| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Post 7/7 : Is Legislation Enough? |
02 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
In response to this situation, governments such as the United States are attempting to present "unbiased" news using the US funded Al-Hurra satellite TV channel and the Sawa radio station, but so far there is little or no evidence that they are having any effect in improving the US government's image amongst Arabs and Muslims.Also,as part of a major restructuring of the BBC world service, it was announced on the 25th of October 2005, that the BBC world service intends to launch news channel by 2007.This project is being funded by the closure of ten foreign language services. Given the limited success of Al-Hurra in attracting an audience, it will be very surprising if the new BBC World Service Arab TV channels will have any more success in changing the anti-Western perceptions of their target audience.
The major difference between the 7th of July bombers and the majority of Muslims in the UK is in how to respond to the "unjust" British government polices. Whilst many Muslims are prepared to attend demonstrations and protest about the injustices they perceive, as was witnessed in the "Stop the War" marches that took place in 2003, a very small number of British Muslims believe it is necessary to undertake attacks within the UK. Many people describe the latter as "Jihadi" individuals because they support the concept of Jihad (war) on British society.
Whilst a large proportion of the Muslim community may be upset and angry over Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya etc, the "Jihadis" hold the British population responsible for the policies of the British government and believe it is necessary to take revenge for injustices that are happening. Although many Muslims may hold the Prime Minister and the Labour government responsible for the Muslim civilian deaths that are occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jihadi scholars, whose interpretations underpin the actions of the suicide bombers, argue that no distinction should be made between the British government and the British people, since the people elected the government. They reason is that since the British government is attacking Muslim civilians abroad, Muslims wherever they are have a duty to make coalition countries and their citizens suffer in the same manner that oppressed and occupied Muslims are suffering.
There is no tradition or support in Islam for targeting and killing of civilians. Historically, the major scholars of Islam took the position that even during a time of war, the killing of civilians was forbidden in the nation that the Muslims were at war with. In the last few decades, relatively new and controversial interpretations of some Islamic texts have been developed by some "Jihadi" scholars who argued that if your enemy starts killing your civilians, then it is permitted to retaliate against his.These interpretations have further developed in response to occupation by Western forces in areas such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Jihadis point out that many thousands of Muslims civilians have died at the hands of the foreign forces.
On the issue of civilian deaths, many pro-war western intellectuals argue that western forces do not deliberately target Muslim civilians, and that those civilian deaths that result are from unavoidable collateral damage. In response to this, Jihadi supporters argue that western forces do not discriminate between fighters and non-combatants and regularly use heavy weapons such as artillery,F16s and cluster bombs in residential areas.They point out that when Western forces destroyed the city of Fallujah in Iraq, they prevented men of arm-bearing age to leave the city, and that overall western politicians pay little or no regard to the human rights of Muslims.
Western claims about not targeting civilians are treated with some skepticism amongst many Muslims. Given the history of the Second World War, the Allies firebombed German and Japanese cities, and used atomic weapons against civilian targets in order to achieve their political objectives.
On several occasions, Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested that suicide bombers are motivated by an evil ideology. Some Western columnists suggest that Muslim suicide bombers are driven by an Islamic vision of martyrdom in which they are aiming to earn a special place in heaven where numerous virgins await them. Others describe that the evil ideology makes the Muslim bombers hate the decadent western civilisation; this then leads them to want to destroy it.
This explanation fails to adequately explain the motivation of Muslim suicide bombers. From their perspective, they see themselves engaged in a war against an enemy who is occupying Muslim lands and who is also killing Muslims.Furthermore,given that they do not have F16 planes, tanks or heavy artillery, and are fighting against a much better equipped enemy, the act of blowing themselves up amongst their enemy is one way in which they can respond. Nor is there any evidence that Muslim suicide bombers are targeting "decadent" western countries such as Sweden that have played no role in the Persian Gulf wars or the occupation of Muslim lands.
When these Muslim individuals decide to sacrifice their own lives by blowing themselves up, they do so thinking it to be an act of war in defense of their faith, land and fellow Muslims. They perceive their enemy to be killing Muslim civilians. Hence, they also prepare themselves to kill the civilians of their enemy. Consequently, this leads them to sacrifice their own lives.Without this perception of reality there would be no motivation for their action.
| |
| |
| |
| |
< 1 2 3 >
Page 2 of 3 pages
| |
|
|
