Jihad: Defensive? Introspective? Agressive? Or all three?

Submitted by Diana Nielsen (United States), Dec 31, 2002 at 12:56

Your article is timely. I have been corresponding by email with two people from the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. They have said their organization is engaged in "fighting the ideological basis for terrorism at the grass roots level" (this is also stated on their web site). It seems, however, that the organization is now teaching hatred for Israel and the US government (instead of focusing their hatred upon 'Christians and Jews'). Obviously, it isn't currently expedient for them to speak with quite the same tongue as before September 11th. Some of these organizations have had to change their leadership to give the appearance that the leopard has indeed changed its spots, in my opinion. Since then Islamics have not only received a verbal backlash from Christians and Jews, but also found out democratic governments where they had been freely operating from are no longer turning a blind eye to their activities. There is just enough on their web site and related links bemoaning a few violent acts committed by Muslims (said to be unIslamic) against Christians. I think this is primariy so they don't appear to be totally biased; certainly they have fooled some as one can readily see in emails responding to their web site.

In their email responses to me, their main concern has been the Palestinians and Israelis (Israel the "military giant" aided by the US and the poor "beleaguered Palestinian population" being preventing from establishing a Palestinian state). In an email signed by Farhan Shehad, he said "we have to rise above and beyond our self interest to achieve peace in the world", however he reiterated the exact same threat used by Usama Bin Laden: "There can be no peace unless there is justice for all". He said his problem wasn't with the American people but with the US government (as if they don't represent Americans) and its foreign policies. He said he hoped President Bush would "listen to reason" because he thought the war in Iraq would not be contained and expressed his opinion that if President Bush didn't listen there would be a "nuclear catastrophe soon". He made the claim that Muhammad only fought "defensive wars" and that he always protected innocent women and children which I think is a revision of history. This response wasn't what I was looking for in a "moderate Muslim" response to terrorism. In my opinion, this is the same leopard with the spots rearranged ; unfortunately the prey is exactly the same.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".