A Coyote in a Sheep’s Clothing
NOWADAYS WE are hearing more and more that lofty terminology “moderate Muslims”. Is there any such thing called moderate Muslims? When I think about the mindset of the expatriat Bangladeshi Muslims, I tend to think it is indeed a rarity. In my opinion, when any Muslim starts to talk about Sharia or rant “Islam is a way of life”, the moderation in his or her world view immediately evaporates. The Islamic tradition encourages politicization of the theological belief. Some critics of Islam say Islam comes with the whole package where jihad and politics are integral part. I would say it is still possible to defang the entity of political Islam. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has not convinced me he is a socalled moderate Muslim.
Last night in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien his sly oratory indicated he was slickier than a cunning fox. He was no sheep; he is rather a coyote in a sheep’s clothing. The Imam brought the bogeyman of radical jihadists in his argument against moving the Ground Zero Mosque.
The question is, aren’t we fighting the radical elements of the Middle East? So, do we have to care if they dislike the move? The Imam said, he was against politicizing any religion. I thought it was Imam Rauf, the charlatan who was boastfully bragging USA was a Sharia compliant country.
Any sufi and aplolitical individual has no business in delving into Sharia business. It is the political Islamists who are always concerned of the draconican Islamic law. Imam Feisal in his 2001 Sixty Minutes interview said bluntly, the USA was partly responsible for the 9-11 attack:
Did he show any indication that he deviated from his past thinking?
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is out and out a dishonest person. And, of course, he is anything but a moderate Muslim.
[This post was also published in Bangladesh Watchdog]
3 comments
@ Jamal Hasan,
Thank you for this interesting piece. I was hoping you would share your thoughts on the role this so-called “moderate Muslim” discourse plays generally in the Western politics. I am particularly interested to know how such discourses are played out in the politics of war trials, given the fact that the political lobby that represents the war criminals are viewed by many Western governments as “moderate”.
A few days ago, a friend forwarded me a blog post. The piece compared the Ground Zero Mosque debate to the construction of Maghden Abraham Synagogue located in the middle of newly renovated downtown Beirut. For information, this is the location that took the major blow during Israeli aerial bombings in July-August 2006, killing 1200 or more civilians. Some still believe, rather naively I guess, that such display of generosity can help create inter-faith cohesion.
It sounds all very lofty and generous, no doubt about that. But, I cannot help wonder how would it be taken, if, taking cue from ultra-liberal West, Bangladesh Government also considers erecting mosques on the very spots that were actually mass-graves of 1971? After all, in 1971, innocent men women and children were slaughtered in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) by the invading Pakistani army and their local collaborators – all in the name of Islam! How diluded that would seem?
@ Jamal Hasan,
I do share ‘some’ of your sentiments regarding “moderate Muslims”, “political Islam” and “Islam is the way of life”; however, I failed to understand the relevance of this article on this forum. Are you implying that this platform should be leveraged to eradicate politicized Islam from Bangladesh? No matter how desirable that thought might be, I don’t believe this is the right place to push that agenda. We all are here to bring the perpetrators of 1971 to justice solely based on the crimes they committed, regardless of their political, ideological and religious bias or their current political affiliation. Any other tone will simply feed into the Jamati propaganda that these trials are only designed to destroy Jamat and Islam.
I’d hate to see this forum lose focus and become another hodgepodge of every issue, every controversy and every debate. At a glance this article looked like something coming straight out of the bulletin board of right wing Fox News network. Even if it is not this article or OReillys face on the attached link, any reference or quotations from Fox News may be enough to harm the common ground this site is trying to establish. I’d like to ask the forum admin to consider removing it from this site. Muktangon, the sister site of this forum, may be a more appropriate place for an open debate on Ground Zero Mosque.
I agree with Armand. However, I do see your point about trying to examine how Western society considers non-militant Islamists as being the moderates. It’s like all the secular parties of liberal, socialist, nationalist backgrounds have disappeared from the political landscape of the Muslim world.
The question will inevitably frame how the West sees the WCT. Perhaps, this is why papers such as The Economist and the Wall Street Journal have focussed on how the WCT is seen as a way of hurting opposition politics rather than being for justice and ending the culture of impunity in Bangladesh.
The policy of engagement and giving more power and influence to Islamists, such as Hezbollah, Jamaat and the Ikwhan al-Muslimeeen does mean that the Bangladesh governments current policies will be counter to those of the West. It’s not something we should ignore lightly. It is a major strategic challenge. But, I agree with Armand- no Fox News or anti-Islam propaganda on this site. Not only is it the wrong forum, its part of US domestic politics.
Facebook Comments