Muslim Myopia

[KarateCowboy]

This is from the NY Times, surprisingly, and really puts the lie to the claim that we're the cause of terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/opinion/16manji.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By IRSHAD MANJI
Published: August 16, 2006
New Haven
LAST week, the luminaries of the British Muslim mainstream — lobbyists, lords and members of Parliament — published an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, telling him that the “debacle” of both Iraq and Lebanon provides “ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.” In increasingly antiwar America, a similar argument is gaining traction: The United States brutalizes Muslims, which in turn foments Islamist terror.
But violent jihadists have rarely needed foreign policy grievances to justify their hot heads. There was no equivalent to the Iraq debacle in 1993, when Islamists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center, or in 2000, when they attacked the American destroyer Cole. Indeed, that assault took place after United States-led military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.
If Islamists cared about changing Iraq policy, they would not have bothered to abduct two journalists from France — probably the most antiwar, anti-Bush nation in the West. Even overt solidarity with Iraqi suffering did not prevent Margaret Hassan, who ran a world-renowned relief agency in Baghdad, from being executed by insurgents.
Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the “official” Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too.
This means reminding them that in Pakistan, Sunnis hunt down Shiites every day; that in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims as well as Jews; that in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture and murder Muslim activists promoting democracy; and, above all, that civil wars have become hallmarks of the Islamic world.
Muslim figureheads will not dare be so honest. They would sooner replicate the very sins for which they castigate the Bush and Blair governments — namely, switching rationales and pretending integrity.
In the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, Iqbal Sacranie, then the head of the influential Muslim Council of Britain, insisted that economic discrimination lay at the root of Islamist radicalism in his country. When it came to light that some of the suspects enjoyed middle-class upbringings, university educations, jobs and cars, Mr. Sacranie found a new culprit: foreign policy. In so doing, he boarded the groupthink express steered by Muslim elites.
The good news is that ordinary people of faith are capable of self-criticism. Two months ago, 65 percent of British Muslims polled believed that their communities should increase efforts to integrate. The same poll also produced troubling results: 13 percent lionized the July 7 terrorists, and 16 percent sympathized. Still, these figures total 29 percent — less than half the number who sought to belong more fully to British society.
Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam’s better angels. That duty — and glory — goes to Muslims.
Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University, is the author of “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith.”

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Your not going to get too many people to back you up on this issue. They feel that no matter what, the Muslim extremists are fighting the only way they know how and we have to sympathize with them. However, you will never get your fill of people who blame Christians and Christians alone for the Crusades, or the Klan movement and the attack on homosexuality, the abortion issue and embryonic stem cell research.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Your not going to get too many people to back you up on this issue. They feel that no matter what, the Muslim extremists are fighting the only way they know how and we have to sympathize with them. However, you will never get your fill of people who blame Christians and Christians alone for the Crusades, or the Klan movement and the attack on homosexuality, the abortion issue and embryonic stem cell research.

わかりました

 

[KarateCowboy]

I agree that I won't get much support on this issue. I think that many people are more partial to the terrorists than the victims.

 

[bammertheblue]

The answer is somewhere in the middle, but it's a lot harder to actually think about things than it is to paint everything as black and white. (Yes, I am speaking to both "sides" here).

 

[JedPerkins]

The answer is somewhere in the middle, but it's a lot harder to actually think about things than it is to paint everything as black and white. (Yes, I am speaking to both "sides" here).

So true. Humans have a tendency to think of every issue having precisely two sides though.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

わかりました

I apologize if my Hiragan is a little off(my wife is Okinawan ). I can see you understand my viewpoint and thanks.

 

[CSmrw]

I have a set of ideas on the issue of extremism, and not all of them disagree with you. However, I choose the word "extremism" carefully, because I have the same problem with Christian extrmeism that I do Muslim or Socialism or anything else - even militant atheism, if there is such a thing.

But if the shoes were on the other foot? I am in a country where I am kept poor and ignorant while a ruling elite does backroom deals with a society my religion has taught me to mistrust, at the least, and perhaps even hate, for rights to the money and resources that rightfully belong to my fellow citizens. What AM I going to do?

I myself think I would be bombing my own capital, but I am also fairly bright an dlive in a free society and under no religious control. I am not so easily manipulated, I don't think. But I remember being younger and more naive, more eager to please my peers or my parents or what have you. A little relious distortion and I might have been led to believe all kinds of things.

So, again, what WOULD I do? I don't know.

 

[Brimshack]

Well now that the thread is littered with pre-emptive ad hominems...

The article itself doesn't do much to back it's central position, which may or may not be true. Case in point:

"There was no equivalent to the Iraq debacle in 1993, when Islamists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center,"

A history of medlling in the Middle East and manipulation of loca governments in our interests certainly does constitute sufficient cause to generate extremist opposition. That we hadn't fought a war in the region (at least not directly or recently) does not answer this concern. But of course a serious attempt to address the issue would have required looking directly at the concerns of the terrorists who plotted the actions. If you want to address their motivations, the pay attention to what they say, don't measure them against a straw man.

"or in 2000, when they attacked the American destroyer Cole."

Iraq I and U.S. troops in the region. At this point, I suspect the author is on autopilot.

"Indeed, that assault took place after United States-led military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo."

True enough, but of course this assumes the driving force behind Muslim extremism is in fact religious sentiment. That is ironically giving far too much credit to their own ideological rationale. One should of course listen to the reasons people give for doing what they do, but one should also look carefully for the bottom line in their rhetoric. What are the practical issues that they cite when invoking their spiriual beliefs? What sets their god against us in their minds, so to speak? Do we have any reason to believe Arab Muslims really care how European Muslims are treated? Or for that matter that a Muslim world that genuinely appreciated these actions would not still have room for extremists who have other priorities?

The author is engaging in 3rd grade rhetoric. He is more interested in answering the moral pretensions of a caracature than he is in assessing the truth of a perfectly empirical claim. The question is whether or not changes in U.S. policy could actually influence the incidence of terrorist attacks. This doesn't call for moral posturing. It calls for a straight foreward assessment of questions such as what are the goals of the terrorists and their supporters? Could groups like Hezbollah or nations such as Iran and Syria reiign in the terrorists if they wanted to? What is the likelihood that terrorists could continue without the support of such states? Can we accommodate such states without compromizing key national interests and if so, do we want to? Etc.

But of course it is much more satisfying to ensure that we all think of terrorism as inevitable, and of the Muslim world as a completely irrational force bound to produce terrorism no matter what we do.

That such moral caracatures have been directed at Christians and still are does not do much to show us the legitimacy of using them to describe Muslims.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

But if the shoes were on the other foot? I am in a country where I am kept poor and ignorant while a ruling elite does backroom deals with a society my religion has taught me to mistrust, at the least, and perhaps even hate, for rights to the money and resources that rightfully belong to my fellow citizens. What AM I going to do?

How about peacefully protest, like the Okinawans. They hate the U.S. military(who occupies about 25% of their lands) and are constantly protesting. They are the poorest prefecture in Japan, looked down upon by the Japanese government and are never really listened to about these foreign intruders onto their land. I know this how? I lived there for over 7 years. Violence does not excuse other means to resolve conflicting issues.

 

[Brimshack]

Peaceful protest works under certain circumstances and not others. It could be that Arabs could accomplish more with it if they tried, and it could be that it would be a completely worthless tactic for them. It's an interesting thought, but not a slam dunk argument.

Unfortunately peaceful protest seems to work best when the protesters are beaten, maimed, or even killed, preferrably in front of a camera. I admire those who have used this approach, but I don't know that I would expect anyone to accept it as the only acceptable approach.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Peaceful protest works under certain circumstances and not others. It could be that Arabs could accomplish more with it if they tried, and it could be that it would be a completely worthless tactic for them. It's an interesting thought, but not a slam dunk argument.

Unfortunately peaceful protest seems to work best when the protesters are beaten, maimed, or even killed, preferrably in front of a camera. I admire those who have used this approach, but I don't know that I would expect anyone to accept it as the only acceptable approach.

Well, it worked for Martin Luther King

 

[Brimshack]

...so long as those in his movement were in fact tortured and maimed. When authorities learned to arrest them in a professional manner and jail them without undue violence, King's tactics proved largely unsuccessful.

And I think protests in America have been largely pointless ever since, precisely because police authorities have long since learned how to handle them without adding fuel to the fire. Peaceful Protest worked in the early Civil Rights movement precisely because so many authorities didn't know how to handle them and overreacted in the presence of media. The window of opportunity for such tactics has narrowed considerably since then, if not closed altogether.

So, how has the Okinama movement played out? I don't know enough about it, but I seem to recall some concessions. What happened?

 

[CSmrw]

How about peacefully protest, like the Okinawans. They hate the U.S. military(who occupies about 25% of their lands) and are constantly protesting. They are the poorest prefecture in Japan, looked down upon by the Japanese government and are never really listened to about these foreign intruders onto their land. I know this how? I lived there for over 7 years. Violence does not excuse other means to resolve conflicting issues.

Yes, peaceful protest. But are you telling me among all the Okinawans there are not factions who would, given the opportunity, commit violent acts against America? Also, let's be frank: if you were there seven years and nothing changed peaceful protest doesn't nseem to be working. Peaceful protest works best when there is a real threat of violence behind it, after all. For every Martin Luther King Jr there is a Malcom X and Elija Muhamed (sp) lurking.

And I am not saying I think these people are doing the right thing. I think the right thing is to topple their own offending regimes. But that sometimes leads to Iranian dictators who want revenge on America for proping up Shahs. And that's one of the keys people seem to miss about all this. I think that the freedoms we enjoy make us blind to how easily things can go wrong when you mix extreme religous conviction and extreme political and monetary concerns, and how easily manipulated the naive and ignorant are when you feed them the right faiths in the right doses. And that there are people who will can and will use even Christian scripture to justify horrendous acts.

 

[HouseApe]

I agree that I won't get much support on this issue. I think that many people are more partial to the terrorists than the victims.

I doubt anyone is more partial to the terrorists than the victims. I think what you are seeing are people who attempt to think through the social and emotional causes of terrorism to better understand how to fight it.

As opposed to doing knee-jerk military invasions that appear to have done little to stop terrorism but killed a whole lot of God's children.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Yes, peaceful protest. But are you telling me among all the Okinawans there are not factions who would, given the opportunity, commit violent acts against America? Also, let's be frank: if you were there seven years and nothing changed peaceful protest doesn't nseem to be working.

There actually were several things that changed throught their peaceful protests:

1) Futenma Air Station will no longer be located in Ginowan City. It will be now located off the island.

2) Of the 100,000 servicemembers and dependents on Okinawa, half of those will be sent to Guam and other Pacific area stations within the next 5-10 years. 20,000 Marines are already dedicated to be moved to Guam within the next 2 years.

3) We are no longer able to fire our rifle ranges before 8:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m.

 

[CSmrw]

There actually were several things that changed throught their peaceful protests:

1) Futenma Air Station will no longer be located in Ginowan City. It will be now located off the island.

2) Of the 100,000 servicemembers and dependents on Okinawa, half of those will be sent to Guam and other Pacific area stations within the next 5-10 years. 20,000 Marines are already dedicated to be moved to Guam within the next 2 years.

3) We are no longer able to fire our rifle ranges before 8:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m.

My mistake.

 

[Brimshack]

There actually were several things that changed throught their peaceful protests:

1) Futenma Air Station will no longer be located in Ginowan City. It will be now located off the island.

2) Of the 100,000 servicemembers and dependents on Okinawa, half of those will be sent to Guam and other Pacific area stations within the next 5-10 years. 20,000 Marines are already dedicated to be moved to Guam within the next 2 years.

3) We are no longer able to fire our rifle ranges before 8:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m.

Thank you Kael, I appreciate the info. It is nice to see a relatively successful protest movement. I woud, however, suspect that the stakes are sufficiently different as to make the prospects for success quite different in the case of Muslims.