Selective Muslim Criticism
Dean
Via Dave Schuler, I recently came across an interesting, somewhat frustrating, article by Judith Apter Klinghoffer: Selective Muslim Silence.
What I liked about the piece was that it was right on target noting the hypocricy of many muslim-dominated regimes, and some muslim leaders. What I didn't like was its frequent blurring of the lines between Arabs and muslims, and between private and government action. For example, Iran is not an Arab nation, and most of its people do not speak Arabic. Also, it's more than a little hypocritical for someone to note how others are being selective in their examples, and then to be very selective yourself in your own examples.
Those of us who continue to support the effort to help Iraq reform itself into a stable democratic regime are often frustrated at an American press corps that does little besides report death and mayhem without providing any sane historical context for these things--like the fact that our casualty rate is much lower than predicted when we went in and is tiny by historical standards, or that most of the country is stable and peaceful, or that the fascist enemy primarily targets innocent civilians.
So why would we not similarly criticize those who are selective in their criticism of muslims? Klinghoffer's piece makes no distinction between governments of muslim dominated states and everyday muslims, makes no distinction between Arabs and muslims, and completely fails to note any significant muslim individuals or organizations who do not fit her template.
Of course, part of that may be a symptom of the same incredibly lazy and stupid American press corps that can't report on Iraq properly: they apparently can't report on the muslim world properly either, because we so rarely hear about any muslims who aren't either outright evil or tained with apologism for it.
There is obviously a crisis going on in the islamic world between radicals, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, and there are especially conflicts between those muslims who want to look forward and those who want to look backward. Osama Bin Laden certainly has his friends and his apologists in the muslim world. But he has enemies in that world too, people who deplore what he and other terrorists and intolerant babboons stand for, and it's important that more people know about them. Would that Klinghoffer had found it worth her time to at least look for and mention a few.
Here are some links everyone should know about, links that you won't find posted on Little Green Footballs any time soon since they don't play very well into the neverending screed of Islam as the implacable enemy:
Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (be sure to check out their latest newsletter here).
One way to lose the war on terrorism is to send a message to muslims like these that they are liars, fakers, and fools. It's also a great way to be a flaming hypocrite. How can you support building pluralist democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then spit on any muslims who embrace the values of pluralism and democracy?
In Iran, Persians who support the puritanical Islamist government are often called "Arabs", I think because Khomeini's puritanical interpretation of Islam has more in common with Arab/Wahhabi Islam than with Persian Islam. Persian society is rich in culture, music and art - the antithesis of Saudi extremism. Persians have always had an aversion to what they believe is an ignorant, brutal society.
People who support this Arab-style Islam are also called Arab-Parasts. I think the definition of 'parast' is friend, but I'm not sure about that. It doesn't seem to be a complement.
Some Lebanese also refuse to be called Arabs, because they're opposed to the current alliance between totalitarian regimes like Syria and Islamist groups like Iran-sponsored Hebollah. These Lebanese, including Muslim Lebanese, also criticize Arab/Islamists as a group.
Other groups in the Middle East and Africa who have suffered as a result of Arab/Islamist ethnic cleansing criticize Arabs and Islamists as a group, because they do often work together.
The "peaceful" Muslim groups who condemn terrorism but support Sharia laws like this example of an year old being punished for theft (graphic content) are patient enough to wait until they can gain power to kill and oppress. People who live in the Middle East have seen them play this game before, and they identify these 'peaceful' groups as Arabs or Wahhabis.
We, on the other hand, are so happy that they don't want to blow up up, we'll give them all the power they want. Which probably isn't a good idea.
"One way to lose the war on terrorism is to send a message to muslims like these that they are liars, fakers, and fools."
I agree. Any Muslim who honestly repudiates terrorism and totalitarianism and embraces freedom as we know it in the West is all right in my book, and may well be a hero. We should start calling the terrorists and totalitarians liars and fakers instead.
For the Wahhabis, it never diverged, but it got sloppy with additions and subtractions over the years, thus a need to return to the original intent.
For the Shi'a, it diverged at the fourth Caliph, Ali. And within Shi'ism, the authenticity road split several other times, with some groups being more or less traditional.
"Some Lebanese refuse to be called Arabs" because they believe they are actually Phoenicians--who predated the Arabs in the region. Similarly, many Egyptians (mostly Copts) don't think they're Arab either, but instead the decendants of the Pharonic Egyptians. Even in N. Africa, there's an identity issue with some Tunisians calling themselves "Carthaginians" and Algerians and Moroccans calling themselves "Berber". (There are also migratory people who are generally identified as Berber. Lacking DNA tests to verify the ascertions, most people with experience in the region just nod their heads and avoid arguments.
These identity issues have been around much longer than radical Islam. To see them as a reflection of radical Islam is no doubt useful, but factually wrong.
I guess the recent Arab/Islamist campaigns of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East have exacerbated old tensions. The Kurds, blacks and Jews have issues too.
The lesson to draw from LGF is not that Muslims are bad, but that Arab societies have a greater tendency to be afflicted with fascist leaders and fascistic philosophies. Ignoring this problem will only make it worse. They need our help so that the moderates can prevail and build liberal democratic societies.
The point is, "loss" would be defined by our experiencing increasing terrorist attacks at home and responding by withdrawing entirely from the region.
"For example, Iran is not an Arab nation, and most of its people do not speak Arabic."
The very name "Iran" shows that it is in a completely different language family from the Arabs. Arabic is a Semitic language like Hebrew or Babylonian. "Iran" means "Aryan", as does "Erin" (Ireland). This is the Indo-European language family of which English is one, along with Gaelic, Latin, French, German, Greek, Russian, etc.. Yes, English is related to Sanskrit. The Aryans (Aryas, "noble ones") were the tribes from central Asia who swept into India and Persia around 1100 B.C.. Contrary to Nazi propaganda, Aryans were not blond and blue-eyed Nordics.
For some time, India and Iran shared the same polytheistic Vedic religion and culture until Zarathustra (Zoroaster) introduced his dualistic concept of a single good God (Ahura Mazda, Lord of Light) at war against a Devil (Angra Mainyu, Spirit of the Lie). After the Babylonian captivity, this dualism, along with belief in angels, a Savior, a coming Last Judgement, Heaven for the good and Hell for the wicked, entered Judaism and then Christianity, and later Islam.
"In Iran, Persians who support the puritanical Islamist government are often called "Arabs", I think because Khomeini's puritanical interpretation of Islam has more in common with Arab/Wahhabi Islam than with Persian Islam. Persian society is rich in culture, music and art - the antithesis of Saudi extremism. Persians have always had an aversion to what they believe is an ignorant, brutal society."
The Persian Empire was one of the most liberal empires in history. While they believed Zoroastrianism to be the true religion, they respected the religious freedom of the nations they conquered. They encouraged the Egyptians to continue worshipping Osiris, the Babylonians to continue worshipping Marduk, and they freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity and helped them rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
I don't think Israelis will give a flying f*** whether the people nuking them are Sunni or Shia. Ditto those who get blown to bits by some homicidal maniac elsewhere.
I do rather worry about people who criticise LGF too much. They preserve a valauble service of colating extremism and their apologists around the world. Why should we give fodder to the those who are apologists for Islamists in their attempts to portray it as Islamo-phobic and racists? Its neither it is in fact Islamist-realist in outlook.
I would rather the world be full of those that argue, but don't use little children to carry explosive vests (ala Iraq) or riot and burn cities (ala Paris), but that apparently is not how must Muslims choose to live. They pretend there are no problems, that all the bad things are just being picked on by Westerners that 'don't understand' their culture, their history, their lives. Bullshit. You keep yourself divided, stupid and unemployed. You keep up honor killings and gang rapes in Westernized countries, and you spout hatred of the countries that have given you freedom and jobs. Through the contining wanton stupidty of those within who's midst you live, you feed the corruption and despotism that breeds terrorists, even in the Western world. And then you get appologizers like CAIR that scream ZIONIST if anyone dares question why women in free societies are being butchered by their families for imagined slights (including RAPE) to presever family honor.
Blessedly the US is so far not the epicenter for this bullshit, but it is coming here more and more frequently. I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if there were riots on the scale, or larger, than Paris in the next decade. It will be 'inner city' Muslims that WANT to be terrorists and refuse to assimilate to their host nation. (I'm not talking quit being Muslim, so don't try that route.)
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddists, Taoists, Atheists, etc. have long made the US their home and we don't go out to butcher and rape women who have been seen to violate family honor. We accept that men are the rapists in a man-on-woman rape. Not that the woman asked for it by being out after dark without a male relative.
While there are those with the guts to stand up to the terrorists in their midsts, MILLIONS more keep quiet, just shy away, or outright scream tath Americans in general are tools of the JOOOOSSSSS if we don't agree with the continuing crime waves throughout our country and the Western world.
Only when the vast majority (there will always be those that claim the infadel is to blame and Islam is blameless) of self-proclaimed Muslims choose to take a stand, ala Free Muslims Coalition, will they come anywhere near trustworthy in my opinion. While I never have considered peaceful Muslims a lie, I do consider silent majority Muslims that look the other way at the gross abuses and destruction of their religion by their 'brothers and sisters' to be just as guilty as those hanging gays in the ME, those gang-raping women in Pakistan, and firebombing Temples in France.
If we're to be judged for remaining silent, as the entire Arab and Muslim world judges us (from Australian minority to Indonesian majority and the entire rot that is the ME governmental fascist structure), you get to play by the exact same rules you demand of us. So far, the Muslim and Arab world are loosing drastically, though there are those among it's members putting up an admirable, and commendable fight against the desecrations of Islam by self-styled followers.
I don't have two play cards, one for US and one for THEM. I have 1 play card for everyone. Don't like it? Don't care. Don't expect me to help out a Muslim charity when they're linked to terrorism and blowing up Jewish children on school busses or at Delis. Call me any vile name you want, really I don't give a shit what someone thinks of my opinions. Unlike the vast majority of the Muslim/Arab world my husband doesn't beat me for showing toes, or speaking my mind, nor would my society accept such behaviour from him.
As for 'good' Muslims, I don't give a crap if you call yourself Arab, Aryan, or Islmaic. Behave to your fellow human as though they are living creatures, not your servents or slaves (or worse yet things to be exterminated for not bowing and praying as you do) and we'll get on just fine. Try to excuse those among you that DO behave like that, you'll earn my wrath for it.
This tends to get certain people's knickers all wadded up encouraging them toward extremism of their own variety.
I don't think so. In fact, I call "Bullshit".
LGF encourages this lunacy by almost never saying anything positive about anything going on in that world. We're talking about a faith of over a billion people, found in hundreds of nations. If the entire faith were our enemy the globe would be filled with non-stop carnage.
LGF does focus on moderate Muslims who are oppressed by the extremists - and Charles has gotten a few moderate Muslim/Arab visitors who say positive things about his site.
I read LGF, but I've stopped reading the comments because they do get somewhat extreme sometimes. There is absolutely nothing to gain from painting all of Islam as 'the enemy'. First of all, they're not, second, there are no proven (non-totalitarian) tactics that are effective for fighting a religion, and third, it alienates the real moderates who could be our allies.
But many liberal moderates like Hirisi Ali and Irshad Manji also blame "Islam", not "extremists", for the current problems.
Do you suggest we leave it to the BBC or the illiberal establishment media to encourage their brand of extremism with selective anti-American criticism? Obviously not.
Sorry, I really don't see people declaring all muslims are dangerous and bad, except for idiots who are already marginalized. LGF doesn't deserve to be in that category.