Arab and Muslims are NOT TERRORISTS
Written by Haitham on 13. July 2005, 0128hrs // Part of Haitham's adventure in Arab, Human Rights, Islam, Middle East, Politics, Religion, Terrorism // Other posts by Haitham
WE’RE NOT TERRORISTS. ARAB (MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, et al) ARE NOT TERRORISTS. MUSLIMS (ARAB AND NON-ARAB) ARE NOT TERRORISTS.
How far do we, Arab/Muslims, have to go in flaunting our moderation? Would posting condolences, apologies and condemn banners solve the problem? But apologizing for what? For something we haven’t done? Is it a double act of auto-stigmatization and auto-justification?
Most of Arabs and Muslims have publicly condemned Bin Laden for his atrocities all the time. And those who did not either doesn’t feel like that they should do because they have nothing to do with it, or a small minority show support to Bin Laden and similar terrorists under the name of Islam. But does this mean that the world then should hold us Arab and Muslims responsible?
One of the many short comings which have arisen in the West is judging Arab and Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Arab and Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behavior is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done - judge a religion by the conduct of minority its people - then we too could say that all Christianity is about, is child molesting and homosexuality (by using the many cases of child abuse and homosexuality by priests), whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques (by using the incident of the destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodya, India in December 1992 by Hindu zealots).
Generalizing in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Arab and Islam. The very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word ’salama’ which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the submission to the will of Allah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic. Nor they are of Arab culture and should not be thought of as Arab.
Again, as with the conspiracy theories which urgently needed to see 9/11 as the work of Mossad, and the utilitarian justification of the vanguard’s suspension of the ethical, the radical Islamists are an expression of the very Westernizing alienation they profess to defy. In a sense, it is as Meddeb reminds us: “Who are those who died while spreading death in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? [...] They are the sons of our times, the pure products of the Americanization of the world.” (Abdelwahab Meddeb, Islam and its discontents - London, 2003)
In such a world of pseudo-religious reaction against the postmodern erosion of identity, it follows that if you are not “with us,” you are with the devil.
Hello world! Jihad is not terrorism. Arabs are not terrorists.
Jihadist! Isn’t this is the word the western media is using every time a terrorism act takes place? But wait. Do you know what the meaning of the word is? Do you know what the origin of the word is?
In the linguistic sense, the Arabic word “jihad” means struggling or striving and applies to any effort exerted by anyone. In this sense, a student struggles and strives to get an education and pass course work; an employee strives to fulfill his/her job and maintain good relations with his/her employer; a politician strives to maintain or increase his popularity with his constituents and so on. The term strives or struggle may be used for/by Muslims as well as non-Muslims; for example, Allah, says in the Qur’an:
“We have enjoined on people kindness to parents; but if they strive (Jahadaka) to make you ascribe partners with Me that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not…” (The Holy Qur’an, 29:8; also see 31:15)
In the above two verses of the Qur’an, it is non-Muslim parents who strive (jahadaka) to convert their Muslim child back to their religion. In the West, “jihad” is generally translated as “holy war,” a usage the media has popularized. According to Islamic teachings, it is unholy to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable.
If we translate the words “holy war” back into Arabic, we find “harbun muqaddasa,” or for “the holy war,” “al-harbu al-muqaddasa.” We challenge any researcher or scholar to find the meaning of “jihad” as holy war in the Qur’an or authentic Hadith collections or in early Islamic literature. Unfortunately, some Muslim writers and translators of the Qur’an, the Hadith and other Islamic literature translate the term “jihad” as “holy war,” due to the influence of centuries-old Western propaganda.
This could be a reflection of the Christian use of the term “Holy War” to refer to the Crusades of a thousand years ago. However, the Arabic words for “war” are “harb” or “qital,” which are found in the Qur’an and Hadith.
It is far from desirable to simply quote, as an apparent show of understanding, scriptural support for this or that personal opinion we may have about a particular subject. Neither is it enough to use Qur’anic or Prophetic texts without adequate knowledge of the human situation and cultural milieu in which they were revealed and first applied, as well as the precedence of some verses over others based on order of revelation or abrogation.
In other words, context and circumstance of Qur’anic revelation and Hadith are crucial in coming to terms with Jihad. It is an error to judge Islam and Muslims in the light of the kind of “Jihad” that has fallen victim to ideological tendencies. The critic also has to be wary of the interpretation of “Jihad” which is projected, and sometimes imposed, by the selective “religious reformism” so rampant today. They ignore central aspects of Islam’s intellectual heritage, selectively repress important figures and disregard Islam’s impeccable history of adherence to the standards of law and justice in affairs of state.
On the other hand, traditional Muslim Sunnis intuit that al-Qaida is a Western invention, but one which cannot be defeated in a battleground where the logic is Western. This was one of the messages that emerged from the 2003 summit meeting of eight hundred Muslim scholars at Putrajaya - Malaysia. Al-Qaida is inauthentic: “it rejects the classical canons of Islamic law and theology, and issues fatwas that are neither formally nor in their habit of mind deducible from medieval exegesis.”
Yet despite the clear stand taken against the terrorists by “Arab World” and the “Muslim World”, the terrorists are still labeled by the media as “Islamic”. It seems that the Muslims cannot win. Even if they condemn terrorism in no uncertain terms, still acts of terrorism are attributed to Arab and Islam.
The temptation is strong for Arab’s and Muslims to give up and say: “Even if we condemn terrorism, we are still labeled as terrorists. We might as well not condemn it at all.” But to do this would be to fall into the media’s trap. The media must now be allowed to malign Arab and Islam by giving the impression that the religion condones senseless violence and cruelty against innocent civilians. However much the media seek to present Arab and Islam in this distorted way, the Arabs and Muslims must strive to present the true picture.
Last but not least, quoting Mark Glenn - Islamic Extremism May Save Western Civilization, 18 April 2003:
It would shock and probably offend most Americans to learn the truth that the reason they are here, their power, their affluence and position in the world is directly because of the Islamic religion and the Arab culture. That’s right, the very “ragheads” and “Hajis” (as Limbaugh, Liddy, and some of the others often call them) that the US is now fighting are directly responsible for the preeminence and power of not just the United States, but of the entire Western world in general.
[...]
What will gall Americans even more, especially those who call themselves Christian, is the idea that it may be the Arab and Muslim culture that will be not only the birthplace of Western Civilization, but the savior of it as well.
As evidenced by the nightly news right now, there is a war going on. Superficially, it is about things like “terrorism” and “freedom.” There are some who go a step further and blame oil and banking, not to mention “lebensraum” for Israel. And while all these things do play a part, some greater than others, the real war here is between two world views.
[...]
To the “New World,” and by default the New World Order, the Arab/Muslim world is backwards in its values. It prohibits abortion and birth control. They have large families, as opposed to the West, where the average family has only 2 children. It prohibits usury banking, to which the West credits its own economic superiority. Theirs is a “closed” society (read into this no sodomy, pornography, gay lifestyle, et al) Theirs is a “cruel” society (read into this-they do not have people on death row for 20 years) And finally, they will not play the game the way the market wants it played, meaning, they want a just price for their only real source of wealth, their oil, instead of giving it away to the West for a fraction of its worth. In other words, the picture that has just been painted here is, the Muslim world is now what the Christian world once was and should be.
One can already hear the roar coming out of the mouths of many who have not been thinking of this in a critical way, particularly those well-paid mouthpieces on TV and radio masquerading themselves as Christians. “The religion of Mohammed is better than the religion of Jesus Christ?!” No, rather, what is meant here is that the religion of Islam resembles Christianity more than does the Christianity of the West today, because the Christianity of the West today isn’t Christianity at all, but a watered-down amalgamation of New Ageism mixed with certain common spiritual attributes that, although called Christian, can be found in almost every known religion. Through decades of destructive influence and propaganda through media and academia, mainstream Christianity in the West has been reduced to one remaining commandment, vague and hard to pin-point which is “be nice.”
The fact of the matter is, putting aside all the other reasons surrounding this war that were enumerated at the beginning of this essay, what exists in the Middle East, or in The Old World, as some would call it, is a culture that is still devoted to principles concerning basic moral values, values that have not yet surrendered to the corrupting influence of Western media or Western money. Within the last 50 years, every culture has fallen before this corrupting power that seeks to enslave all men in such a way that the individual is reduced to the value of what he produces and what he consumes, and in pursuit of that method, the individuals behind this program have quietly but decisively removed every obstacle in their way, be it religion, culture, morals, tradition, or world view, through the methods of media, academia, and finance; that is, except the culture encapsulated in the Islamic/Arabic World.
By the description “Arabic/Islamic,” it should not be understood as solely a “Muslim” thing. The culture existing in the Arab world is held by both Christian and Muslim alike. There are millions of Christians, who have in essence the same culture with their Muslim counterparts in much the same way as most Americans, regardless of religion, have the same culture. It is those Christians and Muslims alike who reject these “modern” notions such as abortion, birth control, sodomy, pornography, usury banking, and “market value” of services and resources. They still view the family, the traditional family, with all its traditional roles, as the most important building block of their society, and they take very seriously anything that threatens it. They recognize the value of their children, and how dangerous the moral relativism of the West has become, threatening the stability of society directly. They recognize that if their children and society as a whole are subjected to ideas that promote moral decay for an extended period of time, what will eventually and unavoidably be produced is national decay.
If by some miracle the Arab/Muslim world is victorious against this onslaught, and the secular/atheistic influence of the NWO agenda is reduced to such a level as to allow the Christian West to regain its foothold where it once stood, it will be necessary to credit the religion of Islam and the Arab world for not buckling under in the face of extermination. And it will be we, the Christian West and Western Civilization, who will be the beneficiaries of “Islamic Extremism.”
Sphere: Related Content
Do you like - Arab and Muslims are NOT TERRORISTS - 
Article Tags>>
July 13th, 2005 at 2:12 am
Sabbah, this was an excellent post. I do not agree with much of what you write, but I have tremendous respect for your skill as a writer and a blogger. I will take a shot at writing a serious response to your post, and I hope you consider responding seriously. No promises as to timing, though — I’m at the end of a long day.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
TigerHawk, yes you never agreed, but your opinion is always respected. Please feel free to write a response, and I will respond seriously. No promises as to timing
July 13th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
We are not terrorists, and we do not have a strangle hold on violence. Bombs in Trinidad, not a Muslim to be seen, bombs in Spain, not a Muslim to be seen, bombs in Nepal, not a Muslim to be seen.
July 14th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Dear Haitham, this is a well written post and I agree with many of your points. But I think that you made a mistake that is very common when arguing an issue that is adversarial between two “camps”; you tried to defend your side as being mostly without fault, while presenting the other side as almost completely at fault. An argued position is much more powerful when it acknowledges its own side’s shortcomings, while unmasking the excesses of the other side’s “attack” and its blind defense of its own imperfect positions.
In that spirit, let me make two points (not to negate the positive aspects that you discussed, but to give a more complete, realistic, and therefore defendable, view):
1) Although many in the Arab/Muslim world do not accept the terror that is being done in their name (and it is being done in their name), there are mainstream groups like the Muslim Brotherhood being sympathetic/apologetic towards those groups, while avoiding the “uncomfortable” position of outright support. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, I read in “Al-Sabeel”, the mouthpiece newspaper of the Jordanian Muslim Brothers, an analysis of the Islamic validity of those attacks. The conclusion was essentially: what they did was not really good, BUT “2ijtahado wa a562o, falahom 2jr (as opposed to 2 ajr if they had 2ijtahado wa a9abo)”. Do you accept this as a condemnation of the terrorists or a denunciating of them as not truly Muslim?!! I think you’ll agree that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a large segment of the society, and is widely recognized as an authority on Orthodox Islam. If the Muslim Brotherhood declares Bin Laden and his buddies as “5awarej 3an al-Islam”, then I’ll shut up and agree with you 100%!
2) I agree that in many of the “moral” aspects of social life, the Arab world has better norms than the West; but there are many areas in which the West is better positioned than the Arab world (not perfect, but better): Freedom of speech; accountable governments (I know the “imperfection” arguments, but just think Qaddafi!!); support and encouragement for research and free thought; etc.
This is not an attack against MY nation, but we will never move forward if we do not see our faults.
July 14th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Ziad, I agree with the examples you mentioned in your second point. However since we are not talking about moral of east/west, maybe I’ll devote another post for it later to shed more light on this subject.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, I also agree with you that they are probably one of the strongest parties in the Arab world, however rumors have swirled for years that the CIA may have supported the Brotherhood during the 1950s and 1960s. The allegations of an alliance have been widely reported, but not irrefutably documented. But that takes me back to Meddeb quote: “Who are those who died while spreading death in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? [...] They are the sons of our times, the pure products of the Americanization of the world.”
In other words, they are products of the injustice, greed, poverty and wars all over the past decades, lead by the west. On the other hand, yes they play some significant role in the Arab world, but do they represent Islam and Arab? At least for me, as an Arabian Muslim, I say NO. They don’t represent me, they don’t represent 300 million Arab and more importantly they don’t represent the 1.7 Billion Muslim. Do they?!
July 14th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Good points Haitham. Western powers often supported radical religious groups as a counter balance to secular movements they did not like. A good example is the early support given to Hamas by Israel, thought to be a good idea at the time because it wasnt seen as a great of a threat as the PLO. Israel wanted to support a religious group in the hopes that it would diminish support for the secular PLO. Big mistake for Israel huh?
The US support the secular Saddam against religious Iran. I wouldnt find it a far stretch to think that the US support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a counterweight to the secular movement of Egypt at the time.
July 15th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Sure, it’s probobly true that the CIA supported the Brotherhood against unfriendly secular regimes in the Middle East and it is true that America supported Saddam against Iran but I find it a far stretch to suggest that the Brotherhood would not have thrived without American support. Their ideology was an appealing alternative to the failed modernization and secularization found in Egypt, especially after Nasserism was discredited after the ’67 war. I could see how the writings of Hassan al Banna and later Sayyid Qutb would be appealing to frustrated youth in Egypt given the poverty and alienation due to urbanization and failed modernization. As for Saddam, his regime was at the height of its power in 1980 and I don’t think a few American helicopters or whatever my country gave him was the sole reason he hung on to power so long. My point is the ideology of the Brotherhood and Saddam regime would have thrived no matter the US support.
You write that the 9/11 attacks or radicalism coming from the middle east are produced from the Americanization of the world, “In other words, they are products of the injustice, greed, poverty and wars all over the past decades, lead by the west.” I would have to ask then why isn’t there terrorism coming from Latin America where America’s influence and reach has been just as deep as in the Middle East. There is plenty of poverty and injustice to go around but you don’t see groups of Mexican or Haitian terrorists blowing themselves up in New York or London. As Ziad said above the recent terrorist attacks ARE being done in the name of Islam, regardless if they represent the true Islam. The fact is even though these radicals are a small minority they believe they are the true Muslims, they believe they are the Muslim vanguard like Muhammad and his Companions clearing away the idolatry our time, manly secular government (the rule of man over man, instead of god over man) and western materialism. These people have a coherent, thought out ideology (Qutb’s Milestones for example). I like you believe the far majority of Muslims, 99.9 percent at least, abhor acts of terrorism and the killing of innocent, but the fact is these radicals come from your society, act in your name, and are products of a radical ideology that has twisted Islam. Although I think western colonialism and imperialism had terrible effects on the Middle East being felt to this day, I don’t buy the fact that these radicals were spawned only because of that injustice.
One more thing, I think you stereotype the West when you write that only the “Old World” values the family unit. I grew up in the US with two parents who are still married, and I value my family and hope to have my own someday. I think marriage is an important social institution and that the divorce rate in the US is way too high. Although I would agree that there is a decline in these attitudes, if you traveled around parts of the United States you might be surprised at how traditional some folks are. Unfortunately most people in the Middle East only see the bad things of American culture, the movies, TV, music videos, and I don’t blame them for thinking my country is in moral decline after only viewing that. After living in Jordan I got to see American culture as an outsider and I wasn’t impressed.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
You cannot compare Central and South America with the Middle East or Islam. The histories, whilst they share common links of innjustice, are not the same.
As I have always maintained, if these Central and South American people’s had a history of martyrdom like there is in Islam and the Middle East, half of the US would already be flattened.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
That’s exactly my point, there is something within Arab/Muslim society (you call it a “history of martydom” in Islam) that also fosters this. To blame Al Qaeda soley on the west’s injustice is a fallacy.
July 16th, 2005 at 1:53 am
I agree with many of the points Ziad raised. I wrote my views on this issue on my blog a few day ago - see: They Do Not Need To Win. So as not to repeat myself, drop by when u can.
http://menademocrats.blogspot.com/
July 16th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Following is a reply to an article similar to urs I wrote in a leading Gulf news paper KT.
WITH reference to your article ‘Why link terror to religion’ (KT, July 12), I agree with your comments about the misconception. But then again, I feel Muslim clerics and leaders should strongly condemn the terrorists with no buts.
These only portray them in such a way that the Muslim Ummah have a soft corner for the terrorist actions as a reaction. I think we should distance from the terrorist completely and no justification for terrorist actions shall be accepted or given credence.
Moreover, as fatwas are issued against those who desecrate the religion of Islam and teachings, they should also be issued against these terrorists who, as you rightly say, do not belong to our religion. They quote scriptures for their actions and the clerics should strongly come out against this.
The problem here is because they quote the scriptures for their actions which is misconstrued as the belief and faith of the people who belong to Islam by others.
Hence, the term ‘Islamic terrorist’ I suppose, whereas other terrorists whom you mention in your article never quoted the scriptures. We also have to look into ourselves and correct the wrongs. It’s time all are treated as equals with no discrimination.
It is time for introspection, but at the same time, we do not agree with the western media and the hype they create. I feel Islam is the best religion with the worst followers. Let us be muslims once again.
July 16th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
zaratul, as for the fatwas, all what it takes to find fatwa is to google for ‘fatwa against terrorism’ and you will find plenty of these. I’m not going to link to any here because there are many and they mean nothing to me, as I believe all these were issued on political backgrounds, or they are targeted to the Muslim public which in majority condemns terrorists right from beginning. The real target for these fatwas does not listen to such fatwas or care who says what.
My point is, terrorists have no religion, and in fact they are from all backgrounds and religions. Not only from Islam.
July 16th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Jawad, I read that report and the survey result. My opinion is that report is biased from the beginning. Why? Because it impose and repeats a lie the media created, which is “Islamic terrorism.”
There is nothing called “Islamic terrorism”, that’s what I’m saying here. Otherwise, I would call what is happening in Palestine as “Jewish terrorism.” In fact why not call it as such? Ask any western if there is something called “Jewish terrorism.” They will tell you NO. Either the answer will be it is a “state terrorism” or they will deny the act of terrorism by Jewish. Why? Apart from the fact of who controls the media… can you name a nation/race/religion as terrorists if a group of people belonging to that nation… is conducting a terror acts?
Jews/Israelis… No. Muslims/Arab… Yes, this will be acceptable by the west and the media.
July 16th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Haitham:
I respect your opinion on this. But it is not so much the rest of the world that gave the Al Qaeda-type terrorism the label “Islamic Terrorism”, it is the perpetrators of those acts that did. And that’s exactly my point, we, the Muslims, let them take owbership of Muslim Advocacy because we did not move agressively to deny them the space within which they are launching their hatred. They are committing acts of terrorism in the Name of Islam. It is in all their statments. They use Islamic jurisprudence to issue “religious fatwas” to sanction terrorism. Yet, we, Muslims around the world, sit around in neighberhood cafes sipping on Lattes not minding the acts of these killers - By default, allowing them to speak in our name and that of our religion. So, what do you expect the West to do?? They will call it by what they are told it is by the extremists of Al Qaeda and other groups like them - “Islamic Terrorism”. The burden of proof is on us, Haitham, not on the West. And we need to wake up and crush these cockroaches who are defiling our societies, our civilization, and our religion. Nobody else can do it - we are the only ones who can save our religion - the West can not do it for us, nor do they want to.
By the way, in my earlier comment, I was referencing another post on my blog entitled: “They do not need to win” and not the Pew Research survey.
July 16th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
With my respect to all the comments here (and yet to come) and their opinions. Just one question…
Why do these terrorists target USA, Spain and lately UK? Why not China? Why not Latin Americans? Why not South Africa? Why?
Anyone?
July 17th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Talking about Muslim or Arab terrorism without linking it with sufferings inflicted on Palestinians, or humilation caused by unlimited American support to Israel, will never end it. We cannot deny that a marginal proportion of Arabs and Muslims continue to support bin Laden and what he stands for. But, if Palestinians were given back their rights and if America adopts an even handed policy in the Middle East and stop keeping dictatorships alive in the region, believe you me “terrorism will cease to have support in this part of the world”
July 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
WORDS fail you at times like these. Yet the London outrage is one of those rare defining situations when you have to decide where you stand and what you stand for.
The Muslims around the world have to denounce the London strikes in strongest terms for the simple reason the needle of suspicion is pointed yet again at extremists amongst them. It’s not as if the Islamic world has failed to respond to the outrage. Thankfully, it has. In fact, unlike its stunned silence or at best incoherent response to 9/11, the response to London attacks from within the Muslim world has been fast and furious.
From the top Islamic scholars like Syed Mohammed Tantawi, the chancellor of Al Azhar university, Cairo, and Yousuf al Qaradawi of Qatar to Islamists — Hamas in Palestinian territories and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the condemnation of 7/7 attacks on London has been swift and free of spin. Numerous Muslim governments and leaders too have sought to reach out to British people offering their support and sympathy.
Doubtless, these calls emanating from Muslim lands are representative of vox populi. The Muslims are indeed very angry and unhappy over what happened in London last week and has been happening in Iraq and elsewhere in their name. True, the Muslims are infuriated by what America and its allies including Britain have been doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the name of war on terror and promoting democracy. True, Israel’s atrocities in Palestinian territories inflame Muslim public opinion and the shame of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay does hurt them.
This however doesn’t mean the Muslims would support or sanction the terrible and insane acts unleashed on London or before it on New York and Washington. The community, let me assure you, is pained and incensed by these terror acts just like the rest of the world is. In fact, the Muslims are all the more upset because these shameful acts are carried out in their name and in the name of their great faith.
Unfortunately, however, the Muslims and their leaders have yet to send out a clear message to the world and to the extremists that these acts of terror have nothing to do with them or their religion. Of course, there have been Muslim voices condemning extremist acts from time to time. But, let us face it, we have failed to assert in unambiguous terms that the acts of violence against innocents are not sanctioned by Islam and thus are unacceptable to us. No cause, however noble and great, justifies the mass killing of innocent people. No religion preaches hatred, least of all Islam. I do not exactly share the worldview of neocon missionary Thomas Friedman but he is not far off the mark when he argues that terrorism is a threat to Islam.
While the world tries to comprehend and deal with the scourge of terrorism, the Muslim world must wake up to the clear and present danger it’s facing in extremism. In fact, more than the West, it is the Muslim world that is threatened by the spectre of terror. Extremism not only threatens the identity of our faith and its truly liberating, universal teachings but our very existence and way of life. Terror threatens to undermine all that Islam has contributed to the world over the past 15 centuries.
What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilisations, as Samuel Huntington likes to interpret it. This is a do-or-die battle for Islam’s soul being fought between the silent and peace-loving majority of its followers and a tiny extremist minority that is seeking to distort and subvert its teachings. We can’t afford to lose this war of ideas to the lunatic fringe as represented by Osama bin Laden.
If Islam has to prevail as the faith of peace, compassion and universal brotherhood that it is, then we must all join this battle for Islam’s soul. We have to say in one, loud and clear voice to the terrorists: Not in our name, no! Bin Laden doesn’t represent us and we mustn’t allow him to do that. As long as Muslims don’t speak for themselves and Islam, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda will continue to speak for them. High time the silent majority asserted itself making it clear what it believes in and what Islam stands for.
In the meanwhile, if the West is serious in dealing with the threat of extremism, it must do its bit. The line that terror can’t be defeated without eliminating its causes may be worn-out as an argument but is nonetheless true. Britain’s Blair has woken up to this sobering reality. When will Bush realise this? This war can’t be won by the West without the Muslim support and without addressing the factors that continue to feed terror and Bin Laden’s endless supply of kamikaze soldiers.
July 17th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Say ‘No To Terrorism’…
Act now, send a picture with a message to terrorists, tell them ‘NO’, ‘Not in my name’…
Tell the criminals of any race, religion and nation, ‘NO’…
NOTOTERRORISM.COM
July 18th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Haitham, are you going to write about the results of Jordanian opinions written in the Pew survey? It was disturbing for me.
I’ve thought about this post for several days, and agree with Jawad and Zaratul. The burden of proving that Islam is a religion of peace lies with peace-loving Muslims. After the Pew results, even I, a long term US resident of Jordan, need some assurance.
It may get boring and even sickening to say it over and over when you are not personally responsible, but it is really necessary if you want to convince Joe Redneck American/German/Korean that Muslim does not equal terrorist. I can say this from experience, having spent the better part of 20 years apologizing for my government’s poor foreign policy and my culture’s exportation of trash. Yet when I see the bridge that is built between people will listen, empathize and even express sorrow and regret, it is worth it to identify with the less desirable aspects of my Umma. It works both ways, when I go home and run into Jane Redneck at the store and help her understand what the Arab world is about-contrary to media frenzy.
Haitham, you and others have an extraordinarily important role in these days to take back what you believe Islam to truly be. If you don’t, the minority bad guys win and we all lose. Fight the good fight, and I’ll be watching and praying for you. And referring Joe Redneck to your website!
July 18th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Terrorists(of the Muslim variety) do not target Cuba, Mexico, Peru for one very simple reason, none of these countries plays a direct or indirect role in the political policies that are driving the terrorists. If killing Christians, or even Jews for that matter, was the driving force behind these people they could hit easy targets all over the world. Why pick harder targets like the US and UK? Because these two countries play a direct role in the policies that these people are fighting.
Dont buy the nonsense that these people are fighting to establish a world wide Islamic caliphate. I dont think more than a handful of Muslims worldwide would fight and die for such a concept. Bin Laden sticks to very concrete selling points when pushing for his jihad. American support for dictators in the Islamic world such as those in Egypt, Uzbekistan ect. US troops in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. US support for Israel. US efforts to keep oil prices low.
There are real reasons why these people do what they do. That does not justify their actions, but it certainly makes it clear why they are doing what they are. Refusal to accept this fact is putting the whole world at danger. You cannot address and issue if you refuse to accept it exists. The Western world, especially the UK and US, refuse to want to accept their role in international affaris and refuse to address these issues.
Here in America we cannot accept that we do anything but positive in the world, so if people attack us it MUST be for something that we didnt do, it must be because they are “jealous” or they “hate us.” We MUST take an honest look at our policies world wide. As an American I know this is far from happening. We still have the president and bice president telling people they hate us for “our freedoms.” Hint, people dont blow themselves up because you can buy a beer and wear a bikini top.
July 18th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Thanks Abu Sinan for answering my question. This is exactly the conclusion I wanted to reach to.
If these Jihadist (Holy War fighters) objectives are killing Christians and Jews (Muslims are victims too), they have much easier targets to hit than US and UK. So why don’t they?
Therefore, selecting harder targets clearly defies what the US media (and those who support it) is trying to impose as a fact.
Yes, Jihad is one of Islam concepts and pillars. No, these terrorists are not Jihadist, they are criminals, unfortunately born as Muslims.
July 18th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
kinzi, about the Pew survey. Yes, I’ll write about it.
As for what Jawad and Zaratul said, I also agreed with them with my reservation over few points I mentioned in my comments.
Anyway, I hope to find time soon to write my commentary over Pew survey.
Mean while, I’m looking forward for more support to my new project: NOTOTERRORISM.COM. Please help spread the word!
July 18th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Point is easily made Haitham, to those who want to listen. Why dont the jihadsts bomb Vatican City? Why not bomb the Morman Temple in Utah?
There are CLEAR political goals in mind and anyone who thinks otherwise either has their head in the sand or is one of the people being targeted by these goals.
Listen to one of bin Laden’s speeches and it is clear what their goals are. Listen to why jihadists are joining up and you’ll see it too. They are not seeking to conquer the world for Islam, no matter what their rhetoric says, they are looking to make gains on political issues.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Arab and Muslims are NOT TERRORISTS
WE’RE NOT TERRORISTS. ARAB (MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, et al) ARE NOT TERRORISTS. MUSLIMS (ARAB AND NON-ARAB) ARE NOT TERRORISTS. How far do we, Arab/Muslims, have to go in flaunting our moderation? Would posting condolences, apologies and condemn banners…
July 19th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Some Arabs and Muslims go WAY too far. They basically grovel at the feet of Christians and Westerners who are going to despise them no matter what they do. So they are not accepted and they humiliate themselves.
July 20th, 2005 at 8:59 am
As long as MOhammed Atta’s father goes on TV and encourages more killing, as long as imams in Cairo and Britain encourage more killing, as long as ridiculous US senators talk about nuking Mecca, as long as a majority of Jordanians believe it is ok to kill US citizens, you will need to continue to need to convince the rest of the world that moderate Islam is the true expression of your faith.
This isn’t groveling and humiliating yourself (and by the way, as a Western Christian who loves your country, I have no interest in seeing anyone ‘grovel’). It is making your voices the primary ones. At this point, after the Pew survey, I myself am going to need more reassurance.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
The real issue, and battle, is between the extremists on either side.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
“Violence has been an integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their faith-culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then deemed apostate and subject to harm.” SALIM MANSUR, London Free Press
Your history of martyrdom is the root cause.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:29 am
Anyone can claim anything, and with enough barging and media support, you can easily win. I’m really surprised were do the western media brings all these so called Muslim writes to write about Islam and Arab. Examining these greate Muslims reformers lead every time to discover that they are far from being Muslims. Look at Asra Nomani - the wedlock, or Irshad Manjani - the lesbian, and now who the hell is this Salim Mansur?
Anyway, since the case is believing anyone (Calling himself Muslim or non-Muslim) who says anything against us, then I have no option but to compare the history of Islam and Christianity.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat - Montreal, Canada in 1983:
For centuries now Christian nations have been busy beating up one Muslim nation or another. In the Middle Ages they came as crusaders. Then they colonized many Muslim countries and tried to destroy their cultures and religion. During their struggle for independence some Muslims had to suffer terrible violence. The French killed about a million Muslims in Algeria because they wanted independence.
The USA and Britain killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (with the approval of about 90% of their people) without letting the world see the blood, thus practicing a lesson learned during the Vietnam war. Serbs have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and raped thousands of women in Bosnia and Kosovo. Although in these lands, a combination of rare circumstances put the West (USA and Western Europe) on the side of the Muslims, this did no good to them because the Western powers did not want to loose any of their own soldiers. Had the West left the Muslim Bosnians and ethnic Albanians to their fate without putting an arms embargo on them, their suffering would not have been any greater.
Israel has been for half a century destroying the Palestinian people with the help of arms and financial and moral support provided by the USA, the very sort of crimes that have been committed by the Serbs against the people of Kosovo and which have been condemned by the West, even though there were no cameras to record the cries of the Palestinians and photograph the pictures of the massacred people and burning homes. In Lebanon when Christians were in the majority there was war, but now that the Muslims are in the majority there is peace except in the south of the country where Christians have been helping a foreign enemy against their own countrymen. When an American president needs to divert his people’s attention away from his sex scandal the easiest thing he finds is to bomb Muslim countries — Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq — because he knows that this will be approved by a vast majority of his people. And then there is the media which is ever busy in maligning the Muslims while they do not at this point in time possess the resources to speak up: for every word spoken/written by a Muslim and heard/read by one person, a thousand words from a Christian are received by a thousand persons in the world. At the international level the voices of the Muslims are all but drowned by the Christian voices and those Christian voices are for the most part condemnatory. If a cartoonist was to depict the situation between the Western and Muslim civilizations, he or she will draw a weaker person not able or inclined to stand up or to speak while another stronger person is standing over him with a big stick, now and then beating him, and all the while shouting to him in a loud voice: you are a violent man.
It is important for both Muslims and Christians to ask: What will the Christian be if the tables were turned and their lands were first colonized by Muslims and then bombed or maligned or ethnically cleansed? If the past is any guide, the answer is clear: There will be a vicious reaction and given the chance an attempt at almost total destruction of the Muslims. For in Spain Muslims lived for about 850 years as rulers. They lived with Jews and Christians for the most part in a spirit of tolerance and cooperation in promoting science and culture to the point that their work prepared for the modern scientific revolution with all its benefits for mankind. But the moment Muslims became weaker, the hate in the Catholic heart came out with a vengeance. Muslims were either killed, converted, or forced to leave Spain and their heritage was as fully destroyed as was humanly possible. Before Palestine and Kosovo, there was Spain.
Above, I have mentioned only what the Christian nations have been doing or are doing to the Muslims. But when we look at what they have done to each other or to other people any validity in their claim of being people of love and peace vanishes.
The native peoples of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand bear a tragic witness to what Christian nations can do to other nations and with the blessings and assistance of Christian churches. In this century alone the Western nations have fought two world wars with tens of millions dead and untold misery for the living. For each victory in these two wars the church bells rang in the victorious countries. The first nation to make a weapon of mass destruction and the only one to use it is a Christian nation…
July 21st, 2005 at 8:19 am
Haitham! I am seeing a huge problem. Is America a “Christian nation”? No way! Maybe the principles of law were based somewhat on Christian values - there is still a legacy of the “Golden Rule” that keeps people keeping the law. America is a secular nation that worships freedom to sin, power and getting more stuff, not God. It is not any more indicative of Christianity than was Catholicism in the dark ages. Although many may call themselves Christians, those who live as they believe are a very small percentage.
Islam, just in it’s expansion without wars, has destroyed other cultures and religions, too, and having a historical tit-for-tat isn’t helpful for today (but maybe sacre-bleu started it). Ultimately, power has corrupted leaders in all religions. Yes, we have to learn from yesterdays lessons, but I think the point was what will be necessary to convince the world that true Islam is not about blowing others up or world domination.
I wonder what Dr. Shafaat is saying today.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
A few days after the September 11 assault, George W. Bush did this:
Speaking spontaneously, he put a word on the new American purpose that both shaped it and gave it meaning. “This crusade,” he said.
Anyway, I don’t like to compare religions history, this is not the aim here.
As for convincing the world that Islam is not about violence, this is on going process. I saw a lot of reports in that direction, but I guess we need more attention from the western media.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Posted “Your history of martyrdom is the root cause.”
Martyrdom, the English word, has religious roots from Christian martyrs. It is the very same with the Arabic word for martyr being based on the same word for witness.
Interesting point made in Robert Pape’s new book:
The Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism found that there has been Christian suicide bombers. In fact, during the Lebanese civil war there were numerous Christian suicide bombers, including a female Christian high school teacher named Norma Hassan and a Christian factory worker named Elias Hard. A suicide bomber from a group called “Vanguard of Christian Arabs” killed himself as well. This is not just a Muslim action. Until the Iraqi war the majority of suicide bumbers were Hindu Tamils fighting the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka.
Facts from “Dying to Win:The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Robert Pape.
July 22nd, 2005 at 7:41 am
Yes, more attention from the world media will help, but it will mostly come from building ‘relationship’ with individuals. Small is big. Hey, and this is what you are doing, blogging is the way to do it both ways. People are fed up with mainstream media lies.
(Yes, and I was less than thrilled with GWB’s choice of words. Arg)
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:21 pm
I think your writing is very good and I appreciate your noting of the need for Western Media to re-define some terms. I do not say that you are all right as you must of figured out by now. I am still aassesing your words. However, you offer no solution to the problem as it is defined. You say these are not “Islamic” Extremists. They are being mis-labelled. Very well. Could you perhaps provide a label that we all could use then? I am being quite serious but it is true I find some things in your argument (I mean argument not in a bad sense but in an expository sense) annoying and self-congratulatory and it all too easily puts the blame on Western society alone.
If you know so clearly what something is NOT than you must have some idea of what that thing IS.
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Tim, thanks for your notes
When I say they are miss labeled, that’s a believe not only of mine, but of the majority of Islam and Arab society. Unfortunately, the media do not refer to us as much as they do refer to these so called “Islam extremist.”
On the other hand, what to call them? What to label them? That’s easy… TERRORISTS. But that’s not in favor of the PLAN. However, please keep in mind that no definition of the term has been agreed on. The question is why? Why the world can’t put a clear definition of “Terrorism and Terrorists.” (Maybe one day I’ll get time and write about that).
Anyway, what I was trying to say here in this article is now clear… I’m saying they are “Terrorist made by political criminals. One play the act of the victim (Unfortunately labeled as Christians and Jews), and one play the act of criminal (unfortunately labeled as Muslims and Arabs).”
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:56 pm
Hah! A good point and so simple even the media may one day grasp it.
A very clear point. The media decided some time ago that loaded language was somehow factual and that a string of facts make up the truth. This is not always the case. It may sound odd but it is far closer to being “a truth” than much of what the media says. The truth can be far more analytical. Anyway… terrorists and politics always go hand in hand and such was the definition of terrorism back in old days. Islamic and Muslim Terrorists is not a fair a categorization. You have earned my appreciation of that point. I think sometimes we all, myself included, decide that we do not need to draw the distinction between what we are saying and what we are thinking. We must think more about what we say.
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:18 am
Tim. You reminded me of an old post called “Don’t Say - Say Dictionary”, where I talk about how the media twist the word is such a way to twist facts.
Read it and you know what we are suffering
August 4th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
IOt is of little use to return top the past to argue that there are examples of terror here and there. It is of little or no ujse to keep faulting American policy. Simply put: can you or your readers name one state that has a Muslim majority that is not a messed up place (using democracy and equalityh as criteria)…Bahrain moving close to it…now why is it that so many muslims leave Mujslim/arab lands to go eslewehre if theyu detest immoral western culture?
August 4th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Fred, the reason so many Muslims leave their own country has much more to do with money than anything. Being very close to the immigrant Muslim community in the Metro Washington DC area I can tell you that about 90% of Muslim immigrants here would go back to where they came from it similiar economic opportunities were available.
August 5th, 2005 at 1:08 am
[...] Middle Eastern blogposts for Global Voices. For Haitham, this means posts like his recent “Arab and Muslims are NOT TERRORISTS”, or today’s [...]
August 5th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Well-said. Thank you for this essay, which I found via “My Heart’s in Accra…”
I recently undertook the project of reading the Qur’an (in translation, since sadly I do not speak Arabic yet) because I wanted to be informed enough to counter the argument that Islam is a violent religion and that the Qur’an is a violent text.
It’s painful to see someone commit a terrorist act while brandishing the banner of one’s religion. (The news of the Jewish terrorist who gunned down several non-Jewish Israelis on a bus yesterday in Shfaram is heart-breaking to me.) I know that I’m not responsible for his acts just because we claim to read the same holy book and to worship the same God, but it’s still difficult to accept that one of my co-religionists could do such a thing. This kind of behavior is a pervsion of Judaism — and when people claiming Muslim faith kill innocents, that is a perversion of Islam.
August 6th, 2005 at 12:24 am
Thank you, Rachel. That was quite interesting to know that some good people like you has taken the extra mile trying to understand and be informed enough about other religions.
I read your post about reading Quran. And I think Abu Sinan (maybe others too) will be interested to read it too. He might have something to help, I don’t know. I’m just guessing because he is an American turned to Islam.
Anyway, welcome to my blog, and I hope to hear from you more.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:30 am
Several issues,
If you want to compare islam and Christianity ,compare Jesus and mohammed ,one personally killed people and started by his own example the bloodthirsty tun of islam the other projected peace and instructed his followers to avoid violence therefore when a Christian now or in the past follows the path of violence he is not following Christ’s example ,he is rejecting it but in the case of islam mohammed’s own hands were used to end life and the path was laid out for all true believers.
To the gentleman who referred to Spain,we were a CHRISTIAN nation ocupied by force by muslims,we did not invite you in therefore you were not wanted and when you lost you had to leave simple as that!
No nation that has been under muslim ocupation was happy for the ocupation (Spain,Greece,Serbia etc.) and I may also remind you that large areas of the middle east were Christian before the swords of islam laid a path of forced conversion and bloodshed that converted all except for the hardiest into muslims.
You live in Christian nations ,vote ,work and enjoy the advantages of western civilization otherwise you would not come here yet in muslim nations democracy is a fantasy and right for non muslims practically non-existant which is why your whining is so hipocritical! Yo can even visit the vatican while I could never visit mecca unless I converted to islam .(Just to illustrate the difference)
Those of you that criticize the west for lack of morals are not alone,most of those actions are contrary to Christianity.
I don’t consider this a holy war ,and neither do most people because if it was it would be a truly short and bloody war in which mecca and medina would cease to exist within days of the onset of such a war.
I also don’t beleive in those that say that poverty and injustice cause these actions because the perpetrators are mostly educated middle and upper middle class men and if this were the seed for terrorism Central Africa being the most opressed and ravaged area of the planet would have the highest rate of terrorism.
The truth is you all have to stop blaming others and look to yourselves and fix the problem ,otherwise things will only get worse because nobody wants a visitor in their house that can’t be trusted …and you are in our house !!
AM
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:14 am
Yea, it’s become painfully obvious with people like Norma Hassan and the others that suicide terrorist doesn’t have as much to do with islamic extremism or relgious extermism at all as much as religious DIFFERENCE when a country occupies another.
No one would attack the US if the US didn’t invade and control other countries. Suicide terorism only occurs when a democracy invades another country. Although the US may currently be killing terrorists, they’re doing nothing to prevent a new, bigger insurgency.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Alberto, another excellent post.
Rachel, you said “I know that I’m not responsible for his acts just because we claim to read the same holy book and to worship the same God”.
How exactly do you know that two people worship the “same God” ?? To be more specific, when two people next to each other pray together to the “same God” … how do you know what idea or concept of God their respective minds pray towards? Conceptions of God vary so much, it’s meaningless to talk about believing in the “same God” simply because the word matches.
As far as I know muslims claim that God has nothing in common with the creation and that no created attributes can be used to describe God (that’s what you call the basis for Islam, Tawheed, right?) … yet many/most muslims conceptualise God as being of male gender (genitals, testosterone and all ?), having a hand, sight and hearing, not to mention thoughts, knowledge, and even feelings … and perhaps even a throne; quite literally in some cases. Some try to justify their shallow, human-centric beliefs (which are akin to idolatry) by using the “infinity” argument; as if this is a matter of quantity and not of quality. So, they may say that God has knowledge, but it’s infinite, and so on, without realising that this is no less shirk (the worst sin in Islam) than saying that God has size but it’s infinite, or that God has weight but it’s infinite, or that God has speed but it’s infinite. Such statements are totally meaningless and self-contradictory, yet so many muslim minds are ready to commit shirk, unknowingly rendering themselves out of the folds of that which they supposedly live and die for, while at the same time attacking the evil “western science” and “western ideology” (whatever that means).
I wonder, what compels someone to exhibit such highly irrational and self-contradictory behaviour to the extent of being (self) destructive. What biological buttons are being pressed to induce such a strong subconsiousp sychological force in order to accept (and often die for) an alleged “ideology” that has no substance whatsoever and which, when push comes to shove, is vehemently defended on the basis of some vague promise (afterlife, or other) that clearly taps into the bodily biological needs inherited by lower life forms.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Thanks Haitham, I looked at her site. It is nice. I love it when peoples take an honest and open look at each others faith and come back feeling like they have learned some and gained some respect for each other. Alhamduliallah.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
[...] of whoever you pray to, would you think you need to shoot a few bombs off? First of all, terrorist are not Muslims, and Muslims are not terrorists. If you w [...]
October 7th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
The Escape Clause: Arabs
Why can a nun be covered from head to toe and she’s respected for devoting herself to God, but when a Muslim does that, she’s “oppressed”? Why can a Jew grow a beard and he’s just practicing his faith, and when a Muslim does that, he’s an extremist? Why is it that when a child dedicates himself to a subject, he has potential, and when a child dedicates himself to Islam, he is hopeless? When a Christian kills someone, religion is not mentioned, (i.e. IRA) but when a Muslim is charged with a crime, it’s Islam that goes to trial?
Shortly after the Oklahoma bombing, analysts in the media said the timing of the attack was similar to past bombings linked to Muslims, such as the 1993 World Trade Center attack in New York City. “The signature looks Middle Eastern,” noted many American newspapers. Experts discounted American radical groups, according to Time Magazine because “few, if any, U.S. groups have the skills used in this bombing, and the car bomb is a signature weapon of several Islamic groups but no known American ones”. An apology to the Muslims was never offered.
So now, who do you blame? People tend to think that if a Middle Eastern person is involved, we should target the Middle East, but now that it’s an American and not an Arab, just whom do you point the finger at? Arabs tend to therefore be the scapegoat. It seems as if prejudice and discrimination are the basis of any FBI or CIA investigation.
We don’t consider that the killing of 19 innocent students, injuring numerous others, and traumatizing a nation to be an act of terrorism in the Columbine shooting. The Air India bombing, Unabomber, the Montreal massacre and many such attacks were not given the intense scrutiny and assessment with the media’s religion expert, like the WTC bombing.
Someone has to be blamed, and governments probably consider the ones with the smallest mouths to be those easy targets. Bush said, “we will target all terrorists of global reach”, which means that Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Al-Jihad, are fair game but the IRA is not. Solely targeting Muslims is discrimination, and therein denying life without reasonable doubt isn’t just cause. Arabs and Muslims were also killed in the WTC bombing, adding insult to injury would be to blame Muslims that lost family in the twin towers. Why degrade Islam by calling the Taliban, Islamic fundamentalists or Muslim terrorists. When was the last time you read an article about the IRA referring to them as Catholic extremists? If this religion is so bad, why is it after all that, Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world?
http://www.faheem.ca
December 24th, 2005 at 3:56 am
When people terrorize while carrying the name of a particular religion, they make a statement about the religion. That statement can be true or false, just or unjust.
Think about it. If someone were to insult Allah and Mohammed and another person were to murder that person for “blasphemy” in the name of “Jihad”, doesn’t the murder itself make a more blasphemous statement? Doesn’t it cause people to ask, “What are they afraid people will find out?” Doesn’t it cause people to think the God of the Moslems or whatever religion is such a pathetic, worthless, incompetent wimp so lacking in truth that he cannot stand up to the least scrutiny and that those who would present any opposing opinion must be wiped out lest the truth be discovered and this weak and helpless form of a god will be exposed?
I’m not saying anything against God here, and I, too, believe in God deeply, but I feel disappointed when I see people abuse others in the name of some religion. To me, it represents that religion as a cowardly and dishonest one whether it’s Moslems killing others or whether it’s the inquisition or the protestants and catholics fighting or whether its the Hindus who kill or abuse people for converting to other religions.
When I look at Judge John Jones III of Pennsylvania ruling that a school district cannot mention Intelligent Design as an alternative scientific view to evolution, the first thing that comes to mind is “what a lying cowardly arrogant jackass”. He speaks of freedom of religion, but he won’t respect the rights of people to hear of views counter to his own so they can think for themselves. Freedom is great as long as it’s freedom to do things his way. What a hypocrit.
Then there are nations like Indonesia that allow freedom to believe even though 85% of the population is Moslem. That, I feel, is VERY courageous and honorable. Yet, even still, not representing the majority, but just representing the terrorist few, hundreds of churches have been burned down and a few weeks back, three Christian high school girls were said to be beheaded.
It is said to be done “by Moslems”. Yet, around that time, a news article was printed about a Palastinian man whose child was killed by Israelis allowed his child’s organs to be donated to save the lives of some Israeli children.
When I hear of someone of a particular religion expressing love, and when I hear of someone of a particular religion showing courage to hear the voices of other religions without retaliating or killing or shutting them down and silencing them, I have a lot more respect for them and their culture and the beliefs they hold.
But, when I see people imprisoned or killed or abused or burned or beheaded brutally or shot because their expressed religious beliefs are different, I cannot help but wonder what sort of hair brained religion and god and prophet they serve. A true religion will stand on the basis all truth being brought out in the open. Any so-called prophet that sends people out in the name of God to slaughter all the infidels is a prophet full of dung worshipping a god full of dung, a god who is too weak to stand on truth, a god who must be defended by thugs and terrorists and murderers and thieves and liars who have to cover their lies with such activities and abuse who must deprive the people of freedom to think, to learn, to hear and consider and pray and be honest about their beliefs rather than slaughter everyone who is too cowardly to express any countering opinion. Any God worth worshipping doesn’t need thugs to bully and torment others for him.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Ive just finished reading your blogged and i am very intrigued. i live in australia and we are just begining more than ever to struggle with racism. i live in a very culturally diverse suburb and i love it. next door i have half turkish half maltese married to an australian, across the road i have a lovely muslim family that i have grown up with, and then i have australians, italian you name it that makes up my street. i suffered racism as a child at school in the 80s if the government didn’t stamp it out then , what hope do they have of doing it with todays generation, we were all bought up to defend ourselves but also our peers. well done on your blog, i commend you kind regards
December 30th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Interesting posts, all, some I quite agree with. A few ideas (can’t really call them points, lol):
1. No, all Muslims and Arabs aren’t terrorists. That’s a bid duh. But enough are, that the majority of Americans (that I’ve spoken to) feel a lot more comfy on a plane without arabs than a plane with Arabs. this goes back in history to things dating to the 70s when the nutters killed planeloads of innocents. Anyone seen the movie Munich where the Jew Steve panders to the Arabs? common, guys!
2. Not all Christians are anti-Arab. Most of us just want to either a.) be left alone or b.) get your oil! or c.) have fun in whatever way… but I don’t see huge lines of tourists to go to Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, etc…. maybe it has something to do with the hoods for the women in the desert heat… or whatever.
3. Quite frankly, Christian nations have gone out of their way to pander to Islamic phobias whenever we are there. The military women in Saudia Arabia for instance, have to wear those ridiculous clothes to avoid insulting the wackers there… now I realize there may be legitimate opposition to immodest clothing, but Islam has basically forced a Christian nation to adopt Muslim standards– so much of the ‘oppression theory’ above is simple bs.
4. Where abuses have occured, they are historical rather than current. I’m not going to justify the Crusades any more than you’ll justify the slaughter of the Christians you Muslims conquered a few hundred/thousand years ago. If we gotta pander to hate, let’s at least limit it to the last 75-100 years or so, huh?
5. Nuff said. Both Christians and Arabs have legitimate disagreements. It just seems like the nutty muslims (rather than the saner governments) are awful quick to resort to the bomb. Excuse me, but the first amendment to the constitution doesn’t include bombings and murders as a way to vent or express yourself. You wannta do that nonsense, do it in the arab world, don’t bring it here!
J P B
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Very interesting dialogue everyone. Many of you offer valid points and are highly evolved beings. Too much time is spent comparing this culture versus that culture and the justifications for this or that is copious. Ultimately, we are all accountable for our actions and reactions. How we individually act will be judged by our chosen Gods I suspect. Focus on your individual actions and ask yourself if your religion would approve. Ask yourself if it is in keeping with what is right. We can spend an inordinate amount of time rehashing history and who did what to whom and accomplish nothing in the process. Everyone of us will only see what we want to see and refuse to be persuaded therefore. As an American, I am trying to be open-minded and am more accepting of the injustices that we as a nation have perpetrated. No one is without sin or imperfections. I think it would be more useful to cease blaming others for why we act unjustly or unrighteously. In the end, it is about you and your choices. We must be rational and be above the bating. You do not have to accept an invitation to act irrationally.
If the west is so awful and contrary to your culture, why is it that Muslims in record numbers are moving to western countries. It is because they are escaping a repressive culture that pressures them to conform. In America they are able to decide for themselves and improve their standard of living. No, I am not disparaging Muslim countries but it is a curious thing. In France for example, why are Muslims there when the French culture is unjust toward them. Muslims then complain that they can’t find work or are being discriminated against. If you are going to move to another country you need to make an effort to assimilate. It does not mean that you forget your roots or customs but an effort needs to be made. What I love about America is that we are a melting pot. There is such a variety of everything, which makes it so much more interesting to me. I know, we don’t live in a utopia but darn it’s good to be an American. God bless all of God’s children and may peace resonate in your heart.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Hi Robert!
A great point about rehashing history, I always say, “what now”. Unfortunately history may be a long time ago, or the affects of that history maybe now. It is so very hard to break a pattern that benefits you but may be harming another. I think it is just human nature. Have you seen the movie, don’t know the exact name but something with “sunshine of the mind in it” It’s about a program that enables people to be deprogrammed of their past emotions. Maybe that would be useful here but it was after all just a movie. But then again, what now?
As for being an American, I am too. I’ve traveled alot as you know from my prior posts. It is so easy for most of us to say “Here in America we are a melting pot and people assimilate”. But I can honestly tell you that it is Americans who are the worst at this when they travel because they expect other cultures to bend to OUR idea of the ideal society. I have seen so many “American compounds” overseas where the people live and never go outside except when necessary. They send their children to American schools so they don’t have to be taught in the language of the country where they are residing. All their friends are American, their foods are imported. You get the picture. Bravo to those Americans who don’t fit this model and live as those do in their host countries. Bravo to those in America who respect differences and welcome others here. No bravo to France for banning the scarfs of Moslem women. No bravo to making the whole world look like America. It would be just one big boring world and sooner or later, let’s admit even here we have our prejudices.
March 4th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Robin,
You make very good point when you indicated that Americans often want other cultures to submit to our ways. I say, when in Rome do like the Romans. We need to get this chip off our shoulder thinking that our way is the right way and should be emulated. There are so many beautiful cultures out there waiting to be experienced. One thing to consider. It is easy for Americans to think that they do not need to experience other cultures because the world is so Americanized. When one travels abroad you see McDonalds, Pizza Hut etc. When I go out of town I try to eat at places that we do not have at home. More Americans should do the same when they travel abroad. I have traveled all over also and I love to experience the differences without thinking that our way is the best way. We are simply different. By the way, no offense taken whatsoever regarding any of your comments.
March 4th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Robert,
Once I took a group tour by myself to Austia, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Italy. When I arrived in Vienna there was a mother-daughter team I gravitated towards and we agreed to go into town together. When we got there, where did they want to eat? You guessed it, McDonalds!! Needless to say I politely excused myself and walked the old town alone and ate by myself in a cute little cafe. I would rather be ALONE than with people such as these. At least I know I can strike up a conversation with a local, English permitting, and have a good time. I bet you’ve had similar experiences. Have you ever been to the Mideast? Know any Arabs or Moslems? And I’m going to ask another silly question, since the title of this site is “Arabs and Muslims are Not Terrorists”, what do you think?
March 4th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Robin,
No, I have never been to the middle east or know any Arabs or Muslims. I live in south Texas about eight miles from the Mexican border. The population as you might expect is 85% Hispanic. I am open to knowing anyone of any culture and suspending my judgment until I get to know them. What I read does not impact me in the least regarding Muslims and terrorism. I know that there are extremists that give Muslims a bad name. It is the same thing with the few soldiers that gave America a bad name in Iraq with the torture etc. All to often we decide ahead of time what a culture is all about without investigating ourselves. People are people and we all need basically the same things. What did you mean by what do you think? About what?
March 4th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Robert,
You answered my question. We’re on the same page. For that matter, I am originally from Texas too, grew up in Dallas, mother’s family in Terrell, may parents live in Wills Point, a little town off Highway 80. I go there every summer. I can only imagine you don’t know any Arabs in your locale. Just wondering when I asked the question, but knowing the geography I understand your answer. How did you come out so normal growing up there? Please don’t be offended. It’s just I know what rural Texas is like cause that’s where I grew up, or at least, that was the type of family I had, parents educated but my mother is the daughter of a share-cropper. Lot’s of prejudice, but not from my parents who got out of it.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Robin,
Actually I did not grow up in South Texas. I grew up in Omaha, Nebraska. My values are from the midwest. I have been living in south Texas since 1989 however and I love the culture and people here. Furthermore, I am a Hispanic college graduate-a Therapist actually. There are very few Hispanic college graduates. The research indicates that 93% of Mexican Americans do not have a college degree. I was fortunate in my life to travel abroad and to get an excellent education. Perhaps that answers your question about how I turned out so normal. It was an interesting question on your part.
Muslims are not terrorists, terrorists are terrorists and they come from all cultures. Anyone that terrorizes is guilty of being a terrorist. It is important that we understand that very significant point for the sake of this dialogue. Take care Robin and I enjoyed our conversation.
March 5th, 2006 at 5:31 am
Hi Robert Ruiz,
Hi Robin,
Terrorism is a plague of our modern times, which has appeared as a result of the injustices that exist among people in the same country and among different countries, or those made by totalitarian regimes. It appears under many facets and ideologies be it Islam or Communism or any other doctrine. Arabs and Moslems are just humans with another culture and another religion. What accentuated terrorism and related it to Moslems and Arabs is the everlasting conflict between Israel supported by America and some other European countries on one side and the Palestinians supported by the Arab world and by Islamic countries on the other. The implication of the US in the Middle East conflict made of it an enemy that’s so strong that it couldn’t be fought by any other means than terrorism.
March 5th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Robert,
If you’re still there, my interesting question was a joke based on the experience of my ex-husband encountering so much racism in Texas. It’s sort of my quirky personality to cover up painful experiences with joking. I apologize if I offended you because I really meant it as a compliment because you’re NOT like the many people who offended him in the past. No I don’t think all Texans are racists, but I do know a few who are and that’s what I meant by you being normal as opposed to them.
On 9/11 my fear was two-fold. I was scared to the bone thinking the whole country was under attack. But quite honestly, I was actually watching the news when the second airplane hit and I KNEW, I just knew, my god my ex-inlaws could come under fire from us. I knew immediately in my gut it was Bin Ladin and since most people cannot differentiate between Arab/Moslem/terrorist, they don’t even put in the slash, they’re all the same. I have a daughter whose college called the FBI because she receives her tuition as a direct deposit from Saudi Arabia. This is utterly frightening on both sides for me and I only wish EVERYONE could tell the difference because it is so very dangerous when we don’t. Just keep in mind my ex is an Arab/Moslem so I hope to goodness I know the difference.
I’ve enjoyed our conversation too Robert, and I hope you understand where I truly come from and that I am sorry if I offended you.
March 5th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Tamim, Robin,
You made some good points about how the conflict between the west and Muslims has come to this-terrorism. I disagree with you Tamim that terroristic acts are the only way to fight back. You say “it could not be fought by any other means.” Too many innocent people are killed in the process. If terroristic acts were directed toward soldiers and military targets only then I might be able to agree. The terrorists in Iraq led by Zarqawi blow up anybody and anything to include holy sites. Terrorists are deviant and nefarious whether they are Muslim, Dutch, American or Palestinian period.
Robin, you keep apologizing for offending me. I have never been offended by you. Regards.
March 5th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Robert
Terrorism is blind .When a group can’t fight you directly in an open conventional war because you are better armed and better organized and you outnumber them, they fight you in the way that makes them achieve better results with little efforts and means. They attack your airports or commercial centres to exercise pressing on you. I’m not saying they are right to do so. I’m just saying that’s the reason for doing it that way. However, the same war can be seen from the opposite side as legitimate. Israel for instance has always used the term terrorist for Palestinian resistance even before suicide bombers appeared. The IRA in Ireland was considered terrorist by the British, while they considered themselves as resistance against occupation.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Tamin,
Absolutely correct. But it’s kind of like arguing differences of religion. Same goal, different method. Any ways, point well taken by myself. I never used to understand it, but I do now.
War is HELL no matter who the perpetrator is. Notice I did not say participant, but instead am trying to refer to the instigator. Hope you understand what I mean ’cause I’m having a hard time explaining my point, but I think you understand my bias.
Enjoy your input and unlike myself, you have a better way of explaining it.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Robin
Robert Ruiz
Arabs and Moslems are not terrorists because terrorism has no religion as it has no race or ethnicity. It’s not a way of life nor is it a hobby or a tradition. It’s an ugly political tool. When one accuses Arabs or Moslems of being terrorists, it’s like accusing whites of racism while blacks too can be racist, or accusing the Jews of being Zionists, or accusing Christians of being anti-Semitic. Everybody can be anything.
Terrorism is a crime no matter who perpetrates it and no matter what the circumstances or the motives are as there are no excuses or justifications for terrorist acts.
America, on the other hand, and its foreign policy produces enemies while it has all the possibilities to be a respectful and respected country.
The Gulf war showed America as an invader especially when there turned out to be no mass destruction weapons in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s practices as a dictator did not constitute solid justification for invading Iraq He wasn’t the only dictator in the region or in the world. He even used to be supported by the US in their ‘war’ against Iran in the same way as they supported The Taliban in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union. The CIA could not regrettably avoid Sept 11th because they were busy working abroad against potential enemies or in favour of false friends…
March 7th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Robert and Tamim,
Terrorism IS nefarious.
What I meant by understanding was that I understand WHAT the reasoning is, but I do NOT think it to be a valid weapon. Gosh, isn’t the proof in the pudding when so many innocent people die?
I saw the seeds being sown 30 years ago, they have grown into a tree of poison. Tamin, absolutely Arabs and Moslems are not terrorists. Many terrorists ARE Arabs and Moslems. Please notice I did not insert a “but”. Unfortunately this is a tragic case of guilt by association. My ex was camping 10 kilometers from Abquaiq when the terrorist tried to blow it up. Terrorism is dangerous to him on a daily basis with roadblocks everywhere. I have NO idea how to stamp this out. I do know it is not to counter it with Christianity. It is chilling to the bone.
Robert, I will NOT apologize again. I am new to blogging and cannot infer tone from writing from people I do not know. I am trying so very hard NOT to offend and am maybe oversensitive when I read a response. I am enjoying the dialogue greatly and wish it to go on. Just me I guess being too careful and not wanting to say something offensive. That’s MY problem, not yours. Peace.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I wish all the terrorist creatures of whatever faith they are would read a bit about resistance fighting in the European countries occupied by the Nazis in WWII.
Terrorism is not resistance fighting, it is just spreading terror in a counter-productive manner.
What could be called ‘humanity’ is the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters. Terrorists bomb civilians to cause as large human casualties as possibel while freedom fighters bomb infrastructure of financial or military significance with as low civilian casualties as possible.
Terrorists are fighting against humanity while freedom fighters are fighting against an opressor!
March 7th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Thomas,
Great differentiation on your part. Thanks for the explantion. Don’t you think that maybe that’s also where the deepseeded hatred shows up as a difference too? Method vs method is one thing which you defined very well. Motive vs Motive is also an issue. What do you think?
March 7th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Thomas,
I made a similar point earlier. I belive Tamim was justifying terrorism by suggesting that it was an effective method for fighting against a better armed military like the U.S. There is no justification for terrorism since it hurts the innocent. I told Tamim that attacks needed to be carried out against military targets and infrastructure. You made an excellent distinction in your blog and I could not agree more.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Thomas,
Apologies for the question, you answered it in your last sentence.
The hatred, what do we fight it with when they run planes into buildings? Iraq is CERTAINLY not the answer. I find myself at a complete loss. It’s so freakin hard being an American these days.
But then again, at least some of us know WHY it is so hard. By the way, I DID see your post before it went bye-bye and that’s why I answered the question about “should we” ’cause you asked me too where it was. Just remember, I HATE guns!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Robin,
Quite the contrary, it is easy being an American these days. Were you referring to the bad press we get as a country? Perhaps you have a point. However, I will never think anything other than thank God I am an American. America is always criticized because we are proactive in trying to take a lead role in world affairs. Yes, we make mistakes but our intentions are honorable. I read a lot on these blogs that America has supported dictators or that we supported Iraq against the Iran war etc. It is strategy period. We never said that we agreed with what their governments stand for. There is a big difference. We do what is in our national interest to do and sometimes we have compromised ourselves. There is a reason for it. Robin, make no mistake, it is great to be an American period!
March 8th, 2006 at 1:22 am
Hey Robert,
There’s nowhere in the world I would rather hail from. The freedom, the people, the beauty. What I was referring to from my perspective is as an American I find myself in a position of being lumped together in the big bag of “Ugly Americans”. I have lived, breathed an eaten another life somewhere and got to look at us the way they do. Yes it is strategy, but too often our strategy makes innocent people in other countries pay the price.
Having lived abroad I have been the recipient of some of our strategy and it isn’t a pretty site. I have seen too many others who have been victims of our strategy also. I prefer to be a citizen of the world than only tie myself to this country. I think that our administration has sold our people a big pack of honorable lies and people are dying because of them. I think that the port deal was made due to business interests. Check out the Carlyle Group and their members. The Bush family is profiting and Dubai World Ports has a major investment in this hedge-fund-policy maker. I think you ought to check out PNAC, Project for the New American Century, take special note of their members, past and present and their mission statement if you can find it. THAT is what I was referring to, not America as I so love. The “bad press” is only the tip of the iceberg Robert, it’s all those dead people, past, present and futute who have died because of our strategy. No, I’m not going to apologize for feeling the way I do. God Bless America and help our good and honorable people take it back!
March 8th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Robin
I agree with you and admire your clarity and courage and your objective reasoning.Thank you for unintentionally helping me make my point.
March 8th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Tamim,
I’ve got lots more of the same up my sleeve to use when necessary. It isn’t about tearing down my country. It is about being as darn educated as you can and being willing to look at reality. My country’s foreign policy sucks and it’s been that way for a LONG time. Latin America, Southeast Asia, Palestine, you name it. We even give aid for AIDS and refuse to allow condom education!! Don’t get me started. Thanks for the comment and I’m glad I could help you out.
Masalama
March 8th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Robin,
Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee! So only our strategy and foreign policy has harmed others. Other countries policies have not harmed Americans or others? Give me a break. I realize America is not perfect and I to have lived in other countries and tasted their culture. Yes, I have seen America from their perspective. People nearly always serve their own inte