Also published in Daily Trust and here also in the same newspaper
In the wake of every terror attack rightly or wrongly
believed to have been carried out by a Muslim or some Muslims, a heated
controversy over Islamic stance on violence usually ensues. This, by the way,
happens especially when the attack is carried out in any of the major Western
European countries, the United States, Canada and a few other countries
elsewhere e.g. Australia, or when the attack targets their citizens or
interests anywhere in the world.
While a terror attack in any of these
countries attracts huge international media attention, which, in turn, triggers
global condemnation and generates worldwide show of sympathy for the victims, a
similar terror attack, or even a much more devastating terror attack, in Africa
or some parts of Asia, for instance, doesn’t attract appropriate, let alone similar
amount of international media coverage and show of empathy. Unfortunately, it’s
as though the sanctity and value of people’s lives are nowadays determined by
their respective countries’ socio-economic development and political influence
on the world stage.
Besides, though there are some indoctrinated
and brainwashed Muslim individuals who, out of sheer ignorance and
misunderstanding of Islamic religion, carryout terror attacks under some
ridiculous and absolutely unjustifiable pretexts, it’s quite obvious that the
circumstances of many of such attacks aren’t actually as often explained in
official narratives, after all. Instead, many, if not most, of such attacks
bear the hallmarks of conspiracy. For instance, since the Sept 11, 2011 terror
attacks in the United States, which triggered the US-led global war on terror,
on the one hand, and the phenomenal escalation of global terrorism, on the
other, there have been several documented, painstakingly thorough, independent,
factual hence absolutely objective probes that exposed the conspiratorial
dimension and dynamics of the attacks, and confirmed the involvement of some
apparently influential elements in the US corridors of power and its various
intelligence agencies. Likewise, many similar probes confirmed the involvement
of some governments’ intelligence agencies in masterminding, facilitating or at
least deliberately turning a blind eye to credible threats of impending terror
attacks in different parts of the world including their own territories, for that
matter.
Anyway, most of the reactions and comments
that trail every terror attack said to be conducted by a Muslim or some Muslims
especially in one of the aforementioned ‘privileged’ countries or against their
citizens elsewhere, are largely either hate-induced prejudiced sentiments byIslamophobics who
simply hate Islam and Muslims, or subtle attempts to justify the attack under
some silly pretexts by some uninformed and inconsiderate Muslims, or equally
subtle criticisms against some Islamic values by some confused so-called
liberal Muslims wallowing in self-inflicted inferiority complex. There are also
moderate and objective reactions by the mainstream Muslim scholars, Muslim
intellectuals, opinion leaders and the general public.
Starting with the Islamophobics, being
non-Muslims in the first place, their reactions to a terror attack purportedly
carried out by a Muslim(s) isn’t surprising. Besides, their motive and mission
are clear enough, after all. It, therefore, remains the responsibility of Muslims
to continuously refute their allegations against Islam and Muslims.
However, with regard to the few uniformed
Muslims who seek to justify some acts of terror against some people, they
simply betray their sheer ignorance of Islamic religion as revealed by their
ridiculous semblance of arguments and pretexts. Their narrow-minded
opinions, therefore, shouldn’t be given any consideration, let alone judge
Muslims accordingly.
Yet, the post-terror attack reactions of the
so-called liberal Muslims are the most annoying, because while the former are
largely uneducated, these so-called liberal Muslims are largely educated,
albeit grossly deficient in Islamic scholarship. Also, having imbibed secular
yardsticks for measuring the logic, acceptability or otherwise of things, they
consciously or unconsciously seek to judge Islamic principles and values
accordingly. Moreover, even when they want or need to know the Islamic stance
on a particular issue, they end up imbibing ideas from some questionable books
and articles written by some unqualified people or even quacks
masquerading as Muslim intellectuals. This is because they simply
can’t read and/or understand the contents of the original sources of Islamic
scholarship i.e. the noble Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah and the scholarly works
of recognized Muslim jurists and scholars across the centuries.
This explains why when they criticize
religious extremism they go to the extent of downplaying the positivity of some
established Islamic commands, and trivializing the negativity of some
established Islamic prohibitions. Besides, from their assertions one can easily
realize how they take some particularly serious practices of transgression
against Allah’s commands e.g. blasphemy, adultery, usury etc, quite lightly, as
though they are more interested in impressing the Islamophobics.
For instance, when many of them condemned the terror attack on homosexuals in
the US state of Colorado recently, they subtly trivialized the evilness of
sodomy; in fact, the most confused among them went to the extent of effectively
casting doubt on Islamic prohibition of sodomy or its punishment in Islam.
It’s unfortunate that, moderate and
objective post-terror attack reactions, which the mainstream Islamic
scholars maintain don’t attract appropriate media coverage, though, frankly
speaking, many of the scholars don’t help matters either, for they don’t seem
to be doing enough in this regard, anyway, thereby leaving millions of
unsuspecting Muslims at the mercy of such so-called liberal Muslim
intellectuals who simply mislead their unsuspecting audience in their quest for
fame and other worldly benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment