Yesterday's NYT carried an op-ed by Thomas Friedman on 'Indian Muslims in Mumbai' who have refused to provide burial space to the nine terrorists responsible for the Mumbai massacre in November 2008.
A commendable stand no doubt, and one that should be recognized with no reservations whatsoever! Senseless killing of innocents cannot be condoned for any reason and by any thinking individual who calls himself civilized. In fact I await the day when the action taken by this group of brave Muslims is emulated worldwide so that the press does not have to qualify the term Muslim with a nationality before it like Friedman's article did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hallo Id,
Very interesting news indeed. But will they stay in Bombay till kingdom come or what?
Georg
I don't know ... not granting them the right to burial ... isn't that kind of inhuman? I know I know, they deserve no better but where else would they go?
sad part is, indian Muslims HAVE TO stand out to prove it to the rest of the world that they are moderate, and if they dont the men around them would "assume" that they too are part of the devilish act. One of my muslim fiends put up a status message on his Gtalk that read "I condemn the attacks, no true Muslim can agree to this mass massacre", strangely mst of my hindu friends did not find that necessary. Do you get my point here? If they don't stand up they might be counted as a turban clad terrorist too..
lash,
"If they don't stand up they might be counted as a turban clad terrorist too.." that would be a pathetic state of affairs! having to prove your loyalty every step of the way, after each attack and after every rumour!
it is pathetic but true and it happens here , in the country that i live.
Everytime a bomb goes up it's these poor chaps who come out with a condemning statement first, and i am dead sure that they do it partially out of fear (of a backlash) and partially the concern for the dead.
See...this can be viewed from two points. I guess Lash, being from the metros happen to miss the finer point when any ulema or any organisation condemns the attack.
Now this approach, and am sorry, but according to me is pseudo-secular approach, when he says people (who people is he referring to? Hindus, Sikhs or other so-called minorities)"assume" that they are also part of the act.
Now, what does such condemnations do? 1. They help in placating some fantics of other religion, who bask in glory that we made them do that. Which helps ease tensions
2. Most importantly, it sends a message to the illetrate community of any particular religion that such an act is not approved under any religious commandmants, jihad or kar seva. And thus, it may help in dissauding some young men, who fall under this trap as they know that their leaders are talking some sense.
Having said that doesn't mean my next cabin colegaue needs to send a office mail to all condemning the attacks. That would be a classic case of trying to stand out unneceseraily. But condemnation from the highest level, howsoever, for political reason or from fear physchosis may help, can help.
lash,
Though I agree with you that a condemnation of the attack should not come out of fear but out of genuine disgust and shock at the crime committed. Having said that, condemnation of a wrong is the right thing to do in principle regardless of whether the condemner shares his religion/ ethnicity with the wrongdoer or otherwise. It's time the whole world called a spade and spade so that we as a civilization can clean out our act...
Post a Comment