| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Allah" has alerted me -- and invited me to respond -- to a particularly egregious and foul-smelling piece of pusillanimous dhimmitude from Brian Whitaker in The Guardian:
When events in the Middle East turn especially bloody, as they have during the last couple of weeks in Najaf, I am often struck by a whimsical - some might say ridiculous - thought.I imagine that the man at the centre of the trouble is not Moqtada al-Sadr (or whoever happens to be the villain of the moment) but Gandhi, the leader of India's struggle for independence. I wonder what he would have done about it.
Gandhi's methods of non-violent resistance have never attracted much interest in the Middle East - which is rather odd, because he played a crucial role in ending British rule in India, which in turn led to the unravelling of an empire.
It doesn't seem to occur to people that there could be lessons there for ending the American presence in Iraq, say, or the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Gandhi was a Hindu but readily incorporated other ideas into his philosophy. Like many Muslims today, he would undoubtedly have appreciated jihad, self-sacrifice and martyrdom as concepts, though not the methods that often accompany them.
Gandhi would undoubtedly have appreciated jihad, eh? Clearly this has been written by someone who has had his ears filled with carefully designed, glib jihad-is-an-inner-spiritual-struggle explanations and has no idea what Islam really teaches about what jihad is.
Yeah, Gandhi would have loved this: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion." That's from 'Umdat al-Salik (o9.0), a legal manual endorsed by the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo. I can see how that would have appealed to Gandhi. When Omar Bakri becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain, maybe he can get Ben Kingsley to reprise the Gandhi role with an AK-47 under his robes.
Whitaker, anyway, goes on to wonder why Gandhi has never been a big hero in the Middle East. (Um, could it be because he was not a Muslim?)
In the Middle East, though, his ideas have less appeal. Maybe it's because a wispy vegetarian in granny glasses and loincloth doesn't fit with Arab views of a manly hero. The fact that Gandhi had a moustache of almost Iraqi proportions does little to redeem him: John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone are far more attractive role models for the Mahdi militia.Some, of course, would offer a different explanation: that Islam is an inherently bloodthirsty religion. This is a view that Bin Laden and his kind have done much to encourage.
There are certainly some violent passages in the Koran - though before basing a case on that it's worth also considering the vast amount of supposedly righteous smiting and slaying that takes place in the Old Testament.
Yeah, let's consider that, Brian. Let's also not forget to consider why there is no Jewish or Christian global network of terrorists justifying their actions by the Old Testament.
A number of Muslim writers have made a plausible case for Islamic non-violence. One is the elderly Syrian scholar, Jawdat Said, who watched the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the 1950s and predicted that the use of violence by Islamic movements would eventually prove self-destructive.He has been promoting his non-violent ideas ever since, apart from several periods in jail. Meanwhile, his sons got into trouble with the Syrian authorities for refusing to serve in the army, and were not allowed to graduate from Damascus university as a result.
Hmmm. Why was he in jail? Could it have been because his ideas were so offensive to Islamic orthodoxy?
There's also a Shia cleric, Imam Mohammad al-Shirazi, who calls for Islamic non-violence, as well as Khalis Jalabi (a Saudi doctor) and Khalid Khishtainy (an Islamic scholar and writer).One problem with "non-violence" is that the word sounds rather negative when translated into Arabic, implying passivity and surrender. Khishtainy therefore uses an alternative term - "civil jihad" - which sounds more positive and in some ways better reflects Gandhi's methods.
And therein is stated the core of the problem with the ideas of Jawdat Said and other non-violent Muslims: the goal is the same -- the hegemony of Islamic law over the world. Only the method is different.
Posted by Robert at August 23, 2004 6:57 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
MMMM yes ghandi would have approved...and perhaps he could have gotten mother teresa to fly the plane into the wtc...what a bunch of trash. This "inner struggle" BS is such a lie...if its an "inner" struggle why then do so many innocent bystanders get blown up whilst a muslim is having this "inner" struggle, seems his struggle is rather explosive.
Ghandi isnt a hero in the mid east because he doesnt fit the profile...that much is true...ghandi was not a fat idiot wearing a black turban hiding behind little girls and old women while a bigger bunch of idiots wage war and hides behind a "holy" shield...yes ghandi is not a muslim hero...but who wants that label anyhow...soon as you get the honor of that label everyone knows you are a huge coward.
Posted by: USAgirl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 23, 2004 7:38 PM
I'll make it very simple. If Ghandi was protesting against the muslims, and not the British, he would have been hung from the nearest tree. Then his head would have been cut off and stuck on a pole to make sure no other Hindus ever tried to disobey islamic law ever again.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 23, 2004 7:59 PM
Ghandi would have been one of the first casualty of Jihad.....these arrogant preachers have no morals when it comes to making their religion seem acceptable.
at August 23, 2004 10:28 PM
What a nasty insult to Ghandi, and to all the Hindus who were slaughtered by Islamic invaders.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at August 23, 2004 11:09 PM
MR SPENCER
Hope you are going to answer this Brian Whitaker
moron. Such a claim is outrageous as Gandhi was a
Hindu and opposed violence including that of Muslim Jihadists.
at August 23, 2004 11:21 PM
This article gives a much better and more true picture:
Gandhi's experiment with Islam and why it failed
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/HinduWoman40718.htm
`It was not that Gandhi was ignorant of Islamic fanaticism. He complained that Muslims are bullies and Hindus are cowards during riots.`..`Needless to say Gandhi's experiment with Islam failed. The results were disastrous for both Hindus and Muslims.
AND
`Let us see how the orthodox Muslims repaid Gandhi: In 1924, Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi showed such affection said, : "However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." In 1925 he emphasized: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi".
at August 23, 2004 11:38 PM
One thing for sure. While Brian Whitaker and the Guardian would have approved of this, neither Gandhi nor I would ever:
`Husseini recruited Bosnian Muslims in Nazi occupied Yugoslavia in his efforts to ethnically cleanse their country of Jews. When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Eichmann in a trade between German citizens and 10,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt death camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and was successful in canceling the exchange.`
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/mors050702.shtml
I pray Brian Whitaker will never ever sleep in peace.
at August 23, 2004 11:58 PM
Couldn't agree more with SonofMoses and JoeBananas. One's opponent must befit one's strategy. Gandhi's strategy of civil disobedience and Nonviolent resistance (later adopted by Martin Luther King) succeeded only because it made certain basic assumptions about the innate decency of its opponents - namely the British (and the US respectively) governments / societies.
Such a strategy would be obviously be an atrocious failure against unworthy opponents, say the Nazis or the Jihadi drools.
at August 24, 2004 5:19 AM
"There are certainly some violent passages in the Koran - though before basing a case on that it's worth also considering the vast amount of supposedly righteous smiting and slaying that takes place in the Old Testament."
I think it is important to make note of something here. Yes, there are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, the practice of Judaism, specifically in the times of the Sanhedrin, were quite different. It is said in the Talmud that a Sanhedrin that assigned the death penalty to one person in 50 years was considered a bloody Sanhedrin. The truth of the matter is that the Jewish legal system may have had these verses to fall back on - to justify their ruling of people to death - but they were very rarely invoked. And, on those occasions where they were, the Sanhedrin was viewed with disfavor for not finding another alternative to use first.
Just food for thought.
Posted by: paula at August 24, 2004 5:33 AM
Paula.
To add to your comments on the OT the majority of the so called "righteous smitings and slayings" were either punishment for wilfull violation of serious moral or comunal laws, but then these laws were ONLY given and applied to the ancient Jews.
In other words it was ONLY the ancient Jews under the Mosaic laws that benefited or suffered under them.
Unlike the Quran where the laws and sentence for non compliance has been "passed" on to all of us regardless wether we know it or not.
The other "specific" laws on war, was given ONLY to the ancient Jews for a specific purpose, to be carried out ONLY on that occasion.
In all these instances war was waged on the "enemies" of Israel who were hostile towards ancient Israel, in all other cases the Israelites were commanded "Not to Mix" with the people of the nations around them for fear of corruption, due to their degrading worship and sexual practices, including the common practice in Canaan of Child sacrifice to their god Molech.
So unlike the Quran the so called violent passages in the Bible (OT) were specific, specific time, to a specific people, for a specific purpose....that was the END of it.
Now we can hardly say the same about the Qurans countless passages that command mulsims to Kill and Torture unbelievers..."where ever you find them"
Posted by: Joe Bananas at August 24, 2004 8:52 AM
"There are certainly some violent passages in the Koran - though before basing a case on that it's worth also considering the vast amount of supposedly righteous smiting and slaying that takes place in the Old Testament.
SOME? Has this Brian Whitaker even taken the time to read the koran and it's supporting hadith? 95% of the koran is violent. That's hardly "some".
Does Whitaker know that Christians follow the gospels, not the old testament, and there aren't many difficult passages at all in the OT. There are descriptions of difficult times, but God never ordered his people to go out and kill everyone who didn't believe in him. Mozes's laws were strictly for his Jews, they had no bearing on the gentiles, and still don't on Christians of today.
How do idiots like Whitaker get ink and press for his bizarre thoughts? I've seen better research papers from grade 5 students.
He should quit smoking that noxious weed, clear his mind and do some proper research before he attempts anything approaching what was once called journalism. You know, when truth,fact and non-partisan reporting were the moral standard.
Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 24, 2004 11:09 AM
Argh.. my eyes!!
Posted by: Rottweiller at August 24, 2004 1:50 PM
The problem with this stated article is that if the iraqi muslims did practice peaceful resistance and forced america out of iraq the consequences would be horrific and would not result in a indian style secular democracy. Those in the country who are not so peaceful would slaughter and brutally suppress the others and woudn't care in the slightest what the world thought about it...Saddam didn't, no dictator ever does. That has been the iraqi experience for decades. Everyone must know that surely. Does anyone really want Iraq to implode on itself after the americans are gone. Does anyone except Islamic Theofascists want it to become like Iran...a totalitarian state where the large majority are trying to vote in democratic reforms but can't because the clericas have the right of veto over the peoples wishes at all times and have complete control of the security forces and army and are prepared to use it on anyone who isn't obedient to them. It is a simple logical fact that to leave iraq to this fate is not in any possible way in the iraqi's peoples best interests. There are too many totalitarian movements in iraq and outside of it trying to acheive a theofascist state there and only one powerful well equiped force there to explicitly prevent exactly that, that is the American army. Also the majority of the Iraqi people and their governemnt have stated they want security not a balkanisation of their country or a dictatorship. Also the idea that gandi would want to go on or approve of jihad when jihad has been so closely linked to the ideological opposite of what he strived for all his life...secular democracy....is beyond my understanding.
Posted by: ethical at August 25, 2004 7:58 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)