Marilyn Contreras’ Entry 8

Marilyn Contreras
“Good Muslim Bad Muslim”
10/20/08
This past week in class we discussed and presented much of the chapters that we had to read for “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim,” by Mahmood Mamdani. Much of the focus that we have had in this class has been over the conflict in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the disagreement between the Shiites and the Sunnis. This book touches on many points that provides a greater insight to the reader on the origins of these conflicts and discusses many ideas that most of us are not aware of. The section I had to read dealt with a lot of ideas having to do with distinguishing between terms like “the settler,” and “the suicide bomber.” As I understood it, Mamdani started off describing much of what he called collective punishment. In other words, he described it as a whole group paying the consequences, collectively, for the mistakes or errors of a few or even of a single person. Mamdani explains that retaliation or punishment is different when it regards political acts rather than criminal deeds. To many collective punishment can be referred to as acts of terror because it not only punishes individual criminals, but it also sacrifices the lives and belongings of the innocent. Mamdani talks about Harvard Law Professor, Alan M. Dershowitz, who supports this modern idea of collective punishment. Dershowitz says that, “It will be a morally acceptable trade-off even if the property of some innocent civilians must be sacrificed in the process.” This was in regards to a retaliation tactic in which a whole Palestinian village would be destroyed in response to their acts of terror. There is a reasoning backing up collective punishment that it comes about in response to political acts rather than criminal deeds. Collective punishment, such as the removal of Palestinians from Israeli territory, is given in response to political acts committed against a certain country and its inhabitants, such as the Palestinian suicide attacks. Any discord between Israeli’s and Palestinians has nothing to do with minor infractions like stealing from one another or killing some of their people, but it roots to political power and who controls most of the Middle East. The suicide attacks and self bombings are referred to as political acts, because these people are in search of control and power not just in retaliation for minor crimes. This is where collective punishment kicks in, to punish the majority of people for those individual political acts.
From the term “collective punishment” Mamdani moves on to describe a historical overview of the difference between terms such as the “settler” and the “suicide bomber.” Mamdani explains that when it comes to the issue of terrorism, we can look at it from a cultural view or a political view, as many have chosen to do so. If we look at the cultural roots of terrorism we tend to believe that acts of terror are instilled in people of Muslim theology and that they are traced back to the teachings that these people receive. On the other hand, the political view tends to explain that these acts are in response to present issues or dilemmas arising between countries or political leaders. Accordingly, a man named Stephen Schwartz believes that terrorist attacks are not part of the Islam tradition, but of one “strain of Islam.” He calls this strain Wahabbi Islam, which is a small portion of Islam that is more violent and more devoted to the cause. Islam itself does not promote suicide or killing of innocent people such as women and children, but branches of this have broken away and have formed these extremist terrorists. At the same time we go back to the idea of collective punishment which is rejected by Islam teachings because collectively it would include noncombatants. This leads to the discussion of the suicide bomber, a person who is trained and taught the one day they will sacrifice their lives for the good of all. This is not to say that the decision to be a suicide bomber has to do with culture in its entirety. For the most part these people, mostly young men, choose to this because they feel it is right or because they are frustrated with the way things are being handled. Mamdani uses a young Palestinian man named Yunnis as an example of what goes through the minds of these bombers. Yunnis basically gives three reasons as to why he will do what he is about to do in a matter of days. The first reason he gives is the political controversy involving invasion of their territory by Israelis. The Israelis are the enemy and he will use any means to rid their land of them. The second reason, he explains, is that he knows that they are undermined when it comes to technology. This means that most Palestinians do not have the same equipment as Israelis and self bombs are really the only means of defense, because otherwise they would be beaten and destroyed in no time. The third reason and probably the most important is that they fight for freedom. It all comes down to delivering a message to the rest of the world that they died in order to be free because life is not worth living if one does not have freedom to do with it as one pleases. Suicide bombers seem to carry an anger that deals mainly with the contemporary issues that are not letting them live heir lives the way they feel they should be going.
In class we discussed the idea of “the other,” and in this particular case the other of the suicide bomber is the settler. When Israel gained control of the West Bank it became a mass invasion, in which the purpose was to inhabit all these areas with new Israeli settlers. As the years progressed after 1973, so did the expansion of Israelis into the Occupied Territories. When the numbers exceeded those of the Palestinians they started imposing their own rules and regulations with the premises that Palestinians no longer had rights in those territories and they needed to be told how to live. The suicide bombers were the radical natives that became fed up with invasion and dictatorship by others. The settlers were those imposing their rules and regulation on those that had lived in theses territories for centuries. Both types could not and will not coincide because of what they each represent. With these problems in the midst many points of view rose up by the native people. One that seems to make sense is that of not having an actual problem with the “settler”, meaning the inhabitant but with the people that give power to this settler state of mind. Settlers could just be immigrants who wanted to migrate to their land and everything would be fine, but the fact that they move in and that they inscribe a sense of authority and power makes most natives hate them. The fact is, according to Mamdani, is that the problem is not having separate states or coming to an agreement of forming different states, but how to create equal citizenship. The problem is having natives, immigrants, and settlers realize that they can be equal and should be equal.

Advertisement