims should still pay them as they have an absolute moral position of keeping to their side of the bargain

International relationship whether it is trade, diplomacy or warfare is based on reciprocity, and this the reality of how it function. This is why the Quran says clearly “fight them as they fight you” and not how you think they should be fought! If they use explosives we too use that. If they kill our civilians we too retaliate in kind to deter them from killing more of our civilians. This conforms to reason, reality of life and to Islamic texts.

c) The killing of ‘innocent’ people.

The moderates selectively and out of context cite the evidences, where the Prophet (SAW) and His successors (Khalifs) forbade the killing of women and children in the course of war. However, that was the initial position adopted by the Muslim army and it is not absolute, otherwise it would contradict other evidences. For example, the Prophet (SAW) also permitted the use of catapults in war knowing that it would lead to the killings of non-combatants. Likewise, under that absolute prohibition of killing non-combatants, Muslims could not engage in warfare today, as the use of high explosives would inevitably lead to losses of non-combatants. Therefore, adopting such a position would result in instant capitulation, which is forbidden, as Muslims are required to defend themselves adequately. The Quran explicitly commands the Muslims to defend and to deter the enemy, and to deter the enemy one must match or excel the firepower of the enemy and be prepared to use them in retaliation of kind.

The notion of innocent people in times of conflict is not defined by any laws or principles but by the conduct of the parties involved. If a nation attacks the civilians of another nation then by definition their own civilians become legitimate targets . These shameless moderates will selectively point out the far fewer numbers of civilians (who are collectively re-electing war mongering governments) killed in retaliation, and concurrently remain silent towards the much greater number of innocent Muslims killed by the Anglo-US-Israeli axis of evil. Of course, the moderates will tell you of their opposition to the killing of innocent people by pointing the retaliatory acts of 3/11, 7/7, 9/11, whilst the killing of Muslims as simply a foreign policy that they dislike!

d) Armchair Jihadist versus the armchair hypocrites (traitors).

Some of the moderates feeling no shame in their lack of support for resistance to the Anglo-American-Israeli aggression take a step further by criticising even those who provide political support. They use the slur of armchair-Jihadist in describing them, and demand that they should practice what they preach. Voicing support is also part of Jihad and thus they are practicing what they are preaching. Likewise not everyone who was pro-War over Iraq ended up in the battlefield. This shows their hypocritical nature as these moderates make these arguments only to the Muslims and not the non-Muslims who are voicing support for war, perhaps a natural consequence of suffering from the good Muslim image syndrome!

If one is unable to engage physically for any reason at the very least one can provide support by voicing their opinions. That is far better than the moderates who sneer at them, thus they show disdain for Jihad or any from of resistance to the aggression; this is an act of cowardice and treachery. Like cowards and hypocrites, their so-called support for Palestine or Iraq is a lie, as they are constantly calling for resistance to cease without providing an alternative. Such shameful language and behaviour is not even seen in the non-Muslims who are openly supporting the resistance against imperial aggression.

Yamin Zakaria

London , UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2007