On Islamo-fascism: Stating the Obvious

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My point is how can you judge an entire group of people on only news accounts and websites?

I could name 50 issues where the phrase "the silence is deafening" could apply.

I mean, what if someone wants to call Mormons racists? ETB saying the civil rights movement is evil. Denying blacks the priesthood. GBH recently calling out racism in the church. I've never seen one news release, not one protest, not a single march, etc. Should I then say that Mormons are racist?

Well, if a very visible group of LDS was engaged in racist activities and the rest of the LDS population was primariy engaged in critiqueing those opposed to that activity, one might rightly wonder whether LDS as a group were sympathetic to the racist views.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I mean, what if someone wants to call Mormons racists? ETB saying the civil rights movement is evil. Denying blacks the priesthood. GBH recently calling out racism in the church. I've never seen one news release, not one protest, not a single march, etc. Should I then say that Mormons are racist?

Good point Mike. A record exists and some people have inferred from that record that Mormons are racists. What has The Church done in response? Has there been deafening silence? A few things come to mind:

1) Developing local leadership, be it black, white, brown, or yellow. This is a long held practice of The Church and a little known strength to outsiders. My Stake's High Council is half black, the 1st councilor in the SP is black, until recently, two members of my Bishopric were black, my EQP is black. As The Church in France becomes blacker and browner, it will be harder and harder for any "racist" tag to stick.
2) Teaching against racism and prejudice (in GC and the curriculum)
3) Outreach to minority groups (regular Black Genealogy seminars and events at the Washington D.C. Temple Visitors Center, similar outreach events in Harlem, etc.)
4) PR effort to dispel rumors and bridge the gap (addressing the issue directly when confronted, MormonAds that are multicultural, even the clumsy practice of showing minority members of the MoTab over and over is an effort on the PR front to drive home the point that The Church is reaching out to all people).

Are moderate Islamic groups making similar efforts to dispel misperceptions if they exist? I'm sure they are doing something, but to what magnitude? Why aren't we better informed? A Million Man/Woman Muslim March Against Terrorism or something similar would go a long way to bridging the gap that exists. Perhaps they need to hire the same New York PR firm The Church retains.

The problem is that I suspect many moderate Muslims sympathize with the goals of their radical brethren (fight Israel and its U.S. benefactor, fight against damaging “Western Values,” increase the Muslim voice in world politics, even usher in an Islamic Renaissance). While not espousing the tactics, I don’t doubt that many feel some vindication when radical groups successfully carry out terrorist attacks against Israel and Western targets. Probably a little, “You reap what you sew, so live with it.” going on there.

In WWII there was significant distrust of Japanese-Americans, leading to injustices that I don’t think I need to list here. Those Japanese-Americans, in spite of the injustices, bridged the gap in a way that no one could dispute. Similar efforts from moderate Islam would be helpful.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Are moderate Islamic groups making similar efforts to dispel misperceptions if they exist? I'm sure they are doing something, but to what magnitude? Why aren't we better informed? A Million Man/Woman Muslim March Against Terrorism or something similar would go a long way to bridging the gap that exists. Perhaps they need to hire the same New York PR firm The Church retains.

The problem is that I suspect many moderate Muslims sympathize with the goals of their radical brethren (fight Israel and its U.S. benefactor, fight against damaging “Western Values,” increase the Muslim voice in world politics, even usher in an Islamic Renaissance). While not espousing the tactics, I don’t doubt that many feel some vindication when radical groups successfully carry out terrorist attacks against Israel and Western targets. Probably a little, “You reap what you sew, so live with it.” going on there.

The reason you don't see the marches is because while most muslims do not agree with terrorism, the agree with the anger that drives the terrorism. I think the "damaging western values" angle only plays a minor part. They see a series of injustices including the expulsion of Palestinians to form a Jewish state, money and power going to corrupt dynasties (Shah of Iran, Saud family, etc) put in power and maintained by western governments, U.S. foreign policy that is consistently viewed as anti-muslim, etc. And the "underdog" plays a huge role in Islamic culture. They love to cheer for the underdog who fights on against overwhelming odds. Hence the widespread sympathy for a guy like Bin Laden who takes on the greatest superpower in the history of the world.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

WOuld all of these statements still be accurate, in your opinion, if one limited them to those muslims adhering to Wahhabism or the more extreme shi'ite sects?

This is not meant as a rhetorical question, btw.

As part of my professional work I study world religions (I occasionally review articles for the Journal of Media & Religion). I have also been to the local mosque on a few occasions. This doesn't make me an expert, but I do know a few things and will address your question as best I can in brief. Rather than go point by point through my statements above, I'll address things generally and then we can move on from there if you like. I focus my reply on the Wahhabi's and will have to postpone commentary on radical Shi' ites for another occasion.

First I should clarify a few things:

“Wahhabi” is not a sect. In fact, the term refers to two distinct but related phenomena in Islam:

1) It’s a reform movement within Sunni Islam (sort of like the Charismatic and Evangelical movements in Christianity) that originated in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century and continues to have a geographic presence there. It also has an influence in some strains of Islamic thinking and has been twisted by some militant groups. In the last few decades Saudi Wahhabis and some Egyptian Salifs have found commonality and their movements overlap in some aspects. The teachings of this movement are fundamentalist, quite anti-intellectual, and mixed with some of the Bedouin folk tradition. Wahhabi Sunni’s (which is kind of like saying “Charismatic Protestants”) have been marginalized by many Sunni Muslims for their rural and theological backwardness, but retain an importance because of their wealth (which they have accrued through selling oil to the West) and their proximity to Mecca.

However, despite their backwardness they are not as extreme as many uninformed Western reporters and bigoted crackpot writers have made them out to be. Consider the following quotes from a Wahhabi leader concerning 9/11:

"...Hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide..."

Regarding the Egyptian Qutbist group who has members in al-Qaeda and the Taliban and who inspired Osama Bin Laden (and whom almost all Muslims consider to be “takfeer”—apostates):

“They are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salutations (salaam). Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil, since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of the Devil."- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

Wahhabi leaders have also made statements condemning suicide bombings.


Still, a few radical Qutbists have bastardized and militarized Salif and Wahhabi teachings and Muslims on the outside sometimes have difficulty discerning who’s who. And make no mistake—they very much want to make that distinction. Radical Qutbists have terrorized Muslims long before they went after the West.


2) Wahhabi is also a derogatory term that Muslims use in reference to “pseudo- Muslims and fanatical pseudo-Mulim terrorists” and “amusing uninformed overly-fundamentalist “Muslim red necks”—those in the Wahhabi movement or who seem like Wahhabis,” and in Mormon vernacular “Jack Muslims.” My wife and I are friends with a Sunni Muslim family from Jordan (the father is working on a PhD in Statistics) and we’ve heard them use the term both in jest and as a serious condemnation (of Bin Ladin, actually).

This second use of the term by Muslims has contributed to unending confusion in the Western Press. When interviewed about some military action by a few extremists by the press (almost the only time Muslims are in the media), Muslims try to distance Islam from the wackos by referring to them as Wahhabi. To them in this context it means “pseudo-Muslim-fanatic-terrorist” but journalists have taken it to be a radical Islamic sect. The terrorists, of course, try to take advantage of the confusion and of Western ignorance. They use it as a cover.

When American Muslims express a desire to have Wahhabi teachings made available (alongside a variety of teachings) at a mosque (and many Muslims have an intellectual interest in even the odd branches of their religion—sort of like many mainstream Mormons have a continuing interest in polygamous groups) they are speaking of #1 above, and usually in the context of wanting to understand the Wahhabi movement that preaches to Muslims when they go to Mecca for the hajj. They are not wanting to radicalize and militarize themselves.

So when you ask me “What about the Wahhabis?” I say this: some terrorists are using the term as a cover, but most Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia (as in #1 above), while not terrorists, are unusually fundamentalist and conservative and probably aren’t all that keen on Westerners. They mostly stay in Muslim countries, and even then mostly inhabit rural areas. My Jordanian friend has said that the chances of me meeting a Saudi Wahhabi in the U.S. are rather remote.

A few Saudi Wahhabis would be the exception to my “almost all” statements in my original post and since I can’t tell the difference between a pseudo-Muslim terrorist using cover and a Fundamentalist Muslim who wouldn’t care for me much unless I was buying oil, I would not seek interaction with someone I knew to be a Saudi Wahhabi. But these people are a tiny, tiny number of Muslims compared to the great throng of neighborly, good Muslims who fill the world.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I agree with your statement that "almost none want to walk into discotechs and blow everyone up or fly planes into buildings"; however, "almost none" does not equal "none" so how do we identify the ones that DO want to blow everyone up? Do we wait until they actually detonate the bomb or crash the plane or fire the rocket? If we wait until they actually do their evil deed, do we then say "Aha! She must have been a terrorist! Well, it's a good thing we didn't judge her by her race/ethnicity/religion/national origin before she detonated her hidden explosives belt in the market"?

If we can't draw conclusions about the likelihood of someone wanting to blow us up based upon that person's race/ethnicity/religion/national origin, then what factors can we use to draw those conclusions?


Again, you use that tricky phrase "almost all" when describing Muslims in the U.S. The way I read it, the first sentence in your paragraph refutes the last sentence in your paragraph. The fact that you put in an "almost all" makes it LESS LIKELY that a Muslim in the U.S. is going to be nice and upstanding. Obviously the percentage decrease in the likelihood of the person being nice and upstanding is quite small; however, it exists nonetheless.


While it is true that there are plenty of non-Islamic terrorist organizations, it appears to me that Islamic-related terrorists are a truly global problem. The Basques aren't blowing up discos in Bali. The Tamil Tigers aren't blowing up churches in the Southern Philippines. The IRA isn't blowing up Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or blowing a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, or blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut, or bombing the WTC in 1993, or blowing up Pan Am over Scotland, or flying planes into the WTC and Pentagon, or massacring students in Beslan, Russia. I don't know about you, but as a citizen of the world I certainly think I have more to fear from an Islamic-style terrorist than from oh, say, the IRA. As a citizen of the US, it seems clear that I have more to fear from an Islamic-style terrorist than from the IRA or pretty much any other type of terrorist (including your Timothy McVeigh types).


Oh, I see, people dislike Muslims because of Western media? Not because of Khobar Towers, Marine Barracks, USS Cole, Beslan, WTC, Pentagon, Bali, etc. I'm glad you cleared that misconception up.

Sorry, got a bit sarcastic there... Didn't mean to attack you personally. Ignore that last paragraph.

Anyway, I acknowledge that Christians and Jews have a share in the "religious-related violence" market and that Muslims don't have a corner on that market; however, it seems that in the last 50 years, Muslims have certainly staked out their claim to be the "market leader".

I'm in agreement with you about not discriminating and treating everyone with love and kindness. I'll heed your counsel to treat in a neighborly manner all Mulsim-ish people I meet. That being said, do you have any suggestions on how we can efficiently identify terrorists BEFORE they actually commit the act without taking into account their skin color, religion, style of dress, ethnicity, national origin, or language preference?

Thanks,

BigFatMeanie

I'll be brief on this, although I encourage you to read my lengthy response to Creekster.

1) I agree with you that identifying the terrorists is a difficulty, but it's one that we need to surmount. Law enforcement profiling is inevitable, but it won't be effective if it's on the level of "spotlight the Muslims." We need to find ways to refine our profiling so innocent and good Muslims aren't being discriminated against by the uninformed. There's way too many Muslims, and most all of them, as I've said, aren't terrorists or even criminals. They're mostly good people like any other people.

2) I'm not trying to be tricky by using the phrase "almost all." I'm just trying to be accurate. There are a few extremists. But's that's what they are--few and extreme. They're the Warren Jeffs and Lebarons of Islam.

3) My mentioning of Western media was not meant to discount terrorist acts. It's a fact though, that Western dislike of Muslims long precedes terrorist acts (and even the technologies to conduct them). I mentioned the media aspect because it is highly problematic and I deal with it every day in my work.

Peace!

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by homeboy

The reason you don't see the marches is because while most muslims do not agree with terrorism, the agree with the anger that drives the terrorism. I think the "damaging western values" angle only plays a minor part. They see a series of injustices including the expulsion of Palestinians to form a Jewish state, money and power going to corrupt dynasties (Shah of Iran, Saud family, etc) put in power and maintained by western governments, U.S. foreign policy that is consistently viewed as anti-muslim, etc. And the "underdog" plays a huge role in Islamic culture. They love to cheer for the underdog who fights on against overwhelming odds. Hence the widespread sympathy for a guy like Bin Laden who takes on the greatest superpower in the history of the world.

This makes sense and scares me. It's as if The West and Islam talk right past each other, all the time understanding the words but not comprehending what each other is saying. I was listening to a Syrian Government representative weighing in on the current situation this morning on BBC. While his arguments didn't make much sense to me, I got the feeling that he viewed his message as much more than just spin.

I think SiEQ is correct in suggesting that we Americans need to do much more in trying to understand the Islamic world. I would hope a similar effort would be made on the other side.