US tragedy: Always two sides to a story
'Malaysia must say not to war' (Sept 15) says Lonestar, while MGG Pillai asserts 'America must accept this retaliation' (Sept 12) and 'American view of terrorism as criminal act wrong' (Sept 14) and Muslim Student asks, 'Who will protect us from the US?' (Sept 15).
In response to Lonestar's doubts about our government's support for US action, it should be pointed that nearly all governments throughout the world have expressed similar unequivocal support.
This is clearly understood as moral support. In the very likely event that the US undertakes military action, the US and some European governments have explicitly acknowledged that only a handful of countries can be counted upon for actual support (in the form of military deployment, airspace usage, etc).
In a similar vein, the Malaysian government support will be purely from a moral viewpoint and possibly to provide information (since one of the hijackers was alleged to have been spotted in Kuala Lumpur and they might have links with the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines). In any case, should the US commence uncontrolled bombing of a 'rogue' Middle East state, our government would most assuredly condemn that action.
The statements "we can understand the grief and sadness felt by all those who have lost loved ones in the attacks", and "this should be a time for reflection and not the time to make war cries and call for war" made in the letter are also indicative of the response of the majority of Europeans, and which has been rightly pointed out by some Americans to be quite hypocritical. Imagine for an instance if you were an American who might have lost a relative or friend in the incident.
People need to comprehend the emotional shock that the Americans have suffered (their pride and image of invulnerability destroyed in a stroke), and why it is important to rally behind them at this critical moment so that they do not feel even further isolated and undertake radical military counter measures.
This is one of the reasons why a lot of European leaders have expressed support for the US with the tacit understanding that any action (military or otherwise) will be taken in consultation with the rest of the members of any coalition that is formed to address the terrorism issue. Hopefully this will lead to action that is more balanced and thought-out, rather than a gut 'revenge' reaction.
In his column, 'American view of terrorism as criminal act wrong', Pillai points out the possibilities of the incident being initiated by Israeli terrorists or shadowy western intelligence groups rather than the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden. Let me digress here by pointing out (very briefly), the reasons why Osama is a prime suspect in the tragedy.
Terrorist organisations linked to him have been identified as being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb attack, the 1996 killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, US embassy bombings and the attack on USS Cole in Yemen.
Osama had made threats to attack US buildings several months earlier. French authorities had captured earlier (before the incident) a suspected terrorist who was linked to Osama's terrorist organisation and who was known to have taken flying lessons in the US. Virtually all of the hijackers are of Middle East origin and some of the arrests made by the FBI recently are of suspects who have links to his organisations.
There are other alternative possibilities (such as those suggested by Pillai), but unless equally compelling evidence is presented to support them (either by him or by all those other parties that support this alternative possibilities), I fail to see why the US (and other countries) should not consider Osama as the prime suspect.
Of course, it can always be claimed that all the evidence presented so far is part of a large massive cover-up by a Western conspiracy bent on 'demonising' Islamic states, but by the same token, it can also be claimed that the terrorism of the US in the Middle East is actually the result of a shadowy plot by Arab sheikhs who have infiltrated the highest levels of the US government.
What is more interesting (and perhaps disturbing) to note, is the fact that many Muslim leaders or leaders of Islamic-dominated governments seem adamant in denying the involvement of Osama (in the same way as Pillai) and citing other possibilities (such as internal dissidents like Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma incident).
There seems to be an element of self-denial present here in having to cope with the possibility that certain militant factions using the premise of Islam (no matter how misguidedly) could perpetrate a crime of such horrendous proportions.
Alternatively, other viewpoints accept the possibility of Islamic militants, but justify it on the basis that America deserved it (in the spirit of Muslim Student's letter).While it is certainly true that the tragedy in America pales in comparison to other disasters in Sudan or Iraq, for example, it is questionable whether a tit-for-tat approach is justifiable or even desirable.
There has been a lot of talk about the West demonising the Islamic world by immediately pinpointing Osama as the prime suspect. It cannot be denied that there is a general negative bias (which varies in magnitude from country to country) towards Muslims in the West.
However, there is also another perhaps not as well-known aspect, that of the Islamic world demonising the West. One only has to hear the rhetoric about the immorality, decadence and materialism of the West from Muslim leaders (including our country) to see this.
Whether this is merely a reaction from the demonisation of Islam by the West, or whether there is a more deep-rooted cause is an issue that bears investigating. Several points need to be made out.
Some Muslim intellectuals and professionals from Middle Eastern countries are in the West simply because they face persecution in their own countries.
For all their 'immorality', the US, UK and several other Western countries are places where Muslims of different traditions (Shiite and Sunni) can coexist in relative harmony with each other and with other religious communities. This is clearly not possible in the Middle East and even in liberal countries like our own where any denomination other than Sunni is strongly discouraged.
Contrary to popular opinion, Western governments do take some efforts in trying to understand Islam. As an example, here in the UK, several months ago, the BBC sponsored a week-long programme about Islam, Islamic communities and Islamic personalities which portrayed them in a positive light.
I have yet to hear of an Islamic government allowing a programme on any other religion to be broadcast on TV, let alone to be portrayed in a positive manner.
There has been a lot of media attention regarding the abuse and discrimination towards Muslims in the West or Palestine under the Israel regime. This is all true and deserving of immediate attention. What is less known, however, is the equally condemnable prosecution suffered by smaller religious communities (such as Christians or Jews) in Muslim-dominated countries such as Sudan or Saudi Arabia, and for which, may I add, not much international action has been taken as well.
The point I (and other people, including some Muslims) am trying to make here is that there are always two sides to an argument or a conflict. Certainly, a convincing argument can be made to fault Israel, the US and several other European governments for the conflict and tragedies in Palestine and the Middle East.
However, consider a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) situation in which Israel liberates Palestine and every Western country withdraws involvement from the Middle East. Would there be lasting peace in the region then?
What guarantee is there that these countries will not exterminate large portions of their civilian population in this conflict or export their violence to other countries as well, should the West decide to completely withdraw their involvement in the region? Some analysts have suggested that a more considerate engagement is required by the US, rather than a complete withdrawal and isolationist policy.
Another interesting point that Pillai brings up is the historical aspect of the conflict in his article 'America must accept this retaliation'. He mentions the Crusades initiated by Pope Urban in 1089 [sic], which can be pointed to as one of the roots of the current animosity of the Islamic world towards the West.
Christianity arguably has one of the worst records of all major world religions (crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, colonization of the new world, etc). However, what Chiaroscuro fails to mention is that the so-called 'Judea-Christian worldview' of Western civilisation has also been challenged much earlier by Western intellectuals and philosophers at the start of the Age of Enlightenment, who espoused humanism, logic and reason as better alternatives to blind adherence to church doctrine.
This gradually eroded the influence of the church and has led to its present-day decline in many parts of the West. Even in the US, which can be argued as the country with the largest population of Christians in the world, there are strong groups (atheists, humanists, human rights) that campaign for separation of church and state and a secular government in opposition to certain Christian groups that wish to establish the dominance of Christianity in the US.
Even within Christianity there are many liberal denominations that emphasize universal human values rather than a fundamentalist approach which may have characterised the excesses of the past. There has even been apologies (no matter how unwillingly) from the Pope with regards to certain atrocities committed by the Catholic Church in the past to certain religious communities.
Islam in contrast, has historically often shown greater tolerance to persons with different belief systems than their Christian counterparts. However, in recent times, a lot of Muslim-dominated governments seem to have adopted a more radical interpretation of Islam with the resulting persecution of religious minorities.
Along with this is the concept of 'jihad', which has evolved from its original noble concept to assume a far more sinister meaning. Whether this return to fundamentalism is merely the result of a pent-up frustration and anger at the injustice committed by the West, or the symptom of a deep-rooted cause is, as mentioned before, an issue that bears investigating.
As a Malaysian I have many Muslim friends and have a high regard for Islam. This letter is not written as a justification for American, Israeli or Western policies in the Middle East, which are terribly unfair and need immediate rectification. However, it needs to be pointed out that there may be many more aspects to this issue than the cut-and-dried case of 'retaliation to oppression' as suggested by many parties.
Also I do not intend to suggest that the Christian and Muslim religions (or any other religion) are negative; all major world religions have been misused at some point or another in a political manner to justify all kinds of injustices. This is arguably not the fault of the religion, but the conditions that allow this to occur needs to be investigated and uprooted to prevent them from occurring again.
I strongly condemn the attacks in the US, but agree completely that it is a form of retaliation for extremely misguided policies. The inevitable backlash against Muslim communities in the UK, US and other European countries is sad indeed, and hopefully people here will be able to come to their senses before any long-term damage is caused.
Just as the West must now seriously reconsider their approach and policies in the Middle East, would it be too much to ask that the Middle East countries in particular, and Muslims in general, also begin a self-examination on how Islam is interpreted and implemented in the context of the global world today? After all, such an evaluation might lead to more progressive policies in these countries and a more positive view of Islam, particularly in the West.
Muslim Student asks the question 'Who will protect us from the US ?'. While I empathise with all his/her points regarding the oppressed in the Middle East, as a Malaysian, I am not too particularly concerned about American oppression in the local scene.
I am more concerned about terrorism, which has taken a global face, and can materialise on Malaysian shores. As much as I hate to do so, I have to agree with the ruling party with certain points regarding extremism.
With a political party that appears to champion an Islamic government that might become a breeding ground for radical ideas that mirror those in the Middle East, what guarantee do I have that some fanatical right-wing member might not decide to blow himself up in a public avenue? Impossible, you say ? I beg to differ.
After all, even if 99 percent of the members in the above-mentioned political party are moderates, it merely takes a few dedicated radicals with the right access to the required resources to change our world forever.
Last week has proven this point irrevocably. My hope and prayers go to the American and Palestinian people, and to all the other people who have suffered directly or indirectly because of this tragedy.
