|
||
The Myth of Muslim Condemnation of Terror
The amount of disinformation about Muslims is disconcerting. One popular smear is that Muslims are in an alliance with the left to take over the West; it is an allegation that far right loves to use.
The other, equally popular and equally absurd, idea is that Muslims do not condemn terrorism. This too makes its way into culture from the right (though judging by comments to my last post, its diffused to some members of the left). Though it is subtler, and argues from insinuation, it is no less pernicious. The implication is that every Muslim in the world who doesn't engage in terrorism is nevertheless a latent supporter, or enabler, of terrorism because he doesn't make loud proclamations against it.
First, there is something dirty with the premise of this idea because it makes terrorism a problem of the entire Muslim collective. Perhaps those individuals who make this argument were in a coma during the 20th century when most of us realized that to treat all the people of any one religion, ideology, or race, as a collective is not only bigoted, but downright dangerous.
Second, heaping an expectation on Muslims - to call out "their" criminals - is absurd when no similar expectation is placed on any other religious, ethnic, or ideological group. Is it appropriate for a white man to tell "the hispanics" to make proclamations against the drug trade? Why should a hispanic who has never even touched drugs speak out against drug lords? His abstention from engaging in the drug trade is condemnation enough. The same goes for Muslims and terrorism. If you want a Muslim to condemn terrorism, realize that he has done so by not engaging in it. Life becomes quite insufferable for Muslims if before speaking about any subject a Muslim is required to first "demonstrate" that he is not "on the side of the enemy." This has had a huge chilling effect on artistic and intellectual production by Muslim youth. I know because I was silent from 2001 to 2006, saving all my writings on my hard-drive, not caring to share them with society at large.
Third, in our digital age, it is an act of egregious ignorance for a human being to actually verbalize the words: "Do Muslims condemn terror?" Here is a suggestion from a lowly immigrant: try this thing called "googling." Start with using the search terms "Muslims condemn terror." This was the first hit for me, how about you?
Finally, the reality is that condemnations of terrorism have been pouring in for years. The reasons that so many Americans are still ignorant about them are because they have willfully chosen not to pay attention. Having traveled internationally quite a few times since 2001, I can confidently say that our media has one of the lowest IQs about Islam anywhere in the world. It is - and should be - downright shameful that when I speak to British audiences, I am able to have intelligent discussions about complicated points of Islamic history; meanwhile, now six years since 9/11 and in the US I am still clarifying the simple point that Muslims soundly oppose terrorism. With awareness about Muslims at such a shameful nadir, it should be no surprise that our beloved President was able to convince us that Saddam was behind 9/11 and take us to war against "Islamofascism."
Naturally, media ignorance has diffused to the public. In the US we don't have an idea who the Muslim leaders around the world are, much less how to access their opinion on terror. Bereft of such information we have latched onto a simple slogan fed to us by the far right, namely, why don't we see parades and public demonstrations?
Did we ever stop and think that asking Muslims to get together in a big public setting, unarmed, with women and children in tow, making loud gesticulations against suicide bombers and cold hearted murderers (who in their cowardice are not against cloaking themselves in veils), might be a rather stupid thing to demand? Did Americans forget how empty our streets were after 9/11 or how desolate Bethesda, Maryland, was during the days of DC sniper? Now try living in a society where suicide bombers are in every city and township and regularly attack group events like the Friday congregational prayers. In the US we have not had a suicide bombing since 9/11. Yet in Pakistan, 65 people - Muslims all of them - died in an attack by extremists yesterday. During the week before, there were two other suicide bombings. Is it reasonable to keep demanding that Muslims keep thronging out into the street at the whim of far away American masters? Then, when despite all these dangers, Muslims do gather to speak out against violence in their countries, it goes ignored by our media.
Instead of taking to the streets, Muslims have relied upon their religious elders to make stark declarations against violence. Part of it has to do with the fact that the peaceful and not-extremist Muslims in the world today value religious authority a lot more than extremists and terrorists who value mob rule and mayhem.
On September 12, 2001, one of the most learned Islamic scholars in the UK said the terrorists are "not Muslim." A month later he called terrorism a "heresy" against Islam in a pre-eminent British paper. A Pakistani Islamic scholar whose followers are active in 81 countries called Bin Laden a "false prophet" and "coward" barely a week after 9/11. Another major Islamic scholar issued a pamphlet (in many languages) attacking the Islamic legal arguments that the terrorists used so that future recruits might not be so easily led astray. One of the eldest traditionalist scholar in Sunni Islam issued a fatwa against the extremist group Al Muhajiroun. Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. President Bush was informed enough to bring an American-Muslim Imam to the White House who decried terrorists; yet average liberals who so delight in demeaning Bush probably still don't know that Imam's name. (Since 2001, that Imam has gone further and condemned antisemitism and holocaust denial as well). In 2005 there was a massive consensus reached at the international level that forbade Muslims from engaging in something called takfir - which attacks the jihadist ability to recruit. Muslim scholars have gone so far as to engage in "Koranic duels" with jihadists. Just the other day Bin Laden's former mentor condemned him for his violence. Nevermind the fact that before 9/11 it was a Muslim who warned our State department about monitoring certain mosques, or that it was a Muslim who tipped off the British authorities and helped prevent the 20 airliner hijacking in 2006. In the event someone wants more resources, try this and this.
Many times people demand that Muslims must "do more" than just merely condemn. Well, when Muslim religious leaders, lodged in Muslim communities, give lectures to Muslims on these subjects and write public opinion pieces, they are doing precisely that. They are educating Muslims. Their work has had positive result. A song that condemns extremism is at the top of the charts in Pakistan, and a Middle Eastern news station for Muslims has produced an anti-extremist film, which has been quite a hit. Now the question is will a Western producer bring the film here?
Of course, there are many who, even after being informed of such things, like to weasel their way out so they can continue badgering Muslims. In America, this is done by pointing the finger at the organization called CAIR, Council for Islamic Relations, and asking why CAIR doesn't openly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet the fact is that CAIR is a political, lobbying group, with no theological or religious imperative. Anytime it appears to act like a religious organization, it gets severely rebuked by Muslims. It does not speak for all Muslims (though like all lobbying groups it pretends to). It doesn't speak for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are not its members. In fact, its membership is down since 2001. Just as it is patently idiotic to point a finger at an American Jew and accuse him not condemning genocide because the Anti-Defamation League, one of the largest Jewish organizations, does not condemn the Armenian Holocaust, it is idiotic to point to a Muslim and accuse him of silence or complicity based on CAIR's political agenda. This is not a difficult distinction to make -- yet when it comes to Muslims, having selective myopia is acceptable. A recent trend among Americans has been to turn Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim in Congress, into some sort of Muslim Pope. It was my understanding that we separated religion from state. Are Christian Congressmen the leaders of the American Christian community? Again, there seems to be one standard for Muslims and another for other religious groups.
Anyway, I reiterate my first point. There is something wrong with the basic premise of the idea that Muslims must condemn terrorism, because at the end of the day there is no such thing as The Muslim Collective. If we as a society are going to make collective demands on a group, then we are implying that collective punishment is appropriate as well. So while learning about all the Muslims who have condemned terrorism is nice; its nicer if we started to move beyond that point. Until we remain aware of our ignorance, we cannot ever get to ripping out the heart of extremism, nor can we realize the things we ourselves have done to help Muslim extremists. We need to be having more sophisticated discussions about Islam and Muslims, involving things like the Quran, the distinction between jihadism and islamism (political Islam), and the future of Islamic theocracy. The entire world is talking about such things, and we, the only ones who regularly take arms against Muslims or purport to bring them democracy, are not.
In conclusion, my request is for readers to send this article to anyone who may benefit from it so that we can advance the discourse. Feel free to email me:
eteraz@gmail.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you so much for this post, Ali! It’s great you are drawing attention to the fact that when a Muslim is a Muslim, she cannot escape the Muslim label and has to give account for our prejudices about the Muslims.
Yet it’s in people’s nature to label other people. Americans abroad face it when they are asked things like “What do you think about Bush’s policy?” When I say I’m from Russia, I almost always get a question or a comment about Putin’s policy or Politkovskaya’s murder (this often happens when I say I’m from Russia to fellow journalism students).
Hitler started all this labeling. He felt he needed the enemy to unite the nation after shameful for Germany WWI end. And he found what the nation can unite against – non-Aryans. In 1999, Putin used the same trick to unite the nation against terrorists (which was almost equal to saying “Chechen terrorists” then); in 2001, Bush united the nation against the Muslims. Hitler’s genius idea will work forever. It’s a matter of finding an enemy.
Regards,
Yulia
What I find amazing is the number of posts here that fall into the exact trap that the blog pointed out to avoid. It would seem to me Eteraz leaves some points up for discussion because their is a dilemma for all parties involved, with the exception of the terrorists themselves.
There is a lot of finger pointing at Catholics, Christians, Jews, conservatives and Republicans. And it is the same disease the blog is pointing out. It scares me that my fellow Americans scorn me for my ideology. I'm not blaming Muslims for anything, but I am sure out to say terrorists are hijacking Islam to exploit their extremist position. If we can agree on that, I would prefer not to be called names because I was born a Catholic, and occasionally vote Republican. And most people like me aren't out banging drums calling for Muslims to be rounded up or to invade the middle east.
Its heartbreaking to see elements of the far left hijack the progressive movement. This country needs both conservatives and liberals, its the balance of our views that make the U.S. unique. We are two sides to the same coin. So please stop messing with the American collective Chi.
Thank you, Mr. Eteraz, for being a "voice in the wilderness". The Muslim, and especially the Arab Muslim, has definitely taken the place of the USSR and the "commie" as the official boogeyman of the Western World. I don't hear Ralph Nader, or Marlo Thomas, both of Arab descent, crying out against this unjust portrayal of their brothers, even though they have ample access to the media. Sadly, the flames of fear are fanned anew when educated, western dwelling Muslims join the ranks of extremists and perform acts of terror (the bombings of Britains airports, tubes and buses, are examples). Hollywood perpetuates this fear even more, by continually portraying all Arabs as being just one step away from corruption, greed, or Jihad in their movies and TV shows. If Israelis received equal treatment in these medias, American Jews would be in an uproar, and Palestinians would already have a homeland.
While many read these posts, the vast majority of Americans go along blind, satisfied with their version of "truth", and more interested in Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. Before the invasion, most Americans could not point out Iraq on the map, many still can't today. Forget about Afghanistan.
So again, I thank you. Not because it is your duty as a Muslim to point out these iniquities to the rest of us, but because when you do, the "umma" of the west that actually hears you just might continue the dialog, and evoke a change of attitude. peace.
Remember the Iranians were holding candle light vigils WITH us on 9/11.
Only the Palestinians, and scattered fanatics, were celebrating our pain.
What happens when 100+ leading Muslims call on Christians to Make Peace with Islam? Aren't they coming out and speaking against a Christian collective and speaking as a Muslim collective? The Pope has come and called for peace between the two relifions for years, now Muslim Clerics are passing an ultimatum in the name of their religion stating that world's survival is at stake if we don't concede.
I think thats adds a dimension to the argument that I haven't seen discussed:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416235-details/Muslims+tell+Christians%3A+'Make+peace+with+us+or+survival+of+world+is+at+stake'/article.do
Please Kristian-dog666, the pope just recently declared all other religion to be false. Hitler got help from the catholic church. Bush's called the Iraq war a Crusade, and he means it. His Christian faith believes the end times are near and that's good. So Bush is preparing for the Rapture by going to war with the middle east as prophisized in the bible and Nostradamus. The entire BushCo neocon fascist group is dominated by christian anti Muslim crusader ideology. The Muslims are not stupid. So threatening them creates a fanatic resistance. The war in Iraq is strengthening that anti American fanaticism.
I really could not agree more with the sentiment in this piece - Muslim scholars and leaders have spoken out against terrorism, Muslim students on campus have organized event after event condemning it, and American mosques have held community open houses to dispel myths. This was all necessary and needed. But its time to move on to deeper issues of how/where/why these radical ideas take hold, and to help those Muslim reformers who are working to prevent them from spreading by educating ourselves. Calls for marches condemning terrorism display nothing more than an infantile mindset unable to grasp and deal with deeper issues.
"If we as a society are going to make collective demands on a group, then we are implying that collective punishment is appropriate as well."
Interestingly, OBL and his murderous ilk think that attacks on ordinary Americans are justified because they do not stand against American policies. We as Americans should check ourselves when our reasoning starts to look strikingly similar.
Help common Americans to change the perceptions of Muslim community-Jihadist connection by informing FBI about jihad recruiting efforts, by getting rid of extremist imams and assisting in their deportation, by not giving zakat to organizations to finance jihadists, by stopping the neurotic demonization of the Jewish community.
Help Americans accept the Muslim community by encouraging Muslims not to flood message boards in the Internet with hateful and hysterical posts calling for slaughter of civilians living in “Zionist entity,” and blaming all acts of terror committed by Muslim extremists on CIA and Mossad.
Help us by encouraging at least ONE imam in USA to issue a fatwa agaisnt the activities of Osama Bin Laden.... JUST ONE!
These steps may go a long way toward improving the image of Islamic community in preference to useless PR campaigns and nod-and-a wink carefully worded condemnations of some terror acts.
Great advice there, skippy. In fact it's such good advice I think all of us "common Americans" oughtta try out some of your recommendations for dealing with radical right wing Muslims on the good ol' radical right wingers of the U.S. Maybe we can start by infiltrating every anti-abortion group and making sure they don't try and recruit people for bombing missions on clinics. Then perhaps we can post an Administrator on every internet message board to make sure there isn't anybody putting up hysterical posts calling for slaughter of civilians by bombing the hell out of Iran.
Then we absoultely HAVE to encourage at least ONE televangelist to get on TV and make a pray condemning the recklessness of the Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq...JUST ONE! Me, I'm marchin' my buns straight down to CBN headquarters right after I post this!
These steps may go a long way toward improving the image of America in the rest of the world in preference to useless bumper-sticker patriotism and nod-and-a-wink carefully worded justifications for hegemony.
right on!!!
Great, holliwoodinc,
To use a primitive logic you can understand: two ( or three) wrongs don't make a right.
U.S.A public standing is at all times low. Check.
Muslim community is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as supporting or sympathizing with jihadist aspiration. Not only in USA but all over the world. Check.
Both of these facts are not self-canceling.
Muslim community thinks it needs to improve its image, you don't.
You think that to improve Muslim communties standing in the world one needs to... condemn abortion clinic bombings. Genius!
Think!
Not all Islamic terrorism is due to USA, Israel.
The Islamic terrorists in Philippines, Somalia, Darfur, Maldives,Pakistan,China, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir don't stage bombings or innocent people because of America.
It is a sign of obtuseness to reduce a global movement like jihadism to one cause. Think about it, if you can.
Such a bizarre delusional self-righteous perspective. That one group has a duty, in addition to working, raising their kids, helping with homework, getting milk on the way home from work, trying to pay the mortgage and keep the family financially afloat, trying to raise kids with some moral perspective -- that this group, because of ethnicity or religion, must take it upon themselves to go out and actively rally and organize against a few crazies in the middle east. It's just so ridiculous and such a double-standard.
Do Mormons have to go out and rally against the polygamy communities? Do Catholics have to spend their week-ends picketing the churches for their protection of pedophiles? Do Jews have to organize against Israel for its ongoing genocide against the Palestinians? Do black Americans have to go demonstrate every week against some African civil war or atrocity? Where does it stop? Do the Turkish-Americans have to spend their time speaking out against the Armenian genocide?
Who's left to take a stand against Bush and Cheney? Who has killed more people? Bush and Cheney? or bin Laden? I'd say Bush and Cheney by a landslide.
How about if the standard for all Americans is that we need to take a stand to stop Bush and Cheney, and whoever takes over from them, from continuing their wars. Peace.
This sort of piece is dangerous, if the majority of the U.S. population ever figure out that there are not Muslim bogeymen under every bed then their leaders and thought controllers will force them to look for another imaginary enemy to persecute and bomb. Could be the Maltese, could be Australian aboriginals could be me! I don't want it to be me, those lunatics are lethal!
Sorry but it's your turn and until such time as you manage to divert them onto someone else you'll have to suffer it.
Logic and reality have no place in their world.
"I can confidently say that our media has one of the lowest IQs about Islam anywhere in the world."
I also have traveled the world and this is not just about our dumbed down media this is about dumbed down Americans.
god we are naive, dumb, and arrogant and in many areas like government and many corporation leaders we are incompetent. Ie big three auto
give the corporate media credit it knows what sells to a dumbed down America.
spend some time in our schools to see this dumbing down in action from the forth grade on.
Mr. Eteraz relies on "Islamic Scholars" such as Abdal Hakim Murad as an example of the true moderation of Muslim populations. I am familiar with Murad's work and while he does indeed abhor extremist violence, he believes in the ultimate superiority of Islam over western culture, best summed up in this quote: "If we have the confidence to believe that what we have inherited or chosen is indeed absolute truth, then optimism would seem quite reasonable. And I am optimistic. If Islam and the Muslims can keep their nerve, and not follow the secularising course mapped out for them by their rivals, or travel the blind alley of extremism, then they will indeed dominate the world, as once they did."
In his work Murad outlines many strategies to prostyletize and undermine Western philosophies. Eteraz's essay is just another cynical exercise to make us avert our eyes from what is being discussed in Muslim centers of thought.
Death by a thousand cuts is still death, I prefer my culture.
The chasm between confidence that you have chosen the right way and the desire to impose that way on others at any cost is bigger than the Grand Canyon. Every American Indian nation believes what Murad believes; the thing that baffled white missionaries was their utter disinterest in "spreading the truth." Nowhere does Murad assert that we should become Muslim whether we like it or not.
Americans hold a position that is essentially a red, white and blue version of Murad's. Not only do we believe that our way is the right way, we are convinced that eventually the whole world will see that and convert. And we have no compunction about ramming our way down the throat of anyone we please, as American Indians will attest.
That, in a word, the the cause of Islamic/Christian conflict: As with the Mormons and the Baptists, it's a turf war.
Aren't all wars really turf wars?
well said! how is it any different when the west proselytizes its own philosophy to the world? or that we harbor this conviction that our way is right and all others are wrong? the only difference is that we'll put our missiles where our mouth is and try to forcibly impose our ways on the world. with disastrous results.
obviously, we all prefer our own ways. that the muslim world is not throwing away hundreds of years of spirituality, culture and philosophy and readily converting to western secularism only comes as a surprise to ethnocentric, narrow minded bigots.
what ever happened to self-determination? though we share murad's conviction that our philosophy will prevail over others, since when is our duty or our right to become crusaders and demand the conversion of the rest of the world? or does the right to self-determination only extend to those who have already determined to follow OUR course?
"Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that islam is the enemy. Period."
The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."
But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is!
L.A.
Your point is very well taken, and I have made a separate comment that echoes what you have said. I would submit (no pun intended) that the onus is on the Muslim world to strengthen "moderate" voices to counter Islamist thinking and enablers.
please explain: how is the 'islamist' any different than the neoliberal; the neoconservative; the evangelical; the secularist; etc., all of whom we, for better or worse, tolerate in our society?
do they not believe in american/christian/secular supremacy? do they not intend that the world be dominated by their particular philosophy? have they never used violence to achieve this end?
i agree with you that there is often a difference between 'moderate muslims' and 'islamists,' and that there are differences between islamicist movements.
but so long as we are prepared to deny islamists their right to entertain supremacist ideology, we need also to deny our own; western groups, be they secular, religious, democratic, or capitalist, have all been over-keen to impose their own values on the world, threatening the way of life held dear by those subject to these impositions.
as much as we like to believe our point of view is one of universal truth, there is simply no evidence that it is universally desirable or compatible with the reality on the ground. and it is certainly not for us to decide for them.
you seem to imply by 'moderate' muslim, one who is sufficiently secularized and westernized to not upset your own sensibilities and view of what the world should look like. world domination of one's own philosophy is a two-way street. you may deny another's ideology, but they have an equal right to deny yours. and if they have no right to impose their philosophy on you, you have no right to impose yours on them.
You know, maybe it's the Americans who aren't doing enough to condemn invasion, war crimes and impeachable offences.
peterg76,
So off topic. Neither invasion or Bush's weaknesses as a leader are the point. Terrorism in the name of Islam has been around for decades. The fact is Americans for the most part don't take to the streets and chant "Death to Iran" and burn flags because of they have an Islamic government. Yet nations around the world burn U.S. flags and call for the death of American Citizens (of all faiths) because of our separation of church and state, our rights to free speech, and the prosperity which we have built through our individula freedoms.
you actually believe they hate us for our freedoms? i've never met anyone who actually fell for that line. interesting...
Mr. Eterez:
I agree with most of what you say, and you've made many valid points. From what I can tell, followers of all the major religions feel themselves to be part of a "family," and will never condemn extremist members for that reason.
Also, it's the nature of the orthodoxy of every religion to look outward, resulting in honestly and ignorantly believing their religion is "the only real truth." The brutal results are predictable.
Religious fundamentalist belief and subsequent behavior is the primary problem. There are spiritual and religious people of every Faith who are more enlightened, but they are few, and the fundamentalists will not listen to them.
Mr. Eteraz, excellent piece. Scapegoating an entire religious, ethnic, economic, professional, political or racial group due to the acts of an extremist element associated with it is as old as Human History. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I don't recall Christians feeling the need to claim him and apologize for his act, or for that matter military veterans, or caucasians, or Americans in general ... Why would they need to?
There weren't millions of Americans throwing themselves on the ground and wailing in collective guilt for McVeigh's crime. Why not?
Because people, rightfully, identified McVeigh for what he was ... a murderous criminal, not a representative of any faith, culture, or nationality.
People should condemn terrorists for what they are as individuals ... criminals ... not assign collective guilt for their actions ... that is unreasonable foolishness.
Fogbelter, I don't recall McVeigh doing it in the name of God. There was a collective guilt over McVeigh's crime, it was "How can an AMerican do this to fellow Americans?"
I agree that terrorists are criminal organizations, and act outside of the scope of their religion. The fact is there is a collective thinking. When millions of Muslims took to the streets dancing and singing after 9/11, they got the attention of the world. The voices of sympathy and moderation in the Muslim community were there, but so many live in fear of their own radical element.
I appreaciate this post for many of its points. There are miriad of examples where one group should condemn the deviant amoung them to make the offended feel better. There are several of those examples in the comments above. But I think it misses some of the point.
It seems to me that there is a crisis within Islam itself, culturally, by sect, by level of fundamentalism and by the efforts to deal with modernity. To that last conflict, I think that Muslims ( read: modern, educated and tolerant) to help us understand the real crisis that Islam is going through and how the West has been made a scapegoat for this inner conflict.
I think it would have been extordinarily hard to live through the time of the Reformation in Christianity. There were so many attrocities. Is that where Islam is? And if they are they deserve our understanding yet our caution. It is a very dangerous state of change. I hope everybody comes out more enlightened. Meantime can we all stop killing each other for these differences?
thank you for your thoughtful and enlightened response.
i agree that maybe if we took the time to understand the dynamics situation in the muslim world, instead of blindly reacting against it like we're trying to break open a pinata, we might be able to come up with constructive solutions, rather than inflaming the situation further.
yes, we need to keep our eyes open to the potential dangers, but education, understanding and compassion are more powerful tools in bringing about positive change than fear, weapons and angry rhetoric.
I think that moderate Muslims deserve credit for those efforts that they have made in condemning terrorism. But I would like to hear a little more about how face-to-face confrontations with militant mideast extremists have unfolded.
As for there being no "Muslim collective", well, such a thing has certainly been effective in ensuring women remain covered up and that there are no visual depictions of the prophet Muhammed, not even in western countries far removed from the center of the Islamic world.
And what about the widespread propensity among Muslims to refer to the US as the "Great Satan"? And a post-9/11 Gallup poll showed that while "only" 16% of Mideast Muslims actively approved of the 9/11 attacks, enough to comprise a majority protected Bin Laden and Al Quaeda by denying that a Muslim had done it.
Now I think it's crazy to assume that Muslims are going to storm ashore in a D-Day-stye invasion of the US and take away our freedom, but the threat of a nuclear attack is quit real. Anyone who would kill their own daughter for flirting with a boy would support nuking the Great Satan.
Well said and still supporting the context of the blog. I don't get the impression you run around blaming "Moderate Muslims" for "not doing enough" At the same time you address the social ills that seem to be at the root cause.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
