From: Mohd. Haque <haquetm83@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] From Hiroshima to London –political violence and our collective future
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com, reform-bd@yahoogroups.com, history_islam@yahoogroups.com, diagnose@yahoogroups.com
From Hiroshima to London –political violence and our collective future.
A speech by Imam Zaid Shakir – Zaytuna Institute, CA.USA
Transcribed by M Haque
This is a very historic date, the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, on Aug 6th 1945 – the US dropped an atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima, killing over 100 000 individuals, unarmed and unsuspecting men, women and children.
So the title of this talk, From Hiroshima to London, Hiroshima – the date, I'm sure is not lost upon any of us, and London – recently we've had insane attacks again attacking civilians, not even beginning to compare with the lives lost in Hiroshima, but the tactics, the objectives are the same, that is politically motivated violence, targeting innocent unsuspecting civilians, or emanating from the political agenda, designed to achieve a political objective. I want to say that I, and most Muslims, are against any form of political violence that targets innocent, unsuspecting civilians, who have nothing to do with the conflict in question. I condemn it, no matter who the perpetrators. And in saying that, I intentionally avoided the use of the word 'terrorism' for a reason, which we will explain momentarily.
As Muslims we have been placed in a context, which demands that we condemn any or all acts of terrorism perpetrated by those who claim an affiliation with Islam, and claim that the actions that they've undertaken are motivated, even the most twisted ration by Islam. So by accepting to frame our issues and to respond to these demands for apologies for condemnation for context of terrorism, we will force a framework, that will never bring about a positive outcome for us Muslims. And the proof of that is, they say the proof is in the pudding. We've been condemning terrorism vehemently since Sept 11, 2001, even before that. What is the result of that? Even before an action has been undertaken, we are asked to condemn again, and to apologise again.
Now, if we were operating in an effective framework, the first time would have been sufficient. But what happens? The Muslims don't condemn their co-religionists when they commit these acts. The Muslims need to be more vocal, louder and more vociferous. If one who's following the writings of the likes of Thomas Freidman, that 'if you don't condemn these acts, then you stand condemned yourself'. Now why is this the case? This is the case between terrorism and Islam, that their framework immediately evokes a negative image. It's almost reflexive. Now once a framework has been established, there's no possibility for meaningful dialogue that goes against the perimeters that reference defines. For e.g., if I ask you don't think of an elephant, what's the first thing that pops into your mind? An elephant. So I'm trying to deny that as a frame of reference that is deeply embedded into your mind, altogether. What if I try to alter that
reference, what if I say, all your life, you've been told, you've seen pictures, the message has been reinforced in your mind that an elephant is a large animal with a trunk and tusks. If I say to you that an elephant doesn't have a trunk and it's as small as a mouse, just think about it. There's no way that I'm going to get you to accept that alteration. Because the references are too strong. The indoctrination is too deep. Now the same thing with terrorism and Muslim. As soon as we make that association, which are the two dominant terms in that reference, we reinforce that frame of reference. We reinforce the idea that Muslims and Islam are linked with terrorism, no matter how hard we try. So that's one reason for leaving that reference.
The second reason is that we deny in this country, the generality of the American public from having a frame of reference, where the acts of violence they perpetrate can be defined as terrorism. Even if they think the text book definition of terrorist. Muslims are terrorists, not them, not the Christians. So, by evoking the reference, not only do I reinforce the negative implications of it, that have been drilled systematically into their heads, but we also deny those who are not involved in that frame of reference, from realistically analyzing their acts of violence in a context that allows for a shared responsibility and that's a crime for the perpetuation of the status quo. And the status quo is unacceptable, on all sides.
After this introduction, I want to emphasize why I chose this title, is to say that both of these acts, by the definitions, given by those who perpetrated them, or allegedly perpetrated them, are acts of terrorism. Equally condemnable. And if we cannot arrive to that conclusion, there's no basis for us working together for a collective future that's saner and safer than the present. There's no basis. Saying that, we have to look objectively, because these are very evocative, very motive discussions. And people get riled up, especially when people feel you're trampling on something they hold to be sacred. So to start this analysis, of these two acts of terrorism, based on the rationalization of those undertaking them, I will argue at the end of the day Hiroshima was not an act of terrorism. It was maniacal murder, with no real political agenda being served. Because we said terrorism is politically motivated violence. And the reason I say that, I
will try to substantiate. I will give you the dictionary definition, from the Social Science Encyclopaedia – 'Terrorism consists of a series of acts intended to spread intimidation, panic and destruction in a population. These acts can be carried out by individuals/groups opposing a state, or acting on its behalf. The amount of violence is often disproportionate, apparently random and deliberately symbolic, to hit a target that will send a message to the rest of the population.'
So let's go to begin with Hiroshima. By this definition, based on the stated objective of the Military establishment, at least those whose opinions were sought and publicised, was an act of terrorism. Undeniable. Terrorism consists of a series of actions, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was part of a series of actions, beginning significantly with the fire bomb in Tokyo, before and after midnight, in which 324 B-time bombers were dropped, 1700 tonnes of specially designed incendiary bombs were dropped, destroying an area of 16 sq miles, and killing over a 100,000 people. August 6th, we had atomic bombing of Hiroshima, killing 120,000 people, estimated. And on August 9th, we had the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. This was part of a series of events trying to intimidate, spread fear amongst the Japanese people. And overwhelmingly, the civilians were the victims.
Now the definition goes on to spread intimidation, panic and destruction. Now, one reason that the American population hasn't thought of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima nor Nagasaki as an act of terrorism is that the destruction was hidden intentionally for over 40 years. All of the film taken in the immediate aftermath, not only by the Japanese, but also taken by the American news agents, were confiscated by Washington DC, actually outside Washington DC. One of the leading war correspondents of the day were the Chicago Tribune, an individual by the name George Weller, was dispatched. He wrote a journal over 20,000 words. He wrote about the gut wrenching destruction and impact that we witnessed. His journal was confiscated and only a copy resurfaced recently. I'll read briefly from an article that appeared on 'Editor and Publisher', America's oldest journal, covering the newspaper industry. ' In the weeks following the atomic attack on Japan
almost 60 years ago, and then for decades afterwards, the US engaged in airtight suppression of any film shot of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. This even included footage of US military using Japanese news reel teams. And for many years all but a handful of newspaper photographs were seized or prohibited. The public did not see any news reel footage for 25 years, US military film remained hidden for nearly 4 decades.
Six weeks ago, ENP broke the news that article written by famed Chicago Tribune's daily war news correspondence George Weller that the bombs dropped in Nagasaki were finally published in Japan almost 6 decades after they were spiked by US officials. It was a massive cover-up. This mean- cover up Nagasaki, after the bombing a city was there, everything burned including 100,000 human beings, totally destroyed, that is what was covered up. So that being the case as they say where ignorance blitz its folly to be wise. Now we said the justifications given for this action rendering an act of terrorism, and what was the justification?
Why dropped atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki we being the United States. And I am speaking as a military veteran not speaking as life long scare carrying Islamic fundamentalist, what was the justification, we are going to save 100,000 to 500,000 American lives. Now right here this should make Muslims go up because whenever we say not that people who are undertaking acts of terrorism in the name of Islam are doing it to save Muslim lives but if we say its reasons of the failed policy. What do our critic say? There is no 'but' justifying terrorism, there can be no 'but' when you are condemning terrorism, right? You all heard it- if you but. I have the special anniversary report of Time magazine issue this week commemorating or marking the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Just …. mentioned here, says living under the cloud. The bombs cost tens of thousands of lives perhaps 120,000 killed immediately in Hiroshima and in
Nagasaki with many more dying from the effects of radiation but they saved lives too. Time magazine, but, they saved lives too! I hope the double standard is clear. Muslim you can not use the words 'but' not even in this context you cant even come close, but Time and Newsweek, CNN they can all use 'but', so we should ask what is going on ?
I mentioned earlier based on the justification such as that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism. Destroying, liquidating, intimidating civilians, a whole population to get them to surrender, that's politically motivated violence. Now in reality that rationalisation is false, was fabricated after the fact by the Truman administration to despise the fact in reality the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Nagasaki were either cold blooded murder or scientific experiment. Why do I say that? Conventional wisdom also says that every one agree we had no choice but to drop bombs, certainly the political and military establishment just as the images are covered up, images of Hiroshima, images of Nagasaki covered up the opposition to the decision to use those weapons was also covered up.
I am going to few minutes and I want to do this because this is going into the public domain and we do not want to leave any room for anyone to say that we are in a state of denial, we are trying to take just cheap shots at America. Which is our country and this issue concerns all of us but we should look objectively again at the scientific record, some leading political and military figures of the day and what they had to say about the fact or the purported fact that - dropping the bombs was inevitable. Dwert Eisenhower said in July 1945, 'secretary of war Stimpson visited my headquarter in Germany and informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, I was one of those who felt that there were number of cohesion reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The secretary upon giving me the news of the successful bombing tested in new Mexico and plan for using it asked for my reaction apparently expecting of vigorous
ascent. During his recitation of the relevant facts I have been the conscious feeling of depression. So, I voiced him my grave misgivings first on the basis of my belief that japan was already defeated and the dropping off the bomb was completely unnecessary and secondly, because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of weapon whose employment, I thought no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It is my belief that japan was at that very moment seeking some surrender with the minimum loss of face. The secretary was deeply perturb by my attitude.' This is from Dwilt Eisenhower memoir 'Mandate for change'.
In a News Week interview Eisenhower recalled the meeting with Stimpson "the Japanese was ready to surrender and it was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing". Admon William Dilehi, the chief of staff to both Roosevelt and Trueman says ' it is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no material assistance in our war against Japan. Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the bombing with conventional weapon". Another quote from Lehi " the lethal possibility of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to barbarian of the dark ages. I was talked to make war in that fashion . War can not be won by destroying women and children" William Lehi's memoir 'I was there'.
Former president Herbert Hoover on May 28th 1945 visited president Truman and suggested way to end the pacific war quickly "I am convinced that if you as president if make a short wave broadcast to the people of Japan, tell them that they can have their emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists, you get a peace in Japan, you have both wars over".
And other words the Japanese refusing to surrender because they understood that the unconditional surrender to mean that the emperor would be done away with, and they wouldn't have their spiritual leader- the emperor. The tragedy in all of these after the atomic bombings, the conditions, the allegedly unconditional surrender of Japan was not unconditional , there was one condition that was granted 'the continuation of the emperor, of the empire, emperor remain in place. Hoover rather says -in another interview "the use of the atomic bomb with its indiscriminate killing of women and children revokes my soul". Another interview "the Japanese ware prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 upto and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped. If such leads have been followed up there would have been no occasion to drop the atomic bombs".
General Douglas Macarthur "the past time declaration in july demanded that japan surrender unconditionally or face ' an utter destruction – Trueman' this is from his biography by william Manchester. … he knew that Japanese would never renounce their emperor and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible, anyhow because his people will never submit to allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically when the surrender did come it was conditional and the condition was a continuation of the emperial reign. Had the Generals advised been followed the dropped of atomic at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary' Mcarthure goes on to say – from his biography by Manchester " Macurther views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima Nagasaki was starkly different from what the general public supposed'. 'when I asked Gen Macurther about the decision, the drop of the bomb I was surprised to
learn that he had not even been consulted' – he is the General in charge of the Pacific theatre. What I asked would his advised had been, he replied that 'he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bombs. The war might have ended weeks earlier he said if the united states had agreed as it latter did, any way to the retention of the institution of the emperor'.
Josef Grey – under secretary of state , if surrender could have been brought about in May 1945 or even June and July before the entrance of the Soviet Russia into the Pacific theatre of war and the use of the atomic bomb the world would have been the gainer.
So on and so on. Final quote – other pages of military personals primarily and some civilian, General Paul Nitsi, very prominent figure in US military history, one quote of him from several- 'even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it seem highly unlikely given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government that the US invasion of the islands schedule for November 1st 1945 would have been necessary. 2. (Nitsi)- when I was working on the new plan of air attack I concluded that even without the atomic bomb Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of month. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Brigadier general Kardiar Clark – he was a military intelligence officer in charge of preparing interceptor Japanese cables for briefing of Trueman and his advisers. He said " when we didn't need to do it, drop the bombs and we knew that we did not need to do and they knew that -we used them as an experiment of two atomic bombs'. So, draw your own conclusion.
So what we are living is referred to as political mythology. Now, that is based on the stated rational 'state sponsored terrorism'. The definition also meant individual group to oppose .. so the bombing in London based on the kind of responsibility that we have heard was undertaken by the group who oppose the state or .. they were also based on the information we have received undertaken in the name of Islam. Now immediately in analysing those event, as Muslim, we should understand and we should say clearly and unequivocally that Islam does not endorse the indiscriminate targeting of civilians of innocence Islam does not endorse the erosion of undermining public safety and secuirity, this is call 'heraab' in Islam. And both of these meaning innocent life and undermining public safety. Encapsulated in one verse of the Quran, and clearly condemn' isli zalika ketabna ala bani Israel unnahoo min katalan nafsin bi gairy nafs oa fasadin fil ard fa
katalan min nas e jamian. – Allah subhana wataala says – for reason murder unjustly for that murder be prescribed and ordained to children of Israel and those after them who receive the scripture that any one who takes a life for other than retribution for murder or undermining public safety and security – annahu man katala nafsan bi gairy nafsan fasadin fil ard , fasad fil ard is 'heraaba' is crime against the public safety and the public wellbeing, such as bombing buses and subways, highway robbery… that results in loss of lives and the most severest punishment in Islamic law to be inflicted on individual who engaged in that crime. So this is what Islam teaches us.
Now as Muslim, though we are told that we have a problem in our religion, we have a suicide murder code that is developed in our myth is rooted in our religion - our responsibility is to root it out. Now there is an element of truth in that. But there is also tremendous amount of distortions. First distortion is that this murderous code, no matter how smaller or what positin it occupies in fringe of religion has emanated strictly from our religious teaching. Therefore, it can be understood strictly looking in the Quran we find a verse in the Quran to the idolators .. towards coming from… or is rooted in our law so we look in some ancient legal manual and we find few line that apparently provide justification for we gotten in the source, it rooted in the Islam. That is distortion according to the truth, because if it was rooted in the Islam it would have manifested in .. Throughout history and disregarding the evil time it would have manifested itself
in modern time where many of the abuses of allegedly been protested by the perpetrator that existed. Islam was here and occupation of our land existed but we did not have the Islam .. Islamic suicide death code, Islam was here and we had occupation of Palestine since 1948. But we did not have Islamic suicide death code until very recent history. Islam was here, women were raped in Bosnia, by the tenth of thousand but we did not have the Islamic suicide death code. So, if we as Muslims were told that we have to reform or we have to examine our religion only, as I said an element of truth in that, than this is mission impossible, just as the condemnation of terrorism are ineffective; this is mission impossible because terrorism is deeper than that and causes motivation that move a person beyond that line where in life and sanctity of innocent lives is respected the causes are deeper. If you want to know how deep I recommend, a study that commissioned by
the united states government in 1996, who becomes the terrorist empire, so I am going read and quote from the study – terrorism usually referred to multiple causal factors not only psychological but also economic political religious sociological among others. There is even hypothesis that is caused by physiological factor as discussed below – because terrorism is a multi causal phenomenon it would be simplistic and erroneous to explain by a single cause, such as the psychological need of the terrorist perpetuate an act such as the religion of the terrorist. If Islam is the only motivation we can identify for terrorism what cause ..two days to snap .. shoot up of bus full of Palestinian civilians. There are multiple causes, I wouldn't say Judaism, certainly that soldiers understanding of Judaism was part of .. essentially go on a suicide mission because he knew that he is dead once his ammunition rans out. So the causes are multiple and they are
complex and again if Islam is the cause we would expect those who had deepest amount of religious education, the deepest commitment to Islam, to be the main perpetrator, we find those who have deep and balanced understanding of Islam furthest moved from terrorism. One of the distinctive feature of the modern Muslim terrorist base on studies that have done in – quoting this one are we – ' this is an individual who went all the way to Afghanistan to interview Osama Bin Laden in the 1990. he reports -Abdul Bari Al Atwan, Editor of Al Quds al Arabi based in London who interviewed Bin Laden at his Afghan head quarters in Khorasan mountain, reports that the Mujahideen around the man belong to most Arab states and are of different ages, but most of them are young. They hold high scientific degrees -doctors, engineers, teachers. They left their families and job and join the Afghan Jihad. So, these are secularly educated individuals. We shade another myth
if we want to ..terrorism- 'we have to reform the Madrasah curriculum' these aren't graduates of Madrasah, these are graduates of western universities, here in Britain, America, France, Germany or western style universities in the Muslim world. These are not graduates of Madrasah. These are not people sat on dart floor seeping tea, memorising Ibne Aashi or Zubaid or ..asiathu Ibn Malik or making dhikr.
So if we collectively Muslim and non Muslim are to deal with this problem we have to look at the religious root, but we also have to look at the psychological, economic, we are going to have a look certainly at the political and number of factors. Then very dispassionately work our ways toward a solution. And if we can't do that than as I said it is mission impossible. Status quo is not only going to be perpetuated but the negative aspect of the status quo going to be deepen. So as Muslim, here, in this country what should we do? Before that, summarising it – what happen in London is terrorism, politically motivated violence, targeting civilian systematic and symbolic fashion part of the series of action some successful and some not successful, designed to achieve a political outcome that is terrorism that just as Hiroshima Nagasaki and fire bombing of Tokyo are condemnable so to are those actions condemnable. Muslim and non Muslims have to hold them
condemnable across the board and to do that as Muslim I abdicate contribution to the discourse everything to do our power to change it. To change this away from this framework of terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. Because that will destroy the possibility for meaningful discourse. What I recommend is we adopt a term such as politically motivated violence that indiscriminately target civilian. Now we can discuss Hiroshima and London in a single framework. And in that framework we can began to see how much of this fall on Muslim and how much on others. Because we are dealing with a shared common framework. This is the responsibility we have. If we want to make a contribution for forcing the general American public to do something that we have been accused of .. justifying terrorism the 'but' and justification is here amongst the non Muslim public. We also been accused of denial, how many of you heard that Muslim are in denial on concerning
violence in religion. That may or may not be true but definitely there is an element of truth in that as relates to some Muslims. But there is deep historical denial of the apart of the American public for not the acts of violence that perpetrated contemporarily, one hundred thousand civilian in Iraq that we don't see on the mainstream TVs…tens of thousand in Afghanistan, but the violence of .. the genocide of implication of .. violence that has perpetrated on native inhabitant of these land, the violence that has justified by a slip in slogan that generals shared in the good engine or dead engine. The violence of wounded knee and sandy creek. America come to grief of that history and perhaps that is the wisdom that Allah has put on under this circumstances to help America to come to grief because unless and until she comes grief of that history our collective future is in jeopardy because, genocidal policy will be pursued again. Policy that
abdicated openly, if what happened in London happens in this country we should look at their holy sites, not Hiroshima Nagasaki, there are now nuclear weapon those are fusion bombs that one hundred more powerful than bombs that dropped on Hiroshima, more powerful bombs that dropped on Nagasaki, we should drop one of those in Makkah, this is your shock jack and your neo conservative talk show host, this is some of those type. This is a US Senator saying this. This is last week, what mentality makes that statement possible, mentality of denial, mentality of berp from denial.
So the Muslims are not only one on denial as far as that goes and unless and until with maturity, with good intention we all come together and sit down and discuss this problem a politically motivated violence that targets civilian, not my politically motivated violence that target your civilian and your politically motivated violence that targets our civilian, but our politically motivated violence that target our civilian.
Remarks - tried my best to capture and transcribed in readable context yet missed some wordingg and verses, my apology if it had misconstrude the theme of the lecture, you may listen to the original speech.
(the whole lecture is available in zaytuna.org)
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment