Posted on 12/19/2001 11:20:49 AM PST by milestogo
Islam is not the issue, Muslims are
By Hasan Suroor
| For far too long Islam has been allowed to become a licence for any Muslim to do whatever he pleases in its name. |
SO MUCH has been written and talked about Muslims and Islam after the September 11 outrage that anything more might sound like flogging a dead horse. But much of the debate has been marked by so much self-righteous indignation on the part of Muslims, and aggressive Muslim/Islam-bashing on the other side that it has been pretty much a dialogue of the deaf. The emotional pitch, despite liberalist interventions, has been simply too high to permit a dispassionate argument. What we have been presented with in the past three months is a black-and- white portrait in which all Muslims are the world's black sheep - intolerant, extremists and disloyal - and non-Muslims a huge international conspiracy to undermine Islam and its followers. There have been too many generalisations, too much stereotyping, a lot of deliberate fudge, a great deal of misinterpretation of Islam and competitive blame-game. It has been more a point-scoring slanging match than a cool debate.
Muslim sensitivities have become so strained that any disagreement with the so-called ``Muslim viewpoint'' is seen as necessarily hostile, much like the American cowboy's logic that either-you-are-with-us-or-with-the-enemy. It is the reflex action of a people who see themselves under siege thanks to widespread Islamophobia. In Britain, for instance, the anti-Muslim sentiment is so palpable that one does not have to be a Muslim to get a feel of it. There is a whiff of it everywhere - on television, in newspapers, private conversations, political debates and on the streets, all of it, of course, dressed up as debate. Having said that, the challenge for Muslims is to ask themselves why so much of the world is ranged against them even if it is for all the wrong reasons. It is a question which Muslims alone can answer. There has been the standard argument that it is all because of media stereotyping, the historical tensions between Christianity and Islam, and the hostility and prejudices bred by the wave of Muslim conquests. All of this is true but the sums, as any good economist would tell you, do not add up, just as they do not add up when Mr. George W. Bush says those who hate America do it because they do not like ``our freedoms'' and ``values''.
Nor would protestations on behalf of Islam do because the issue - no matter what Salman Rushdie or V.S.Naipaul might say - is not Islam, just as the issue was not Hinduism when hordes of Hindu fanatics brought down the Babri Masjid, and just as, despite its overtly denominational character, Christianity is not the issue in Northern Ireland. In the same way that the problem in 1992 was a certain section of Hindus who invoked their faith to justify their act of hooliganism, the problem now is a certain section of Muslims who are invoking religion to justify their actions. There is, though, a crucial difference, but we would come to that later. Claims that Islam is a peaceful religion which does not preach violence may be intended to counter the anti-Islam rhetoric, of which there has been no dearth in recent weeks, but every time a Muslim sings the virtues of Islam he inadvertently suggests that these qualities are unique to his faith; and as though other religions, in fact, preach hate and violence. This then is seized by critics of Islam to reel off examples of ``Islamic'' violence, and prompts Salman Rushdie to agonise over the ``nature'' of Islam in weekend supplements while Naipaul gets another chance to deliver himself of some more steam against the ``tyranny'' of Islam and its assorted excesses.
Muslims resent, and legitimately, the fact that acts of violence by Muslims alone are invariably labelled as Islamic terrorism whereas similar acts by people of other faiths are not defined in religious terms. The Sikhs are the only other exception. But it is never Hindu terrorism, Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism. Muslims can protest till they are blue in the face, but can they deny that it is their own black sheep who are responsible for this? More Muslims than any other people do in the name of religion things that have nothing to do with it. Irish terrorists, whether Protestants or Catholics, do not claim that their ``struggle'' is in defence of Christianity even though it is very much rooted in religious divide; nor do Israelis, for all their Jewish paranoia, call their daily acts of violence a religious war, emphasising instead the territorial aspect of the conflict - and the same is true of the Tamil militants in Sri Lanka. Even the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal hotheads talked in terms of ``sentiment'' and ``faith'' when they brought down the Babri Masjid making sure that Hinduism remained untainted by their ugly actions. But every time a Muslim or a group of Muslims does something abominable they always choose to call it a ``holy'' war, and urge other Muslims to join it, whether it is in Chechnya, or Kosovo or Kashmir.
Interestingly, Palestinians seldom call their struggle a holy Islamic war whereas self-styled non-Palestinian Muslim fanatics, many of whom have nothing to do with the Palestinian issue, insist on giving it a religious twist to make it fit their own agenda.
In a situation where Muslims themselves have no compunction about exploiting the name of Islam by describing every injustice and every grievance as an attack on Islam, can they really blame others who might decide to take them at face value and call them Islamic terrorists? For far too long Islam has been allowed to become a licence for any Muslim to do whatever he pleases in its name, and the venerable ``mullahs'' and ``ayatollahs'' simply look on while Islam is hijacked for plainly un-Islamic causes.
Why has it not occurred to any appropriate Islamic authority to issue a fatwa against those who camouflage their obvious anti-Islamic activities in the garb of jehad? Why not prove by action that Islam does not tolerate violence in its name? These are questions which one has put to Muslims again and again, but all one hears is mumbling. They agree that what is so often done in the name of Islam is not Islamic, but fudge the issue when it comes to nailing the lie of self-styled Islamists. Splitting hairs over the definition of jehad - whether it means violent fisticuffa with the infidels or peaceful inner struggle - and throwing the book at critics is not likely to convince anyone so long as the term continues to be used to inflict violence. If the latest Osama bin Laden videotape is authentic, then it is the most shaming example of Muslims debasing Islam. Every sentence of Osama and his comrades as they praise the September 11 terrorist attacks is prefaced or followed by reference to ``Allah'', and more than once the name of Prophet Mohammed is dragged in to ``bless'' the atrocity.
What is a non-Muslim, particularly in the prevailing climate, to make of these utterances? Here are self-proclaimed religious and ``pious'' Muslims defending the killings of thousands of innocent people in the name of ``Allah'', and there has not been a word of condemnation from quarters who, in the past, have dealt so ruthlessly with lesser mortals - the types of Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen - for lesser sins. As a Muslim, one is more ashamed and embarrassed by what Osama and his gang have done in the name of Islam than those silly passages in ``Satanic Verses'' and ``Lajja''. This is the occasion, if ever there was one, for appropriate Islamic authorities to ponder and act.
It is distressing that the Muslim condemnation of what happened on September 11 has tended to echo the Hindu right-wing condemnation of what happened in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. ``Yes, we condemn it but...'' The ``ifs' and ``buts'' that sounded like a rationalisation of the incident, when mouthed by Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. L.K. Advani, have the same unhappy effect when mouthed by a lot of Muslims in relation to September 11. Will someone save Islam from these Muslims?
It's the Aga Khan's job.
But I am more than willing to go to Malaysia next summer to kill me some Taliban.
Any FReepers care to join me?
We could make it a FreeRepublic event.
Those silly passages referred to mohammed's approval to worship three female "godesses" in addition to allah. These passages were later removed but they appear at the most inconvient times.When mentioned the "islamic authorities" issue a fattwah (kill the guy...now)!Ask S. Rusdie
Who's buying the ammunition, and can we get a bulk order in?
I'd suggest a good varmint round!
I'd like to see his examples of Christian terrorism, particularily those examples of Christian terrorism that are on a scale with the Islamic terrorism in the world.
The problem is not Muslims:The problem is Islam The black sheep who don't follow the Qur'an literally are the peaceful Muslims.
Their holy book tells them to fight all non-Muslims (9:121), cut off all their fingertips (8:12) eat and spend whatever you win in battle (8:69) and give 20% of it to Allah and his Messenger (8:41), make sure non-Muslims are content with their state of subjection (9:29)and, of course, you may possess your female captives of war (4:3).
if anyone can point out similar commands to Christians or Jews in their holy books, please do so.
The Holy Qur'an is a blueprint for world domination.
If the founder of the Ku Klux Klan had merely said that God told him to "kill all the blacks", it, too, would be a religion and its current grand dragons would be all over television claiming "KKK is love" and talking about all the Klan bashing going on.
If they are humiliated by what is being said then the way to stop that humiliation is not to lie or to defend the indefenseable, it's to stand up for your religion and demand that the terrorists stop claiming to be Muslims. If they did this, they would gain respect, instead they make excuses and earn only disgust.
HAH! It's true, no religeon is exempt from the 'God-wants-you-to-give-me-your-money' syndrome.
I'd love to believe the author's assertions in this article, but everything I'm seeing suggests that islam hasn't been hijacked at all, just that its less sensible members are carrying out the koran's sick commands. The author is correct: if I am wrong, and islam is not the problem, then the muzlims of the world need to come down hard on those who kill 'infidels' in the name of their religeon.
As for the islam-bashers, well, we don't have much else to go on now do we? If we've got islam all wrong, they sure aren't doing anything to help correct our mistakes, other than trite soundclips ('...of course we despise terrorism in any form...').
However, in the Koran, in associated Islamic writings, and in the actions and words of their founding prophet, Muslims are enjoined to conquer, oppress and forcibly convert the non-Muslim, and threaten dire punishments in this world for any Muslim who forsakes his/her religion.
The problem is that IS Islam. Can you name one Islamic country were muslims are allowed to own a bible or convert to another religion? Christians and Jews are tortured untill they convert or murdered.
It is a heathan religion that treats women as property .
The moon god is not kind to non believers..that is not a problem with UBL it is a problem of the quran.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.