[Assam] The Irrationality of Jihad - The Sentinel /Tavleen Singh

[Ram Sarangapani]

Ms. SIngh seems to have hit the right spot here alright.

--Ram



The Irrationality of Grievance for Jihad

*ON THE SPOT
Tavleen Singh
*
On a hot summer’s day when I was in New York last week, Faisal Shahzad
admitted in a court in Manhattan that he had tried to detonate a bomb in
Times Square in May with the intention of killing and injuring innocent
people. I read his testimony in the New York Times gazing from my hotel room
window out on a magnificent vista of this most magnificent of cities, and a
chill run down my spine. This was because the reasons Shahzad gave for
trying to blow up Times Square were unnervingly similar to those I have
heard often from supposedly moderate Muslims in India and Pakistan. Faisal
Shahzad is an educated, upper middle class Pakistani, who became an American
citizen months before his first terrorist act, and in court he articulated
eloquently the disconnect between the Muslim worldview and the rest of the
world.
He said, ‘‘I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times
over because until the hour the US pulls its forces from Iraq and
Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan
and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims and
stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking US, and
I plead guilty to that.’’ When the judge pointed out that the people Shahzad
had tried to kill in Times Square included women and children, Shahzad
replied that women and children were being killed in Afghanistan’s villages.
He said, ‘‘Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq (and) they don’t see
children; they don’t see anybody. They kill women and children. They kill
everybody. It’s a war. And in war, they kill people. They’re killing all
Muslims.’’
Why I found these words particularly chilling was because Shahzad
articulated a viewpoint that I have heard from many moderate Muslims who
condemn jihadi terrorism but believe that American foreign policy seeks to
target Muslims and Islam. In my conversations with moderate Muslims I have
often heard arguments of the kind Faisal Shahzad made to defend himself in
that Manhattan courtroom. They come from a sense of grievance that is
founded on fantasy and not fact, but the sense of grievance is a reality
across the Muslim world. It is this ideology of grievance that provides
tacit support for the jihad, and what makes it particularly dangerous is
that it refuses to acknowledge the other side of the story.
Whether America’s decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan was
correct or not, it came after 9/11. If America and Americans had not been
attacked repeatedly by Osama bin Laden and his followers, there would in all
likelihood have been no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The attack on America
did not begin with 9/11 but with attacks on American embassies and
institutions in Africa and the Middle East and with an attack on an American
warship in Yemen. American tourists were targeted in many Muslim countries,
and a propaganda war against the United States was launched across the
Muslim world. After 9/11 if President George Bush had done nothing in
response, he would have lost his job.
As someone who always thought Iraq was the wrong target, I personally
believe that if he had concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan, jihadi
terrorism today would have been less of a problem than it is. But it remains
true that in the face of an attack on New York city he had no choice but to
respond. Whenever I have discussed this with supposedly moderate Muslims, I
have come up against the most bizarre theories. The most common of these is
that 9/11 was not the work of Al Qaeda but of Mossad. I am continually
astounded by the number of sensible, intelligent, educated Muslims who
believe this. Another equally bizarre theory is that it was the CIA that was
behind 9/11 to find an excuse to attack Islamic countries. The last time I
heard this was from a Pakistani limousine driver when I was last in New York
some months ago. The conspiracy theories are nonsense but in the Muslim
quarters of Indian cities it is possible to meet any number of sensible,
moderate Muslims who have deluded themselves into believing that the whole
purpose of American foreign policy is to destroy Islam. According to those
who believe this theory, the Americans have the support of Israel and India
in this endeavour — so Hindus are considered as much a worthy target as
Zionists.
 In India we have a whole other set of grievances that moderate Muslims give
as reasons for jihadi terrorism. Kashmir, the demolition of the Babri
Masjid, discrimination in jobs and in finding apartments to rent in Delhi
and Mumbai — these are all offered as reasons why young Indian Muslims are
increasingly being lured by the jihad. The visible proliferation of veiled
young women and bearded young men in Indian cities speaks for how much
influence radical Islam is beginning to have.
Inadvertent support for this radicalization comes not just from moderate
Muslims but from liberal intellectuals who never fail to support radical
Islamists whenever they get the chance. Sitting in New York last week, I
read in the Indian newspapers editorials that objected to the fanatical
preacher, Zakir Naik, being denied a visa to enter the United Kingdom. Naik
says the most awful things about religions that are not Islam. His
interpretation of Islam makes it into a religion that treats women like
secondary creatures and dissent as punishable by death. Why should it
surprise anyone that the British government does not want him around?
If anything, Western governments have been too tolerant of radical Islam.
They have allowed mosques to be used as places where disaffected Muslims
gather to attack Western civilization and liberal values. They have granted
citizenship to foreign-born Muslims who hate the West or someone like Faisal
Shahzad would never have been allowed to become an American citizen. If his
bomb in Times Square had not been detected and defused before it went off,
thousands of people could have been killed. In his worldview this would have
been just revenge against the United States. It is the same worldview that
inspired those responsible for jihadi terrorism in India. It is a worldview
that must be fought with all the strength we have because it is a worldview
based on mostly nonsensical grievances.
Tavleen Singh
(Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter at tavleen_singh)