The following is the response to a comment on the Feb. 7 post entitled "Lifting the veil on Islamist hate". The original comment can be seen there or here.
Sakib,
I think that allowing your post to remain here more than demonstrates my understanding and tolerance of those with different perspectives than mine; in fact, I am now posting it on the main page, so as to give it as much prominence on this site as I possibly can. Your viewpoint is crucial to the public discourse, as it helps us understand just how dangerous a level of misguided ignorance we are facing in this situation.
The torching of embassies and the threatening of kidnap and murder in reaction to these cartoons stands in stark contrast to the total silence heard from the Muslim community when 3,000 American civilians were murdered by 19 hate-filled Islamic madmen flew hijacked civilian aircraft into two buildings in New York City. The issuance of a fatwah against private citizens who submitted pictures to a newspaper in a free nation is a glaring difference in reaction from a group who has either stood idly by while others have carried out, or have advocated the continuance of, the abduction and brutal, animalistic slaughter of schoolteachers, aid workers, and journalists. I understand your desire for "condemnation from "reasonable" people within the European Union governmental structure" of the artists who expressed their freedom of speech through twelve cartoons. In return, I simply ask for "condemnation from "reasonable" people" within the Islamist "structure" of terrorists who murder innocents, often taking their own lives in the act, all in the name of Islam--the "religion of peace."
The EU may break its "silence and dedication to avoid condemnation" when the Muslim community, or any leaders within it, break their "silence and dedication to avoid condemnation with half statements and non-committals" over the repeated slaughter of innocent women, children, and civilians in America, Britain, Spain, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and in almost every other location which harbors religion-based terrorism, as the cuplrits of such actions the world over are virtually 100% radical Muslim.
Inasmuch as you refer to the EU's "strong" relationships with the "radical and terrorizing elements within it"--and thank you for making sure to show your racism here by emphasizing that you are "talking about white skinned people"--which "shows that it has no dedication to civility or respect for a common humanity," it is apparently your opinion that murdering thousands of innocent people with hijacked airplanes, blowing up civilians with suicide bombs, and fighting to wipe at least one nation (Israel), along with the rest of Western Civilization--the greatest, most prosperous, most open, most powerful, and most free civilization in the history of the world--"off the map," is a refreshing departure from the normal radical "terrorizing" of people by getting out of their way and allowing them to be free to live their lives however they see fit, both socially and religiously. It is good to know that sawing off the head of American electrician Nick Berg with a blunt machete a supreme appears to you to be a supreme "dedication to civility," and that calling Jews "pigs," denying the Holocaust, and vowing to drive the state of Israel into the sea--while killing as many innocent people as necessary in the process--is a "respect for a common humanity." I think the rest of us can set aside emotion, and can rationally decide who is, truly, "simply disgusting."
Sakib's blog, "President Emeritus," can be viewed here.
3 comments:
JP Emanuel and/or U Georgia College Republicans-
Thank you for being direct and engaging with your response. Without active discourse, two people who disagree will never be able to progress beyond simple name calling, and ad hominem attacks. I apologize for questioning your credentials of admission to UGA. It was completely uncalled for and unbecoming of anyone who wants to promote understanding and tolerance. I regret that I am the one accepting the offer for elevated discussion, and not the one making it.
First, I believe your accusation of "silence from the Muslim community" after 9/11 to be baseless. As a member of the American Muslim community, I can attest that no community in America, save those who lost love ones in the attacks, was as deeply affect by 9/11 as the American Muslim community. The simple shock that a Muslim would do something like that horrible was too much for most to accept. To this day, nearly half a decade latter, I still know people who refuse to believe in spite of any presented evidence that anyone proclaiming to be a Muslim would be capable of killing 3000 civilians. This type of action is universally opposed by all Muslim scholars/Imams that I have ever heard, read, seen, or heard about.
However, none of this addresses an accusation of "silence". An accusation fo "silence" implies that some verbalization was imperative upon the "Muslim community". What was the Muslim community to say to the non-Muslim? Were we to apologize for Al Qaeda's attack? I am not a member of Al Qaeda, nor a supporter of Al Qaeda. I am an enemy of Al Qaeda, and I am sure that if Osama Bin Laden could kill me for the sake of killing another American, he would. Well, he would if he believed that white Americans who make the decisions in this country would value the loss of me as they value the loss of one of their fair skinned, Christian brothers, but that's besides the point. Over 300 people, (>10%) of the people who died in the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. It's a little known fact, but a large of the workers, mostly janitors and other service personell, on the upper floors of the WTC were ethnic Bengalis and Pakistanis. Was the American Muslim community supposed to apologize? It is Al Qaeda who must apologize. It is our role to help strengthen America.
Secondly, again, accusations that Muslims have stood aside and not condemned violence is baseless. While I wasn't blogging back on 7/7, here's an excerpt from an email I wrote to a Muslim listserv on that day:
"I wouldnt be suprised if muslims are actually involved in all of this
stuff. not at all, there's a lot of stupid, whack, outtaline muslims
out there."
Now, your accusation basic is based on the belief that someone designated "Leader of the Muslims" needed to hold a press conference to state that Muslims condemn all of the "stupid, whack, outtaline muslims". You fail to recognize that I am just a dude, and the Muslim community is just 8 million other individual people scattered around this country. Did major organizations like Islamic Society of North America, Council on American Islamic Relations, Muslim Youth of North America, and Muslim Students Association each publish press releases condemning the 7/7 incident? Yes, they did. Is that tantamount to CNN (you probably watch Fox News) carrying a press conference with "Leader of all Muslims"? No. For more on why you're wrong to demand that, I recommend you read Orientalism by Edward Said or anything by Foucault. It's too late for me to rehash the analysis here.
Thirdly, I referred to the EU's strong ties with "radical and terrorizing elements" as a deliberate allusion to charges our government levies against Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. I specified that I was talking about Caucasians not to be racist, but to point out the latent assumptions that the Europeans are the civilized people (despite their violent intolerance as exhibited by countless hate crimes) while the darkies in the A-rab countries are more barbaric. Your defense of one group over another, when the only distinguishing factor is race, is appalling... but so is mine, and I apologize. I think we can both agree on that.
Lastly, on Iran, I firmly believe that Iran is the only stable, functioning Democracy in the Middle East. Israel is an apartheid state, oppressive of indigenous peoples on racial and ethnic grounds. It is an exclusive state, not intended for the people who live in it, but for immigrants from a millennia old Diaspora. Such cannot be a democracy. Iran is a nation, that for the better part of the last 20 years, become increasingly isolationist and has not, by anything I've read, been accused of aiding terrorists at any point in time over the last 15 years (there were many accusations before 1991, but virtually none regarding incidents since).
I'm a Sunni Muslim, so I say this with a certain amount of objectivism and distrust of Iran, a theologically Shiite state, domestic politics have come to dominate Iran over the past 20 years. To quote (probably incorrectly) the over quoted Tip O'Neil, "All politics are local". When we come to realize this, the terrorists (indiscriminate killers of women, children and the elderly- Al Qaeda) and the plutocrats (corrupt neo-Conservative, white supremacist, Zionist/Christian Zionist, war hawks- the White House) will lose their credence. Osama will not be able to point to boogeyman CIA to divert attention from the murder he is causing, nor will Rummy be able to point to boogeyman Osama to divert from the plundering he is facilitating. When we focus on the local, we will have no choice but to reflect on the conditions of our neighbors, their troubles, the hunger, homelessness, disease, and violence that seems to plague humanity.
One of my favorite verses from the Quran is from Surat Al-Baqara (The Cow):
Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." (Qur'an 2:30)
It takes place during the creation of Adam (peace be upon him), a story familiar to each of the Abrahamic religions. The next thing God does is He teaches Adam (p) the names of things, that is God imparts mankind with communication and intellect. After that, Adam (p) and Eve (p) are placed near the famous tree and exercise free will. It is my firm religious conviction that these three elements, communication, intelligence and free will are the tools that will deliver mankind from "mischief and bloodshed". Ameeen (or as Christians say "Amen").
That's my fatwa. It's through promoting this approach that I aspire to help strengthen my country, even if only through small gestures like engaging someone on their blog.
PS- While everything else I've said deals mostly with my being Muslim, let me simply add two questions from the hat of a registered Democrat. Are there any old-fashioned Republicans left who believe in low government spending (especially the defense budget), peaceful/diplomatic foreign policy, and preserving basic civil liberties like due process of the accused? If so, do any of you want to join the Kucinich for America camp? It's kind of lonely in here.
PPS-
for some understanding as to what Muslim leaders say about these kinds of issues, instead of what dumb college students from New Hampshire say, here's a position paper by the very prominent California Imam, Zaid Shakir.
http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=92
Please note that Imam Zaid Shakir is about as "radical" as most Muslims get.
"The current crisis is the result of a regrettable incident that has been exploited by an uncivilized minority of provocateurs both in the West and the East to advance their conflicting agendas. As long as that exploitation continues, the crisis could aptly be called the clash of the uncivilized."
it's 2:15 am, and i have not the stamina to produce a full response at the moment, however i did catch a few factual disagreements.
The dictionary.com defintion of a democracy is "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives". Yes, Israel fits this definition if you define "the people" as its citizens, a set artificially constructed to be majority Jewish through immigration, dual citizenship and exclusion.
The Oxford English Dictionary definition is:
Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
I believe this definition is mutually exclusive of that assumption on the grounds that the power must reside in the people *as a whole* and that the modern denotation necessitates some level of "equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privelege". I hold that the Palestinian underclass is fully a part of the people and that it has no equal rights due to arbitrary and hereditary differences.
BTW- also, my race gives me no authority to speak on these events. I'm not Arab or Persian.
But thanks for assuming...
Also, President Bush is the de facto leader of the Republican party. Conflating his administration's agenda and the agenda of the party is by no means a great logical fallacy. I know some Republicans disagree with administration policies, but I feel the assumption that a party stands by its sole nominee for President is not so outlandish.
More on why Foucault would not be so apalled by my identity defined by my religious beliefs, later.
Post a Comment