1968-2008 : 40 years of Turkish migration
In 1967 the Holt government signed an historic immigration agreement with the Republic of Turkey which saw the influx of thousands of unskilled migrants to Sydney and Melbourne. My parents were amongst those early arrivals who came to Sydney, starry-eyed and without a word of English. I grew up in world of terrace houses and narrow streets, my friends were named Scott, Chris, Kon, Zoran, Arthur and Andrew and we played cricket in the lane way. Growing up in Newtown was like living in a sanctuary of innocence and idealism. We did not care about where you came from and we felt safe in our little multicultural enclave. It wasn’t until my family moved to Emu Plains that we realised the real world was not so innocent and instantly I became an alien with three eyes and green skin in a sea of white. I was called names like ‘gobbler’ and often got into punch ups.
It didn’t sway my determination though, I excelled in English and was always in the top classes through high school. Eventually I left that place that I called home; but it left our family scarred for life. Not one of the nine children in our household escaped unscathed if it wasn’t trouble at school and expulsions it was identity crises and racism. Sound like any normal Australian family? Through it all we managed to keep it together. I finished my Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies recently and often look back at our tumultuous upbringing and all the arguments and fights and it does make me laugh even if it wasn’t funny at the time. But life is like that, such experiences toughen you and prepare you for more hard knocks. I know that almost all of those families that arrived between 1968 and 1977 have had the same problems.
Call it “adjustment”. Of course the next generation of Turkish-Australians are not experiencing the same dilemmas that we experienced. Their problems are more complex. Instead they are more concerned about parental pressures, peer group influence, social adjustment and identity.
But the Turks like all the others are just one cog in the very sophisticated machinations of a pluralist society. Turks like other cultures have enriched the fabric of this society. They have by and large successfully “integrated”. There’s that word again. We still haven’t defined what integration is so maybe we should use a euphemism like “adjusted” instead. Just to keep it safe. However, the merry-go-round never stops and as each wave experiences “adjustment” a new wave comes along to face new challenges.
The Turks are trying to get over the stigma of kebab shop owners and hair-dressers. The new generations are doctors and journalists, economists and futures exchange analysts, lawyers and IT specialists. We still have a long way to go and many of the community are still grappling with English and do not really know much about the political, or judicial or tax systems but then again which Aussie really does?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Aussie Mossie Review: Get a copy
This Gregorian year is already coming towards the end, which is good because that means summer but where did the year go? Keep in mind, Islamicly iwe just ended the holy month of Ramadhan and for Muslims this is regarded as the pinnacle of the Islamic year. With all this hive of activism, we at FAIR have not stopped doing what we do best and that is improve our way of life, particularly with regards to improving relations between Muslims and the broader society.
However, this year has been another very busy year for Muslims. We have been in the midst of a creative project called ARTSLAM 21, a youth project which involved calligraphy classes, hip hop workshops, comedy workshops and poetry workshops (see page ) and all of this culminated in a wonderful showcase of all the work, with fabulous speeches and performances, it was a great day (at the Museum of Sydney). Also this year we started a new program called Faithways- peace walks, our first walk was between Auburn Gallipoli Mosque and Lidcombe St Joachim’s Catholic Church, which was a great way to break down barriers between people in the local area.
Aussie Mossie Review is an exciting new resource for the Muslim ummah and will hopefully be a great way to express different issues and ideas in the community. The newspaper will come out four times a year and cover a retrospective analysis of the year’s big issues and all the little issues that we don’t hear about. Aussie Mossie urges you to take part and write your own articles.
Personally, I just returned from Malaysia where I conducted a two day youth camp for Muslim youth. This was a very successful camp, focusing on character building, youth and identity issues, ahlaq and adhab, conflict resolution and assertiveness and leadership training. I was also in Jogjakarta (Indonesia) where I was organizing a big conference on leadership aimed at youth in Australia and Indonesia (stay tuned for more on that soon). And only a couple of months ago I ran a four day youth camp near Darwin in the top end, where we re-enacted the Hegira with the young boys. Once again this was designed to promote team building, self-confidence and leadership.
To read your favourite news publication (Aussie Mossie Quarterly Review) contact me by emailing fairmedia@fair.org.au and checkout the website (Aussiemossie.com).
Have a read and reflect on this year, on the stories like the Islamic school application in Camden which most of you know was rejected by Camden council (unanimously), or the demise of AFIC, Aussie Mossie will also be running the new Aussie Mossie of the year awards night, which will be unlike anything we have seen before. A nationwide search for the most popular Aussie Mossie around.
This is your paper and hopefully it will become a source of achievement for our ummah and bring us closer together in making our society more harmonious and more successful.
However, this year has been another very busy year for Muslims. We have been in the midst of a creative project called ARTSLAM 21, a youth project which involved calligraphy classes, hip hop workshops, comedy workshops and poetry workshops (see page ) and all of this culminated in a wonderful showcase of all the work, with fabulous speeches and performances, it was a great day (at the Museum of Sydney). Also this year we started a new program called Faithways- peace walks, our first walk was between Auburn Gallipoli Mosque and Lidcombe St Joachim’s Catholic Church, which was a great way to break down barriers between people in the local area.
Aussie Mossie Review is an exciting new resource for the Muslim ummah and will hopefully be a great way to express different issues and ideas in the community. The newspaper will come out four times a year and cover a retrospective analysis of the year’s big issues and all the little issues that we don’t hear about. Aussie Mossie urges you to take part and write your own articles.
Personally, I just returned from Malaysia where I conducted a two day youth camp for Muslim youth. This was a very successful camp, focusing on character building, youth and identity issues, ahlaq and adhab, conflict resolution and assertiveness and leadership training. I was also in Jogjakarta (Indonesia) where I was organizing a big conference on leadership aimed at youth in Australia and Indonesia (stay tuned for more on that soon). And only a couple of months ago I ran a four day youth camp near Darwin in the top end, where we re-enacted the Hegira with the young boys. Once again this was designed to promote team building, self-confidence and leadership.
To read your favourite news publication (Aussie Mossie Quarterly Review) contact me by emailing fairmedia@fair.org.au and checkout the website (Aussiemossie.com).
Have a read and reflect on this year, on the stories like the Islamic school application in Camden which most of you know was rejected by Camden council (unanimously), or the demise of AFIC, Aussie Mossie will also be running the new Aussie Mossie of the year awards night, which will be unlike anything we have seen before. A nationwide search for the most popular Aussie Mossie around.
This is your paper and hopefully it will become a source of achievement for our ummah and bring us closer together in making our society more harmonious and more successful.
Book Review: Did You Know?
Did You Know? Refuting Rigid Interpretations Concerning the Position of Women in Islam and Muslims’ Interactions with Non-Muslims
Author: Aziza Abdel-Halim AM
Publisher: Muslim Women’s National Network of Australia Inc. (2008)
Did You Know provides easy to read, accessible answers to common questions from Muslims and non-Muslims about the rights of women in Islam and relationships with non-Muslims. It is divided into parts including ‘Islam and its Sources’, ‘Did You Know’ which sets out information under clear headings such as Women and Education, Women and the Mosque, and Violence Against Wives (presenting evidence that violence against wives is unIslamic), ‘Interactions Between Muslims and Non-Muslims’, and ‘Muslims in Australia’. The part on ‘Contemporary Influential Islamic Thinkers’ may be of particular interest to readers who wish to explore these areas further.
Readers who know the author, Aziza Abdel-Halim, will sense her presence throughout the book. As well as clear, concise answers to common questions and misconceptions, she has included poetry, anecdotes and observations which reflect her love of Islam.
This is a great book for young Muslims who are looking for “back to basics” inspiration and reassurance that Islam truly offers an enlightened and compassionate way of life. It is especially valuable for Muslim women because the carefully documented Quranic passages, sayings and practices of the Prophet (PBUH) clearly show that he practised enlightened attitudes to women in his lifetime. There are accounts of him debating theology with women, defending their rights to education and to attend mosque, and even doing housework. Exactly for these reasons, hopefully men will read the book too. Finally, for non-Muslims like me, it gives a sense of connection that what we have in common is most important. It offers an inspiring vision of Islam and demonstrates practical ways in which we can all lead enriching lives in Australian society.
Jan Zwar
Author: Aziza Abdel-Halim AM
Publisher: Muslim Women’s National Network of Australia Inc. (2008)
Did You Know provides easy to read, accessible answers to common questions from Muslims and non-Muslims about the rights of women in Islam and relationships with non-Muslims. It is divided into parts including ‘Islam and its Sources’, ‘Did You Know’ which sets out information under clear headings such as Women and Education, Women and the Mosque, and Violence Against Wives (presenting evidence that violence against wives is unIslamic), ‘Interactions Between Muslims and Non-Muslims’, and ‘Muslims in Australia’. The part on ‘Contemporary Influential Islamic Thinkers’ may be of particular interest to readers who wish to explore these areas further.
Readers who know the author, Aziza Abdel-Halim, will sense her presence throughout the book. As well as clear, concise answers to common questions and misconceptions, she has included poetry, anecdotes and observations which reflect her love of Islam.
This is a great book for young Muslims who are looking for “back to basics” inspiration and reassurance that Islam truly offers an enlightened and compassionate way of life. It is especially valuable for Muslim women because the carefully documented Quranic passages, sayings and practices of the Prophet (PBUH) clearly show that he practised enlightened attitudes to women in his lifetime. There are accounts of him debating theology with women, defending their rights to education and to attend mosque, and even doing housework. Exactly for these reasons, hopefully men will read the book too. Finally, for non-Muslims like me, it gives a sense of connection that what we have in common is most important. It offers an inspiring vision of Islam and demonstrates practical ways in which we can all lead enriching lives in Australian society.
Jan Zwar
Ataturk – the alleged destroyer of the Caliphate
He was definitely father of modern Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was born in Salonica in 1890. One of Turkey’s greatest modern military minds and the saviour of Gallipoli. After the end of the first world war like many of Turkey’s generals he saw their country being carved up like a roast dinner. France got the leg, England the breast, Greece the ribs, The Russians were happy that Istanbul was an international city, the Armenians were praying for the scraps. And in 1919 at the Treaty of Sevres, Turkey was ultimately humiliated and all that remained was inner Anatolia. This was a bitter pill to swallow for 11 million proud Turks.
In the meantime elsewhere in the empire there were more deals being made. In Palestine there was an apparent agreement made between Lawrence of Arabia and the Arabs that they would receive their own independent state if they assisted the British in fighting off the Turks. In Arabia an even sinister plot had hatched by the Saud clan.
There is a great misconception that Ataturk was the architect behind the abolition of the caliphate. After the war ended in 1918 the Arabs were rewarded for their treachery against the Turks (fellow Muslims) after siding with the British. They were promised Palestine and the Hejaz. Sherif Hussain was made the Emir of the Mecca and Medina. However, Hussain made a hasty error by declaring himself Caliph of the Muslim world. To the chagrin of the British.
Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, (1854-1931) was the ruler of the Hejaz and of Mecca from 1908 until 1917, when he proclaimed himself king of Hejaz, which received international recognition. In 1924, he further proclaimed himself Caliph of all Muslims. He ruled Hejaz until 1924, when, defeated by the Abdul Aziz al Saud and he abdicated the kingdom and other secular titles to his eldest son Ali.
The British were not expecting Hussein to announce himself as Caliphate after all the plan had been from the start to destroy it forever. They had partially succeeded by partitioning the Ottoman empire and placing the Middle East under British and French control. When the Turks had finally announced that the Caliph in Turkey was no more Hussein saw this as an opportunity to proclaim the title. He controlled both Mecca and Medina and in effect was the new caliph.
The problem with this is that the Caliph should be an elected position. Nonetheless, the British had no intention to tolerate such a brash move, especially after they had installed Hussein into power in the first place. They then pushed the Abdul Aziz Al-Saud to lead a campaign, reinforced with british weapons to oust Hussein and take control. The only condition was that Abdul-Aziz was not to proclaim himself Caliph nor were any of his descendants. To this day, we have never ever heard of a Saudi King declaring himself Caliph.
In the meantime, the nasty Palestinians placed all the blame on Mustafa Kemal. They said that he hated the Arabs and he abolished the Arabic script, he secularised Turkey and abolished the caliphate.
What Ataturk did was remove the Caliph as an obstacle his grab for power, having already lost the Hejaz which was a fundamental requirement for holding the title of Caliphate. Officially the Caliphate was declared over in Turkey as the last known Caliph was actually Sultan Mehmet Vahdettin who abdicated in 1922 and was exiled to Malta. His successor Abdul Mecid II was briefly Caliph until 1924 when it was formerly abolished by parliament.
However, the real architects of the end of the caliphate were the Saudis. They had already made a deal with the British to fight the Turks in return for their military aid. The Saudis came near to extinction until they were saved by the British. In 1924 the Saudis made another deal to take over control of the Hejaz and depose of Sherif Hussein.
Bearing in mind all along the British were planning to create a new “Jewish Homeland” under the agreement of the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs were tricked into believing that they too would receive their own homeland which would include Jerusalem and most of the Westbank.
It was foolish to have trusted the British for in the end not only did Hussein lose all his power, the Arabs were placed under British and French mandates. They lived under colonial rule for almost half a century until one by one they gained independence but only to be ruled by puppet regimes chosen by the British and French.
In the end it was the House of Saud that abolished the last Caliph of Islam. In return for taking power the British were promised that they would never claim the caliphate themselves. And to this day it is as so. The Muslims have no leader, and as long as Arabia is called Saudi Arabia we will never see another caliph lead the Muslims out of the depths of darkness.
In the meantime elsewhere in the empire there were more deals being made. In Palestine there was an apparent agreement made between Lawrence of Arabia and the Arabs that they would receive their own independent state if they assisted the British in fighting off the Turks. In Arabia an even sinister plot had hatched by the Saud clan.
There is a great misconception that Ataturk was the architect behind the abolition of the caliphate. After the war ended in 1918 the Arabs were rewarded for their treachery against the Turks (fellow Muslims) after siding with the British. They were promised Palestine and the Hejaz. Sherif Hussain was made the Emir of the Mecca and Medina. However, Hussain made a hasty error by declaring himself Caliph of the Muslim world. To the chagrin of the British.
Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, (1854-1931) was the ruler of the Hejaz and of Mecca from 1908 until 1917, when he proclaimed himself king of Hejaz, which received international recognition. In 1924, he further proclaimed himself Caliph of all Muslims. He ruled Hejaz until 1924, when, defeated by the Abdul Aziz al Saud and he abdicated the kingdom and other secular titles to his eldest son Ali.
The British were not expecting Hussein to announce himself as Caliphate after all the plan had been from the start to destroy it forever. They had partially succeeded by partitioning the Ottoman empire and placing the Middle East under British and French control. When the Turks had finally announced that the Caliph in Turkey was no more Hussein saw this as an opportunity to proclaim the title. He controlled both Mecca and Medina and in effect was the new caliph.
The problem with this is that the Caliph should be an elected position. Nonetheless, the British had no intention to tolerate such a brash move, especially after they had installed Hussein into power in the first place. They then pushed the Abdul Aziz Al-Saud to lead a campaign, reinforced with british weapons to oust Hussein and take control. The only condition was that Abdul-Aziz was not to proclaim himself Caliph nor were any of his descendants. To this day, we have never ever heard of a Saudi King declaring himself Caliph.
In the meantime, the nasty Palestinians placed all the blame on Mustafa Kemal. They said that he hated the Arabs and he abolished the Arabic script, he secularised Turkey and abolished the caliphate.
What Ataturk did was remove the Caliph as an obstacle his grab for power, having already lost the Hejaz which was a fundamental requirement for holding the title of Caliphate. Officially the Caliphate was declared over in Turkey as the last known Caliph was actually Sultan Mehmet Vahdettin who abdicated in 1922 and was exiled to Malta. His successor Abdul Mecid II was briefly Caliph until 1924 when it was formerly abolished by parliament.
However, the real architects of the end of the caliphate were the Saudis. They had already made a deal with the British to fight the Turks in return for their military aid. The Saudis came near to extinction until they were saved by the British. In 1924 the Saudis made another deal to take over control of the Hejaz and depose of Sherif Hussein.
Bearing in mind all along the British were planning to create a new “Jewish Homeland” under the agreement of the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs were tricked into believing that they too would receive their own homeland which would include Jerusalem and most of the Westbank.
It was foolish to have trusted the British for in the end not only did Hussein lose all his power, the Arabs were placed under British and French mandates. They lived under colonial rule for almost half a century until one by one they gained independence but only to be ruled by puppet regimes chosen by the British and French.
In the end it was the House of Saud that abolished the last Caliph of Islam. In return for taking power the British were promised that they would never claim the caliphate themselves. And to this day it is as so. The Muslims have no leader, and as long as Arabia is called Saudi Arabia we will never see another caliph lead the Muslims out of the depths of darkness.
Uyghurs Celebrate Landmark Ruling
Uyghurs Celebrate Landmark Ruling on the Release of Seventeen Uyghurs from Guantanamo to the United States
In a landmark ruling on October 7, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina paroled the remaining seventeen Uyghurs detained at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. The federal judge ordered that the Uyghurs in Guantanamo be present in Washington, DC on Friday October 10 for a hand over to the Uyghur community in the United States.
The Uyghur American Association (UAA) welcomes Judge Urbina’s ruling and views the parole of the seventeen Uyghurs as a damning indictment of the Chinese government’s assertions that Uyghurs are connected to global terror groups. The ruling also reaffirms the inherent justice of the United States legal system.
In response to the ruling, Uyghur democracy leader Ms. Rebiya Kadeer said: “On behalf of all oppressed Uyghurs, I want to thank the people of the United States, as well as their legal system and government, for exercising the rule of law, something which Uyghurs have not come to expect in China. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Mr. Sabin Willett and his fellow lawyers, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo. Justice has finally prevailed in this case, and the United States has once again exemplified the traits that are so deeply admired by Uyghurs around the world.”
UAA believes the decision will raise the profile of the Uyghur human rights cause, as well as awareness of the human rights conditions in East Turkestan (also known as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in northwest China) that compelled the Guantanamo Uyghurs to flee to Afghanistan. In addition, the ruling exposes as baseless the Chinese government’s exploitation of the Guantanamo Uyghurs’ case to justify a broader crackdown on Uyghurs in the name of the “war on terror”. Together with recent media reports casting doubt on the Chinese government’s version of a recent violent attack in Kashgar (a major city in East Turkestan), yesterday’s ruling is a major blow to the Chinese government’s claims regarding Uyghurs and terrorism.
UAA asserts that the ruling puts to rest any Chinese government claims that the seventeen Uyghurs in Guantanamo would receive fair treatment if returned to China. Ms. Rebiya Kadeer added: “The fact that today’s proceedings did not even consider returning these men to China shows that they would face certain torture and even execution upon their arrival in China. While it took nearly seven years for this ruling to come about, these Uyghurs would have been executed within two months of being returned to China. Uyghurs in East Turkestan and in exile thank the American people for not sending the seventeen Uyghur men to China to a terrible fate. In the United States, the Uyghur community can offer the support these men need to lead productive lives.”
None of the twenty-two Uyghurs originally detained in Guantanamo were picked up on a battlefield, and most of them were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters and sold to American forces for $5,000 each. They had fled to Afghanistan from East Turkestan and escaped to Pakistan once coalition bombing began. However, since their detention, the US government has determined that the Uyghurs are non-enemy combatants. Five Uyghurs were released into Albania in 2006, but no third country has expressed willingness to accept the seventeen men remaining in Guantanamo, reportedly due at least in part to Chinese pressure. As early as 2003, most of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo were cleared for release. Earlier this year, U.S. congressional representatives from both sides of the aisle called for the release of the Guantanamo Uyghurs to the United States.
In its annual country reports on human rights abuses, the U.S. State Department has highlighted human rights abuses by Chinese government authorities in East Turkestan, including the use of the legal system as a tool of repression against Uyghurs who voice discontent with the government and the fierce suppression of Uyghur religion, a moderate form of Sunni Islam that is a vital part of their ethnic identity. Uyghurs in East Turkestan face a wide spectrum of human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention and execution, torture, and the suppression of their language and culture. In the past year, Uyghurs have been subjected to an increased rate of execution and detention, in addition to forced relocation, police monitoring, passport confiscation, and the destruction of places of worship.
In a landmark ruling on October 7, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina paroled the remaining seventeen Uyghurs detained at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. The federal judge ordered that the Uyghurs in Guantanamo be present in Washington, DC on Friday October 10 for a hand over to the Uyghur community in the United States.
The Uyghur American Association (UAA) welcomes Judge Urbina’s ruling and views the parole of the seventeen Uyghurs as a damning indictment of the Chinese government’s assertions that Uyghurs are connected to global terror groups. The ruling also reaffirms the inherent justice of the United States legal system.
In response to the ruling, Uyghur democracy leader Ms. Rebiya Kadeer said: “On behalf of all oppressed Uyghurs, I want to thank the people of the United States, as well as their legal system and government, for exercising the rule of law, something which Uyghurs have not come to expect in China. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Mr. Sabin Willett and his fellow lawyers, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo. Justice has finally prevailed in this case, and the United States has once again exemplified the traits that are so deeply admired by Uyghurs around the world.”
UAA believes the decision will raise the profile of the Uyghur human rights cause, as well as awareness of the human rights conditions in East Turkestan (also known as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in northwest China) that compelled the Guantanamo Uyghurs to flee to Afghanistan. In addition, the ruling exposes as baseless the Chinese government’s exploitation of the Guantanamo Uyghurs’ case to justify a broader crackdown on Uyghurs in the name of the “war on terror”. Together with recent media reports casting doubt on the Chinese government’s version of a recent violent attack in Kashgar (a major city in East Turkestan), yesterday’s ruling is a major blow to the Chinese government’s claims regarding Uyghurs and terrorism.
UAA asserts that the ruling puts to rest any Chinese government claims that the seventeen Uyghurs in Guantanamo would receive fair treatment if returned to China. Ms. Rebiya Kadeer added: “The fact that today’s proceedings did not even consider returning these men to China shows that they would face certain torture and even execution upon their arrival in China. While it took nearly seven years for this ruling to come about, these Uyghurs would have been executed within two months of being returned to China. Uyghurs in East Turkestan and in exile thank the American people for not sending the seventeen Uyghur men to China to a terrible fate. In the United States, the Uyghur community can offer the support these men need to lead productive lives.”
None of the twenty-two Uyghurs originally detained in Guantanamo were picked up on a battlefield, and most of them were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters and sold to American forces for $5,000 each. They had fled to Afghanistan from East Turkestan and escaped to Pakistan once coalition bombing began. However, since their detention, the US government has determined that the Uyghurs are non-enemy combatants. Five Uyghurs were released into Albania in 2006, but no third country has expressed willingness to accept the seventeen men remaining in Guantanamo, reportedly due at least in part to Chinese pressure. As early as 2003, most of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo were cleared for release. Earlier this year, U.S. congressional representatives from both sides of the aisle called for the release of the Guantanamo Uyghurs to the United States.
In its annual country reports on human rights abuses, the U.S. State Department has highlighted human rights abuses by Chinese government authorities in East Turkestan, including the use of the legal system as a tool of repression against Uyghurs who voice discontent with the government and the fierce suppression of Uyghur religion, a moderate form of Sunni Islam that is a vital part of their ethnic identity. Uyghurs in East Turkestan face a wide spectrum of human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention and execution, torture, and the suppression of their language and culture. In the past year, Uyghurs have been subjected to an increased rate of execution and detention, in addition to forced relocation, police monitoring, passport confiscation, and the destruction of places of worship.
Violence in Islam and the hideous schizophrenia
The Qur’an says:
"O ye who believe! Remain steadfast for Allah, bearing witness to justice. Do not allow your hatred for others to make you swerve to wrongdoing and turn you away from justice. Be just; that is closer to true piety." – (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5:8)
The Qur’an also clearly states:
to take one’s life without justification is as if he has taken the lives of all humanity
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 5 : verse 35)
Jihad is the notion of striving which is derived from the Arabic word jahada which means “to lift” or to “make an effort”.
The concept of jihad is a predominant view in Islam which encompasses every aspect of one’s struggle against the temptations of life, including the battle with the ego and the desires of the soul.
The jihad, in the first thirteen years for the Muslims of Mecca (623 - 632 CE) meant strictly practicing non-violence. The Holy Qur’an ordered them to:
Restrain your hands and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat. (The Holy Qur’an Chapter 3: Verse 77)
In 623 a revelation from the Prophet allowed Muslims to defend themselves from the aggressive and violent acts of the Meccan forces, who had persecuted every Muslim and their families as well as martyring many others. The Muslims mobilised themselves into well - organised militant groups in Medina and as a result took up arms to defend their territorial rights:
Permission is given to those against whom war is made, because they are oppressed, and God is able to help them. These are the people who are expelled from their homes without cause because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’.
(The Holy Qur’an Chapter 22: Verse 39)
The Medinan Muslims engaged in a militant struggle to force the Meccans into a treaty which saw almost ten years of peace in which time Islam spread amongst the Arab tribes unhindered and consequently the pagan Meccans submitted to the will of the Muslims without a drop of blood being shed.
The revelation came that changed the jihad from a defensive struggle to an offensive one:
Fight against those among the people of the book who do not believe in God and the Last day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their religion until they are subdued and pay jizyah.
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 9: verse 29)
This directly changed the way the new Muslim empire viewed itself. Within a few decades the Arabs had attained newfound wealth never imagined and a civilization that was exemplary and one to emulate in centuries to come.
The concept of an “offensive” jihad cannot be any act of aggression, which is clearly forbidden. More importantly, in the minds of the Muslims, theirs was not a material gain but one in which justice and morality were preserved. The common misconception of jihad meaning holy war is still popular today, this concept is alien to Islam and the early conquests were not holy wars.
Modern Islamic reformer Khaled Abou Fadl states categorically that:
Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause. Holy war (Ar. al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not.
Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb born in 1906 in his essay on jihad advocates that in order to obtain a just society one must be free to choose his faith and to attain such freedom, Islamic states were required to use force. He says:
The very purpose of this movement (Islam) is to set human beings free from the yoke of human enslavement and make them serve the One and Only God.
It is true that the early Muslims embarked on a Just War in which it saw the liberation of certain areas as an obligation. This was not only to ensure the survival of Islam but to create a lasting and just peace.
Majid Khadduri in Islamic Concept of Justice, notes that:
The state was the instrument with which Islam sought its ultimate objective; the establishment of God’s will and justice over the world.”
Wright in the Nature of Conflict says, “Islam began a career of conquest in the Seventh century with the thesis that it was the only true faith and was necessarily in conflict with all other religions. This was represented by the doctrine of the jihad or the perpetual war of the “world of Islam” (Dar al-Islam) with the “world of war” (Dar al-Harb).
This concept stated that the world was split into two divisions or abodes: the abode of Islam (Dar al Islam) and which may be called pax Islamica consisting of the territory over which Islamic justice ruled supreme and the rest of the world, Dar al-Harb, or the abode of war, over which public orders prevailed.
According to Qutb a Muslim must enter a movement and perform jihad to restore the true religion in the world. But Qutb stresses that there is a distinction between a jihad to free the world and the idea of enforcing Islam on the world. Religion was and still is to be carried out by peaceful means as:
there should be no compulsion in the spread of the word of God.
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 2: verse 257)
He says, “Islam in order to translate this ideal into reality, does not forcibly compel people to accept its faith but provides them with a free atmosphere to exercise their choice of faith.”
This view was supported by the great scholar and jurisprudent, Imam al-Shafi who believed that the expansion of the state carried out by jihad, was an entirely different matter. Imam al-Shafi who laid down a framework for Islam’s relationship with non-Muslims and formulated the doctrine that jihad had for its intent for the waging of war on unbelievers; for their disbelief and not only when they entered into conflict with the Islamic state.
However, prevailing interpretations based on the notion that Islam is a political community endowed with a public order designed to govern its internal affairs as well as to conduct its relationship with others in accordance with a scale of justice determined by the will and Justice of God, see the doctrine of the jihad as obsolete and in a state of dormancy.
In early Islam scholars like Abu Hanifa (founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence) and Shaybani made no explicit declarations that the jihad was a war to be waged against non-Muslims. On the contrary they stressed that tolerance should be shown to unbelievers, and prescribed war only when the non-believers came into conflict with Islam.
Islam prohibited all kinds of war except in the form of jihad in defence of your faith. Jihad was not necessarily a requirement for all able-bodied Muslims to fight, Jihad could be made in the form of your actions, or your words and even in your heart. The only legitimate war was a just war. All other wars were prohibited.
The classical doctrine of the jihad made no distinction between defensive and offensive war, for in the pursuance of the establishment of God’s sovereignty and justice on Earth the difference between defensive and offensive was irrelevant. However, although the duty of the jihad was commanded by God, (Qur’an chapter 61:10-13) it was considered to be binding only when the strength of the believers was theirs. That is when Islam was in the ascendancy.
Khadduri says,
When Islamic power began to decline, the state could obviously no longer assume a preponderant (greater in number) attitude without impairing its internal unity.
The ultimate objective was to establish peace and justice with communities which acknowledged the Islamic public order, Islam regulated its relationship with other states through the branch of law called the Siyar. The Siyar was a set of rules with the same textual sources as the sharia, possessing its own scales of justice based on Islamic principles and its experience with other people.
Vryonis, writes in The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor;
By 10th C jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to India. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian eastern European lands. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired.
This great achievement still bewilders many scholars today. There are many who use this point to illustrate that Islam is a violent religion and that jihad is based on offensive battles of expansion.
However, the early expansion of the Muslim Arabs, were not offensive imperialistic manouvres as historians like Vyronis, Lewis, Cook and commentators like Pipes have interpreted. The Arabs were compelled to protect themselves from threatening empires like Egypt, Persia and Byzantine. It was obligatory for Muslims to fight polytheists and to purge the Arabian peninsula of polytheism. The world was seeped in ignorance and practiced barbaric customs. It was incumbent on Muslims to free the oppressed people from the shackles of barbarism and allow people to develop in an environment of spiritual freedom. In the context of the time, this was seen as permissible. Even under latter ruling empires such as the Ottoman’s the expansion of the Islamic state was based on defensive wars or pre-emptive attacks against aggressor states such as Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
It is a simple case of just looking at Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Armenia where the Christians retained their faith and their identity more freely than under the Catholic Genoese or Venetians or under the Orthodox Byzantines. The subject people preferred the just rule of the Ottomans than their own Christian counterparts. The saying goes “better the Sultans turban than the Pontiffs cap”.
The complex nature of European developments of violence, however, was inevitably exported to Islamic societies in the early 20th century.
Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism espouses the view that Europe’s secularization led to a violent pathway. The advent of Liberalism meant total freedom that resulted in murder and suicide. In citing Tariq Ramadan and Albert Camus, he states there are fundamental clashes in view between European and Islamic approaches to violence through totalitarianism:
Ramadan observes that in looking for the roots of totalitarianism in mythology and literature, Camus confined himself to the myths and literary classics of the West. Civilisation to Camus meant Western culture and did not mean Islam.
However, both philosophers, he claims, “recognized that totalitarianism and terrorism are one and the same. If only we could discover the roots of totalitarianism, we would have discovered the roots of terror.”
The Promethean view of life that is prevalent in Western society is based on the rebellious attitude of man. Ramadan explains that the basic difference between Muslim thought and Christian is that “In Islam there is no tendency to rebel. Submission is the road to social justice, to a contented soul, and to harmony with the world.” Islam’s greatest model of submission is exemplified in the compliance of Abraham the father of Islam. There was no rebellion, no questioning, strictly submission to the will of God:
Camus invoked the myth of Prometheus the Titan, who goes further than Abraham and in a spirit of radical action, takes that final step into full scale rebellion. Prometheus steals Zeus’ fire and gives it to man. He is punished horribly for his transgression – and yet the Titan’s transgression is man’s benefit.
The development of Europe towards the separation of religion from the affairs of the state was the turning point in which Islam and Christian Europe diverged.
“That was the new twisted impulse in Europe- the rebellion that begins with freedom and ends with crime.”
Berman believes that once Liberalism took root on the continent great leaps in progress occurred in the West. It “was due to one all-powering principle. It was the recognition that all of life is not governed by one single all-knowing and all-powerful authority - by a divine force.”
Modern day Islamic nations have inherited a libertarian view towards violence:
Then again during its first 500 years of world domination Europe did export innumerable customs and ideas to every corner of the globe; and having exported everything else, why should Europe have been unable to export its spirit of self destruction, too?
In the Twentieth century many European ideologies spread to Islamic societies; Marxism, socialism, fascism and in particular nationalism in the form of pan-Arabism. Whilst many of these ideologies never really made lasting impacts on these societies, modernity’s pressures and the shrinking world placed pressures on the systems that these nations were to operate under. The socialist movements of the early Twentieth century influenced Arab politics for the most part of their existence after independence from colonial rule but a concurrent movement which Berman refers to as Islamist was also developing with greater emphasis on social welfare and religious quality. They remained for the most part apolitical although their influence was great. These movements were inspired by scholars like Afghani, Maududi and Hassan Al Banna who started the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sayyid Qutb wrote in Milestones:
“In this unfortunate fashion the schizophrenic aspect of Christian thought… spread into the realm of scientific knowledge. Everything that Islam knew to be one the Christian Church divided into two.” This is why secularism would not work in Islamic societies as they could not see the difference between politics and religion, they were inexorably one.
He truly believed that Islam, if correctly followed, possessed the answer. Qutb described Islam as:
a religion that does not deny man any of his natural tendencies or instincts, or pretend to achieve human purity by suppressing or destroying man’s basic human needs. Rather Islam disciplines, guides and fosters these desires and needs in a manner that reinforces man’s humanity and invigorates his consciousness of, and relationship with God. It further seeks to blend physical and sensual tendencies with human and religious emotions, thus bringing together the transient pleasures and the immutable values of human life into one harmonious and congruent system that will render man worthy of being God’s representative on Earth.
He was very critical of the West and Christianity, especially in their dominance of Islamic societies and their resources.
Freedom in a liberal society seemed to Qutb no freedom at all:
Secularism has largely failed in Islamic societies. This hideous schizophrenia for Muslims has caused instability over the past decades and is a major contributor to the violence that plays out each day. While Muslim societies could theoretically establish peace in a secularized fashion, it is a recipe for conflict. In Iraq and Afghanistan as the war on terror continues we are witnessing this failure today.
The world is gradually realizing that it is a war of ERROR. And Australia’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it doubly erroneous. We are complicit in the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis. The error in terror is fast becoming the dominant paradigm.
The War of Error started shortly after the attacks on the WTC buildings and the subsequent deaths of over three thousand of US citizens. In hindsight we may see that taking revenge against poor Afghanistan was a foolish step towards making the world more unsafe and unstable and then the invasion of Iraq totally tipped the scales and has made the region more volatile and unpredictable. Since the declaration by the US president that “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” we have seen bomb attacks in peaceful cities like Madrid, Istanbul, Indonesia, London and foiled attempts in Berlin. The errors have not ceased, we have had accidental bombings of wedding parties and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even our own soldiers have been coming home in coffins, now four in the past two years. The AWB scandal highlighted the corruption and the cruel undertaking to which the Australian government has committed our nation.
In Iraq there are gross injustices and violation of human rights, there is extreme poverty and the terrifying reality that almost every Iraqi faces on a daily basis; the bombings, shootings, unemployment, no access to education and a bleak future ahead.
The war of error is the greatest tragedy of this century and unless sanity prevails we will spiral further into anarchy and bedlam.
Islam seeks peace with God, this is not contrary to democracy.
In the West we seek peace without God.
To force Muslim societies to take the latter path could just be one more error in a chain of errors.
"O ye who believe! Remain steadfast for Allah, bearing witness to justice. Do not allow your hatred for others to make you swerve to wrongdoing and turn you away from justice. Be just; that is closer to true piety." – (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5:8)
The Qur’an also clearly states:
to take one’s life without justification is as if he has taken the lives of all humanity
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 5 : verse 35)
Jihad is the notion of striving which is derived from the Arabic word jahada which means “to lift” or to “make an effort”.
The concept of jihad is a predominant view in Islam which encompasses every aspect of one’s struggle against the temptations of life, including the battle with the ego and the desires of the soul.
The jihad, in the first thirteen years for the Muslims of Mecca (623 - 632 CE) meant strictly practicing non-violence. The Holy Qur’an ordered them to:
Restrain your hands and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat. (The Holy Qur’an Chapter 3: Verse 77)
In 623 a revelation from the Prophet allowed Muslims to defend themselves from the aggressive and violent acts of the Meccan forces, who had persecuted every Muslim and their families as well as martyring many others. The Muslims mobilised themselves into well - organised militant groups in Medina and as a result took up arms to defend their territorial rights:
Permission is given to those against whom war is made, because they are oppressed, and God is able to help them. These are the people who are expelled from their homes without cause because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’.
(The Holy Qur’an Chapter 22: Verse 39)
The Medinan Muslims engaged in a militant struggle to force the Meccans into a treaty which saw almost ten years of peace in which time Islam spread amongst the Arab tribes unhindered and consequently the pagan Meccans submitted to the will of the Muslims without a drop of blood being shed.
The revelation came that changed the jihad from a defensive struggle to an offensive one:
Fight against those among the people of the book who do not believe in God and the Last day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their religion until they are subdued and pay jizyah.
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 9: verse 29)
This directly changed the way the new Muslim empire viewed itself. Within a few decades the Arabs had attained newfound wealth never imagined and a civilization that was exemplary and one to emulate in centuries to come.
The concept of an “offensive” jihad cannot be any act of aggression, which is clearly forbidden. More importantly, in the minds of the Muslims, theirs was not a material gain but one in which justice and morality were preserved. The common misconception of jihad meaning holy war is still popular today, this concept is alien to Islam and the early conquests were not holy wars.
Modern Islamic reformer Khaled Abou Fadl states categorically that:
Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause. Holy war (Ar. al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not.
Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb born in 1906 in his essay on jihad advocates that in order to obtain a just society one must be free to choose his faith and to attain such freedom, Islamic states were required to use force. He says:
The very purpose of this movement (Islam) is to set human beings free from the yoke of human enslavement and make them serve the One and Only God.
It is true that the early Muslims embarked on a Just War in which it saw the liberation of certain areas as an obligation. This was not only to ensure the survival of Islam but to create a lasting and just peace.
Majid Khadduri in Islamic Concept of Justice, notes that:
The state was the instrument with which Islam sought its ultimate objective; the establishment of God’s will and justice over the world.”
Wright in the Nature of Conflict says, “Islam began a career of conquest in the Seventh century with the thesis that it was the only true faith and was necessarily in conflict with all other religions. This was represented by the doctrine of the jihad or the perpetual war of the “world of Islam” (Dar al-Islam) with the “world of war” (Dar al-Harb).
This concept stated that the world was split into two divisions or abodes: the abode of Islam (Dar al Islam) and which may be called pax Islamica consisting of the territory over which Islamic justice ruled supreme and the rest of the world, Dar al-Harb, or the abode of war, over which public orders prevailed.
According to Qutb a Muslim must enter a movement and perform jihad to restore the true religion in the world. But Qutb stresses that there is a distinction between a jihad to free the world and the idea of enforcing Islam on the world. Religion was and still is to be carried out by peaceful means as:
there should be no compulsion in the spread of the word of God.
(The Holy Qur’an chapter 2: verse 257)
He says, “Islam in order to translate this ideal into reality, does not forcibly compel people to accept its faith but provides them with a free atmosphere to exercise their choice of faith.”
This view was supported by the great scholar and jurisprudent, Imam al-Shafi who believed that the expansion of the state carried out by jihad, was an entirely different matter. Imam al-Shafi who laid down a framework for Islam’s relationship with non-Muslims and formulated the doctrine that jihad had for its intent for the waging of war on unbelievers; for their disbelief and not only when they entered into conflict with the Islamic state.
However, prevailing interpretations based on the notion that Islam is a political community endowed with a public order designed to govern its internal affairs as well as to conduct its relationship with others in accordance with a scale of justice determined by the will and Justice of God, see the doctrine of the jihad as obsolete and in a state of dormancy.
In early Islam scholars like Abu Hanifa (founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence) and Shaybani made no explicit declarations that the jihad was a war to be waged against non-Muslims. On the contrary they stressed that tolerance should be shown to unbelievers, and prescribed war only when the non-believers came into conflict with Islam.
Islam prohibited all kinds of war except in the form of jihad in defence of your faith. Jihad was not necessarily a requirement for all able-bodied Muslims to fight, Jihad could be made in the form of your actions, or your words and even in your heart. The only legitimate war was a just war. All other wars were prohibited.
The classical doctrine of the jihad made no distinction between defensive and offensive war, for in the pursuance of the establishment of God’s sovereignty and justice on Earth the difference between defensive and offensive was irrelevant. However, although the duty of the jihad was commanded by God, (Qur’an chapter 61:10-13) it was considered to be binding only when the strength of the believers was theirs. That is when Islam was in the ascendancy.
Khadduri says,
When Islamic power began to decline, the state could obviously no longer assume a preponderant (greater in number) attitude without impairing its internal unity.
The ultimate objective was to establish peace and justice with communities which acknowledged the Islamic public order, Islam regulated its relationship with other states through the branch of law called the Siyar. The Siyar was a set of rules with the same textual sources as the sharia, possessing its own scales of justice based on Islamic principles and its experience with other people.
Vryonis, writes in The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor;
By 10th C jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to India. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian eastern European lands. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired.
This great achievement still bewilders many scholars today. There are many who use this point to illustrate that Islam is a violent religion and that jihad is based on offensive battles of expansion.
However, the early expansion of the Muslim Arabs, were not offensive imperialistic manouvres as historians like Vyronis, Lewis, Cook and commentators like Pipes have interpreted. The Arabs were compelled to protect themselves from threatening empires like Egypt, Persia and Byzantine. It was obligatory for Muslims to fight polytheists and to purge the Arabian peninsula of polytheism. The world was seeped in ignorance and practiced barbaric customs. It was incumbent on Muslims to free the oppressed people from the shackles of barbarism and allow people to develop in an environment of spiritual freedom. In the context of the time, this was seen as permissible. Even under latter ruling empires such as the Ottoman’s the expansion of the Islamic state was based on defensive wars or pre-emptive attacks against aggressor states such as Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
It is a simple case of just looking at Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Armenia where the Christians retained their faith and their identity more freely than under the Catholic Genoese or Venetians or under the Orthodox Byzantines. The subject people preferred the just rule of the Ottomans than their own Christian counterparts. The saying goes “better the Sultans turban than the Pontiffs cap”.
The complex nature of European developments of violence, however, was inevitably exported to Islamic societies in the early 20th century.
Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism espouses the view that Europe’s secularization led to a violent pathway. The advent of Liberalism meant total freedom that resulted in murder and suicide. In citing Tariq Ramadan and Albert Camus, he states there are fundamental clashes in view between European and Islamic approaches to violence through totalitarianism:
Ramadan observes that in looking for the roots of totalitarianism in mythology and literature, Camus confined himself to the myths and literary classics of the West. Civilisation to Camus meant Western culture and did not mean Islam.
However, both philosophers, he claims, “recognized that totalitarianism and terrorism are one and the same. If only we could discover the roots of totalitarianism, we would have discovered the roots of terror.”
The Promethean view of life that is prevalent in Western society is based on the rebellious attitude of man. Ramadan explains that the basic difference between Muslim thought and Christian is that “In Islam there is no tendency to rebel. Submission is the road to social justice, to a contented soul, and to harmony with the world.” Islam’s greatest model of submission is exemplified in the compliance of Abraham the father of Islam. There was no rebellion, no questioning, strictly submission to the will of God:
Camus invoked the myth of Prometheus the Titan, who goes further than Abraham and in a spirit of radical action, takes that final step into full scale rebellion. Prometheus steals Zeus’ fire and gives it to man. He is punished horribly for his transgression – and yet the Titan’s transgression is man’s benefit.
The development of Europe towards the separation of religion from the affairs of the state was the turning point in which Islam and Christian Europe diverged.
“That was the new twisted impulse in Europe- the rebellion that begins with freedom and ends with crime.”
Berman believes that once Liberalism took root on the continent great leaps in progress occurred in the West. It “was due to one all-powering principle. It was the recognition that all of life is not governed by one single all-knowing and all-powerful authority - by a divine force.”
Modern day Islamic nations have inherited a libertarian view towards violence:
Then again during its first 500 years of world domination Europe did export innumerable customs and ideas to every corner of the globe; and having exported everything else, why should Europe have been unable to export its spirit of self destruction, too?
In the Twentieth century many European ideologies spread to Islamic societies; Marxism, socialism, fascism and in particular nationalism in the form of pan-Arabism. Whilst many of these ideologies never really made lasting impacts on these societies, modernity’s pressures and the shrinking world placed pressures on the systems that these nations were to operate under. The socialist movements of the early Twentieth century influenced Arab politics for the most part of their existence after independence from colonial rule but a concurrent movement which Berman refers to as Islamist was also developing with greater emphasis on social welfare and religious quality. They remained for the most part apolitical although their influence was great. These movements were inspired by scholars like Afghani, Maududi and Hassan Al Banna who started the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sayyid Qutb wrote in Milestones:
“In this unfortunate fashion the schizophrenic aspect of Christian thought… spread into the realm of scientific knowledge. Everything that Islam knew to be one the Christian Church divided into two.” This is why secularism would not work in Islamic societies as they could not see the difference between politics and religion, they were inexorably one.
He truly believed that Islam, if correctly followed, possessed the answer. Qutb described Islam as:
a religion that does not deny man any of his natural tendencies or instincts, or pretend to achieve human purity by suppressing or destroying man’s basic human needs. Rather Islam disciplines, guides and fosters these desires and needs in a manner that reinforces man’s humanity and invigorates his consciousness of, and relationship with God. It further seeks to blend physical and sensual tendencies with human and religious emotions, thus bringing together the transient pleasures and the immutable values of human life into one harmonious and congruent system that will render man worthy of being God’s representative on Earth.
He was very critical of the West and Christianity, especially in their dominance of Islamic societies and their resources.
Freedom in a liberal society seemed to Qutb no freedom at all:
Secularism has largely failed in Islamic societies. This hideous schizophrenia for Muslims has caused instability over the past decades and is a major contributor to the violence that plays out each day. While Muslim societies could theoretically establish peace in a secularized fashion, it is a recipe for conflict. In Iraq and Afghanistan as the war on terror continues we are witnessing this failure today.
The world is gradually realizing that it is a war of ERROR. And Australia’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it doubly erroneous. We are complicit in the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis. The error in terror is fast becoming the dominant paradigm.
The War of Error started shortly after the attacks on the WTC buildings and the subsequent deaths of over three thousand of US citizens. In hindsight we may see that taking revenge against poor Afghanistan was a foolish step towards making the world more unsafe and unstable and then the invasion of Iraq totally tipped the scales and has made the region more volatile and unpredictable. Since the declaration by the US president that “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” we have seen bomb attacks in peaceful cities like Madrid, Istanbul, Indonesia, London and foiled attempts in Berlin. The errors have not ceased, we have had accidental bombings of wedding parties and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even our own soldiers have been coming home in coffins, now four in the past two years. The AWB scandal highlighted the corruption and the cruel undertaking to which the Australian government has committed our nation.
In Iraq there are gross injustices and violation of human rights, there is extreme poverty and the terrifying reality that almost every Iraqi faces on a daily basis; the bombings, shootings, unemployment, no access to education and a bleak future ahead.
The war of error is the greatest tragedy of this century and unless sanity prevails we will spiral further into anarchy and bedlam.
Islam seeks peace with God, this is not contrary to democracy.
In the West we seek peace without God.
To force Muslim societies to take the latter path could just be one more error in a chain of errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
