It is time for Muslims to begin a deep self-examination

[cali]

<snip>



Recently, I asked my students what they thought about commentary that appeared in the Guardian newspaper in November suggesting that France and Britain had failed their immigrants through clumsy — and ultimately alienating — efforts to promote multiculturalism (in Britain’s case) and assimilation (in France’s). In this way, author Kenan Malik said, French and British policies gave Islamism an entrée into isolated Muslim communities.

Nearly all my students rejected the premise, arguing that immigrants were responsible for their own actions whether they were isolated or not. Of course, many of these students come from families who fled countries terrorized by Muslim extremists and have no sympathy for them. But they don’t blame Western multiculturalism for the rise of home-grown Islamism. “That’s silly,” shrugged one Syrian girl.


Why, then, I asked them, don’t Muslims march in the streets of London, Paris and New York loudly condemning the Islamic State? Because, they answered, mainstream Muslims are too scared that the extremists would come after them. The class brainstormed about what could be done instead. Most concluded that they, too, would be afraid to call attention to themselves.

When I asked another class what responsibility we have to explain to others that terrorists don’t represent all Muslims, the response was mixed. One Saudi student said it was not at all our responsibility. “If a (Western) person wants to learn about Islam, he should Google it,” she said. Another, an Egyptian, was angered by the question: “If I hear one more time that Muslims have not done enough to condemn terrorists. . . .” Many Muslims are weary of such criticism.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-is-time-for-muslims-to-begin-a-deep-self-examination/2015/12/30/24320e5e-adb2-11e5-b820-eea4d64be2a1_story.html

[MineralMan]

1. I can think of another religious group which should do the same.

Odd, huh?

That group has its own terrorists to condemn. Sensible people, however, know that the acts of some religious people do not reflect on others who share the same religion. Thoughtful people blame the actual terrorists, not the religion.

This article is misguided and does harm.

So, the question I have is: Do you agree with this article you have posted, cali?

[krawhitham]

2. +1

[cali]

3. I actually posted this article because of the salient point made by the

students. One being that they fear reprisasl for speaking out against ISIS and another being that they are tired of having extremism laid at their feet.

I almost posted an explanation speaking to that and changed the title which doesn't reflect the article itself, but I was curious how many people would knee-jerk as you did.

You hadn't read the article when you posted.

In response to your question, although I don't like the title, I think the article itself raises some good points.

[MineralMan]

4. I had read the article when I posted.

I think it's a good idea to comment on articles posted on DU. It helps to eliminate questions like the one I asked you.

If you read my reply, you'll see that I commented on the article directly. Then, I asked how you felt about it. You have answered, so thanks.

[cali]

5. So what specifically, in the article, offends you so much?

[MineralMan]

7. It's not the article as much as it

is the commonly-held attitude that only Muslims need to rise up and condemn terrorism carried out by fellow followers of Islam. As I'm sure you're aware, that attitude appears each time such an act occurs. However, no such calls are made for Christians to rise up and condemn terrorism carried out by their coreligionists.

The article discusses that to some degree. I've seen few such articles regarding terrorism carried out by Christians, such as mass shootings at Planned Parenthood offices.

In reality, Muslim leaders frequently condemn terrorism, as do Christian leaders. Such condemnations, however, rarely receive much press coverage and are commonly ignored. Thus, the attitude to which I object is a commonly held one.

Why should followers of any religion be held responsible for the actions of coreligionists in the first place. I maintain that they should not. Hence my reply.

[clarice]

10. Sorry MM, that is a completely asinine analogy.nt

[MineralMan]

11. Oh, OK...

Whatever you say, Clarice...

[clarice]

12. Happy New Year though....nt

[FrodosPet]

6. "Islam is not only great, but also better than other religions"

~ snip ~

Though their influence might still be minimal, a few journalists are speaking out. In the Arabic newspaper Al-Mada, Iraqi writer Adnan Hussein offered a suggestion: We must overhaul the educational system. In a piece published just two days after the Paris attacks on Nov. 13, he said that from elementary school through university, our young people are taught — sometimes with a stick — that Islam is not only great, but also better than other religions, and that those who are not like us belong in hell. What has emerged, he wrote, is a “savage faith that stirs up decapitation, spills blood, instigates plunder and rape.” As for the real Islam, he lamented: “It has no place in our lives, or in the best of cases, it has a barely audible voice that almost nobody hears.”

~ snip ~

[MineralMan]

8. That is a common belief for most religions.

Christianity also condemns all who do not openly accept and believe that Jesus is the sole way to an eternal life. Non-believers are relegated to some sort of eternal damnation. That's a core belief of Christianity.

Religion is often exclusive, in that only one's coreligionists are entitled to whatever rewards the religion promises. All others are damned.

That exclusivity is one of the reasons I am an atheist. I cannot imagine that any deity that would make such demands can be real. Indeed, deities appear to be creations of their followers, and have the same prejudices and xenophobia that the followers have.

I do not oppose religious belief. I simply do not have any such beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they are able to believe, as far as I'm concerned. I do insist, however, that they leave me alone in my disbelief. If they do not, then I object strongly.

[Wounded Bear]

13. Heinlein said...

[Igel]

9. It's not our call.

However, much of the polemic against the idea of collective action by Muslims or having one standard for them and another for other faith traditions is basically tu-quoque in nature, pointing out what look like similar qualities but are different in practice.

"Muslims have to protest their terrorists." "Then why don't Xians?"

It boils down to this: To a very large extent we have rhetoric about "communities." There is a Muslim community that needs to be defended against Islamophobia. There is a Muslim community that promotes increased immigration. There is a Muslim community that defends Islam. To act against one Muslim is to be racist and is to act against the entire Muslim community. This is the common kind of rhetoric we hear, and when we hear it we nod in silence or applaud it.

If there's a community that defends Islam, that promotes a collective perception, that presents itself as a community, there's a community that can and should excise tumors from its collective body to protect its image. It's already concerned about its image, after all, this is a minor tweak to its agenda.

There is no Xian community that's so self-identified. There is no Xian community that defends Xianity or promotes increased Xian immigration--at least no such single community that enjoys any kind of respect or recognition as a community. In fact, most Xian "terrorists" enjoy no immunity and prestige--notice who goes out, shoots at them, arrests them, prosecutes them, tries them, and sentences them, then serves as their wardens if they're sentenced. Those trammeling those Xian terrorists' rights and saying bad things about them are very often Xians themselves.

In fact, the idea of a "Xian community" would, I suspect, terrify quite a few DUers that call for community-like behavior on the part of Xians. (However, since there are many varieties of Xians at odds with each other theologically and who don't pull together to say "there's only one Xian, and any Xian that calls another Xian an unbeliever is committing a sin", that's not going to happen.)

As for the qualitative similarity that isn't a similarity at all, there's the whole ISIS thing. Most "Xian" terrorists are either "leave me alone" or "this is a horrible crime--stop this one legal activity and I'm fine." Abortion, a pet cause, is often singled out. Other acts are just anti-government intrusion where the "Xians" involved want the government out of their lives, something that many activists on the left can appreciate--abortion rights are based on privacy rights ("stay out&quot , striking down miscegenation and anti-sodomy laws are another example of "stay out", the war on drugs is massively invasive and people should be allowed to pursue such things without government interference. Heck, often we even manipulate things like a lack of government health care as an "intrusion". We hate government unless we want more. So we should at least understand some of the domestic terrorism even if we loathe the methods and vehemently disagree with the goals. Instead we say, "Meh, just Xians being Xians."

Few Xian terrorists are into the "repent and submit to Jesus as Lord or die" mode of thinking. Few are into revenge--"You killed a Xian in Maine, and so as a Xian in Texas I'm going to kill somebody who's never set foot East of the Mississippi" or "I do this in revenge for the taking of Constantinople and demand that the Blue Mosque be re-opened as a church." In other words, there's a similarity--but the outcomes are so different that they're qualitatively different. The closest we get to it is the occasional "hate crime" against some nameless Muslim (or Sikh). "We" understand this when it's a Palestinian killing a Jew for revenge done to some non-related Palestinian against some random Jew. Some even justify the harsher non-terrorism and call the anti-Muslim hate-crime "terrorism." Perceptions matter, and sometimes extent and degree trash similarities entirely.