From: FAROOQM@trxinc.com (Mohammad Farooq)
Subject: The Roots: Who remembers Kunta Kintes?Salam and greetings.
The following piece was published in NFB (January 5, 2000) http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/jan/05/gv4n99.htm#A1 . Toward development of a "principled" approach among ALL, this piece might be of interest to Shetubondhon subscribers.
Best regards.
Farooq
==============================================
The Roots: Who remembers Kunta Kintes?
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
Upper Iowa University
farooqm@trxinc.comMr. Sohail is a frequent contributor to NFB Readers' Opinion forum. Although one can't generally expect to agree with another person on every point, and I am not an exception, I find that his writings are often quite informative. Recently, in one of his articles "Daniel Pipes, Islam, and West" (Wed, 23 Dec 1999; http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/dec/23/gv4n86.htm#A1 ), somewhat justifiably he pointed out the West's displeasure " at the inability or incapacity of Muslim leaders to categorically condemn acts of terrorism done by Islamic militants." There is some truth in it.
Although Mr. Sohail has not defined terrorism, I am assuming that he is not equating terrorism with the legitimate struggle of people for their freedom and basic human rights. Part of the reason why some Muslims might fail to condemn what Mr. Sohail is referring to in regard to the West's displeasure stems from the fact that often the expectation of condemning terrorism comes without distinguishing terrorism from the legitimate struggle for people's rights and justice. Also, it is not uncommon that many wronged parties find all the doors of addressing their grievance through established legal, political, social processes completely shut. Others concerned about that can do all the condemning they want, but under those situations if condemnation is not combined with a desire and commitment to see wrongs addressed and justices established, those who seek condemnation may have only dubious purpose.
Unfortunately, very few of us tend to uphold a "principled" or consistent (non-hypocritical) approach. The same West, where democracy is cherished and defended as well as from where democracy is preached to the whole world, is also the frontline defenders of the autocratic rules and regimes particularly in the Muslim world. For examples, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and so on. Due to lack of "principled" approach and stance, we find in history that the leading Zionists, such as Ben Gurion, Itzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and many others were among the most wanted by the British as "terrorists". Of course, the Zionists did not see themselves as terrorists. That changed when Israel became a state recognized by its patron western powers. Now the Palestinians were the terrorists who were dispossessed by Israel and denied the most basic human rights. Israel was now the victim of these horrible terrorists, like Arafat. When Arafat and others were willing to yield and cooperate with the West in terms of swallowing the peace, Arafat is not among the terrorists any more. The list just goes on and on.
Are there among the Chechens, the Kashmiris, the Palestinians, who may have deliberately harmed the civilians as part of their campaign against Russia? I believe it may well have happened. I also believe that it should be condemned too. However, we should also expect that all of us who seek a more "civilized" response and sensitivity take a common, principled stand to support the legitimate struggles for freedom that is distinguished from terrorism. Expectation of unconditional condemnation of terrorism without making that distinction might always remain an unfulfilled expectation.
Pleading my own ignorance and inability to keep up with everything that is written everywhere, is the west's voice of conscience any different - any more "principled" - than what Mr. Sohail refers to the alleged failure of Muslims in condemning west. Is it not the same United States that blatantly violated all protocols and decency in international relations when it engineered a coup in Iran in the 50's and INSTALLED the Shah, a puppet of its choice. I hope Mr. Sohail would not include this as an evidence of "civilized" behavior of the West.
Even as we speak/write, in the name of punishing Saddam Hussain (who is still in power in his palace in good shape) the entire Iraqi people is being punished through sanction. Can this be an indication of "civilized" behavior and approach? I would be surprised if Mr. Sohail is not aware of how the native Americans have been taken care - really taken care - of. Mr. Sohail would not characterize that history of inhumanity and cruelty as "civilized" behavior. Would you, Mr. Sohail?
Anyway, their inconsistency does not justify Muslims' inconsistency, because whether its adherents follow or not, Islam categorically requires its followers a fair, unprejudiced, and principled approach. What do all these have anything to do with Kunta Kinte? Well, referring to the immigration to the USA, Mr. Sohail at one place said, "After all nobody forced anyone to come to the West." This is an example of how we all can err, including Mr. Sohail, who usually writes so well and so eloquently. NOBODY HAS BEEN FORCED TO COME TO THE WEST?
I don't want to be presumptuous by assuming that he does not know about Alex Haley, The Roots, Kunta Kinte (a Muslim brought to America, not quite walking on the red carpet). Instead of Kunta Kinte, I should rather say, in plural, all those Kunta Kintes! I am sure Mr. Sohail would not consider such historical record, lasting all the way up to just a few decades ago spanning the time of slavery to racism even long after slavery was abolished, as among the "tenets of civilised governing, like liberal democracies and physical safety of average citizens" as he wrote.
Regardless, concurring with the underlying spirit of Mr. Sohail's writing let us try to converge toward an understanding and stance to condemn terrorism and at the same time support legitimate struggles of ALL people. I believe we will have a better chance to see unconditional condemnation under such "principled" approach.
By the way, I might as well take this opportunity to inform that there is a new and distinctive Bangladeshi internet-based discussion forum called Shetubondhon (http://www.shetubondhon.org ). Its goal is to bring people together from diverse background to help develop a new culture of mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation by seeking common grounds. In pursuit of the development of a principled stance, the first Topic of the Month is "How do We Contain Intolerance and Find Common Grounds through Conflict Resolution". Through collaborative thought and a streamlined culture the forum wants to make a contribution - however modest it is - toward building a better future for all of us.
I look forward to more writings of Mr. Sohail in NFB.