TBH, I couldn't do a better job at painting them as subhuman than the quotes you provided did.
Really?
You haven't said that he should have made a deal with the kidnappers. So what is your point? That he should have found another frame of reference from which to stand against the intimidation? How would he manage this without jumping out of his own skin?
Except notice the language there. He doesn't say "would hurt other people", but "would hurt other Muslims". So I have to, you know, wonder: if they'd stick to hurting Jews and Christians, would he be ok with putting them back on the street?
Except, it seems, you have to wonder and form a conclusion.
Also, while we're at language: martyr?? He's painting even his son's ordeal in religious wording.
He's a religious man. How else is he to paint the ordeal?
Certainly, a difficult choice (assuming he was actually in a position to release the prisoners -- heck, even without that assumption). He came to terms with the situation in a way which didn't require him to put greater risk upon his community in return for his son.
Would "hero" be a better word for his son? I don't see how that fits the being kidnapped part the ordeal. Call him a "victim"? Sure, he was a victim. "Collatoral cost", maybe? Isn't that a secular phrase for a sacrifice?
I think the word "martyr" can carry those concepts for religious people.
You seem to damn him for having a religious viewpoint and coming to terms with his situation (which he didn't choose) from that viewpoint -- not for any action. Or do you think he should have tried to release the prisoners?
Look, you may have noticed that I'm usually one of those defending muslims around here, but this is the kind of stuff that gives me the doubts. Not just about the Islam, but about any religion, really. It seems to me like the perfect example of how it taints, perverts, and defiles everything it touches. Suddenly it all isn't about justice, compassion, or anything, it's about "other Muslims" and "martyrs".
Please, the questions above are not rhetorical. How was this man supposed to act? Was he supposed to say: "I must state that my son died for secular reasons." Do you really think he had no sense of justice when he chose his community over his son? This wasn't compassion for his community? Do you really think that the only reason he did what he did was religious? Would no atheist have made such a choice?
He was a religious man, and reacted by choosing to support his community -- who are Muslims -- and to regard his son as a martyr -- ie: as one who died in the cause of fighting injustice, of which kidnapping is certainly an example.
Damn his actions, I can understand that. OTOH, it does seem heroicly unselfish. Maybe he should have chosen his son, and freed those prisoners. There's an argument for that -- I'm not sure which side I'm on.
But damn his world view, without damning his actions? That's strange.
