July 08, 2005
The "B" wordIssues
After every terrorist attack in the Western World I look for the “B” word in the news the next day. Here we go:
The San Jose Mercury News- Among London’s Muslims, fears of backlash linger, but quietly
Newsday- U.S. Muslims denounce London bombings, brace for backlash
Vive le Canada- Canuck Muslims dread backlash
Monsters & Critics- Australian Moslems fear backlash after London bombs
India Monitor- Muslims cower in fear of backlash
See, here is the thing. Whenever a terrorist attack like this occurs, the cold, dispassionate, analytical side of me asks, “why is the average citizen so afraid to get back aboard that plane, train, or bus the very next day?” The attack was temporally and spatially isolated and not something they must continue to cower in fear of. Aside from not giving the terrorists what they want, the probability that there will be another attack within days or months of the original is just not backed up by the data. The compassionate side of me realizes however, that humans are humans. Fear, real or imagined, is part of who we are and keeps us alive.
For people with brown skin, and especially Muslims, the actual attack is just the beginning of a terrorist incident however. For this group an attack is not a temporally or spatially isolated event. The moment that the physical attack ends is when the real fear begins for a sizeable portion of the population (as shown by the headlines above). With a terrorist attack you don’t know when it’s going to come. You realize that you shouldn’t live your life in fear so you go about your day quite normally, perhaps being slightly more attentive. The general population has a Homeland Security Department to warn them of a possible terrorist attack by means of a color coded system. After a terrorist attack however, if you are brown or Muslim, you need your own system. You have knowledge of credible but unspecified threats.
My point? This is exactly what Reza Aslan stresses. This isn’t a war between Islam and the West. This is a war between Islam and Islam. Brown-on-Brown violence. The West is often just caught in the crossfire because they provide the most dramatic field of battle.
New California Media posts this article by Sandip Roy, Notes From a Brown Man in London:
The little Internet cafe I am writing from is in the heart of Brick Lane. This is where much of England’s Bangladeshi community, mostly Muslim, lives. Shops sell burkhas and prayer mats. The supermarket sells stacks of gleaming silvery rui and boal fish flown in from Bangladesh. Restaurants have names like Monsoon and Nazrul and Naz Café. After Sept. 11, 2001, police were posted outside the Jamie Masjid here to keep the peace. This time they are not there.
“Perhaps we don’t really need them,” says Zahid, a law student from Bangladesh who has lived here since 2002. “After all, we are the majority here now.” The areas around Brick Lane are 70 percent Muslim.
But will the attacks scar the image of Muslims in Britain? Zahid, the law student, sighs. “The people who did this can’t be genuine Muslims. How can genuine Muslims kill so many innocent people going to work?” Outside the shuttered Aldgate tube station a forlorn poster is getting soaked in the drizzle. It advertises an exhibition and seminar organized by a Sufi school. “Non Violence: A Choice — 4th to 10th July, Goldsmiths College,” it reads.
abhi on July 8, 2005 12:45 PM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I was so paranoid going onto BART this morning. We have been isolated in the Bay Area but we all know terrorism will strike close to home soon. Of course they are not going to strike again the day after a big attack.....or would they? Security asked me if I worked in this building when I walked into work today. I have worked here for over a year, see them every day, say good morning, and they have never asked me to sign in....today they did....I already feel the discrimination. I can only imagine what a fully clad Muslim would feel. I don't understand why the Muslim world (or at least Muslims in America) don't publicly denounce terrorist attacks more....I hope Londoners are stayin strong.
"After every terrorist attack in the Western World I look for the B word "
Why? If you are concerned about Muslims facing a backlash, the Western World is the least likely place for it to happen. After Ayodha, you had 1000 Muslims killed in Gujarat in less than a week. When a Nigerian newspaper suggested a Miss World contestant might make a good wife for Muhammad, Nigerian Muslims went on the rampage, and then non-Muslim Nigerians repaid them in kind. When Muslim terrorist groups in Thailand began carrying out attacks in the southern part of the country, the Thai military responded brutally - with the most egregious example being several dozen suspects suffocating to death in a trailer.
The fact is that there are few places for Muslims to worship freely, earn a living, and raise a family with little government intereference or scrutiny as there is in the West. Fears of a backlash may sell newspapers, but they do not report on the ground reality.
Hope whoever does the denouncing can come up with soemthing other than "this is not real Islam......". Man, that's one overworked phrase.
Are you kidding me? Go to Google News and type in "Muslims denounce" and see what you get.
The fact is that there are few places for Muslims to worship freely, earn a living, and raise a family with little government intereference or scrutiny as there is in the West. Fears of a backlash may sell newspapers, but they do not report on the ground reality.
what you say is true that of all the places in the non-muslim majority world,the west is probably the safest route. But that doesn't mean you want Little Nicky Macelli coming after you nonetheless. On a statistical level, what you say is true. But on a personal level, isn't one unprovoked attack on someone who had no connection to these incidents too much? I would be worried too if I were a muslim or sikh person. And like we covered in another thread, it ain't a hate crime here unless you're black or hispanic.
KXB,
My argument wasn't meant to be a statistical one. A backlash is just as statistically improbable as a terrorist attack in the first place. My point was to illustrate that at the point a terrorist attack "ends" for one group it "begins" in another fashion for another group.
" But on a personal level, isn't one unprovoked attack on someone who had no connection to these incidents too much?"
By that reasoning, should I fear and suspect all black males because I was mugged by one in DC? Or had rocks thrown at me by black males in Evanston? Obviously no - since the overwhelming majority of my interactions with black people is remarkably ordinary.
By the same token, I understand that no one wants to feel extra scrutiny for the murderous actions of fanatics in another country. But in a security-conscious world, it's better to undertake the laborious task of educating non-Muslims about the faith, and reassure them that they have nothing to fear from Grandma Fatima - than deal with a murderous mob or unchecked police power in non-Western nations.
I have to agree with this assesment. If there is any place in the world that Muslims are most free, it is in the west and a few select countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, etc).
Its not a war on Brown-Brown. There are muslims of all races and creed (Indonesians, Malaysians, Indians, Arabs, White europeans from the Baltics, Black Africans,etc)This is a war between fascist groups that have logically rationalized mass murder and those who have not. Ultimately though one fact rings true: It will be have to moderate muslims who cherish the basics in life (family, shelter, food, peace) that put these terrorists down for good.
The Gujarat incident after the train was attacked (where 50 somthing hindus were killed) is a brutal backlash (1000 over Muslims killed in retaliation). For the most part, after 9-11 (almost 3k killed) things were handled relatively well. You can't control the idiotic 10%, you can make sure they pay the price. The man in Arizona who killed the Sikh was sent packing to the jailhouse.
The moderate muslim community has a difficult choice facing them: Either rise up against such terrorists that are tainting their religion, or let them abuse it and fear the backlash generated by a minority of haters in their adopted lands.
The fact that one might fear going about thier day the day after a terrorist attack is pervasive for Muslims/brown people who might be mistaken for Arabs/Muslims. I read on a blog an Irish Londoner say that when the IRA used to attack he was scared to open in mouth in public lest he got gyped because of his accent.
I think these terrorists are playing a long term game-- they want to push 'white' people so far into making things fearful/hellish for brown/Muslim/immigrants that even moderate Muslims/brown/immirants have no choice but to get pissed with the status quo and rebel: what ever that may mean. This is a race thing, except rather than racist attacks they're trying to win over-- with a subverted strategy-- people who despise what they are doing.
Why? If you are concerned about Muslims facing a backlash, the Western World is the least likely place for it to happen. After Ayodha, you had 1000 Muslims killed in Gujarat in less than a week
That is true. I would rather be a minority in the US than be a minority in India.
One Sikh dying after 9-11 was sad. However the real backlash tragedy against Sikhs was when thousands of them were killed in Delhi after Indira Gandhi was killed.
Members of Parliament led violent bombs to indiscriminately kill and maim Sikhs all over Delhi.
However it must be said, that for a person born and raised in the US or UK, if he feels discrimination, the fact that some 3rd world country will have a worse backlash is of no solace. The person is a citizen of the US/UK. Just because hes brown he shouldnt be subjected to standards applicable in the 3rd world.
The moderate muslim community has a difficult choice facing them: Either rise up against such terrorists that are tainting their religion, or let them abuse it and fear the backlash generated by a minority of haters in their adopted lands
What exactly should a 'moderate' Muslim do ?
For example my mom is a moderate Muslim. She talks on the phone (not with terrorists), watches Bollywood movies and bitches about the family.
So now because someone blows up London, she somehow has the responsibility to combat terrorism ? What can she do ? Go to the local Masjid, pretend to be a radical and hope one day to entrap a jihadist and report him to the FBI ?
I think its placing too high a burden on apolitical people who wake up, go to work, come home and eat/watch tv and go to bed.
The burden needs to be placed on Muslim institutions in the West. The retarded Muslim organizations, dominated by immigrant Arabs and their unhealthy obsession with Palestine.
They are the public face of Islam in the West. They need to get their shit together.
Also Britain can atleast deport the visas of radical Arab Imams who indoctrinate the Paki youth into the Jihadist culture and have been kicked out of Syria, Egypt etc., for being too radical!
deport the visas*
Deport them or revoke their visas.
As I am a Liberal, I fear Liberalism will be the biggest casualty of terrorism.
We Liberals need to find a solution to the 'terrorist' problem, if we care about Liberalism. You cant have a liberal society under siege.
Peter Beinart from the New Republic talked about the liberal problem of terrorism a few months back.
Are the majority of muslims moderate? If they are, couldn't they influence the actions of these groups or at least establish something to counter them?
I get stuck at the point of 'what should the average muslim do' too. Often after these attacks the debates take on a tone of indignation, muslims and non-muslims end up almost rationalizing the attacks by recounting western foreign policy. Although that might be at the root of the problem, it feels like they don't spend any effort at all condemning the terrorists. Maybe because it's so obvious they don't see the need to? Regardless it's necessary, at least for perception... and like the guy said, saying "this isn't the real islam" is getting tired.
"We Liberals need to find a solution to the 'terrorist' problem, if we care about Liberalism. You cant have a liberal society under siege.
Peter Beinart from the New Republic talked about the liberal problem of terrorism a few months back."
The funny thing is - liberals used to be the most muscular of groups. Liberals like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman - they never flinched from a challenge, and almost never apologized for actions that furthered American aims on the world stage. But in the case of LBJ, you had liberal overreach, and conservatives beat them up on that. Now, you have some conservatives urging America to remake the world. They run the same risk that liberals did in the sixties - overreaching.
As for Arabs's obsession with Palestine, the truth is most Arab governments dont give a damn about Palestinians. Saudis spend more in Monte Carlo and luxury cars than on Palestinian aid. The Kuwaitis kicked out their Palestinians in 1991. The Jordanians don't extend voting rights to them, eventhough Palestinians outnumber Hashemites.
The main value of the Palestinian issue is it distracts Arab populations from the remarkably inept and corrupt governments they have. The combined GDP of the nearly 2 dozen Arab nations (excluding oil revenues) is less than Spain.
Abhi's right. The important consequences of a terrorist attack begin after the attack, by creating a climate of fear and paranoia. And those consequences hit Muslims harder than non-Muslims. But that's what any terrorist or guerilla group tries to do -- eliminate the moderate middle ground by polarizing society.
Religion is just a means...
If it isn't religion, it would be race. If it isn't race it would be something else.
(Aren't there bullies and nerds in schools? Why do those kids start discriminating at such a small age?)
Human thoughts are 'programmed' to stereotype. And as long as we do that... there's going to be discrimination. Thats how God intended it (if thats how you would like to think)
So do we just ignore horific incidents like yesterdays ? No...
If you really want to make a difference. Learn not to "discriminate" !
I am sure everyone here has distanced him or her as far as possible from the "wrong-doers".
If you can for a moment 'understand' why they were did something so drastic, probably you will start to make a difference in the world.
Don't try to change someone else. Change yourself.
I guess my whole rant is rather ironic :)
I am sure you can find a lot of stuff to argue against me (e.g my usage of the word 'wrong-doers' and much more). But does any of what I said make sense to atleast one person ?
ised,
i believe it makes sense. you are raising the philosophical and spiritual dimensions, which is important to do.
in the end, so much of what we see going on around us is the direct result of the arrogance and narcissism of power, and other philosophical verities that have been with us throughout history.
ultimately, the answers lie within.
peace
Its a tough time to be a liberal Muslim - no doubt. And all us browns face a tiny bit of collateral damage too and are understandeably defensive about this sort of thing.
Still, I wish there was some sort of spontaneous "not in our name" million-man-march by Muslims today. I just dont see it happening. The cancer appears deep in the religious establishment.
hmmm... moderate muslim...is it an oxymoron? The turks definitely are moderate...but otherwise me thinks they are a micro minority (they may not even be considered as muslims by the radicals)...coz even when I talk of a thing as profound as 9-11, I have some muslim acquaintances who end up justifying it in some tortuous way or the other (like the root cause of muslim anger and shit like that)...the biggest mullahs like that Bukahri mofo in Delhi and the ones manning the Saudi, Egypt and Paki mosques should be screaming "killing for any darn reason is wrong...jihad or otherwise..." through their loud speakers in the mosque instead of spewing hatred and telling impressionable young minds to defeat the great Satan and the Zionists and blah blah...
THEN ma dear friends...there is an itsy-bitsy hope...Reform should start with the bloody fanatics and not the muslim "moderates". Long shot though as this jihadism is now a multi-billion dollar industry...
Are you kidding me? Go to Google News and type in "Muslims denounce" and see what you get.
Most of those articles or links denounce the US action in Iraq/Afghanistan. I don't agree with it either but there minority of links are of those Muslims denouncing Al Qaeda or terrorism against the West.
Are there any major Muslim organizations in the U.S. that have publicly denounced the London attacks? I am not sure....
Conservatives want to front like they have been anti-terrorism from the get-go. Meanwhile it was Bush and company that sat on their hands with a policy on "non-intervention" until the 911 firecracker blew up in their hands.
Liberals like Clinton invaded Kosovo via NATO (in breach of NATO's charter, which authorized military action only in self-defense of member states), and bombed sites in Sudan. Liberals like Kerry and Clark served in the military (note I said served, not "assisted election campaigns while on duty" or "sat around in the US with a desk job", e.g. Bush).
As someone noted recently, Kennedy did not flinch from the Vietnam challenge, and never apologized. But I wish he did.
There is no virtue in destroying the world and its people willy-nilly, all the while swaggering away.
Oh? Why is that so remarkable? Were you expecting something else? That is the implication anyway....(sorry couldn't resist)
stimulating post and thought-provoking trail of comments.
makes blogging worth it !
Major Muslim Organizations in the US.
CAIR Condemns 'Barbaric' London Terror Attacks.
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1647&theType=NR
MPAC CONDEMNS LONDON BOMBINGS
http://www.mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=790
ISNA Condemns the Terrorist Attacks in London
http://isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=220
ICNA condemns the bomb attacks in London
http://icna.org/pr_london_attacks.htm
MAS Condemns Heinous Terror Acts in London
http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=2594
"Oh? Why is that so remarkable? Were you expecting something else? That is the implication anyway....(sorry couldn't resist)"
No. Since there is no drawing function on Sepiamutiny, I can't really draw an image of my tongue planted in my cheek. But glad to see your PC Grammar check is working. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Mujahid...post some links of Egypt/Saudi/Paki mullahs condeming the london bombings if you come across any. No sarcasm or anything. I am really curious to know how they react to this.
EXACTLY. Which is why, yet again, comparisons to problems in India are so damn irrelevant.
uh, well, ok, let's jump on anyone who makes a cross-cultural comparison and measure everything by an idealized state.
the 'moderate' muslims need to do a night-of-the-long-knives on the radicals. i don't give a fuck if it isn't the 'real islam,' muslims worship a rock as far as i'm concerned, just kill them. during the cold war many jews were on the forefront of anti-communist activities partly because communist in many nations was stocked with jews and stuff like the red scare was starting to take an anti-semitic tinge. shitting about how 'they aren't real jews' wouldn't have helped, the communist radicals had to get prosecuted and persecuted. and it was in the assimilated prosperous jewish communities of the west that the red jews took succor from, it wasn't like andover educated WASPs would know how to infiltrate the communist party USA.
Muslim Condemnation round up.
Lets start with the Muftis condemning the blasts in London
Top Dog - Saudi Arabia's grand mufti
Saudi Arabia's grand mufti strongly condemned the deadly blasts that rocked London
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050708/wl_mideast_afp/britainattacksreaxsaudiislam_050708131426
Grand Imam from Al Azhar, Egypt (arguably No.2 in Mufti rank))
Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi also denounced the bombings.
"Those responsible for London attacks are criminals who do not represent Islam or even truly understand (its message)," he told IOL.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=14639
Fireband pro Palestinian suicide bombing, probably one of the better know Arab Islamic 'scholar'- Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
We were dumbfounded by the grave news of the London bombings which killed tens and wounded hundreds of innocent people who committed no crime," prominent scholar told IslamOnline.net.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=14639
Now for 'terrorist'/radical groups condemning the Blasts in London.
Hamas
"Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected," Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chief of Hamas's political bureau, told Reuters in Damascus.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=14639
Hizbullah
A Hizbullah statement on the blasts denounced such attacks on civilians, citing humanitarian, moral and religious grounds.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16595
PLO
The Palestinian Authority denounced the attacks
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16595
Some UK Muslim groups
Mulsim leaders t Finsbury Park mosk condemn attack
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=KI815035C&news_headline=mulsim_leaders_t_finsbury_park_mosk_condemn_attack
Muslim leaders in Britain have condemned the series of four bomb blasts in London
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1409734.htm
Australian Muslim groups
Australian Moslems condemn London terror attacks
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/article_1032069.php/Australian_Moslems_condemn_London_terror_attacks
Australia's Muslim community has unanimously condemned the London bombings
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Victorian-Muslims-condemn-attacks/2005/07/08/1120704526925.html?oneclick=true
Our neighbors up North Condemn too !
U.S. and Canadian Muslim groups condemned Thursday's subway and bus bombings in London, which killed at least 33 people.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050707-14550300-bc-britain-explosions-muslimreact.xml
Of course the representatives of all Muslim majority nations have condemned the attacks including Iran and Syria but they are too boring to post here.
I don't want to see routine statements released by the same Muslim organizations after each terrorist attack, I want to see them before. I want to see them routinely. I want to see them after a bus attack in Israel or an attack in Kashmir. I want to see people march against terror in the same kinds of numbers as marched against the war in Iraq. I want people to stop sending money to organizations that don't have a clear paper trail. I want people to not turn the other way when inflammatory rhetoric is used again and again in meetings and in mosques. Most of my Muslim friends are moderates, but they seem so afraid to speak out. They seem so afraid to say anything against the radicals, perhaps for fear of being targeted themselves, but also because there seems to be this sense of: "well, this is how I am a good Muslim. I won't say anything." (Yes, I know this is only my anecdotal experience and it would be wrong to generalize from it). The Pakistani and Syrian and Jordanian Americans I know just seem so cowed by it all. They are so angry at Israel, but if you say: why don't you speak out against the Pakistani or Syrian or Jordanian government, you are here safe in the West and so is your family, they just stay silent. Why? Why? I even had one Syrian friend tell me: well, we are Arab brothers. I can't criticize them (Again, I'm only talking about the people I know and am not trying to extrapolate to all.....this is just my experience.)
I've never been afraid being brown in this country: never. I never even give it a second thought. I've never personally had a problem. Ever. I asked my father, who has strong accent and a heavy beard and is much more brown than I am, if he has ever had a problem flying and he says: no. Never. He flys all the time. Why is it that no one in my extended family has had a problem? Just good luck? Randomness? Will it happen to me some day? I know one thing. My family loves it in America, mixes with everyone freely (we used to laugh at those desis who confine themselves only to socializing with other desis and then complain that Americans 'ignore' them), and it just seems so comfortable in our adopted home. I really feel sorry for those desis who have had negative experiences. I really do.
I don't know what I'm trying to say. I guess I'm just tired of the whole brown thing. I am so much more of an individual than that. So much more.
AM,
the condemnations don't surprise me. i doubt very many muslims take active pleasure in these sort of attacks (the only exception might be bombings in israel, which there seems to be a much greater level of equivocation). the problem for me is this: if they are so angered by attacks against their fellow citizens, more should volunteer in the front lines against the slanderers of islam. the reasons are partly selfish (muslims face backlash), but also because they are the most able to infiltrate and subborn the radical networks because of their cultural fluency. i know some muslims have volunteered for such activities, and perhaps there is more going on in the background that we don't know about it, but there needs to be more (the bombings are proof of that i would argue).
hell, i would volunteer, but
1) i'm not an arab, and arabs seem to be leaders and movers in these groups.
2) my footprint as an avowed atheist (i was VP of a college atheist club, my blog, my picture, etc. etc. are pretty easy to get at) makes it untenable.
as they say, the blood of your enemy makes you stronger....
p.s. the idea that religious minorities might not be 'loyal' is not new. in the war between prussia and austria the lutheran junker officer corps of prussia was not totally convinced of the loyalty of the bavarian units against fellow catholic germans (the austrian empire was dominated by german catholics). but the bavarians demonstrated their loyalty to the little german state against austria-hungary (little germany as opposed to greater germany, which included austria).
also, i face a little of the backlash (brown, "muslim name"*), but living in a 95%+ white area i haven't had any problems. perhaps it's just my good looks, but i think on the rank order of concerns i'm more worried about day-to-day errands than redneck thugs.
* my open atheism dispells anyway ideas that people might have that i'm a muslim, though more often they think i'm hindu initially in any case.
Ever. I asked my father, who has strong accent and a heavy beard and is much more brown than I am, if he has ever had a problem flying and he says: no. Never. He flys all the time.
He probably does not look Arab. I dont think darker Indians generally get confused for Arabs.
I don't want to see routine statements released by the same Muslim organizations after each terrorist attack
Thats exactly why I have posted them to show how meaningless they are. Imagine Hamas condemning attacks on civilians ! Qaradawi who has written legal justifications for attacks on Israeli civilians condemned these attacks in London too. However there is an obsession with the Right Wing in America on how 'muslims' dont condemn these attacks. Its silly and the condemnations mean nothing.
I want to see people march against terror in the same kinds of numbers as marched against the war in Iraq
They probably will start doing that soon. I would imagine they are going to do that soon in UK. In US the Muslims are widespread and not organized so it might be harder for them to have a march.
This probably doesn't need a comment...
That bastion of journalism, The Sun, has sounded off on the blasts.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2005310398,00.html
Choice excerpts:
Britain is crawling with suspected terrorists and those who give them succour. The Government must act without delay, round up this enemy in our midst and lock them in internment camps.
Our safety must not play second fiddle to their supposed rights.
Nor must those who preach foul sermons on our streets be allowed to do so any longer.
Free speech is precious, but these wicked men mock our tolerance.
Al Muhajid, you make a very good a point. I don't think he looks very Arab to people who would know the difference. I suppose if he wore a turban he might have had a different experience. I suppose we are very 'Westernized', which makes a difference in how we are treated. I sincerely hope the marching starts soon.......
Arrrgh, sorry Al M. I can never, never spell. I think I'm dyslexic. Honestly.
I would imagine they are going to do that soon in UK.
well, i recall that there were regular marches in ireland whenever the IRA got WAY out of control. and this was in a nation that the IRA claimed to represented, not even the irish catholic minority of ulster.
Setting aside the media reports, I have personally encountered: 1) people who were repeatedly on the way to the masjid; 2) the aftermath of two bangladeshi men who were killed in and around working-class New York; 3) being called a dothead in a bar on the lower east side and then told that it was okay because (to paraphrase) "you're brown and i'm white"; 4) police harrassment when I tried to monitor the civil liberties of a White couple getting arrested--I don't think the harassment was race based but given that I was wearing a kurta, you never know; 5) some of the many people who either personally or in their families were subjected to government sponsored discrimination against people from Muslim countries (like special registration) which tore apart their lives by separating their families, etc. thorugh policies like Special Registration, which investigated upwards of 80,000 people and attempted to deporte at least 14,000--and that's just the tip of the iceberg 6) people who were subjected to questioning about personal matters like their faith, their political views, etc., because they happened to be of a particular immigartion status; 7) someone who was taken off a plane not once but multiple times because his name resembled the name of someone on the no-fly list.
There are other examples I could come up with, but I think it really is the case that you are "fortunate"--in the sense that you probably have other factors which mitigate any problems you might have, whether it's geogrpahic locale, a sunny personality, gender, religion, citizenship status, wealth, professional status, language proficiency, or some other thing. I know that what little I faced or have faced in the past (and it really is very little) pales in comparison to what other people face on a daily basis.
I understand your fatigue with it--I think sometimes people overfocus on their own outrage over incidents that don't necessarily have the same direct consequences without looking at the overall picture, where lots of people (thousands, tens of thousands, over a hudnred thousand?) have had their lives disrupted--or in many cases destroyed--because of profiling or some other thing. And the media, which harps on particular incidents without ever really giving you a solid analyiss of what's going on and how it ties into what was going on before 2001.
But in the end, it should not really be about being brown just like the people affected most harshy as much as being sympathetic to people who are being persecuted, for whatever reason (and I know your'e a nice person and probably are). Usually, the people we're talking about above were being treated badly before (for ex, I met a dude last week that works 84 horus a week, 12 hours x 7 days standing outside a grocery--he wears muslim headgarb and has a long beard and "looks Muslim." so I can't imagine his life will get any easier in the coming weeks--although maybe he had nothing happen to him either), and this just adds to their woes. I ought to feel no less sympathy for Latino people who get stopped at a police checkpoint and then put into deport proceedings, or immigrants that get jailed on immigration charges and denied the right to habeas corpus, or Black people who get beaten up and killed for their i-pods.
On denunciations:
Now that we've established that major Muslim groups in the U.S. are denouncing the terrorist bombings, I would like to see some counterexamples of how neocon groups or other hardcore supporters of the "War on Terror" have denounced the tens of thousands (if not over 100,000) Iraqi civilian casualties in the war or, at minimum, the Abu Ghraib scandal and similar abuses.
Since we're playing this game.
October 1995, getting out of a WalMart store (I wont name the place, somewhere in south) A guy looked at me and said "Mohammed Go home". At first I didnt understand what he meant, or what just happened. I had been in the US for less than a year (I am a brown non-muslim). When I got home I realized what just happened.
I had a lot of different feelings after that.
I think I became much more interested in the US politics after that.
S,
does equivalence like that get us anywhere? what about the millions of shia and kurds who are no longer an oppressed majority in their own country? someone who knows better can do a full accounting of the cost vs. benefit.
Touche!
You're right, Iraq is a much better place to live in now than 4 years ago. [insert KXB's tongue-in-cheek drawing here]My primary point wasn't an equivalence between the Iraq War and nongovernmental attacks like the one yesterday--they're different things. I'd still argue though, that whether you support or oppose, it's pretty clear that Secretary Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, and their friends in the thinktank world bear more responsibility for civilian deaths in Iraq and abuses like Abu Ghraib than CAIR or ISNA do for Al Qaeda or similar Islamist attacks. If you want to take a different example, how about asking Rumsfeld or other people who are in the current Bush Administration to apologize for Saddam Hussein's actions?
My comment was kind of a backhanded way of saying that demanding that Muslims apologize for these actions is unfair and perpetuates the idea that they're somehow all responsible. If one is going to engage in the game of condemning groups for not condemning others they have little to no connection with, then why stop at Muslims? And furthermore, why not actually go after people who played a much stronger role in the perpetration of atrocities and are currently walking around scot-free?
My comment was kind of a backhanded way of saying that demanding that Muslims apologize for these actions is unfair and perpetuates the idea that they're somehow all responsible.
yeah, well, i tend to agree. but as i imply above, actions speak louder than words. a march and or a plan of anti-islamist action would count for a thousand apologies. as it is now i think the perception is that many muslim communities in the west just want to be left alone and aren't really fully integrated into the public fora.
actions speak louder than words. a march and or a plan of anti-islamist action would count for a thousand apologies
In the short run yes. However if America gets hit again by Islamist terrorists no one will remember the apologies.
The Japanese Americans could have marched all they wanted but would have been sent to internment camps anyway. (not suggesting that Muslims will be sent there too, atleast not till all the other options are exhausted)
However this does not mean that Muslims should not march. I am not sure how the Muslims can pull off a march though. Around 40% of the American Muslim population is Desi. They are the least active politically in the Muslim American Community. Arabs are at the forefront of American Muslim politics in the US. I guess the Arabs could start marching just like they started marching and dancing in Mi when Saddam was deposed.
I guess with all the options available to Muslims, marching out against terrorism is probabaly the safest and the best.
One good place to start would be to quit saying 'Yes we condemn terrorism BUT.....'.
There should be no 'but'. There is no need to pontificate on the wider context of the attack.
The Japanese Americans could have marched all they wanted but would have been sent to internment camps anyway.
the ones who lived in the western united states. the few who lived in the east and the majority who lived in hawaii were not interned. i only point out that point because these discussion seem to devolve into cookie-cutter caricatures.
i heard no one showed up for this march. this could be less anti-anti-islamism than simple apathy. but in these days apathy is not acceptable.
Just wanted to mention this, one of Saadat Hasan Manto's shortest stories of Partition, Resting Time (trans. Khalid Hassan):
And Salman Rushdie in The Moor's Last Sigh, after the Bombay riots of 1993:Hi,
I just want to let you know that I found al-Mujahid's condemnation round-up very useful indeed, and have used it in a contribution to a forum which I am a member of.
The demands for Muslim denunciations are set to start cranking up in the Australian press any day now, yet the sheer weight of Muslim condemnation of such attacks just goes unreported.
Thanks, and cheers for a great site.
Do you have a source for this? wikipedia seems to say that the Military exclusion zones included the entire east coast as well. Anyway weren't the majority of Japanese living in the West?
Lastly, exactly what proposition are you supporting here? That 100,000 Japanese weren't forced into internment camps against their will? I don't get what is so cookie-cutter caricaturish about noting this piece of history in an analogous context.
The real problem is that the kaffir-world, in my unsubstantiated opinion, is beginning to realize that the jihadis have Islamic theological justification on their side. You know the whole bit from Ibn Warraq - the later more violent Koranic verses that abrogate the earlier more benign ones, hadiths that are sahi, isnad etc. I am coming to the conclusion that the reason the response of the moderates is so muted is because the moderates know that they don't have Islamic theological weight behind them.
Marches will help, but what will help even more is coming up with a theological argument that destroys the jihadis' case. I am curious about what arguments rooted in Islamic theology, if any, the "Top Dog - Saudi Arabia's grand mufti" used to denounce these attacks.
Hope whoever does the denouncing can come up with soemthing other than "this is not real Islam......". Man, that's one overworked phrase.
What should be the new phrase then? A spade will be called a spade even the umpteenth time. Note, whether it is a spade at all to some, is subjective and can be debated. But for people who believe it's a spade, and use it as such, what else will they call it?
This post, and the heavy discussion about whether Muslims organizations should denounce it or not, before or after, Middle East orgzns or Western, how many litres of tears to denounce, and in what way, just press releases would do or marching on streets is the ultimate litmus test. It's thought-provoking. Post Ayodhya, in my growing up days, I always used to wonder, why was I expected to prove my Indianness every time some dolts bursted firecrackers when Pak beat India in cricket match. I mean, I could speak better Marathi and got more marks than Senapatis-of-soils. Why was I consciously aware while praising Azhar's running between the wkts in his hey-days?
At the same time, attacks such as these are not cricket matches. It involves lives of innocent people. So yes, I believe there should be as much noise generated for every Ayodhya, London, WTC, Madrid, AbuGhraib what have you. Unfortunately the rise in frequency of such attacks is so prolific, that the denouncers are either panting, or made to look like programmed robots to whisk out a press release every time such a thing happens.
! I think Muslim communities have shown greater love for the United States than the United States has shown for Muslim communities in the past four years.
this is where we simply live in different empirical worlds. i think there have been injustices against muslims, but i think they are balanced out by the fact that americans have been very tolerant in comparison to reactions by other peoples in other times to the militant activities of a subset of a particular community. very few muslims are terrorists, but very many terrorists are muslim. i do agree we should all aim for a more perfect world, but we live in one where there is scarcity, not only of goods, but good will and intention. comparisons give us a sense of context and perspective.
to take a step back, i think there are issues with being both patriotic and religious. this is one reason that machiavelli leaned toward an argument for pagan religion as more compatible with republican patriotism as opposed to christian monotheism, which focused on a transnational god (and specifically in that time and place, a translational pope-prince).
i have expressed my egoism before, but if i have secondary affinities and affiliations they were partly rooted in my nationality. i have asked my jewish friends to pick between israel and the USA if they had to, and saw how some would pick america and some would pick israel ('what if one nation had to be destroyed?'). if was asked to pick between bangladesh and the USA, i would pick the USA. this is a reductio ad absurdum, but in the end, it smokes out the issues. the details of patriotism can sometimes confound, most of the jacobites who supported the stuart catholic kings were protestants who had to balance their religion against their belief in the divine right of monarchs. they made the imperfect choice, their king before their god.
so, going beyond the specifics, would muslim kill muslim in the service of the american polity? i hope so. would catholic kill catholic in the service of american polity? today i think that is so, though perhaps not in past generations. ultimately american muslims must identify first with this nation, not with the nation of muslims in the ummah. their task is harder than evangelical christians since they can identify with the levers of power as evangelical, no choice is asked of them. but for minority religions this isn't always so, they get the shaft, but all states of citizenship are not above average. my personal experience is that we aren't there yet, islam is still rooted in an international sensibility. i think most americans perceive this.
and i freely grant you all the injustices you note, but the maw of the devil's grinder it's a pittance. i have great reservations toward the leviathan gov. that straddles this country and its policies, but it's the best hope that i can see for liberty, no matter whether it treats us justly or not.
I am coming to the conclusion that the reason the response of the moderates is so muted is because the moderates know that they don't have Islamic theological weight behind them.
Marches will help, but what will help even more is coming up with a theological argument that destroys the jihadis' case. I am curious about what arguments rooted in Islamic theology, if any, the "Top Dog - Saudi Arabia's grand mufti" used to denounce these attacks.
1) my experience with family, who are mostly "moderate muslims" of hanfai lineage (with many imams among them) is that they detest violence. when i recently visited them in bangladesh two of my uncles who are very religious (one an imam, the other a tablighi) expressed positive attitudes toward the USA, and asserted it was the "easiest country in the world to be a good muslim." nevertheless, there is also a disturbing tendency to cede the high ground to hot-heads and radicals when they come on the scene.
2) i don't think texts are really that important in the shaping of a religion. you can convince religious people anything basically, and once convinced, they'll stick to it contra all evidence.* it is a matter of social consensus, if everyone says "the sky is green" because god made it that way, all of a sudden it is green.
* a few years ago psychologists did an experiment where they told some evangelical test subjects that some scrolls had been translated from the dead sea, and they had them read it. the scrolls (fake) had a list of assertions which plainly falsified christianity (records of jesus as a conventional pharisaec rabbi, etc.). the test subjects were told the scrolls were authoritative and totally confirmed by archeology. when asked if they believed the scrolls, the subjects said "of course." when they asked how it made them feel toward their religion, they responded that it made their faith stronger. my point is that religious truth claims only present the facade of propositional logic, they actually exist outside it and are pretty inelastic in the face of logic or evidence.
So you've presented how the people with more political and economic power (and are, in addition, the majority) have treated the people with less power better than others in similar circumstances have done. How is this relevant to how people will react to the specifics of the day? Yes, I haven't heard of anyone being $hot for not standing up during the singing of the national anthem, as reportedly happened during WWI at a baseball game, but that doesn't mean that morally or politically the approach that state, local, and federal government have taken is morally or strategically defensible.
The kinds of overreactions and just flat-out foolhardy decisions they made are unlikely to increase the support of the Muslims who are being targeted (despite that those Muslims and others from their countries continue to show support for the American polity).
I think american muslims need to ultimately identify with the underlying values of tolerance, compassion, civic participation, nonviolent dispute resolution, fairness, honesty about politics and history, etc. Just like the rest of us--some people do this in every faith and belief tradition. That doesn't mean that they need to pledge allegiance to the American state--and the American state has done a great deal to polarize this situation so that it feels like you have to pick one side or the other (with the added problem that they've pursued policies that would systematically alienate a thinking Muslim in the United States, imo). Nor do American Muslims need to identify with an overarching sense of Muslim unity.
By similarly posing a polarizing choice, I think you're making it more difficult to struggle to find commonalities that transcend identity and speak to an underlying sense of "yes, I have brothers, yes I have a mother, yes I have partners, yes I have sex, yes, I eat, sleep, $hit, think, blah blah blah)." I'm not saying that this will ever be the pervasive culture and sensibility of the world (or even that I'll be able to live up to it), but that this is what, socially, we need to strive towards--especially now when it's so thoroughly under attack. Ultimately, it makes more sense to buy into a notion of common humanity than to buy into one side or another in a dispute that's really about the power of nations vs. the power of elites that have been excluded from national power (among other things).
Marches will help, but what will help even more is coming up with a theological argument that destroys the jihadis' case. I am curious about what arguments rooted in Islamic theology,
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the Chief Imam of Al Azhar and Qaradawi have pretty much used the same logic to denounce the attacks.
The Grand Imam of Al Azhar in Egypt and the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia are appointed by the respected goverments in these two countries and I wonder about their ability to speak freely.
However I am going to post here the rationale against these kind of bombings by Qaradawi because Qaradawi has tremendous street cred with the Arab masses. He of course is an Arab and has/used to have an Islamic show on Al Jazeera.
1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People
Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the states subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.
In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even in case of war, Islam does not permit killing those who are not involved in fighting, such as women, children, the aged, and the monks who confine themselves to worship only.
This shouldnt raise any wonder, for Islam is a religion that prohibits aggression even against animals. Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, quote the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as saying: "A woman (was made to) enter (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
If such is Islamic ruling concerning aggressive acts against animals, then, with greater reason, the punishment is bond to be severe when human being happens to be the victim of aggression, torture and terrorism.
2. Individual Responsibility
In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives. This is the ultimate form of justice, clarified in the Glorious Qur'an, as Allah, Most High, says, (Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses and Abraham who fulfilled (the commandments): That no laden one shall bear another's load. ) (An-Najm 53: 36-38)
Therefore, its very disgusting to see some people who are Muslims by name launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have with the states authority!! What is the crime of the common people then?! Murder is one of heinous crimes completely abhorred in Islam, to the extent that some Muslim scholars hold the opinion that the repentance of the murderer will not be accepted by Allah, Most High. In this context, we recall the Glorious Qur'anic verse that reads, ( if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people) (Al-Ma'idah 5: 32)
3. Ends Do not Justify Means
In Islam, the notion End justifies the means has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means, and, therefore, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not Halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good."
Thus, in Shari`ah, with all its sources the Glorious Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden.
Besides, it is the duty of the Muslim scholars to do their utmost to guide the perplexed people to the straight and upright path.
Now it has to be noted that Qaradawi has supported violently resisting the Americans in Iraq and has also stated that there are no civilians in Israel because they all have to go through mandatory military service. I am not sure how he reconciles those views with this 'fatwa'.
I am not sure how he reconciles those views with this 'fatwa'.
oh, you wouldn't understand irtidad.
How is this relevant to how people will react to the specifics of the day?
the 'good life' is contingent on relative observations of state. american poverty is not bangladesh poverty. american wealth is not bangladesh wealth (though as far as wealth, they are not exactly pointing in the same direction, bangladeshis have many more servants per capita). i believe we must keep in mind both the most perfect island and the reality of the human condition as it is lived. the past and other spatial contexts do not justify fully my perception of the world, but they do inform my weighting of the issues at hand and the magnitude of the various principles on the final summation.
I think american muslims need to ultimately identify with the underlying values of tolerance, compassion, civic participation, nonviolent dispute resolution, fairness, honesty about politics and history, etc. Just like the rest of us--some people do this in every faith and belief tradition. That doesn't mean that they need to pledge allegiance to the American state
1) the values are not equally distributed amongst peoples who adhere to different religions. consider the median unitarian vs. the median muslim. all movement toward utopia is not at the same rate or velocity.
2) process matters. you can not achieve the ends without some means, and i believe the nation-state is our best hope. and so yes, sometimes a smaller injustice is necessacitated by a larger good at the end of the dark tunnel. love the state that hates you so that your children may breath free. love the people that hate you so that their children may see the virtue in your brood. from the blood of the martyrs the church was born, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots. ok, that was over-dramatic, but as a former hardcore libertarian i have made my pact with the evil state which compels me to forgo some of my pleasure seeking activities in the services of the greater good. for shame! the injustice. but so it is....
"In the name of New York, Washington, Bali, Nairobi, Madrid and now London, we shall have vengeance and justice"
That was from the Sun article referred earlier. I guess thats all what "they" want too. Cross purposes?
I hear a few people talking about how the 'moderate' muslims should denounce such acts.
Then I hear the same people saying that they (the moderates) don't 'act' but just 'talk' because they don't want to get involved with anything bad.
But then isn't that the very purpose of the so-called denouncement you are talking about?
To distance themselves...
By being a 'moderate' muslim, you resign the right to use religion for your argument. There in lies the flaw.
better than marching.
If we were conducting a historical evaluation on the ways in which the American state (and its components) have reacted to the attacks in 2001, then I would agree. However, I was looking at their actions in the context of the options available to them as well as (and perhaps more importantly for the point at hand) whether or not the actions they undertook were more or less likely to garner support from Muslims in the United States. You can exonerate the United States by looking at history or what actions a government like Syria's (or even Bangladesh's) would have undertaken given a similar circumstances, but the fact remains that the federal government gave only lip service (and to be fair the prosecutions of some bias crimes) while at the same time fostering a climate of anti-Muslim (and xenophobic) sentiment through their actions. They didn't have to do this to the extent that they did (hence I brought up Louis Post, who held some of the powers that Ashcroft and later the Secretary of Homeland Security held in the present, and used them far more fairly).
One extreme frustration I had while I was helping people deal with Special Registration was that even if you believed that rounding up Muslims was a good idea, why would you do it in a way that provided no carrot, but only a stick? Don't you think more people might have showed up if there had been some respect shown for people risking their well being by showing up rather than fleeing the country? Or was that the point?
I shouldn't keep harping on Special Registration if only because I don't want to overshadow the many, many other examples of targeting by the government. All I'm saying is that it's understandable for people from Muslim communities to be a little apprehensive about dealing with the government these days; that's probably why some people are afraid to call the police or the fire department, at the risk of their own lives. But my (uninformed) guess is that the level of cooperation is probably a lot higher than it would be if they were a little more cynical...or informed.
I don't believe in teleological solutions. I believe that if we pursue values that will help, it will probably lead to a better outcome regardless of whether we understand the specifics of what that will look like (and come up with policy solutions for near term solutions as we go). If there is more work to be done in some communities or places than others, then so be it. The fact remains that the work needs to be done on those grounds in all those places.
As you can see above, I agree with the first part of what you said. I have had to reconcile myself to the state too (e.g. my stand on protectionist American labor unions has shifted markedly because I think creating a progressive culture within the United States will ultimately have greater results than a paternalistic imperialism driven by consumer activism in helping foreign workers and more generally making American foreign policy more benign).
The difference, though, is that I read what you were saying as asking people for loyalty to the American state; that's far different from asking people to serve an effective and important role within the United States. Nation states exist and we need to deal with them, but they're just political units--places where different interests play themselves out (usually elite, and not so great interests).
Where you call for a smaller injustice, I say that by promoting justice for themselves within the United States, building alliances with other groups that are facing similar issues (e.g. Black people and other immigrants through the War on Drugs, police harassment, and other measures), they'll be doing more good than by joining the American government in its tunnel vision approach to terrorism. There's no need to choose sides here politically when one side embraces death as a tactic and the other refuses to engage the problem as it really is and grant a modicum of nuance and humanity to its thinking about it. To the extent that we succumb to that polarization ("crusaders", "evildoers", blah blah blah) and abandon pushing basic measures of political decency, the worse off we all are. I don't see any contradiction in supporting women's rights in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which I was doing before it was en vogue among Islamaphobes) and opposing the U.S. government's approach to the "War on Terror." In fact, a responsible approach makes both of them incumbent on us.
The blood of patriots rarely produces anything except the blood of patriots of other countries (btw, that quote is more appropriately read as an encouragement of domestic activism, not a call to join the state in ending tyranny elsewhere). It's much better to, as you suggest, focus on process--when it's necessary to take up arms, it will be quite clear because all other solutions have been exhausted.
btw, that quote is more appropriately read as an encouragement of domestic activism, not a call to join the state in ending tyranny elsewhere
hm. well yes, i assumed it was intelligible in the context of both the french revolution and the whiskey rebellion. but in any case, you seem to misunderstand me, or, we are talking past each other. i'm not particular concerned with the 'war on terror' or foreign policy. muslims can be active all they want in terms of militating for their god given rights. my point is that for a CAIR they should also be a muslim american legion. certainly that is a bit much, seeing as how muslims are a recent immigrant group, but the fact remains that muslims as a group can do a lot to help prevent terrorists from attacking their country, their fellow citizens. the terrorists use muslim community contacts and good-will to latch on to a safe harbor. if i was arguing that muslims should support the war on iraq, or stick by my country right or wrong, your rebuttal would be spot on, but i'm not arguing that at all. muslims can provide services to their country at minimal cost to themselves, i'm not suggesting they go to afghanistan or iraq, there is a need from what i gather for human intelligence within western nations where immigrant enclaves are operationally societies within societies.
I wait now for the million man march by muslimns to protest those who are bring hatred upon their religion...thus far, nearly all the statements that are from muslims and oppose the terror manage to also include statements about how muslims are picked on and how American policy is in some measure responsible. Focus upon the simple fact: terror world-wide is carried out by those claiming to be followers of Islam. Those who are Muslims and feel terror and murder is wrong have yet to make their viewws massively heard. Now is the time for groups to march in solidarity and proclaim their disdain for terror. Will it happen? NO. Why? yo answer.
Yes, I felt like we weren't really talking about the same thing.
Anyway, it's a two way street. Many folks start out willing to help out, meet with the FBI (which is crazy) and what not, but then when you have had several years of these policies kick in that targeted entire communities, etc., it changes things. The federal government's policies (and especially, imo, the encouragement of local and state police collaboration with federal immigration enforcement) have probably had a really damaging effect on people's willingness to snitch on people who are really dangerous. Especially when snitching might get you prosecuted and/or deported because you gave someone a place to stay at night or otherwise helped them out in the ways that working class immigrants help each other. If the federal government had been less psychotic, I think you would have seen even more cooperation from Muslim communities (which, again, I believe already exists to a significant degree on an organizational level-- for example, CAIR recently helped organize yet another community forum in New York where the FBI got to say whatever they wanted to to people in the neighborhood). See this article on what's going on in Lodi--if you were a member of that community, would you feel comfortable approaching the FBI?
That's what I mean by it being unfair to make these demands on Muslim communities without appreciating that the federal enforcement agencies and state and local police have done little to build or encourage that trust (setting aside the larger issue of how people with engineering degrees and the such are treated when they come here and work as undocumented immigrants). Intelligent law enforcement officials at all levels have been saying this all along, but they've been ignored. It's hard to swallow someone asking Muslim communities to support "their country, their fellow citizens" (setting aside questions of citizenship for a moment) when they're being set apart, targeted, and generally treated as threats.
But I think many Muslims in the US do it anyway to a greater degree than I would have under similar circumstances, for reasons that I can't fully comprehend. Perhaps they're just nicer. Or more naive.
As a postscript, I got an e-mail that described how some immigrant workers on a military base were rounded up this past week and what one government employee sees as the effect on trust (emphasis added):
A nice article that further amplifies the Islam vs. Islam point that Abhi made in his post - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/international/europe/10neighborhood.html?hp
Well put, AM. Nothing like fear to squash free & forward thinking.
I like Friedmans Column in the New York times this week.
Excerpt
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.
When the USA attacks Fallauja and kills hundreds of innocent people, then does not allow the red cross/crescent to go in, knowing too well what they will find there. The USA has not changed in reality from one that was built on the destruction(murder and rape) of the native americans, The one that allowed the servicemen who raped and murdered an entire village(mi-lai)to getaway scott free. This is the USA that allowed all the police oficers in the Rodney King trial to getaway scott free(even with video evidence).
This is the USA that holds people under detention in Guantanamo under the term 'illegal combatants', this term is not legal itself.
The USA is not a signatory to the world court in the Hague, because it knows that many of its policies in war are illegal by world definition.
The USA asks other nations like India and Pakistan to sign the NPT, while in no way pushing Israel to do the same.
The USA is threatening Iran and wants to take it before the security council because the USA 'suspects' Iran of wanting nuclear weapons(which USA seems to have a right to posses),While it knows of Israels nuclear arsenal and helps it further to develop weapons.
Americans complain of others hating them, this is not the case, because people want to live and work in the west. In actual fact its you and your government which goes around causing major mayhem and destruction. So people want to emigrate to the USA to escape this destruction.
I see some people whinning that muslims should be more vocal in their condemnation of the terorists. Let me tell you that they are , just because you as a person or society don't hear about it does'nt mean that the condemnation of such acts does not occur.
Most of the major US media tows the Flag waving agenda, and cry ignorance when it suits them.
I don't know if it counts as a major cleric, but muslim clerics in spain did issue a fatwa against Bin Laden following the Madrid train bombings.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/11/madrid.anniversary/