The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi that took place last night were deplorable, and the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Benghazi was particularly outrageous. Yes, the anti-Muslim movie of the allegedly Israeli-American filmmaker in California that sparked the riots was repulsive and offensive; but no insult, no matter how grave, justifies even the murder of the offender, let alone the murder of innocent bystanders.
Of course, what I just did was too easy. It is just as easy for me to condemn these horrific murders as it is for someone in the middle of a Benghazi protest to condemn that repulsive anti-Muslim film. But building a better future where these types of incidents are less likely to occur takes more than condemnations and enhanced security measures (without taking anything away from their importance). The speculation that there was a political agenda behind the timing of the film's release, or the signs that Al-Qaeda planned the Benghazi embassy attack and merely took advantage of the chaos, doesn't change the need to address the deeper societal problems at play.
The relationship between the Muslim fanatics who whip up into violent frenzy and the Islamophobes who incite them is very similar to the relationship between a violent and emotionally troubled school kid and the schoolyard bully who taunts him. But there is no school principal to send the bully to detention and the troubled kid to a therapist. What we have are bigots who are rightfully protected by the First Amendment and religious fanatics who, for a variety of factors, have a damaged moral compass and an unhealthy worldview.
What is required both here and abroad is a campaign of education, as well as a campaign of marginalization. Rightwing circles in Muslim societies should undertake a serious effort to educate people about how counterproductive and outright criminal it is to respond to insults with violence. When I went to school in several Arab/Muslim countries in the Middle East, I learned about how Muhammad was taunted and abused by his neighbors in the early days of Islam, and how he only responded with kindness. The rioters who claim to be Muslim would do well to remember things like that. And because no campaign of education could ever eliminate fanaticism entirely, societies themselves should shun the fanatics and marginalize them so that no misguided youth could hope to gain admiration for taking up violence "to defend the faith" in this abhorrent fashion.
Here at home, Islamophobia has grown into a serious problem. We have to undergo a campaign of education, particularly on the right, to bust the myths that anti-Muslim bigots spread, from the imaginary threat of Sharia to misleading terrorism statistics. But, again, no campaign of education could ever root out bigotry altogether; the bigots should be marginalized so that no one can get a short-cut to fame by uttering bigotry against Muslims. The media plays a crucial role here: as long as people like Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are given airtime on major news outlets, the battle to keep anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry out of the mainstream will be an uphill one.
It is also just as important that politicians not play politics with tragedies of this sort, and fan counterproductive sentiments for their narrow political gain. Mitt Romney was quick to exploit the legitimate outrage over these events by attacking the statement released by the U.S. embassy in Cairo as evidence that Obama was "apologiz[ing] for America's values," when the statement (which the administration actually distanced itself from) did no such thing. It would have been fine if Romney raised legitimate criticisms of Obama's handling of the crisis, but to manufacture a grievance in order to play partisan politics is not only distasteful, but also counterproductive in the long term.
Those of us who value building a better and more peaceful world for future generations outnumber those who seek to exploit divisions for personal gain. The only question is: are we willing to put in the work to achieve the needed progress in our societies to bring that better world about?
Follow Omar Baddar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omarbaddar
1. Describe the violence engendered by Christians at international museums [ from Paris to NYC] of the Serrano exhibit ''Piss Christ''.
2. Describe the violence engendered by Christians at the release of the Terrance McNally play ''Corpus Christi'' which depicts Jesus and his apostles as homosexuals.
3. Describe the violence engendered by Christians at the US and European exhibition of the art exhibit ''Elephant Dung Madonna''.
4. Explain how an administration that purports to condemn ''disparaging of other religions'', an official Obama administration position, can accept one million dollars from Bill Maher, who directed and made ''Religulous'', a movie in which the entire content from start to finish insults and denigrates adherents of the worlds three major religions that include Islam.
You need to dig much deeper than this Omar.
I see no difference in the labels used, and no such priestly nomenclature disproves the percieved rightness of the following statements:
“If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They f
orbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.”
- Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī (865 – 925 AD) Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar.
and
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
However, I disagree with the following:
"The relationship between the Muslim fanatics who whip up into violent frenzy and the Islamophobes who incite them is very similar to the relationship between a violent and emotionally troubled school kid and the schoolyard bully who taunts him. "
It is the violent and emotionally troubled who are the bullies. I can assure you that on the school yard, the bully is the one who is the one who is willing to resort to violence and is the one who taunts others. The whole western world is being taunted by the bully, not the other way around.
Every war we've had since Korea has not been for our "safety, freedoms or values", it's been for empire. That does not give us the moral right to bully other nations.
Narfarious sources have been attempting to spread communism in the USA since communisms rise.
"Socialism is the goal of communsim." Vladimir Lenin
All I have to do to know what communism/socialism is, is look at communist countries that starve and brutalize their own people. I don't listen to Hollywood stars, who promote communism.
They are theives who steal the common peoples money to promote their lifestyles. They claim false interest in the worlds poor.
Their world tours walking amongst the poor are really photo ops.
All I have to do is look east, and know why the USA exists. All I have to do is open a history book.
Turn on the morning news and know why Americans shed their blood for freedom. If that's empire building, and it protects my children, and grandchildren so be it.
All I have to do is look to the middle east, both ancient and modern and know that you are wrong.
Apparently someone scrawled the following on the US Embassy wall in Cairo:
"If your freedom of speech has no limits, may you accept our freedom of action."
Our answer ought to be, NO, we won't.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Islamophobia-And-Free-Spee-by-Rev-Dan-Vojir-120912-835.html?show=votes
As globalization has increased we have witnessed rising poverty and increased instability. We see the global elite becoming more rich and powerful and we see local democratic efforts fading. The reality of globalization is a new world order in which a small global elite constantly pit one group of workers against other workers for lower wages and lower regulations. The ultimate goal is for people at the local level to have no power and no control. That is what you really want.
As the author states, extreme, criminal violence has been used against innocent people, who were in addition protected (as accredited diplomats) by age-old human laws & traditions. Whatever the purported "trigger" was is -- should be -- irrelevant to this discussion. Such crimes should not be committed -- irrespective of any "triggers". The only reasonable reaction is outright condemnation -- full stop.
The author indeed provides unequivocal condemnation, but then goes on to "analyse the deeper problem" & to suggest that something is wrong "on the other side". This is the wrong approach. How would the author feel if we were discussing an incident of violent, murderous Islamophobia & mentioning that "something must be done also on the Muslim side"??
Anything that links the two events (the screening of a film -- however "insulting" & the murderous mob violence against innocents) should be avoided, as it seems to (however inadvertently) justify the latter as "a response" to the former. Why can't people just express condemnation of the murderous violence -- and leave it there?