Islam may claim to be the religion of peace, but its followers don't really have a stellar track record of getting along with members of other faiths.
Like Jews:
An Israeli soldier died on Thursday of injuries from a Palestinian suicide bombing in central Israel, raising the death toll from Tuesday's attack to five, hospital officials said.Or Christians:
Angry mobs in the mainly Muslim city 600 kilometres (375 miles) northwest of Lagos burnt Christian churches and rampaged through the streets stabbing, bludgeoning and burning bystanders to death.Or Hindus:
Six men thought to be Islamic militants Tuesday stormed a disputed temple complex that is the main flash point for Hindu-Muslim tensions in India, triggering a gun battle with police in which five of the attackers died, authorities said. The sixth man apparently blew himself up.Or Buddhists:
Suspected Islamic militants beheaded a policeman in Thailand's restive Muslim south, officials said on Wednesday, the tenth decapitation in more than 18 months of unrest but the first such attack on police.Or even other kinds of Muslims:
Iraq's most powerful Shia cleric has condemned the wave of violence in the country as a "genocidal war" and demanded that the Iraqi government do more to protect its Shia people against Sunni insurgents.Now (via BoingBoing), the BBC reports that we can add to that list Malaysia's little-known Sky Kingdom sect and its giant teapot:
Arsonists have attacked the base of a small inter-faith sect in Malaysia called the Sky Kingdom.It should be clear by now that militant Muslims aren't just targeting Jews, or Americans, or, indeed, people of any particular nationality or faith.
The sect is noted for building a giant teapot to symbolise its belief in the healing purity of water, and is accused of luring Muslims away from Islam.
A lawyer for the sect, Haris Mohamad Ibrahim, said that about 30 armed men dressed in Arab robes had attacked the commune with Molotov cocktails.
They're targeting everyone.
28 comments:
Reminds me of Mao's revolution
"Just act recklessly and everything will be all right."
Posted by Dan
This is kind of a wierd story. This is the first I have heard of a 'Tea Pot' cult.
Posted by gindy
On the bright side, they have embraced the concept of equality!
Posted by Dave Justus
The tautology that Muslim militants are militant wherever they are may be helpful as a morale builder for bigots and/or the more simple minded among militarists, but it is much less useful in understanding the sources of religious hatred.
By definition, religious extremists are against everyone but themselves, be they Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever. Gaijinbiker could have just as easily assembled a list of attacks committed by Christian or Jewish militants. It is one of the broadest themes of man's history.
One of the more important questions for the 21st century is what drives people into militancy and extremism.
Unfortunately, some vocal American ideologues like Karl Rove insist that efforts to understand the nature of religious fanaticism are to be mocked and deemed inferior to ``brandishing steel.''
Others, like Gaijinbiker seem to want to focus away from understanding and onto isolating blame. Even worse, GB wants to insinuate that Muslim extremists define Islam, rather than defy it. As many point out--from Tony Blair to Robert Fisk--Islam is first and foremost at war against extremists.
Attempts to define away one side of this war by declaring all of Islam extremist invites misunderstanding and bigotry.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Seriously GB, what are you trying to say with this post? Because it sounds like you're trying to justify anti-muslim bigotry.
All major religious traditions have histories of militants violently attacking anyone who dares to hold other beliefs. No religion has a "stellar track record" on this issue. Islam is no different from any other religion in this respect--the vast majority are peaceful, and the zealots are violent. The problem is extremism, not Islam.
Our enemies in this conflict are deperately trying to blur this point in order to make the conflict into Islam vs. the West. Don't help them.
Posted by Big Ben
Of course most Muslims aren't attacking everone they meet. But that fact is less important than the fact that Islam, around the world, does seem to have a disproportionate share of extremist followers.
While it is not helpful or approrpiate to treat every individual Muslim as an enemy, it is indeed helpful to ask whether some aspect or some interpretation of Islam is encouraging this propensity toward extremism, and what can and should be done to counter it.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Note that Gaijinbiker claims it is a ``fact'' that it ''seems'' Islam has a disproportionate share of extremist followers.
He is absolutely correct. There is a PERCEPTION in the press and, in particular, in rightwing blogland, that Islam fosters extremism. So why is this the perception and is it an accurate perception?
Gaijinbiker himself provides part of the answer to the first question. Islam "seems" extremist to GB and others, because they are treated to a steady diet of anti-Muslim rhetoric and THEY THEMSELVES create such rhetoric by risibly selective representations.
For example, if we follow the links GB provides, we find that the Muslim militants attacking the Hindus were not unprovoked. Here's what Gaijinbiker edited out for his readers:
``The attack (by Muslim extremists) on the temple complex in the town of Ayodhya, about 345 miles east of New Delhi, sparked fears of communal violence of the sort that occurred after militant Hindus destroyed a mosque on the same site 13 years ago. That incident triggered riots that left more than 2,000 people dead. Hindu nationalists associated with the BJP have long campaigned for the construction of a Hindu temple on the ruins of the mosque.''
Another example: in the link to attacks on Christians, Gaijinbiker edited out the part that shows the attacks were not from the Muslim community at large, but from a sect within it: ``Other residents, of all denominations, ran to police stations and military facilities for safety. 'Everyone is here -- Muslims, Christians and pagan,' said resident Habiba Ibrahim.''
And, surprise, surprise, what Gaijinbiker excludes from his representation of Muslim militants attacking Jews is that: ``Israel launched a raid into the West Bank city of Tulkarm on Wednesday, shooting dead a Palestinian policeman in an offensive against the Islamic Jihad group which claimed the bombing.''
Similarly, in the link to Muslim-on-Muslim violence, we find further evidence of how Islam itself is on the front line of the battle against militancy:
``Hojatoleslam al-Sadr, whose al-Mahdi Army led the last violent Shia uprising against the occupation in 2004, will say that the ongoing chaos in Iraq stems
from the continued presence of the US-led coalition forces.''
Facts indeed. When you just cruise the Web cutting and pasting the parts of stories to fit your theory -- in GB's case that Muslims have fanatical tendencies -- and leaving out the contrary details, it's easy to make claims about what "seems" to be a fact.
"The occupation in itself is a problem... Iraq not being independent is the problem. And the other problems stem from that, from sectarianism to civil war, the entire American presence causes this," he will say.
If GB really wants to make a claim that has already invited so much bigotry--that Islam fosters fanaticism--firstly, he should plainly make the claim and not obfuscate with claims about "asking the question" and then he should back it up with facts, not cut and paste propaganda.
Posted by bunkerbuster
There are a billion muslims on the planet, and very few of them are involved in terrorism. Any population that large, especialy if that population exists under repressive regimes, is going to have a violent fringe. As an actual per-capita percentage over the history of those religions, is it really "disproportionate" compared to Jewish, Christian, or Hindu militancy?
The Spanish Inquisition tells us little about the nature of Christianity. Israeli atrocities tell us very little about the nature of Judaism. Similarly, 9/11 tells us very little about the nature of Islam. The problem is one bizarre and radical interpretation of Islam, not the religion of Islam itself, and it is vitally important that we note this distinction. Discussing the dangers of Wahabbism can be useful, but snark about "Islam claims to be the religion of peace, but..." feeds the prejudice of bigots, and makes peaceful muslims feel threatened. (Note that I'm not calling you a bigot, just that bigots are likely to be pleased by your wording.)
If there is any hope for victory in our current struggle, it lies in convincing the majority of worldwide muslims that we are not the enemy of Islam. Posts like this, and macho idiots desecrating the Koran or advocating nuking Mecca, play directly into the hands of the extremists.
Posted by Big Ben
Big Ben, I contend that certain elements of Islam foment extremism in a way that other religions today do not. And I don't believe good people must refrain from criticizing those elements, and the people influenced by them, lest we "play directly into the hands of the extremists."
Your emphasis that much of the Muslim population "exists under repressive regimes" only proves this point. These are repressive Islamic regimes we're talking about.
Ironically, the worst-hit victims of Islamic intolerance are Muslims themselves, who are denied the ability to participate in their own governance, to speak and write freely, or, if female, to enjoy many of the civil rights that Western women take for granted. It is not bigoted to criticize the elements within Islam that are not only hurting victims of religious violence around the world, but also are hurting Muslims themselves.
Posted by GaijinBiker
So now Gaijinbiker expands his wholly unsubstantiated claim that elements of Islam uniquely foment extremism to include the allegations that Islam foments repressive government and that the existence of these governments somehow substantiates his notion of the link to extremism.
These are extremely broad, nakedly defamatory allegations, so Gaijinbiker should offer some evidence and at a very minimum explain what "elements" he's talking about and what's unique about them.
Meanwhile, where is the outrage that the second-deadliest terrorist alive in America stood up in a U.S. courtroom, plea-bargained away the death penalty and with no remorse whatsoever, proudly proclaimed himself to be doing the Christian God's work?
I'm referring to Eric Rudolph, who was convicted of murder for bombing abortion clinics and later confessed to bombing the Atlanta Olympics and a nightclub frequented by gays and lesbians.
What "element" of Christianity drove him to this? And how are the "elements" of Islam different from that?
At the same time, we see rightwing bigoted Israelis fighting other Israelis over their right to remain on land that belongs to Palestinians. While there hasn't been any bombings reported yet, it was not long ago that members of this same group assassinated the nation's own prime minister merely because he tried to make peace by agreeing to give up occupied lands. What "elements" in Judaism prompted that?
Posted by bunkerbuster
If you were merely "criticizing those elements", I wouldn't have objected. What you did was make a snarky generalization about Islam and its followers. I realize that you probably only wanted to make a semi-humorous point about the teapot, but the post as a whole reads like: those crazy violent muslims attack everybody! If you hadn't begun the post with the generalized smear against Islam and its followers, it could have been a clear, if unsurprising, description of the extent of our enemies' hatred.
certain elements of Islam foment extremism in a way that other religions today do not. That the word "today" is necessary to make that statement true should be a major hint that Islam itself isn't the problem. Certain radical interpretations of Islam have become currently more popular and are dangerous, but these interpretations should not be confused with mainstream Islam.
I fully support criticizing the elements within Islam that lead to violence as long as you make it clear what you're criticizing, but please be careful not to tar the vast majority of ordinary peaceful muslims with the same brush. Doing so confuses the ignorant, energizes the bigots, alienates potential muslim allies, and generally aids the cause of those like bin Laden who hope for a full scale holy war between the West and Islam.
Posted by Big Ben
Big Ben wrote:
That the word "today" is necessary to make that statement true should be a major hint that Islam itself isn't the problem.
Well, okay. To be specific, the problem may not be Islam per se, but the fact that Islam, as propounded by many of its most influential representatives, has largely failed to progress beyond a medieval understanding of morality, tolerance, and human rights.
Christianity had the Inquisition, if you go back 500 years, or the Crusades, if you go back almost 1,000. Islamic holy war and terrorism is with us today, here and now. And while only a tiny minority of the world's 1 billion Muslims actually practice terrorism, many more encourage, support, or justify it. It seems like the only time we hear prominent Muslims speak out against terrorism is after a major Muslim terror attack when they're worried (usually needlessly, as it turns out) about retaliation from non-Muslims.
That said, I know there are plenty of Muslims who "get it" and aren't actively trying to kill the Jews and the Great Satan, or hoping someone else will do it for them. But loading up all my posts with disclaimers along the lines of "I'm not referring to every single Muslim in the world, but only the harmful aspects of Islam as interpreted and acted upon by some people" would make this blog about as much fun to read as an insurance contract. Consider it understood that I'm focusing on the bad guys.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Long disclaimers aren't necessary. Just don't say "Islam" when you mean "Wahabbism" or "Islamism" etc., and don't say "Muslims" when you mean "Muslim terrorists" or "jihadis" etc. (In other words, don't be sloppy.)
You're a good writer, so using clear and precise language shouldn't be too difficult.
Posted by Big Ben
Big Ben, I get your point, yet I am not sure using "Islamism" or "Militant Islam" for the belief system and "Islamist" or "Militant (or "Radical") Muslims" for its followers fully solves the problem.
It puts the burden on me, the critic, to say "These Muslims are bad, but they are part of a whole separate group, see? They have nothing to do with the majority of Muslims who are peaceful."
Frankly, I'm not sure the division, while real, is that black-and-white. Many Muslims, while not terrorists themselves, express support or understanding of those who are. I can't prove it with hard data, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a majority of Muslims worldwide support suicide bombings of Israeli civillians. Go over to MEMRI and watch videos like this , of various respected Imams preaching hatred:
"Allah, wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans."
"Allah, bring us the victory over your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Allah, remove their trap from us, weaken them, eradicate their countries and banish their regimes from your land. Do not let them reach any of your believers. Allah, deal with the aggressive and treacherous Jews. Allah, deal with the aggressive Americans. Allah, deal with the extremist pagans. Allah, deal with the oppressing Crusaders."
"Everyone must know that the most honorable death is martyrdom for the sake of Allah, because it is a transition from the prison of this world to the expanses of the Hereafter. It is eternal life, with Muhammad and his companions, with the beloved and with our Lord who under his grace and compassion…"
"You are the true terrorists, but we will terrorize you, with Allah's power, we are steadfast. "Allah will not permit the unbelievers to overcome the believers," who are you, oh vagabonds?! Who are you, the sons of apes and pigs, to threaten Muhammad, whose Lord is Allah, and also Gabriel and the angels?!"
This is not the language of peace and moderation. It is the language of violence and destruction. I don't want to give those guys, or their followers, a free pass in my book.
I don't believe in collective punishment, and it's not fair to hold one person responsible for the independent actions of someone else. But when militant Islamists commit horrfic atrocities, and The Overwhelming Majority Of Ordinary Muslims™ responds with a collective yawn, I wonder why. Aren't they disgusted and appalled by what is being done in the name of their religion?
When prominent Muslim leaders and organizations start issuing firm and clear denunciations of terrorism, jihad, suicide bombings, anti-Semitism, honor killings, beheadings, and so forth — and not just as part of a hey-don't-blame-us routine after the latest terror bombing — I will be quicker to distinguish the true extremists from the rest.
Posted by GaijinBiker
when militant Islamists commit horrfic atrocities, and The Overwhelming Majority Of Ordinary Muslims™ responds with a collective yawn, I wonder why.
Maybe for the same reason you don't hear a lot of Christians apologizing about abortion clinics being bombed--it has nothing to do with them.
You admit that you have no way of knowing what percentage of muslims supports terrorism, and it goes without saying that there are many who do not.
Is it really such a burden to avoid implicating the innocent along with the guilty? Especially when our success depends on convincing as many muslims as possible that we are not their enemy, avoiding unfair generalizations doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Posted by Big Ben
Okay, Ben. But as Calvin said in an old Cavlin & Hobbes, "I don't mind that the world is unfair, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?"
That is to say, it sure would be nice to hear more Muslims saying "Is it really such a burden to clearly denounce the guilty among us? Especially when our success depends on convincing as many non-Muslims as possible that we are not their enemy, a clear denunciation of terrorism doesn't seem like too much to ask."
One group saying such things is Free Muslims Coalition , which has been in my sidebar for months. No, I can't prove it, but I suspect their views are in the minority.
Posted by GaijinBiker
That is to say, it sure would be nice to hear more Muslims saying "Is it really such a burden to clearly denounce the guilty among us? Especially when our success depends on convincing as many non-Muslims as possible that we are not their enemy, a clear denunciation of terrorism doesn't seem like too much to ask."
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Posted by Big Ben
Gaijinbiker has yet to provide even a shred of evidence that there is anything unique about the relationship between Islam and Muslim militancy.
GB will not or cannot dispute the obvious fact that religious militancy has always been part of human history and nearly every religion--I've never read of militant Buddhists, but haven't gone looking either--has dangerous militants.
The question here is what compells Gaijinbiker, an obviously not illiterate person with time on his hands to investigate things, to make such a blatantly bigoted easily disproven claim? Big Ben even gave GB several opportunities to backtrack, or to provide substatiation, but GB declined both chances.
GB wants to hear muslims apologize for militants who claim their religion. But GB, apparently, considers himself to be above that. He offers not a single word of contrition for the murderous maniacs who claim his ideology--let alone the repeated, detailed condemnations he seems to be seeking from totally innocent muslims. Instead, GB asserts that backing up his hateful claims would make his blog too boring.
Without a doubt, GB should not have to apologize for Christian, or Jewish or any other type of militant fanatic, because GB, as far as one can tell, is not one of these. Likewise, it is irrational and tantamount to classic bigot-baiting to insist that peace-loving, law-abiding muslims make any answer whatsoever for the actions of fanatical murderers who happen to claim the same religion.
It's sad to see GB take this path, but at least we know he's shown his cards on the subject and all can consider the fundamental bias at the root of his other comments on Islam.
Posted by bunkerbuster
bunkerbuster writes:
"Unfortunately, some vocal American ideologues like Karl Rove insist that efforts to understand the nature of religious fanaticism are to be mocked and deemed inferior to ``brandishing steel.''"
What?...Typical left-wing rhetoric to include the latest hated republican (Rove). So the problem is that people like Karl Rove, and let's go ahead and add Bush and Rummy in there, lack the will to "understand the nature of religious fanaticism". What a crock. Do peace loving Muslims lack the will to understand Christianity, or even the extreme parts of it?
Then bunkerbuster writes:
"Others, like Gaijinbiker seem to want to focus away from understanding and onto isolating blame."
Where does he say that?
and he wrote...
"As many point out--from Tony Blair to Robert Fisk--Islam is first and foremost at war against extremists."
That's why America and Britain are donating the majority of the money and military against the extremists. I could be wrong. I suppose the Muslim community is putting forth more effort than America and it's allies in stomping out Islamic extremist.
and on that same post bunkerbuster wrote:
"Attempts to define away one side of this war by declaring all of Islam extremist invites misunderstanding and bigotry."
When did GB "declare all of Islam extremist"?
Then bunkerbuster proceeds to to give random examples of GB not posting entire articles on the front page of this particular post.
like this one:
"For example, if we follow the links GB provides, we find that the Muslim militants attacking the Hindus were not unprovoked."
Pointing out that: "militant Hindus destroyed a mosque on the same site 13 years ago."
If you read the full article it states that:
Many Hindus revere the temple complex as the birthplace of Lord Ram, the most important incarnation of the god Vishnu in their faith, and believe that the mosque was built on the site of an ancient Hindu temple.
So which is more important? 16th century mosque or ancient Hindu temple? Who's to say?
Then BigBen said:
"If there is any hope for victory in our current struggle, it lies in convincing the majority of worldwide muslims that we are not the enemy of Islam. Posts like this, and macho idiots desecrating the Koran or advocating nuking Mecca, play directly into the hands of the extremists."
So how do we "convince the majority of worldwide muslims that we are not the enemy"?
I guess the burden is always on non-Muslims to make peace and show respect.
I guess giving prisoners in GITMO required religious meals, prayer time and materials is showing the Muslim community how much the majority of non-Muslim Americans disrespect them and their religion.
It's funny how Americans are supposed to "understand" that the "majority" of muslims are peaceful yet there's no understanding whatsoever that the "majority" of Americans are peaceful.
Then bunkerbuster writes:
"Meanwhile, where is the outrage that the second-deadliest terrorist alive in America stood up in a U.S. courtroom, plea-bargained away the death penalty and with no remorse whatsoever, proudly proclaimed himself to be doing the Christian God's work?
I'm referring to Eric Rudolph, who was convicted of murder for bombing abortion clinics and later confessed to bombing the Atlanta Olympics and a nightclub frequented by gays and lesbians.
What "element" of Christianity drove him to this? And how are the "elements" of Islam different from that?"
Are you kidding BB?
Is that all you have on modern American Christian extremists? Other than Mcveigh of course, who was indeed a terrorist. I'll tell you how the "elements" are different.
Firstly, this idiot Rudolph is one person in a group, (abortion doctor killers and homicidal homophobics), that is miniscule when compared to Islamic extremists that number in the tens of thousands or more.
Second: This guy is the "second-deadliest" terrorist in America? Exactly how many people did he kill? One in Atlanta that I know of, though I haven't researched it fully. Wow. I guess these guys are as deadly as Islamic extremists.
Then BigBen writes:
"Certain radical interpretations of Islam have become currently more popular and are dangerous, but these interpretations should not be confused with mainstream Islam."
Well then, don't you think "mainstream Islam" should denounce extremism on a daily basis? It is the responsibility of Christians and other faiths to show the world that their respective religions "respect" Islam and do not agree with terrorism. So shouldn't the Muslim community be responsible for showing the world their views on terrorism and respect for other religions?
And BigBen wrote:
"when militant Islamists commit horrfic atrocities, and The Overwhelming Majority Of Ordinary Muslims™ responds with a collective yawn, I wonder why.
Maybe for the same reason you don't hear a lot of Christians apologizing about abortion clinics being bombed--it has nothing to do with them."
Again, you guys are making a comparison of abortion clinic bombers, that kill a few doctors, to Islamic terrorists that have killed thousands and would like to kill everyone else in the world who have different beliefs. On top of that you have this childish "you did it too" attitude.
finally bunkerbuster wrote:
"GB wants to hear muslims apologize for militants who claim their religion."
When did he say that? I assume he would like to hear the Muslim community denounce these terrorist acts more openly and publicly. Much like the American community denounced the abuses at GITMO and Abu-Ghraib, and the disrespect of their religion. We wasted no time in prosecuting those resposible.
Let's stop with the double standard here. We ALL need to respect each-other and stop trying to place the blame on any religion. Everyone knows that Islam is a peaceful religion when followed correctly as is Hindu, Jewish and Christian. So we need to come together as people of all faiths and denounce terrorism and put a stop to it. The only way to do that is to stop the blame game and propaganda.
All that said, the great thing about blogging is to get ALL sides of every issue.
Gaijinbiker I apologize for the long post.
Posted by Chris K.
"Everyone knows that Islam is a peaceful religion when followed correctly as is Hindu, Jewish and Christian."
I agree with Big Ben that we need as many Muslims on our side as we can get, and that means not demonizing them. I agree with Chris K. that members of the various religions of the world need to work together to end terrorism.
However, it is intellectually dishonest not to honestly consider the question of whether or not Islam (or any other religion or belief system) is prone to producing militant extremists.
I don't know enough about Hinduism to talk about it, so I won't.
But Judaism had a violent past, with their god ordering wars and even massacres. There is no Judaic priesthood now, no prophets, no one left to order holy war, but their history and their beliefs are not necessarily peaceful.
Buddhism was founded by a prince-turned-ascetic and was very peaceful, with prohibitions against taking even animal life (seafood excluded). There have been politicized sects with militant branches, and certainly a great number of Buddhists have served in the armies of many nations, but the actual belief system itself is peaceful.
Islam's founder, on the other hand, built an army and conquered a number of towns. After him, Islam's leaders continued waging war against the infidel and establishing Islamic states, which is why Islam is so widespread today. Islam has a militant, violent past, and a number of passages from the Koran support the extremists, regardless of how most Muslims feel about it.
Lastly, Christianity. It was also founded by a man who lived a pacifist life. He effectively repealed the death penalties of the Old Testament with the words "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and his followers for the first century of Christianity's history were proven pacifists. Despite the misuse of Christianity as propaganda for violence, like Buddhism, Christianity's base philosophy is peaceful.
Speaking of how Muslims feel about it, I think GB's critics are making the same mistake they accuse him of; without having any idea of what most Muslims feel, think, or believe, they assume they are peaceful. If any of you DO have information showing that, you have failed to produce it in support of your arguments and have relied, instead, on "it goes without saying" and "everyone knows". Unless you have data showing otherwise, I tend to think you've convinced yourself of something you want to believe. Or maybe, in Big Ben's case, he is saying something because it's the most helpful thing to say, rather than because he knows it to be true.
In saying this, I am NOT taking the position that Islam is prone, or even more prone, to creating violent extremists than other religions. I haven't done the research and I don't have the data to support any argument (pro or con) along those lines. What I AM saying is, it's a valid question for GB or anyone else to ask, particularly given the current percentage of nearly all terrorists being militant Muslims.
Posted by a guy in pajamas
Guy in Pajamas wrote:
However, it is intellectually dishonest not to honestly consider the question of whether or not Islam (or any other religion or belief system) is prone to producing militant extremists.
Well, at a meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, several representatives of Islamic nations helped us answer that question:
At a meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the International Humanist and Ethical Union tried to call for a condemnation of suicide bombing—but their presentation was disrupted by Islamic members of the Sub-Commission who objected to the speech as “an attack on Islam:” Criticism of suicide bombers censored at the UN.
So, here you have official representatives of Islamic nations saying that to condemn suicide bombing is to attack Islam itself. Noted.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Here's what GB neglects to include in his reference to the UN Subcommission: ```The text however is a report on recent critical comment on Islamist extremism by a number of notable Muslim writers and is a call to the UN Human Rights Commission by the NGOs "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorise or to use violence in the name of God or any religion".
So the proposal was not against Muslims specifically or even suicide bombing, but rather violence in the name of religion. More important, the text referred as well to notable opposition among Muslims to religious violence.
I recommend that readers click on the link and read the entire piece. The link shows that the allegation of "censorship" is entirely without substance. The stilted, vague language make it very unclear what actually took place. At best, it's a one-sided view of the issue.
Yet again, when we look, we find mainstream Muslims condemning terrorism.
Lastly, let's set the record straight: no one here, or anywhere else I'm aware of, has ever objected to asking the question of whether Islam fosters militancy. The objection here has been to Gaijinbiker's entirely unsubstantiated insistence that Islam uniquely foments religious militancy and his stubborn insistence on arguing against the evidence, rather than for it.
Posted by bunkerbuster
One point unrelated to the rest of what i want to say: Evil committed in the name of religion is evil regardless of the body count or the number of perpetrators, so equating abortion clinic bombings with Islamist terrorism is perfectly valid.
Chris K,
I never said the burden should be on non-mulsims. I've agreed with GB that it would be nice if more muslims denounced terrorism, but we're talking about what we can do here. As far as I know, there aren't any mulsims hanging out in this thread.
Pajamas,
You make some really good points.
I'm not saying that the question of whether Islam has some particularly dangerous aspects should be off-limits, but yes, I am focusing on what sort of discourse is likely to be helpful. As the Right is so fond of reminding us, We Are At War, and our focus should be on how to win.
The reality is that there are a billion muslims on the planet, and intellectual discussions about how dangerous their religion is are not going to cause them to convert any time soon.
All the Abrahimic faiths have their roots in the bloodthirtsy Old Testament and have bloody periods in their history, so yes, any claims to "religion of peace" are suspect. But questioning this loudly and publicly is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, since people who feel threatened are far more likely to choose the violent aspects of whatever belief system is available.
A moderate muslim considering speaking out against terrorism will see posts from the American Right about the violent nature of Islam as a threat, and may conclude that holy war is necessary to protect himself and his religion. I would think that we would want to avoid that, and what we can do to affect the situation positively is to loudly, repeatedly, and publicly make it clear that we understand that the terrorists do not represent Islam and that we do not view muslims as our enemy. I give Bush due credit for his efforts to make this clear, but I wish he would do it more frequently, and I wish more on the Right would follow his lead.
If you want to see more muslims publicly denounce terrorism, do what you can to make them feel safe to do so.
Posted by Big Ben
Sure, killing abortion providers is still evil, but it's simply not as big a problem.
Here are the data on murders of abortion providers in the U.S. for the past 4 years, from the National Abortion Federation:
2001: 0
2002: 0
2003: 0
2004: 0
(The 2004 number is though Sept. 16, but I think it ended up at zero for the full year.)
If Christian extemists haven't killed someone in over four years, and Muslim extremists are killing hundreds, even thousands of people every year, then even if we assume both groups are equally evil (a separate, and possibly meaningless, debate I won't get into here), it's more important to focus our limited resources on fighting Muslim extremists.
Posted by GaijinBiker
GB is right, the U.S. needs to focus its limited resources on fighting muslim extremist.
This is one of the most important reasons invading Iraq has been such a disaster for the region's security and the security of Americans. However odious the Iraqi regime had been, it was fundamentally opposed to Islamic extremism and, over the years, had successfully prevented its development within its borders.
Now, Iraq has become a proving ground for religious extremist and the war crimes the U.S. has committed there have made it extremely difficult for moderate Muslim opponents of extremism in the region to ally with the U.S. It is hard to measure the proportions of how disastrous this policy has been.
Focus indeed. Get the U.S. out of Iraq, that's a first step, then roll back Israel's land grab. Those two moves would do more to support moderate Muslim opponents to extremism than a billion repeated apologies.
Posted by bunkerbuster
That's a brilliant argument against something no one is asserting, GB. No one is saying that we need to mobilize the US military against pro-lifers. The argument is simply that most religions have dangerous extremist fringes, not that they are all equally dangerous right now.
Posted by Big Ben
Big Ben,
"Evil committed in the name of religion is evil regardless of the body count or the number of perpetrators, so equating abortion clinic bombings with Islamist terrorism is perfectly valid."
If body count doesn't matter, then we can equate assault to murder, and someone who wrongly starts a brawl, or who bribes a judge, or who shoplifts, can legitimately be equated to a mass murderer. Evil is evil regardless of body count, even if the count is 0, right?
Otherwise, I agree with your comments. I think we do need to focus on what is useful, and that means winning as many Muslims (and as many of everyone else) over to our side as practical. I agree that knee-jerk "Islam is the enemy"-type commentary is very counterproductive, and I also agree that the US (not just Bush, by the way) needs to emphasize the positive things we've done for Muslims and Muslim nations, and that we welcome friendship and cooperation with them.
As part of that, I would say GB's title was too general, and some criticism of that is probably valid. However, I don't think that GB's post on the whole attacked all Muslims. His concluding statement was:
"It should be clear by now that militant Muslims aren't just targeting Jews, or Americans, or, indeed, people of any particular nationality or faith."
I think he could have done a better job with the title, and I do think headlines count, but the post itself is about the fact that militant Muslims tend to attack any group which disagrees with them, not just those we normally think of as their targets.
Posted by a guy in pajamas
To set the record straight, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh denied being Christians. Rudolph seems to be a follower of Nietsche.
Posted by Jim Burdo
Post a Comment