Source: Finger Lakes Times (NY) | 11/20/2009
Sardar Anees Ahmad | Waterloo, New York
The Fort Hood shootings have sent shockwaves throughout the country. In a letter to The Boston Globe, I urged everyone to support the victims and their families and felt investigating other topics were inappropriate. Discussion has, however, begun over the motives of the culprit, Major Nidal Hassan. So it is with the aim of addressing questions others have raised, fully aware of the situation’s seriousness, that I address allegations of Islam, in particular the philosophy of jihad, playing any role in this tragedy.
As I explained in a 9/19/08 editorial for the Finger Lakes Times, jihad must be understood from its source – how does the Qur’an define jihad and what was Prophet Muhammad’s understanding of jihad? Jihad is derived from the root juhd, meaning to “strive to the utmost in a noble way.” Per the Qur’an’s directives, jihad can be undertaken against oneself, society, or a visible enemy. The jihad against oneself and society is the process of continuously refining one’s character and being a model for society to emulate. Socrates advocated a similar principle when he stated that an examined life is alone worth living.
Jihad can be waged against an enemy, but who is an enemy? Is every non-Muslim, every American soldier, or every American an enemy? No, nothing could be farther from the truth. In the previous article discussing jihad, I cited various Quranic verses and examples of Muhammad’s conduct to prove that Islam in no way defines jihad as extremists do. An enemy against whom jihad can be waged is one who threatens society’s religious freedom. Jihad against an enemy, as the Qur’an (22:40-42) and Muhammad defined it, is waged to establish religious freedom, not to harm innocent people. Far from being an agent of extremism jihad as Islam, not extremists, defines it cannot even be considered a dirty word.
That extremists could even think their warped world-view legitimate and thereafter threaten anyone who disagrees exposes their arrogance and complete disagreement with past prophets’ examples. The Qur’an declares, “whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind” (5:33). Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the 4th Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, observed that thousands of years of religious history has established, “that the bearers of the divine message are the oppressed, not the oppressors.”
During the Fort Hood memorial service, President Obama declared, “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts … the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.” This statement was meaningful to me. My grandfather, a history professor, was murdered, his chest found riddled with bullets, in 1974 simply because extremists considered his beliefs un-Islamic. In 1985, his brother, an eye surgeon who often performed procedures at low cost or free of charge, died from repeated stabs to the neck. Again, extremists considered his beliefs un-Islamic. I cite these examples so the reader not feel as though I am urging understanding while I myself have not tasted the consequences of extremism.
So I urge the reader to examine this tragedy with a thoughtful eye. The Fort Hood tragedy coincided with Scott Roeder, who killed Dr. George Tiller in church, confessing he did so because Tiller was an abortion provider. This summer, Sgt. John M. Russell killed five comrades at a clinic on a U.S. base in Iraq. Their faith, or lack thereof, justified their heinous acts as much as Hassan’s did his.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.