TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE
Nestled deep in the barren mountains of Afghanistan, the world's most feared terrorist Osama bin laden lies in an almost deceptive calm. To most of the nuclear world, he seems like a terrorist... the black protagonist who fearlessly fights justice and peace. To his followers and most Islamic extremists, he is a leader- the noble crusader who undertakes the arduous process of 'jihad'... the so-called religious battle. On a very superficial level, the man looks like any other profound Muslim... a serene religious glow emanating from his face. To try and analyze him beyond what the eyes perceive is a Herculean task, beyond the grasp of the average global citizen. So little said, so much done. A classic case of actions speaking louder than words.
On the other side of the world, the missiles are out of their closets, waiting for a chance to be fired. Fuelled by claims of support from around the world... the stage is set for what is now being called the third world war. An objective analysis leads one to believe that their feelings coupled with the strong prejudice is completely justifiable. However, we don't live in a perfect world... the concept of an absolute truth does not exist; neither does the concept of an isolated war.
Primarily, this is a battle between two opposing factions, as the Americans term it, between the civilized world and the "uncivilized terrorists". That is, of course, a very broad generalization. The notion that president Bush and his cronies would be leading a loosely wound attack on terrorism is absurd; it leads to the more apparent issue of their long-standing enmity with Osama bin Laden and his Jihadi movement 'al-Qeida'. Fear obviously plays a major role in this struggle; the thought that perhaps bin Laden might thwart American supremacy could be enough reason. The medieval mystic Nostradamus describes the rising of a phoenix from the ashes; the so-called "Mabus" who assumes the role of the third Antichrist, and leads the war against the western world.
The focus however shifts to the rest of the Muslim world to gauge their reaction to the attack. Although no one has openly taken the side of bin Laden, there still remains a basic difference of opinion. Most of the Islamic nations have expressed their shock over the killings, but when it boils down to taking sides, the hesitation is apparent. Pakistan's decision to aid in strikes against the Taliban has left a lot of her citizens fuming in disagreement. The country obviously has a lot of supporters of bin laden and the ruling Taliban. Similarly in the rest of the Islamic world, arguments reach a feverish pitch pushing the average Muslim deeper into his dilemma. India, with a Muslim population of 120 million, is no different.
The issue here is not merely political; atleast theoretically India is prided as a secular nation. The innate desire for a social and spiritual identity has been a long and painful struggle for the Muslim citizen. On one hand, patriotism demands his basic acceptance of being an Indian; this would involve harbouring an aversion towards Pakistan, India's archrival. But, his religious sentiments would propel him to feel otherwise. This concept of a dual identity is baffling to say the least, and leaves him in a vague shadow of ambiguity. In a land where he would always be labeled as a minority, simply because of his faith, his underlying sense of nationalism has to be commended. The parallels drawn here are not merely those between the national and religious paradigms; it is from a much wider spectrum, and the implications are deeper. On a personal level, the Hindustani Muslim is trying very hard to resolve the tangle in his mind between religious ethnography and a more humane approach. In specific relation to the attacks itself and to the general ethos of Islam, "to be or not to be" is the question most Muslims in India are asking today. Parvez Musharraf, siding with the American government, sends out very conspicuous warnings to India. It leads to another question of whether this war is transnational, going beyond the political constraints and to a higher level of global integration; or if the term 'war against terrorism' is merely an excuse for the more intricate local logistics to be tackled.
There are some who accept the concepts of faith on a superficial level, and to most of them the modus operandi adopted by the Taliban is completely acceptable. "They are just spreading the faith, and trying to make the people better Muslims," one man argues. Another voice sounds out in retort, "I can sympathize with someone trying to spread faith; but I cannot for the love of god or the love of myself even try to justify the forceful infliction of ritualistic faith on an unsuspecting mass. Faith and religion should be a personal issue, and people should be allowed to make their own choices. Blind faith obviously is hypocritical charade. Even the Quran propagates tolerance." Another argument is that faith has nothing to do it; though initiated by a compulsive desire to protect Islam, the point loses its focus after a while. It becomes an obsession, and the only way to justify such actions is to conveniently cloak it with the term 'jihad', which most people assume is a ritual of faith.
The responsibility lies with every human being to rationalize emotion especially in a time of raging passion. The association of the Muslim community with the fundamentalist groups operating out of remote corners of the world is not justifiable. Every collectively marketed religion has its own share of extremism, perpetrated under the cloaks of reformation. Islamic fundamentalists go back to their essential norm of the ends defying the means. But the human casualties, more specifically the civilian deaths cannot be ignored. And in any war, it is the innocent bystander who has borne the brunt of the intense hatred between the warring factions.
On the other side of the world, the missiles are out of their closets, waiting for a chance to be fired. Fuelled by claims of support from around the world... the stage is set for what is now being called the third world war. An objective analysis leads one to believe that their feelings coupled with the strong prejudice is completely justifiable. However, we don't live in a perfect world... the concept of an absolute truth does not exist; neither does the concept of an isolated war.
Primarily, this is a battle between two opposing factions, as the Americans term it, between the civilized world and the "uncivilized terrorists". That is, of course, a very broad generalization. The notion that president Bush and his cronies would be leading a loosely wound attack on terrorism is absurd; it leads to the more apparent issue of their long-standing enmity with Osama bin Laden and his Jihadi movement 'al-Qeida'. Fear obviously plays a major role in this struggle; the thought that perhaps bin Laden might thwart American supremacy could be enough reason. The medieval mystic Nostradamus describes the rising of a phoenix from the ashes; the so-called "Mabus" who assumes the role of the third Antichrist, and leads the war against the western world.
The focus however shifts to the rest of the Muslim world to gauge their reaction to the attack. Although no one has openly taken the side of bin Laden, there still remains a basic difference of opinion. Most of the Islamic nations have expressed their shock over the killings, but when it boils down to taking sides, the hesitation is apparent. Pakistan's decision to aid in strikes against the Taliban has left a lot of her citizens fuming in disagreement. The country obviously has a lot of supporters of bin laden and the ruling Taliban. Similarly in the rest of the Islamic world, arguments reach a feverish pitch pushing the average Muslim deeper into his dilemma. India, with a Muslim population of 120 million, is no different.
The issue here is not merely political; atleast theoretically India is prided as a secular nation. The innate desire for a social and spiritual identity has been a long and painful struggle for the Muslim citizen. On one hand, patriotism demands his basic acceptance of being an Indian; this would involve harbouring an aversion towards Pakistan, India's archrival. But, his religious sentiments would propel him to feel otherwise. This concept of a dual identity is baffling to say the least, and leaves him in a vague shadow of ambiguity. In a land where he would always be labeled as a minority, simply because of his faith, his underlying sense of nationalism has to be commended. The parallels drawn here are not merely those between the national and religious paradigms; it is from a much wider spectrum, and the implications are deeper. On a personal level, the Hindustani Muslim is trying very hard to resolve the tangle in his mind between religious ethnography and a more humane approach. In specific relation to the attacks itself and to the general ethos of Islam, "to be or not to be" is the question most Muslims in India are asking today. Parvez Musharraf, siding with the American government, sends out very conspicuous warnings to India. It leads to another question of whether this war is transnational, going beyond the political constraints and to a higher level of global integration; or if the term 'war against terrorism' is merely an excuse for the more intricate local logistics to be tackled.
There are some who accept the concepts of faith on a superficial level, and to most of them the modus operandi adopted by the Taliban is completely acceptable. "They are just spreading the faith, and trying to make the people better Muslims," one man argues. Another voice sounds out in retort, "I can sympathize with someone trying to spread faith; but I cannot for the love of god or the love of myself even try to justify the forceful infliction of ritualistic faith on an unsuspecting mass. Faith and religion should be a personal issue, and people should be allowed to make their own choices. Blind faith obviously is hypocritical charade. Even the Quran propagates tolerance." Another argument is that faith has nothing to do it; though initiated by a compulsive desire to protect Islam, the point loses its focus after a while. It becomes an obsession, and the only way to justify such actions is to conveniently cloak it with the term 'jihad', which most people assume is a ritual of faith.
The responsibility lies with every human being to rationalize emotion especially in a time of raging passion. The association of the Muslim community with the fundamentalist groups operating out of remote corners of the world is not justifiable. Every collectively marketed religion has its own share of extremism, perpetrated under the cloaks of reformation. Islamic fundamentalists go back to their essential norm of the ends defying the means. But the human casualties, more specifically the civilian deaths cannot be ignored. And in any war, it is the innocent bystander who has borne the brunt of the intense hatred between the warring factions.
posted by Farzana Kader at 10:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home