Join 3,372 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


What you won't see on Fox News
July 13, 2005 9:22 AM   Subscribe

Muslims are speaking out against terrorism to anyone who will listen.
posted by leapingsheep (68 comments total)

 
Well and good. Where's the fatwa against all suicide/homicide bombers and the radical clerics that foment them?
posted by Pressed Rat at 9:35 AM on July 13, 2005


Where's the fatwa against all suicide/homicide bombers and the radical clerics that foment them?

here?
posted by carter at 9:45 AM on July 13, 2005


leapingsheep, due to my strident comments in another of today's FPPs I read your links with anticipation, but sadly I am left with the same conclusion... Muslims are meekly speaking out against terrorism. (Excellent, timely, and constructive post I might add.)

Nearly all of these links use the occassion of the London attacks to draw an equivalence. No where do I see the uniequivocal statement that terrorist bombers who murder in the name of Islam are enemies of Islam. No where do I see that Allah will treat these criminals harshly.

Instead I see the same CRAP that happens everytime the UN tries to criticize Israel "If you do not also criticize the Palestinians in the same statement" the US will veto the resolution.

Example:

"The chain of blasts in central London once again put Muslim leaders in a double-edged position: denouncing bloodshed and terrorism while trying to offer some explanations for the growth of Islamic militancy — led by the U.S.-directed occupation of Iraq and Western support for Israel."

Young Muslims are being encouraged to kill themselves in suicide attacks against civilians under the belief that this will please Allah and guarantee them a spot in Paradise.

I believe this is fact.

If Islam is peace and if murder of innocents for whatever reason goes against the teaching of the Koran, then DAMMIT Muslim leaders have to make it uniequivocally clear that Allah will not be pleased and that hell - and not paradise - awaits suicide bombers. If this is true, and I do not know, then why the reticence? Why the reluctance to take a position that might dissuade young Muslims from committing acts of terrorism?

As I said before, I have an uncomfortable feeling that Islam may not be so peaceful as these leaders - with these wishy-washy statements - would have me believe.

Please prove me wrong.

On preview carter, THANK YOU, that is exactly what wanted to see.
posted by three blind mice at 9:49 AM on July 13, 2005


From carter's link: Those behind this atrocity aren't just enemies of humanity but enemies of Islam and Muslims", said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the MCB, the main representative Muslim body in Britain.

Cheers! I am proved wrong and extremely happily so.
posted by three blind mice at 9:51 AM on July 13, 2005


There is no "essence" of Islam, and I think we should be suspicious of anyone who claims to represent the "true faith", even if (perhaps especially if) their ideologies are close to ours. Al-Qaeda & co. see themselves as no less representative of true Islam, and if you think they don't draw massive popular support, you're sorely mistaken. As with every religion, it makes much more sense to speak of "Islams"--especially since Islam lacks a clearly defined center of orthodoxy (what the papacy is for Catholicism.)
posted by ori at 9:58 AM on July 13, 2005


For smart Islam, don't miss MuslimWakeUp, particularly this essay by editor in chief Ahmed Nassaf reminding us that Mohammed himself would have been condemned by the standards of the terrorists, having made deals with Jews and Christians.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:02 AM on July 13, 2005


Isn't that first link somewhat rich, coming from CAIR?
posted by kickingtheground at 10:05 AM on July 13, 2005


Good to hear. Perhaps these moderates can get some of their clerics, deniers and other enablers to wise up.

Reposted.


Khaleej Times:
One of Australia’s leading Islamic clerics says he doesn’t believe Osama bin Laden directed the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes against America or that Muslims were involved in either that attack or last week’s London bombings.

“I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden. I don’t believe that even Sept. 11 ... was done by any Muslim at all, or any other activities,” said Sheik Mohammed Omran, echoing a point of view that has gained wide currency in the Islamic world since the attacks.

Omran, head of the fundamentalist Ahl Sunnah wal Jama’ah Association in Melbourne city, told Australian Broadcasting Corp. television late Monday that he rejected allegations that bin Laden played a leading role in the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

“When you look at the man (bin Laden), from some part of his life, yes he is (a great man),” Omran said.

He said he also did not accept that Islamic extremists were responsible for the London train bombings that killed at least 52 people last week.


BBC:
The uncle of one of the suspected London suicide bombers said his family had been "left shattered" by the news. Bashir Ahmed, 65, said the family of Shehzad Tanweer, who recently studied religion in Pakistan, could not accept he was capable of the bombings.

"It wasn't him. It must have been forces behind him," he said.

Detectives believe at least three British men of Pakistani descent died carrying out the first attacks of their kind in the UK.


Then there are communities like Bethnal Green:

In Saleem Ali's world, it's all quite simple: The Jews control the global economy. The Americans are murderous thugs. And the British government was behind Thursday's attacks here.

Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered it, Ali said in an interview, for the same reason President Bush orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, carnage: "To cause panic among the public so that people will hate Muslims."

Welcome to Bethnal Green, a heavily Muslim neighborhood just a few subway stops away from the heart of tourist London. Hardly wild-eyed, Ali, 30, a shopkeeper, spoke with measured eloquence. He stood next to his younger brother and four friends, each of whom echoed his sentiments in tones so lighthearted that a reporter repeatedly asked whether they were joking. Not at all, they said as they excoriated the West and praised al-Qaida.

Although leaders in Britain's Muslim community have strongly denounced Thursday's attacks, experts say the spread of radical views among a younger generation of Muslims here has made the United Kingdom a hospitable venue for Islamic jihadists.
posted by dhoyt at 10:05 AM on July 13, 2005


ori, agreed. All I wanted to see was at least one of the "Islams" taking an unequivocal stance on this rather important issue as proof that there was no unanimity of thought regarding suicide bombing. I understand that Muslim Council of Britain may not speak for all Muslims, but they are at least one voice in the Muslim community espousing a contrary view than that of UBL.

Until carter's link I hadn't seen it.

Again, I am happily proved wrong.
posted by three blind mice at 10:10 AM on July 13, 2005


3BM: you may remember this fatwa, too, issued loudly against bin Laden & others behind the attacks on Spain last year:

Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden yesterday.

The ruling by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the nation's one million Muslims, came on the eve of the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, which were linked to the al-Qa'eda network.

The commission's leader, Mansur Escudero, said the group had consulted Muslim leaders in other countries, such as Libya and Morocco - home to most of the suspects in the March 11 bombings.

The fatwa said that, in accordance with the Koran, "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organisation al-Qa'eda... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam".

posted by dhoyt at 10:13 AM on July 13, 2005


Oh come on dhoyt, you'll find nut jobs of all stripes who believe in conspiracy theories. You must already know how full the web is of people who deny the official story of September 11th and who believe in some kind of conspiracy of Jewish world dominance. I'm not even going to bother to link. These quotes above are not grounded in religion, and contain no religious arguments. Outlandish or not, they are no more than personal political opinions.
posted by leapingsheep at 10:15 AM on July 13, 2005


especially since Islam lacks a clearly defined center of orthodoxy (what the papacy is for Catholicism.)

Isn't the reestablishment of the Caliphate a main aim of the Islamic fundamentalists? You are correct in that there is no single voice for Islam.

Perhaps for 3 Blind Mice's satisfaction we could find some links for Catholic and Anglican leaders speaking out against IRA/Ulster violence. It will either show that they too soft balled it, or that indeed the Imams are doing so now.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:17 AM on July 13, 2005


Oh come on dhoyt, you'll find nut jobs of all stripes who believe in conspiracy theories. You must already know how full the web is of people who deny the official story of September 11th and who believe in some kind of conspiracy of Jewish world dominance.

Sure. My point, though, was this is not some bored nutjob clicking away on the internet. The words are coming from one of Australia's "leading Muslim clerics". Thankfully, others have already distanced themselves from him.
posted by dhoyt at 10:22 AM on July 13, 2005


As for the "softballing" issue, I for one do not see a problem with taking one opportunity to condemn the killing of innocents in general, wheter the killer, or the killed, or neither, are Muslims.
posted by leapingsheep at 10:34 AM on July 13, 2005


It's interesting that these stories you're linking to, dhoyt, do not show that these young man are praising the attacks-- they are in denial, but I think that denial is better then support, is it not? It's not as if these young men are saying "We muslims attacked because..." instead they're saying, these attacks are bad, so it must not have been 'our' people...

Granted, denial isn't going to help the situation and in some ways allows it to continue, but at the same time it's better then active support.
posted by chaz at 10:48 AM on July 13, 2005


"Leading Clerics" can be nutjobs too, you know.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:01 AM on July 13, 2005


dhoyt, I see your point, but I think it's also worth remembering that similarly despicable (though different in content) comments were made by Jerry Falwell in 2001; I would not be at all surprised to find him described in a foreign newspaper as a "Christian leader." Then, as in the Australian case, responsible people distanced themselves from such commentary. My point is not so much that there are irresponsible people on all sides -- rather, that we (or at least, I) know little about Mohammed Omran other than that an Indian newspaper refers to him with a somewhat stock phrase, and then goes on to describe him as the leader of a fundamentalist group. That being the case, I wonder if most responsible Australian muslims don't give him the same amount of credibility as responsible American Christians give Falwell.
posted by nickmark at 11:03 AM on July 13, 2005


More, linking to more.

Andrew Sullivan: "Some usual suspects express support for the murderers, but I'm struck by the force of many more condemnations from mullahs and government leaders in the Middle East. Bombing London - a metropolis much loved by many Arabs and Muslims - may have backfired."
posted by ibmcginty at 11:07 AM on July 13, 2005


The fallacy that Muslims only perpetrate these attacks when impoverished is pretty much shredded. The 9/11/London attackers had degrees in science and engineering. the question is why are the middle classes more ripe for this brainwashing? Personally I think it has far more to do with nationalism that religion of any sort.
posted by TetrisKid at 11:09 AM on July 13, 2005


Funny; nowhere in any writings of Jim Bakker have I seen him defend the deliberate killing of 3000 civilians by fringe religious groups.

This "B-b-b-b-but what about Christianity?" tack is real convenient, real dodgy, and real beside the point of the 9/11 attacks & UK attacks. Show me a Christian leader who approved of those attacks—I couldn't name one—and I'll show you ten Muslim leaders who declared it a victory for Islam.

Please; enough with the relativism.
posted by dhoyt at 11:11 AM on July 13, 2005


Show me a Christian leader who approved of those attacks—I couldn't name one

I can.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:24 AM on July 13, 2005


This "B-b-b-b-but what about Christianity?" tack is real convenient, real dodgy, and real beside the point of the 9/11 attacks & UK attacks. Show me a Christian leader who approved of those attacks—I couldn't name one—and I'll show you ten Muslim leaders who declared it a victory for Islam.

Dhoyt, this constant condemnation of a billion people for the crimes of a few hundred is just as dodgy and beside the point. There are plenty of Christian leaders who feel bombing Baghdad is a victory for Christ. How long does it take to get a "glass parking lot" comment on a site like Fark or Slash Dot from the same guys who claim there is a war on Christianity in America?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:32 AM on July 13, 2005


Show me a Christian leader who approved of those attacks—I couldn't name one

I can.

There's a deal of difference between a Christian, and someone who claims to be Christian, Optimus Chyme. As is the case with Muslims, Jews, Satanists and every other denomination.
posted by DrDoberman at 11:34 AM on July 13, 2005


I stand corrected, OC, though from what I know about Fred Phelps, he is as fringe as you can get, and no Christian I know identifies him as a "Christian Leader" with a large following, a pulpit, a title, and a lot of credence given to his perspective in the media.

Can the same be said of Sheik Mohammed Omran?
posted by dhoyt at 11:37 AM on July 13, 2005


well, at least spending time on MetaFilter keeps certain people away from gun shops. and away from Mosques.
posted by matteo at 11:43 AM on July 13, 2005


Jerry Falwell blamed gays, feminists and atheists for 9/11. Last time I checked, he had a pretty large following.

Pat Robertson has suggested blowing up the State Department . He also can be considered a "Christian Leader."
posted by electroboy at 11:52 AM on July 13, 2005


Bigots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also have far more access to power and media than their equivalent non-Christian nutjobs. But because they're Christian nutjobs, their brand of hate is mainstream.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2005


I have to say I'm encouraged by the fatwah's I've seen linked to in this thread, every ray of sunshine helps.
I think Islam is a religion that's gotten a really bad rep and not for good cause, just as christianity and judasim has received a bad rep because of the actions of the fundamentalists within it's folds.
Let's try to focus on that.
posted by mk1gti at 12:07 PM on July 13, 2005


Sure, Armitage Shanks, but when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson come up in the Blue, they receive unequivocal condemnation, without people jumping on one another to be the first to link some progressive statement from a humanistic clergy.
posted by ori at 12:12 PM on July 13, 2005


I collected some more here: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6934 in the day after.

More fatwas will be coming in the next week as various groups of scholars are scheduled to meet in groups of up to 500 in and outside of Britain. I'll stick up the results of their deliberations as I get them (excommunication is tricky in Islam unless you're one of those raving fanatics, then most muslims are non-muslim in your eyes..).

Not seen any major muslim group even vaguely condone these acts ('cept maybe the Taleban, who said although it was wrong, it was to be expected). You know something is weird when even Hamas and Hizbullah condemn it..
posted by Mossy at 12:16 PM on July 13, 2005


Sure, Armitage Shanks, but when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson come up in the Blue, they receive unequivocal condemnation, without people jumping on one another to be the first to link some progressive statement from a humanistic clergy.

Really? Are you sure about this? I'm not sure the bulk of their followers unequivocally condemned the statements. I mean, hell, they still have plenty of followers, don't they?

And seriously, our country has plenty of domestic problems with extremist ideologies: why are we still not talking about analyzing the underlying causes of the Oklahoma City bombing, the anthrax attacks on democratic leadership and the press, or the numerous clinic bombings in recent history? The only difference is that suicide wasn't involved, so I guess those are somehow less selfish, less cowardly acts? Do you really believe that domestic terrorism doesn't have similar underlying motivations? Still, we as Americans seem to be in complete denial about our own ideological extremists and the threats they pose to our continuing national security. Why is that? Why does it seem more and more like our "War on Terror" is morphing into a "War on Islam"?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:45 PM on July 13, 2005


Condemnation and active opposition of terrorist activity may not help as much as some might suppose. Islam is heavily factionalized, and any group that condemns the terrorists may simply face retaliation a deepening of the schisms and even escalation of the violence. It is certainly not unknown for Muslim leaders to be murdered by other Muslims, and for the rest of us it gets harder to tell the players even with a scorecard. (And a lot of "us" are only too happy to paint all of "them" with the same brush and wouldn't read a scorecard if they had one.) So if it seems like there's some hesitancy to condemn from some quarters, it's not all that hard to understand. That's no excuse not to do it, but they may have a clearer view of the potential outcome than those of us who only know what we read in the newspapers.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:50 PM on July 13, 2005


Why does it seem more and more like our "War on Terror" is morphing into a "War on Islam"?

That's a good question, considering both Blair and Bush issued statements calling for tolerance of Islam and arguing against the identification of the terrorists with the Islamic world.
posted by ori at 12:52 PM on July 13, 2005


Muslim cleric accused of inciting followers to murder

A Muslim cleric accused of inciting followers to murder "nonbelievers" was shown on tape Thursday promising an audience that religious martyrs would be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise.

The tape played in a London courtroom also showed Abdullah el-Faisal urging British Muslim boys to spend their school vacations learning how to use Kalashnikov rifles.

But el-Faisal, 39, denies encouraging "others to murder persons unknown," making threatening or abusive recordings and stirring up racial hatred.

Prosecutors say el-Faisal preached across Britain and sold Arabic-language tapes of his speeches in specialist shops.

They showed the jury at London's Old Bailey court a video of el-Faisal addressing a study group not long after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

El-Faisal is heard telling the gathering that it is the duty of Muslim women to bring up their sons "with a Jihad (holy war) mentality not to be wimps."

Boys should train as soldiers for Islam from the age of 15, he said, adding, "Is it sensible for you to be soldiers without Kalashnikov training?

"So when you are on holiday from school or college, you must have Jihad training this is your holiday." He went on, "Even if you are hit by a Cruise missile, the pain will feel like that of a mosquito bite."

The rewards for religious martyrdom include the company of 72 virgins and eating the fruits of paradise, he said. "Religious martyrs are not dead. Do not cry for them. There is a conspiracy against Jihad," he added.



There there was the deputy governor of an Islamic state calling for the death of a writer:

The deputy governor of a largely Islamic state in northern Nigeria called on Muslims to kill the Nigerian woman who wrote a newspaper article about the Miss World beauty pageant that sparked deadly religious riots.

"Just like the blasphemous Indian writer Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed," Zamfara Deputy Governor Mahamoud Shinkafi told a gathering of Muslim groups in the state capital, Gusau, on Monday.

While state officials in Nigeria cannot issue fatwas, the deputy governor, "like all Muslims," considers the death sentence against Daniel as "a reality based on the teachings of the Quran," Zamfara state Information Commissioner Tukur Umar Dangaladima said Tuesday.


-----------

These are the kinds of leaders & public figures Islam does not need for its public image any more than the US needs Robertson & Swaggart.

both Blair and Bush issued statements calling for tolerance of Islam and arguing against the identification of the terrorists with the Islamic world.

Exactly. Try getting a militant Muslim cleric to call for tolerance of other religions.
posted by dhoyt at 1:04 PM on July 13, 2005


And yet, ori, every War on Terror related discussion on Metafilter or pretty much anywhere focuses on Al Queda and Islamic extremism, with scarcely even any lip-service paid to the more common perpetrators of domestic terror in the US (which has quite frankly always been the far right--seriously: there have been more domestic terror attacks resulting in loss of human life carried out by right wing Christian or white supremacist extremists in the US than any other ideological groups--even more than the environmentalists and animal rights people--and that's a demonstrable, statitistical reality). Where's our serious discussion of the problem of Christian and white supremacist extremists in the context of the War on Terror?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:05 PM on July 13, 2005


Islam is heavily fractionalized, and any group that condemns the terrorists may simply face retaliation a deepening of the schisms and even escalation of the violence. It is certainly not unknown for Muslim leaders to be murdered by other Muslims, and for the rest of us it gets harder to tell the players even with a scorecard.

Could you show us some evidence of that from outside a place that is in political chaos? Can you show us where this is a Muslim thing and not a political chaos issue? Ever heard of Archbishop Romero? He was killed by fellow christians because he was a leader of people in a politically chaotic environment who took a public stand on issues. It may happen in Iraq or Palestine, but Muslim leaders are not killed in Los Angeles for their public stands on political issues.

Can you further provide evidence that Muslims are more fractionalized than Christians. From my office window right now, I can see at least three churches of the same denomination on the same street. I don't recall there being that many mosques in Damascus, only that there was one main Shia mosque and sunni mosques spread evenly so that folks didn't have to walk that far.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:07 PM on July 13, 2005


dhoyt: by definition, militants don't call for tolerance. that's what a militant is--someone who opposes tolerance. care to offer up another blindingly stupid straw man?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:07 PM on July 13, 2005


what all-seeing said. Those extremists--our own home-grown ones--are routinely pooh-poohed as a real threat, when they've already proven themselves deadly, and active.
posted by amberglow at 1:08 PM on July 13, 2005


dhoyt: by definition, militants don't call for tolerance. that's what a militant is--someone who opposes tolerance. care to offer up another blindingly stupid straw man?

How many headlines do peaceful people make? Calm discourse will not get you on 24-hour cable news.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:15 PM on July 13, 2005


Where's our serious discussion of the problem of Christian and white supremacist extremists in the context of the War on Terror?

Perhaps when Christian and white supremacist groups pose a micro-fraction of the threat of current Islamic factions—ie, when the spare groups of rednecks in the US organize globally with significant financing and government endorsement—and when the numbers of random innocents they kill en masse goes up 100fold, all over the world, and when civilian deaths are celebrated by religious statements and "Allahu Jesus!" and AK-47-waving, perhaps then the dialogue can begin in earnest.

what all-seeing said. Those extremists--our own home-grown ones--are routinely pooh-poohed as a real threat, when they've already proven themselves deadly, and active.

Not as dangerous as our diabolical candy-distributing forces abroad, apparently.

dhoyt: by definition, militants don't call for tolerance. that's what a militant is--someone who opposes tolerance. care to offer up another blindingly stupid straw man?


The point was that the US president is not the religious militant some have chosen to characterize. I think you knew that already.
posted by dhoyt at 1:18 PM on July 13, 2005


I hope it doesn't violate Mossy's intellectual property to do this (I already heard about that once today: since when is a manual for an appliance a big deal?), but in another thread he explained some basics of Islam as it's practiced.
posted by davy at 1:21 PM on July 13, 2005


Phelps, Robertson, Falwell, Bin Laden.

They're all the same, cut from the same cloth. There is no difference between ANY of them, except that Bin Laden has money to back up his evil shit.

If the other three had that kind of cash we'd be in serious trouble.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 1:31 PM on July 13, 2005


Good FPP, although I don't usually like the one-link-per-word approach. There's a lot of stuff there you just won't see reported on the American news channels.
posted by clevershark at 1:57 PM on July 13, 2005


Pollomacho, if you're asking me to show you evidence of things I haven't claimed, sorry, no time for such an exercise nor any idea why I would wish to. I did not say that Islam was more factionalized than Christianity. As for whether Muslim leaders are murdered by other Muslims over differences in belief "outside of a place that is in political chaos", the Imam of the Mosque of Tucson, Arizona was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists, while he was inside the mosque. I was somewhat acquainted with him as we knew a lot of people in common. Now I'm sure you'll persist in believing that I'm virulently in favor of something you're against, or virulently against something you're for; that's par for the course around here. And I've no doubt you'll offer further challenges to whatever you imagine my beliefs are and demand proofs of things I haven't said and have no interest in saying. I may even come back to read it but I probably won't bother to respond.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:57 PM on July 13, 2005


when the spare groups of rednecks in the US organize globally with significant financing and government endorsement

How exactly is this different from the Bush administration?

Seriously though, why would they? Islamists feel, justified or not, that America and American influence is pushing its way into their homes.

Think about it this way, if suddenly our economy went to shit, the government collapsed and was replaced with dictators and the fat, rich Canadians (damn them) started convincing our daughters that they should start wearing see through clothes and have sex on the street in public view. The filthy Canucks start convincing people that bestiality is OK and should be tolerated. Furthermore, the Canadians have sponsored the French take over of Alabama (and part of Georgia and Mississippi). They send billions of dollars to Alabama to make sure that the French can keep their hold on the land. Further to that even, they prop up murderous thugs that make your relatives disappear. Don't you think for a second that the people in the US would get a little pissed off? Don't you think we'd probably be a little unhappy with Canada? Throw in a little religious fundamentalism and you get a pretty big mess.

Now I know this is a simplistic view of the middle east situation, but really, it isn't that far off. They really see our culture as filthy. They really do have a shitty political and economic situation compounded by cold war posturing and they really do think Israel is foreign occupied land. Add religious extremism and you get things like 9/11. This is not saying that 9/11 is right or justified in any way, but comparing what we go through and what they go through is like apples and oranges.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:00 PM on July 13, 2005


Don't worry davy, all my comments are creative commons licensed.

Unfortunately, what George said is true - I'm not sure exactly why, but one of the gatherings of scholars (BMF) has been delayed for a few days on police advice.
posted by Mossy at 2:03 PM on July 13, 2005


Pastors, preachers, and priests can all be fired. Muslim clerics can be killed by their own 'followers'.
posted by buzzman at 2:07 PM on July 13, 2005


They can be fired too. I know a number who have been.

I very much doubt that the fundos in Tuscon were following that cleric..
posted by Mossy at 2:11 PM on July 13, 2005


I may even come back to read it but I probably won't bother to respond.

Then why bother to take this dump here? I asked you a question, do not put words in my mouth. If you want to have discourse on a subject then discuss it. If you don't want to answer my question then don't, there is no reason to get personal here.

As for whether Muslim leaders are murdered by other Muslims over differences in belief "outside of a place that is in political chaos", the Imam of the Mosque of Tucson, Arizona was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists

See? There, you did it. That is an answer to my question. His name was Rashed Khalifa, I can only find reference to this on Rotten.com though, maybe you can provide me a link to a story about this? This is not an assault on you, I'm just asking a question because I'd like to know where you get a basis for what you write. Incidentally, I can only infer from what you write about what you believe. You don't know me, I don't know you. Don't accuse me, I won't accuse you, but if you want to make claims about a massive group of people then expect me to ask you where you got your information from.

Now I'm sure you'll persist in believing that I'm virulently in favor of something you're against, or virulently against something you're for; that's par for the course around here.

Apparently this is the same in reverse, I guess it is pretty par for the course here.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:20 PM on July 13, 2005


Pollomacho -- FWIW you do come across (in this thread) as someone looking for an axe to grind... perhaps that's not the case, but that's what it looks like.
posted by clevershark at 2:23 PM on July 13, 2005


Oh, Rashid Khalifa?

He was the founder of a minority group called the submitters and claimed the Qu'ran had a mathematical code based around the number 19.. One downside of said code is that when he decided he was a Messenger (bit different from a Prophet, but not by much), he cut out two verses from the Qu'ran to support this and told everyone else their versions were wrong as a result.

I believe there is a biography on wikipedia.
posted by Mossy at 2:24 PM on July 13, 2005


Not that two wrongs make a right, but:

Calling on, demanding or expecting apologies from Islam as a whole for the violent and extremist activities of a few makes about as much sense as calling on Western Christianity to apologize for the bloody and horrific Crusades.

Which - on one hand - does make sense, and is at least partially responsible how we got here in the first place.

And it's amusing to me to note how similar the multiple definitions of "Crusade" and "Jihad" are. If you said to your average American Christian "I'm on a Crusade..." to accomplish, well, whatever, they'd probably immediately understand. But if you said "I'm on a Jihad...", they'd probably be worried.

Why do people so willfully ignore history and write it off as irrelevant?

But I don't think I've ever heard any large groups of Christians publically declaring their apologies for the Crusades. Or Fred Phelps. Or the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Just a bunch of stupid monkeys killing each other over a bunch of different Abrahamic religions that (more or less) all say "Don't kill each other . Don't be an asshole. Love your fellows. Learn."

Irony is something that the universe provides in abundance, apparently.
posted by loquacious at 2:26 PM on July 13, 2005


I am somewhat, I want to know where is the evidence of claims that Islam is on its face a religion of terror and killing. I want to see facts. I've just never seen it and I'd like to know where the facts are.

There may be facts, I'd really like to know. Sorry if I come off as ticked about this, but I really haven't seen anything convincing and I'm a little frustrated with asking.

Thanks mossy, I really am interested in this.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:36 PM on July 13, 2005


dhoyt: From the FBI's own report on terrorism in 2000--2001 (which can be found here):

"Domestic terrorist groups continued to plan and
commit terrorist activity in 2000 and 2001. In
keeping with a longstanding trend, in fact, domestic
extremists carried out the majority of terrorist
incidents in both years."

The 9/11 attacks were tragic and disgusting, but they didn't change the fact that domestic extremism is still a major problem and should be addressed as part of the broader War on Terror (such as it is). Others on this board have been discussing the causes of terrorism (well, specifically, suicide terrorism, I guess, since for some reason, suicide attacks seem to get under people's skin in America more than other, equally destructive terrorist acts), and I was just trying to point out that there are definitely other motives for terrorism than being Islamic, as some have suggested. Maybe not for suicide attacks--but then, is a terrorist attack really any less aggregrious just because the attacker didn't get killed, too?

Perhaps when Christian and white supremacist groups pose a micro-fraction of the threat of current Islamic factions—

The fact is, they already do. Denying that is absurd. See the FBI's report.

Not as dangerous as our diabolical candy-distributing forces abroad, apparently.

I think you guys may have misunderstood Amberglow and overreacted (I thought the "policy" referred to in Amberglow's post was intended to be the broader policy of bombing and occupying Iraq, not the on-the-ground policy of giving candy to kids, which to be fair, might not be the best policy in any case, given what I'm sure is the deplorable state of dental care in post-occupation Iraq), but I can't claim to speak on Amberglow's behalf, and I certainly don't think anyone should blame the troops (except the inevitable few troops who do bad things on their own initiative, and anyone with an intuition for human nature knows there must be a few). I agree that amberglow did a horrible job with the wording of that post, if my more generous interpretation of the intended meaning has any validity. Anyway, say what you want, there are no fucking saints in the world. Big oil and land grabs are real; corruption at the top is always a risk. Keep spinning things toward a comic book version of reality if you want. I mean, geez, who can really say what's right or wrong anymore, huh (sarcasm intended)? Killing people intentionally is killing people intentionally, no matter who orders it or what justifications are offered by the ones who give the orders, and no matter how tempting the justifications might be to believe. The original Christians taught that it was preferable to let oneself be killed by one's enemy than to reciprocate with violence; that's why all those Christians willingly martyred themselves to the Roman empire in the old days. Seems modern Christians don't care much for personal sacrifice; if they did, they'd be willing to die for their way of life, too (not by blowing themselves and others up, of course, but by being willing to let themselves be blown up, rather than compromising their moral obligation to non-violence). But obviously, all that's way off topic... And incoherent. Sorry. Also sorry for having flown off the handle a bit originally.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:57 PM on July 13, 2005


Christ on a cracker, loquacious. The plea, I think, was for Muslim leaders to say "not in my name, in July 2005". We're talking apolgies/condemnations in reverse chronological order here - and thanks have been properly expressed for those that are finally coming through.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 3:06 PM on July 13, 2005


Jody:

I am speaking in very broad, general terms in response to this thread, not the linked articles or statements.

I don't disagree with any statements or expressions that try to further understanding or peace.

If there's one thing the world needs more of around here is understanding. And peace.
posted by loquacious at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2005


Well John-Paul did a mass apology for the last 2000 years of mistakes that included the Crusades back in March 2000. This gives Muslim leaders some time, relatively speaking.
posted by john at 5:42 PM on July 13, 2005


there have been more domestic terror attacks resulting in loss of human life carried out by right wing Christian or white supremacist extremists and that's a demonstrable, statitistical reality

Then please demonstrate it.

AFAIK There were lots of "terror" attacks, assassinations, bombings, robberies and kidnappings in the early part of the last century through the 1960-70's committed by extreme lefties, Anarchists and Communists.

If you don't count the violence that was an offshoot of the civil war (which could also arguably be Populist/Leftist) I'd say it'd be close to tie.
posted by tkchrist at 5:47 PM on July 13, 2005


Prior to 9/11 (which continues to be an outlier) terrorist incidents in the Continental United States (CONUS) were about 95% domestic right wing. You can check the database . The standard reference is the St. Andrews / RAND terrorism chronology. There is also the Monterrey Institute database of chem/bio/nuke WMD incidents.

Monterey publishes occasional annual chronologies like this one. Use caution with the Monterey chronology, because they classify incidents by agent and include hoaxes as incidents. This has repeatedly resulted in people publishing overestimates of the number of incidents. Generally speaking, possession is required for an incident to be considered serious.

The 95% statistic comes from the Scientific American "By The Numbers" column from several years ago. I don't think it's online.
posted by warbaby at 7:29 PM on July 13, 2005


Muslims are speaking out against terrorism to anyone who will listen.

But of course, on the other hand, what we'll never ever see are some of these endlessly defensive, self-proclaiming American non-bigots actually condemning bigots (ie the morons on the far right....or *gasp*...maybe even "militants" in general, including the ubiquitous American variety), instead of condemning (endlessly) non-Christians with brown skin.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:27 PM on July 13, 2005


Hey fold_and_mutilate: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." And me, I don't much for Christianity as preached and practiced by people who look a lot like me either, so nyaah nyaah.

Political correctness is wonderful till you learn to dare to think for yourself.
posted by davy at 12:53 AM on July 14, 2005


There's quite an interesting discussion about political correctness here. One of the things I took from it is that, if you are going to learn to dare to think for yourself, a very good place to start daring is thinking for yourself about where you get phrases like "political correctness", what you mean by them and who benefits from your uncritical acceptance of the terminology and the mindset it helps to construct.
posted by tannhauser at 2:55 AM on July 14, 2005


carter, bad ass 2nd post! Looking forward to seeing it on BBC when they are done. Very nice. :) Still, I can't help but notice 9/11 didn't bring about such things in the U.S., seems the British just did a lot of things better (whether Moslem, Atheist, etc.).

fold_and_mutilate, Religion (and unexamined tradition) are the problem, but religions always create a backdrop where all spin must support them, so you need another solution. We have it: science and technology.
- Sex research has utterly destroyed the conservatives ability to make coherent religiously based sexual regulations, sure they try, but the left will win.
- Social & economic research could likewise destroy their ability to make social policy, but only if liberals who might do the research abandon their own unexamined Marxist assumptions.
- The abortion issue was decided by utilitarian arguments, not religious ones, and not Marxist ones. Stem cell research has now obsoleted the abortion discussion, and will soon be essential to medical research (meaning any nation outlaying it will fall behind rapidly).
- Soon enough the ability to genetically enhance your children will start to erode even more religious power, as the non-religious have smarter kids. (Yes, I know Monsanto does a crude job on food. No, you don't need to be so messy. People will be far more careful about genetic work on people. Indeed, laws about GM people should help improve our regulation of other GMOs.)
posted by jeffburdges at 4:59 AM on July 14, 2005


thanks for the stats warbaby--no time to follow-up in any detail myself right now (work, work, work...)... to be fair, there have been plenty of left-wing terrorists over the years, too (can't pin all the blame on the right); but the far right carries most of the blame for terrorist incidents that either resulted in the loss of or, if successully prevented (as, thankfully, many recent domestic terror plots have been), were intended to result in the loss of human life.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:59 AM on July 14, 2005


All this calling for an open condemnation of terror by muslim communities does IMO only show one thing: the still prevalent simplification of "them" and the ignorance of those who call for it.

Why should they feel obliged to do so? Islam is a worldwide religion, and one with just as many factions and cultural backgrounds as Christianity.

Does a Methodist feel responsible when a Catholic in Ireland throws a bomb? Does an Anglican feel the need to defend christianity when a Southern Baptist blows up an abortion clinic?

They don't. You wouldn't, either. And that's perfectly understandable, because they are worlds apart. They have no connection to each other besides happening to believe in the same god, and differing in important details at that - like billions of others. They don't feel responsible for the other's actions, quite naturally.

If you think all muslims are like a big brotherhood that must have the same common purpose, and conclude from that that if they don't issue fatwas left and right it must mean they all condone terrorism - then you only show how small your image of the world outside really is.
posted by uncle harold at 9:01 AM on July 14, 2005


Islamophobia, it's the new anti-semitism (or racism, sexism, homophobia.) Of course, the nitwits will never recognise the similarities and insist on discussing the peculiarities of their particular fetishistic phobia. I understand that it's incurable (unlike ignorance or rudeness, for instance), so better luck in the next incarnation.
posted by warbaby at 9:13 AM on July 14, 2005


and a friend just sent me a link to this story: National Security Watch: 60 right-wing terror plots foiled
posted by warbaby at 3:25 PM on July 14, 2005


Tannhauser, for "political correctness" read parroted secondhand rhetoric oversimplifying everything down to white-against-nonwhite. Fifty quatloos says fold_and_mutilate is a white suburban highschool boy. If I'm right it's no disgrace to him, but if wrong s/he should be embarrassed.
posted by davy at 12:13 AM on July 16, 2005


« Older making room...  |  Frank and Beverly Herbert inte... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments