When you hear the word "terrorist," who comes to mind? Basque separatists in white hoods? Anarchists wearing bandanas with five-pointed stars? Or perhaps some right- or left-wing pariah building bombs in basements?
My guess is that none of these characters wins top billing in the minds of most people when they think of terrorists. Why? Mainly because we don't generally hear about these kinds of terrorists in the news, and when we do, they aren't typically called "terrorists." They're called murderers, thugs or lunatics. These days, when we read or hear the term "terrorist" in the news, it's almost always accompanied by some reference to "Islamic extremism" or worse yet, to Islam itself.
So, it must be that most terrorists are in fact Islamists, right? Not so much.
According to the 2010 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report: "294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks" occurred in 2009 in six European countries -- down almost 50 percent from 2007. The breakdown of attacks with respect to responsibility was thus: 237 by separatist groups; 40 by left-wing and anarchist groups; four by rightists; ten with no clear affiliation; two by single-issue groups, and one by so-called Islamists.
And yet, the report points out: "Islamist terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat to most Member States, despite the fact that only one Islamist terrorist attack -- a bomb attack in Italy -- took place in the EU in 2009."
So, why is this? Why is it that according to a poll of 1,600 French and German citizens recently published in Le Monde, 40 percent of them consider Islam a threat? Why is it that the Swiss felt compelled to outlaw minarets? Why is it that so many Americans are up in arms about the building of an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan?
Clearly, many people -- particularly in Europe and the U.S. -- feel threatened by the amorphous group of over a billion people worldwide known collectively as "Muslims."
As a member of this collective, I have a few things to say to those who feel threatened by me and my kind:
First, it's not your fault. Members of the media, including myself, need to start choosing our words more carefully. If individuals within any given community employ violence against a particular group or nation in an effort to evoke widespread fear and panic, then those individuals are terrorists. Period. Their religion is irrelevant. Even if they claim to be murdering an abortionist in service to Christianity or an Israeli in service to Islam or a Palestinian in service to Judaism, they are not legitimate representatives of any of the faiths they claim to be following and they, in fact, do them all a disservice.
Secondly, your fear is irrational. Look at the statistics above; go meet your Muslim neighbors, and get over it.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, your fears are counterproductive. Islamophobia is far more threatening than any Muslim could ever be, for it breeds ignorance and bigotry. It also only further alienates Muslims, and if you've ever been alienated or outcast, you know how vulnerable it makes you to radicalization. It's why people join gangs; it's why people form crappy garage bands, and it's why people become terrorists. Nothing is more threatening than hating and fearing another person for no good reason.
Follow Melody Moezzi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MelodyMoezzi
Richard T. Hughes: Why Americans Must Ignore the Islamophobes Who Misread the Egyptian Revolution
Joshua Stanton: Combating E-Islamophobia
Shame on you. HuffPost readers deserve honesty.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/nmj_tv.htm
Here is the FBI analysis of terrorist attacks. Scrolling down to the bottom will allow you to view every record considered to be terrorism, between the years 1980-2005. Only 6% of the cases were by Muslims. Peruse it, analyze it, do as you please.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
If you want to talk about other deaths, well they occur all over the world for various reasons. Neither you, nor I can actually verify what goes on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Moscow, or any where else. But you and I can both agree to denounce those deaths that occur to innocent people across the world. As Americans, we are lucky to live the lives we do.
I was merely giving you information. What you choose to do with that, is your choice.
I encourage you however to continue in your pursuit to label Islam as violent. Read the Quran, read th analysis of the scholars, and find what you actually hate about it. Speak to real Muslims face to face. Speak to Imams. Ask questions.
Peace Be Upon You.
We think of Europe as being more enlightened than us, being a multinational sphere of tolerance. In many ways they are as much or more bigoted as us in the United States. Do Web search of +Europe and "White Babies" to see what I mean.
Thanks for the post.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/
Consider the constant concurring Europe did for hundreds, no thousands of years, to a point of wiping out indigenous populations.
Ransacking India for gold and jewels to use on their Queen's crown. Treating Indians like servants.
The same was done to the east Asian countries.
Enslaving Africa.
Let's not forget our own Revolution!
When did the Europeans ever assimilate?
And now they tell Muslims to assimilate or leave? The Muslims in Europeean countries stick to themselves, speak their own language, dress in burqas, and try to build mosques to pray in.
Can you imagine what would happen if Europeans were treated the same way they treated every one else in the world?
There is a reason we are who we are. Let's not turn into our European ancestors.
Dr. Rabbi Reuven Firestone.(2007) - Women, Gender and Judaism in the Early Islamic Period (pdf)
Islam: Jewish and Muslim Sources, Discourses, and Interactions
"Jews have lived in every part of the classical Islamic world in which they have been permitted to reside, and everywhere they have shared their cultures and world-views while at the same time absorbing from the cultures and world-views of the dominant cultures."
The Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (CMJE)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/
Something unheard of among Muslims, especially among scholarly settings. They especially focused on verse that shed light on the harmonious relation between Muslim and People of the Book.
Any passage in the Qur,an that speaks highly of Jews and Cristian, they immediately shun as an abrogated verse something no Muslim scholar even remotely support.
From the tiny Maldives, where the government took citizenship away from all non - Muslims and does not allow non -Muslim places of worship to be built, to Saudi Arabia, where over 8 million foreigners work and yet are not allowed to build places of worship, or practice their faith, and are often forced to accept Islam in order to have job security.
The reality is that even in Western countries there are no-go zones that Muslims establish and in which Westerners are persecuted. To miss this reality and talk about those abrogated verses which were mostly used by Muhammad when attempting to convert the Christians and Hebrews during the initial phase of his career (when he had no followers, no army, and no power) is self serving hypocrisy.
Anyway, most of these so-called Muslim country you mentioned are remnants of the post colonization by European countries. But there is hope, look what just happened in Tunisia.
I am sure you still disagree.
"Many people in the west do not realise how oppressive some Muslim states are - both for men and for women. This is a cultural issue, not an Islamic one. I would rather live as a Muslim in the west than in most of the Muslim countries, because I think the way Muslims are allowed to live in the west is closer to the Muslim way. A lot of Muslim immigrants feel the same way, which is why they are here."
The quote is from this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/08/religion.uk
Classical Islamic teachings have been lost over the centuries, unfortunately due to the fallible nature of men, causing them to commit atrocious crimes. I've posted this link because it is written by westerners, for westerners, to discuss debated topics in a light. It has thousands of articles. Hope it helps:http://www.islamfortoday.com/beliefs.htm
Muslims are in America for the same reasons your ancestors came, for the American Dream. Unfortunately a few have abused the freedom in this country, forcing everyone on both sides to pay the price.
http://myfaithmyvoice.com/
It was inspired by this Muslim band:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7uj-yFpC0
Do you believe that Muhammad is the perfect, ideal Muslim entity to be emulated and followed by Muslims?
Now from the outside looking in, both believers are on the scale of "crazy." It is a no win situation that can be applied to muslims and christians alike. It is time we evovle past this madness, but that time will not come soon. Get off the scale and soak up the hypocracy that is affiliated with these bad ideas. Ground yourself in sanity.
From: http://www.mubashirnazir.org/PD/English/PE02-1001-Narcissism.htm
"I find no other choice except to admit that large numbers of our people are swindled by enormous amount of self-pride and self-love. This is not limited to our egocentric attitude to the people of other religions but we are so swellheaded in even sectarian issues. We look at the people of other sects with disdain.
The author has focused his work to the modern-day wars among Muslims and others. In my opinion, the scope of this work should be extended from wars to all of our interactions with the people of other religions. We should also take into account the relations of the sects within Muslims."
Book info @ http://tribune.com.pk/story/94812/civilisational-narcissism/
"Dr Mubarik Haider's [book] talks about the Muslim civilisation and its inability to question itself because of its self-image. In Islamabad, the author spoke about the flawed manner in which we have always read and interpreted our history which itself is one of the major causes of this narcissism."
These Westerners think they are being "nice" to the "backward" Muslims and have no clue most Muslims consider Westerners to be inferiors.
If the situation weren't so lethal, it would be funny.
You prove Melody's point rather well, if unintentionally.
Let me help out.
Suppose that 1000 years ago, the Saudis sent a massive army across Europe, attacked and sacked Paris, and killed every man woman and child who wasn't a Muslim living there - would that leave a bad impression of Islam?
Suppose that 90 years ago, the Arab states took control and divided up Europe and North America into what they thought were "proper states". They replaced our elected leaders with Kinds, Shahs, Dictators and "presidents", and used the military to keep us from usurping these tyrants? Would that leave a bad impression of Islam?
This only part of what the Islamic world has been forced to endure from the kindly West - and you wonder why there might be resentment?
If "Islam" has attacked the West, do you wonder why?
Simple question...
Just pretend that for some reason, in 1920 the entire West (Europe and North America) become controlled by Islamic, Arab countries. Let's pretend that all your life, you've lived in a country who's borders were re-drawn by this foreign power, and you lived under a dictator appointed by this same foreign power (just for fun, pretend that they divided North America up and appointed the Kennedy and Bush families as our "royal families"). You have no civil liberties, little economic hope, you cannot change the corrupt government, and it's all because of this foreign Arab power - wouldn't this make you kind of angry?
Again, not just 1000 years ago, it's the last 90 years up to this very day.
I am not excusing "Muslim anger", but I think it's worth understanding that they have reasons.
It serves as a convenient to screen to mask the endless stream of recruits and funds which flows to from the West to global militant Jihadist networks.
LONDON: Britain has moved to ban the Pakistani Taliban as a terrorist group, making it illegal to belong to or raise funds for the organization in Britain, the government said on Tuesday.
Last October, a Pakistani intelligence official said a British man killed by a US drone strike in Pakistan had ties with a Pakistani-born US citizen who tried to set off a car bomb in New York’s busy Times Square in May.
The official, who declined to be identified, told Reuters the Briton, Abdul Jabbar, had also been in the process of setting up a branch for the Taliban in Britain.
"Those who believe in the Quran.Those who follow the Jewish scriptures and the Sabians and the Christian- Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work Righteousness, on then shall be no fear Nor shall they grief." Quran 5:69
>5:69 is abrogated by 3:85-6; 9:73
http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam
3:85
And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.
9:73
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
And while I don't know about abrogation, I do know about the Islamic view concerning the People of the Book -- the teaching which points out that Jews, Christians and Muslims, and later, Hindus, per the article linked below, are accepted by God as long as they submit to God's will, which, at the time the Quran originated, especially, didn't mean changing religions, but simply acting righteously within one's own religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. [Qur'an 29:46]
I've seen lots of instances where people who are not part of a given group of people (Islam, in this case) are sure how those people believe.
I have yet to see them be right.
Will Non-Muslims enter paradise and not Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 3:85 says "No"
With regard to Quran 5:69
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=533§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious%20Quran
So the Imaan of the Jews referred to those Jews who held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses until Jesus was sent. When Jesus (AS) came then whosoever held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses (and did not follow Jesus) was @@destroyed@@.
The Imaan of the Christians referred to those who held fast to the Injeel and the laws of Jesus – these people were the believers who accepted him. This held true until Muhammad (SAW) came, so whosoever did not follow Muhammad (SAW) and did not leave what he had been following was @@destroyed@@.
http://equalitynliberty.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!FED21FF7A2C06534!269.entry
1. When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?[10]
2. When we replace a message with another, and God knows best what he reveals, they say: You have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know.[11]
3. God abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.[12]
4. If we pleased, we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us.[13]
[10] Qur. 2:106.
[11] Qur. 16:101.
[12] Qur. 13:39.
[13] Qur. 17:86.
My understanding is that "Unbelievers" doesn't mean "people who aren't formally part of the religion of Islam" ... Unbelievers are people who don't submit to the will of God, whether they are aligned with the religion of Islam or not; conversely, Believers are those who submit to the will of God, i.e. righteous people, whether aligned with the religion of Islam or not.
Watch this video linked below, starting at 2:10 or so (the whole thing is good, as far as illustrating the vast range of attitudes within Islam, even in a country like Pakistan).
The key scene is the debate between Sufi Muslim rock star Salman Ahmad, and a Taliban mullah, in the Taliban stronghold of Peshawar, in Northwest Pakistan (Salman has some guts .....)
.... and notice how they apply the terms Believers and Unbelievers to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
They're arguing; they don't see eye to eye at all, but both of them apply the terms Believers and non-Believers to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, without even breaking stride, in their debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxmZZa__XUk
Those who then grow up as Muslims retain that purity. Those who have the misfortune to be born to non-Muslim parents lose the purity of their birth. Regaining that purity by accepting Islam and reciting the Shahada is thus called reversion.
I don't know which doctrine is more smug toward members and insulting to non-members--Original Sin or Original Purity. The both tend to produce the same insufferable holier-than-thou stink of self-righteousness.
It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This link is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close. See also How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11 for more information about the Muslim response to 9/11. And another listing is at Statements Against Terror. Also Muslim Voices Against Terrorism. Related commentary at Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again , by Juan Cole and The Myth of Muslim Condemnation of Terror by Ali Eteraz."
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=muslims+against+terrorism&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS359US360&ie=UTF-8
I just did, and got 296,000 results in 0.27 seconds
For even more light on the matter, Google Fatwas Against Terrorism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=fatwas+against+terrorism&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS359US360&ie=UTF-8
I just did, and got 140,000 results in 0.27 seconds
Or, watch this video, showing how American Muslims really feel, and a bit about how they really are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-T33JPGkU
(I found it by putting Muslims Against Terrorism into YouTube search; it was the 2nd of 2,750 results.)
I get the impression that some people don't want to know the facts, as much as they want to promote the argument they've already decided is true.
This is prejudiced, in the literal sense of the term (they are behaving in a prejudiced manner -- they have pre-judged current information based on previous beliefs).
If we're all willing to look at factual information in an even-handed manner, the real picture becomes clear:
Terrorists and extremists are the enemies of all peaceful people -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Please remember (everyone) -- a lot more Muslims have been killed by Muslim terrorists than non-Muslims have; a LOT more.
When you lose an innocent loved one to a terrorist ... you're not real likely to support terrorism, regardless of the terrorists' claimed religious affiliation, I'm guessing.
===============
True. This explains the abject fear non-terrorist Muslims have of contradicting Islamist authorities or criticizing Islam in any way.
Otherwise, the reform movement would be far advanced--and critics of Islam would not be using false names and hiring bodyguards. Intimidation works.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/egyptian-muslims-serve-as_n_805951.html
Does everyone reading get the magnitude of this?
Of all the world's religions, the one which has a reputation among certain people for being inherently violent, has members and leaders who literally, actually, voluntarily risked their lives to protect the non-Muslim members of their community from attack by Muslims.
How much does it seem like those Muslims, as demonstrated by their actions "support terrorism"?
From the article linked above:
"Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.
"This is not about us and them," said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. "We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.""
I, for one, can only say "Thank you, Egyptian Muslims!"
That's one of the more inspirational actions I've ever read about, about anyone.
As I've said before and will likely say again:
Facts speak louder than fears.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Of course, that makes those who actually did step up to protect the rights of those who do not belong to their religion more courageous. (Though I still wonder if they would have done the same for atheists...)
While I appreciate your efforts to be fair-minded, I still take issue with your referring to them not as "the individuals who participated in the human shield," but as Muslims. By the same logic, in order to be fair, you would have to say that it was a Muslim human shield to protect against Muslim attackers. The word "Muslim" fits both sides.
It would in my view be more logical to praise the bravery of the individuals independent of their religion. "Muslim" does not make a person good or bad.
There is in fact but a single study in the Arabic language on Buddhism. There is
not even an Arabic translation of the Hindu Vedas or of the Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics which was printed in English in 1912.
The freedom of belief afforded to Muslims in the West today is a reality
that escapes the notice of many Muslims and it is necessary to make it
clear for them and fix it in their minds because it is one of the peculiarities
of secularism which must be acknowledged.
it must be admitted that [secularism] has succeeded in establishing a pluralism that has allowed Muslims to enjoy essential freedoms sometimes not afforded them at home.
Many Muslims refuse to concede this.
Per this Wikipedia article on Islam, it looks like it's less than 20%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
There are actually several areas of the world where Muslims and people of other religions, Hindus, in the example linked below, lived and worked closely together, and had a cohesive and cooperative understanding of each other's faith traditions:
"Apart from the tolerant phase of Muslim rule first firmly inaugurated by Zain ul-Abidin and later zealously revived by Akbar, the history of Kashmir was marked during this era by the emergence of other harmonizing factors among both the Muslims and Brahmins of the Valley. While some scholarly and saintly Brahmins evolved a new universal aspect of Hindu ethos in the form of Shaivism, the Muslims were deeply involved in a tolerant aspect of Islamic Sufism marked by the rise of what is called the Rishi cult in Kashmir. These new developments came to be personified in the careers and utterances in native Kashmiri of Lal Ded (a Hindu wandering woman saint) and Saint Nur-ud-Din Noorani whose tomb is still venerated both by Muslims and Hindus as a seat of pilgrimage at Chrar, a hillside village, west of Srinagar, and recently vandalized by non-Kashmiri militants."
Source: http://www.koausa.org/KoshSam/culture1.html
(Web article on the history of Kashmir.)
People have presented a very distorted picture of Muslim intolerance.
The facts are easily available.
Astonishingly we have the Mufti of Egypt, a ultra-conservative Muslim and no friend of the West proclaiming that "it must be admitted that [secularism] has succeeded in establishing a pluralism that has allowed Muslims to enjoy essential freedoms sometimes not afforded them at home. "
While the members of Western Libo-Islamic alliance, always ready to self-flagellate, ,proclaiming the opposite-- that Muslims in the West are groaning under oppression. of the Islamophobes..
Amazing.
"Hey, critics of Islam: when you accuse Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of being in favor of terrorism or extremism, you're swift-boating a peaceful American based solely on the bigotry and lies of a few people!"
I feel it's important to call your attention to that.
There's no way critics of Islam can claim any credibility to simply "criticizing" as long as they continue to lie about Imam Rauf.
It's kind of like with Birthers and Obama:
Hate the President all you want, but if you can't hate him based on facts, you're going to look foolish and have zero credibility.
I know it's a tough pill to swallow for some, but Pamela Geller got one wrong ... and many members the very group that accuses those of us who speak out against anti-Islamic prejudice of being like lemmings .... have gone over the cliff en masse, and refuse to climb back up.