A CNN article begins with a Muslim Republican wondering how his Party went from the one gaining a majority of Muslims votes to one falling over itself to attack Muslims of all stripes. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), ironically perhaps the only member of Congress to have openly declared his support for a terrorist organization, is leading a federal witch hunt of supposed domestic Islamic radicalization -- despite the fact that his core argument (that Muslims haven't been cooperating with American law enforcement) is disputed by, well, all major branches of American law enforcement. And Tennessee is considering a law that more or less criminalizes being Muslim (reading the bill text, incidentally, it is clear that it criminalizes both belief and conduct).
It's sickening. It's the sort of thing that humiliates me as an American.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Agreed.
Hope Muslim-Ame¬ricans do not react, yet. What King is doing is a dangerous precedent. He is dabbling in theatrical sensationa¬lism to try and draw out the opposition in order to confirm to his supporters that the danger is real. Maybe get jumped for saying it, but the more quiet and uneventful this investigat¬ion becomes the better it will be because he'll discover nothing of much consequenc¬e. That doesn't mean to not pay attention. There needs to be diligent attention here and more than usual to be prepared for the conclusion¬.
Ignoring the religious aspects of Islamic terrorism which the terrorists themselves use to explain their motivations is the epitome of political correctness and would only serve to prevent us from dealing with this threat.
Since there has been domestic Islamic terrorism from radicalized Muslims to say it is "supposed" is delusional.
As for the amount of support against terrorism from the Muslim community and how much is "enough" is difficult to assess and prone to political correctness and you might say incorrectness. None the less to ignore this issue and the central role that Islam plays would be a mistake.
It, of course, depends on what King has in mind for his hearing. It could very well turn out to be grandstanding. Or, maybe he will take the matter as an opportunity to conduct a serious investigation.
Yesterday, the NPR radio show On Point, which is widely available across the country, had a number of guests on to discuss the matter. One of them, Asra Nomani - an Indian Muslim - presented an impassioned defense of going forward with the hearings.
She also posted her views in The Washington Post. I quote her:
I arrived in this country in 1969 as a four year old from India and, after 42 years as an American-Muslim, I can say without a doubt: an ideology of extremism has crossed across our borders, and radicalization is a real threat inside our communities in the U.S., often times unchallenged because members of our Muslim community are intimidated to speak out against it. We have brave leaders and activists who do, but usually at great cost to their social standing in the community.
To me, the hearings are not a "witch hunt." Rep. Peter King is not a 21st century Joe McCarthy, the senator who led hearings on communism in the 1950s. I believe he is an American, like so many, frustrated and annoyed by the largely recalcitrant posture of our community to admitting our problems. In Congress, we have had honest debate about everyone's dirty laundry--from BP to the Big Three automakers. There has been discussion in the halls of Congress about "Jewish extremists," "white supremacists," the Ku Klux Klan and clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Muslims should not be exempt from critical examination, just because its lobby takes a defensive posture--just like all special-interest groups tend to do.
David, of course, denies this extremism has anything to do with Islam. Ideological movements, though, have to have community in which they find safe haven. Otherwise, they cannot exist. So, head in the sand is a more apt description for his view.
For those who support these hearings, what do you think could come out of them that will actually do *anything* to reduce the threat of terrorism? What kind of "serious investigation" do you think can be made, based on the list of witnesses called by King?
Also, for those who support these hearings, do you feel any concern that treating Muslims, as a group, as threats to America might contribute just a tad to the creation of anti-American sentiment among Muslims?
Also, I think someone who compares *all* Muslims -- not just a specified, identified group of extremists, e.g. adherents of such-and-such imam -- to the KKK is probably not representative of sentiment even among moderate, pro-America Muslims.
PG,
Answer in 2 parts (and this is being reposted because the original vaporized):
In answer to your questions...
I have no idea if something good will come out of the investigation. Will something be learned that is not already known? I am not sure but, on the other hand, the sort of misinformation that occurs - David's position being a good example - might be shown to be false. Or, perhaps, the hand of those great many Muslims disgusted by the Islamist and Wahhabi ideologies preached in a great many - likely a substantial percentage, given the degree of Saudi funding, of - mosques might be strengthened.
Regarding the concern that Muslims will be seen as a threat to America, you might leave the cocoon and notice that, at present, such is the case already for a great percentage of the public. The hearings might show to what extent this concern is real and unreal, thus tending to abate some concerns and heighten others. The public is right to want to know whether we are dealing with a few bad apples or a movement with deep roots in the Muslim community.
Your last point does not, to me, make any sense. It goes without saying that not everyone in a group supports any given cause. However, under appropriate circumstances, a percentage of a group - even a minority within the group - can come to "own" the group. Such has occurred innumerable times in history. It is said that only about 1/3 of people in the American colonies actively wanted independence from Great Britain - most did not care that deeply and a substantial minority were hostile to the idea. I believe that only about 1/3 of Germans voted for the Nazis. Yet, minority opinions came to control the situation. There lies the concern, given the millions of dead already due to the Islamist movement.
Part II:
Moreover, the ideology of the Islamist radicals uses the language of Islam and claims to act in the name of Islam. Islamists did not make up concepts like Jihad from nothing. Even the terrorism which the Islamists call Jihad has roots in Islamic history and religious texts, as shown by Princeton historian Patricia Crone and others. It also has roots in Arabia itself, among the razzias for which the early Muslims were famous - also finding its way into the sacred texts. The tkfari movement within Islam also has historical roots, going to the early centuries of Islam. These movements have found new vigor in our time and the ability to use religion to foment such movements is important to understand.
Of course, terrorism and purification movements (like the tkrari movement) are not unique to Islamic history. But, at present, they represent a substantial concern, both to Muslims and everyone else.
Were we speaking, for example, of communism in the Jewish community of the first half of the 20th Century, we would have similar issues, except that communism and Judaism are readily distinguishable and Jewish communists did not usually claim to act in the name of Judaism (although, as Irving Howe noted, Jewish communists tended to have Marx in one hand and Scripture in the other). At present, we have Muslims claiming that they are acting in the name of Islam, saying that they are correctly interpreting their faith. In that the number of casualties of Islamism can be counted in the many millions of dead, the ideology needs to be examined and its role in the Muslim community needs to be understood, by the public, the government and scholars.
Does anyone think that this:
Also, for those who support these hearings, do you feel any concern that treating Muslims, as a group, as threats to America might contribute just a tad to the creation of anti-American sentiment among Muslims?
is actually answered by this:
Regarding the concern that Muslims will be seen as a threat to America, you might leave the cocoon and notice that, at present, such is the case already for a great percentage of the public. The hearings might show to what extent this concern is real and unreal, thus tending to abate some concerns and heighten others. The public is right to want to know whether we are dealing with a few bad apples or a movement with deep roots in the Muslim community.
I'm honestly starting to wonder if what I think I'm typing (and what, on later review, I think I've posted) is actually what N. Friedman seems to think I'm typing. I can't figure out how someone can so routinely appear to me to be utterly ignoring and misconstruing what I've said, unless it's that I've actually not been saying what I thought I was saying.
PG,
The problem is that you your quoted comment is not what I was addressing. Hence, it does not appear to respond. Why? Because I was merely amplifying my earlier point about what I thought might be gained from the hearings.
It does not cease to amuse me that you refuse to think I might say something which does not exactly mirror your demands.
Of course, it does help your cause, which is to make believe that the Islamist movement is benign, when it is genocidal in nature.
N. Friedman,
If you're not going to "mirror [my] demands" -- or what's known by most people as "answer my questions" -- kindly refrain from prefacing your comment with "In answer to your questions..." as this is very misleading. So too, on a subtler level, is answering a 3 para comment with 3 paras that have beginnings like "Regarding the concern" and "Your last point."
Of course, it does help your cause, which is to make believe that the Islamist movement is benign, when it is genocidal in nature.
Are you ever going to find a quote from me actually saying any of the stuff you fantasize, or is your supply of straw simply infinite?
Part I
PG.
In answer to your query, try a couple of speeches. These quotes are not offhand comments but considered assertions, quoted in context. I have chosen Yusuf al-Qaradawi because of his prominence, a man with an audience of 10's of millions of Muslims.
1. Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one. ... Yusuf al-Qaradawi. [Source: Al-Jazeera TV on January 9, 2009 (as translated by MEMRI)]
Part II.
2. Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers ... Yusuf al-Qaradawi. [Source: January 30, 2009, MEMRI]
Note, in addition to advocating mass murder, this major Islamist preacher and well known scholar, employs traditional Antisemitic themes. Also note that he is blunter than Nazis party leaders were.
N. Friedman,
Wait, you think I'm Yusuf al-Qaradawi?
This explains SOOO much about your beef with me.
Dude, I'm not an Islamic cleric. I'm an agnostic Hindu lawyer. Find quotes from me if you're going to make claims about what I think.
PG,
I provided you with quotes of the genocidal intentions of Islamists because you pooh-poohed my comments indicating it was a genocidal movement. I never claimed you to be an Islamist; rather that you see fit to, in effect, provide cover for that despicable movement.
For the record, al-Qaradawi is widely respect by, among others, Tariq Ramadan and Imam Rauf. The NY Times reports that Rauf said that "Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.''
Here are some more quotes, courtesy of a college professor friend of mine:
a. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, founder of Hamas said in 2007: “There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed to annihilation.”
b. In that same year, Ahmad Bahar, Acting Chairman of Gaza Parliament said:
“Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies…Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”
I repeat: Islamism is a genocidal movement. It is not something to pooh-pooh, as you do. It is something requiring concerted hostility towards and opposition towards, not rationalization of or anything of the sort.
Please find a quote from me where I say absolutely no Muslim has genocidal intentions.
PG,
I do not say you that there is no genocidal intent. I indicated that you pooh-poohed the idea, which is a different thing. I stand by my assertion.
Post a Comment