Muslims vs. the Muslim Brotherhood
Wednesday October 17, 2007
Categories: Islamic terrorism
I had the privilege -- and really, it was that -- of sitting on a panel today with Zeyno Baran and Husain Haqqani, two prominent Muslim scholars who warn against the role the Muslim Brotherhood is taking in the United...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I would be interested what the Islamic (NOT Islamist) scholars said about how the radicalization of Muslim organizations in the U.S. can be reconciled with the fact that the 9/11 hijackings were carried out entirely by foreigners and that -- unlike the homegrown attacks Europe -- there have been no terrorist attacks before or since 9/11 by U.S. citizens who are Muslim.
Islam is simply a miror of Christianity.
yeah Ron the MB is gonna take over America and who knows probably eat your children too. since we can't tell which muslims are from the MB we should shut down all Muslim orgainzations all put the Muslims in concentration camps.
Zeyno Baran and Husain Haqqani,are both neo cons who work for a right wing think tank called the Hudson Institute (google it). I wonder who gave them the title "prominent Muslim scholars" only a rightwing neo con would. my advice is stop getting your information from bias sources and maybe look at things from a broader perspective.
How about providing some of that broader perspective random?
Do you think that there is no growing conflict between the West and the Islamist?
This notion of “Islamist” is a totally false construct and should be discarded. There is Islam period.
Stephen Coughlin’s point is valid: true Muslims always have a ready answer justifying their acts from the canonical texts. With these delusory “moderate” Muslims like Haqqani, it’s always “I’ll get back to you on that”.
As long as Americans continue to be gulled by the “moderates”, they will falsely believe that Islam presents no problem except for a tiny extremist contingent that can somehow be dealt with. So Islam will continue to grow in America, and after Muslims reach critical mass it will be too late.
"1. Today, most leading figures in the US Muslim community are either MB members or fellow travelers, because the MB had the money and the influence to make this happen. The Muslim community in this country as a whole is diverse, but its leadership is not.
2. Most mosques and Muslim organizations are controlled by the MB.
3. The broader Muslim agenda ended up being defined by the MB, which cast the religion as an intensely political ideology.
4. This ende dup[sic] marginalizing traditional Islam in American society."
Sounds remarkably like the Christian Right to me and their ascendancy to power over the past 30-50 years. Traditional, mainstream Christianity has been marginalized in favor of a Christianity that relies on a literal reading of the Bible and a fervent desire to control the positions of political power in this country.
Evangelical Christianity certainly has not resorted to violence to advance its agenda...unless you count the several killings of abortion doctors and the bombing in Oklahoma City. If you count those then the movement is pretty much on a par with the Muslim Brotherhood's activities in this country.
Religious fundamentalism, in all of its trappings, is the enemy. Your inability to see that simply contributes to the problem.
I'm slightly reluctant to join in this debate but I am because I don't want people to miss the point.
I know nothing about the MB and I'm certain that the wilder scaremongering about Islamists taking over the US and imposing a theocracy and sharia law is just that - scaremongering. There is no logical way that it can happen. Just as it can't happen in the UK or Europe - I have faith in the stability of our democratic institutions for the foreseeable future.
But there is a very real danger and that is home-grown terrorism. If the US follows the pattern of the UK (and Europe) you will have 2nd or 3rd generation young Muslim males, searching for their Muslim identity in a Western world, and finding radical Islam as an easy, direct way to that identity. That's when you will have suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks planned and carried out by US citizens.
I don't know how far down that road the US is. But that is the threat from Islamists of any organisation - not fantasies of sharia law and the imposition of world-wide Islam, but terrorism. And I fear that this is a question of 'when' not 'if'. And I would love, really love to be wrong about this.
I agree radical Islam is a problem, and that the FBI and CIA should probably keep a close eye on the dealings of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and their afiliated organizations. But like others have pointed out, the idea that Muslims are going to somehow take over the country and put us all under a Caliphate is on the level of 1950s John Birch Society paranoia about flouridated water. Look at the Muslim world - how much success has the Muslim Brotherhood had in that area of the world? I guess they had the run of Afghanistan for about ten years or so, as a joint venture with the Taliban... and that's pretty much it. If they can't seem to foment their Islamic Revolution in countries with a common Islamic history and culture going back for a thousand years, why does anyone think they could possibly do it in the United States? It would take decades of sustained immigration from the Muslim World on the level of current immigration from Latin America, something which is not happening now, and is simply not going to happen. Again, I agree that Islamic radicalism and terrorism is a real problem and threat, but they are not going to take over the country.
Rod,
I wonder if it's coincidence that you were attending this conference just as I was just reading about the history of "seditious libel" in the United States. Next on the agenda: the Internal Security Act of 1950.
It's probably necessary to crush the Muslim Brotherhood & its cohorts, but doing so may not be very pretty.
Cushy Butterfield,
Good point. The threat isn't of an Islamist/Muslim takeover, which is conceivable but highly improbable. The real threat is the prospect of MB et al transforming a diverse American Muslim community into a uniformly Islamist fifth column that happens to hold US citizenship. Millions of American Islamists providing eager recruits for a domestic Al Qaeda branch. Our institutions are ill-equipped to handle an internal security threat of this magnitude. Crushing such a threat would be utterly necessary - both for reasons of national security, and because Jacksonians would skin alive any politician who failed to do so - but doing so would probably entail severe damage to civil liberties. Domestic surveillance... profiling...internments, expatriations, & deportations all done en masse....
The same goes for Europe, BTW. I'm less sanguine that they'll avoid a takeover, but I see civil war, domestic terrorism, and possible ethnic cleansing as the more likely scenarios.
Domestic surveillance... profiling...internments, expatriations, & deportations all done en masse....
Which would be a great way to recruit more terrorists and push moderates into the radical camp. Heavy handed tactics don't work - they may get you small gains, but they won't win the war. It's a hearts and minds job and you don't win those at the point of a gun.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-asiaterror_14int.ART.State.Edition1.41fb77e.html
"It's probably necessary to crush the Muslim Brotherhood & its cohorts, but doing so may not be very pretty."
What you and many other conservatives seem to be saying is that our governmental system, with its civil liberties protections, is a failure. We are saying that the only way to combat the infiltration of a group into our country is to curb the very freedoms that we claim to be protecting. We are saying that the great experiment known as America is incapable of protecting itself while preserving our rights. Religious liberty, freedom of speech, press and assembly, the right of habeas corpus, the protections against unreasonable search and seizure...all of these must be curtailed if we are to protect them.
Sorry...I don't buy it.
This sounds suspiciously like the "we had to bomb the village to save it" argument. It also sounds suspiciously like the message put out during the "red scare" years. Tailgunner Joe has come back to haunt us, this time his target being the Muslim extremist.
I believe that we should be vigilant in watching for legitimate terrorist threats, and that organizations which have shown a history of working towards violent ends should be monitored and, when appropriate, their leadership should be arrested for taking these actions. However, if we are going to start looking for a terrorist in every mosque in our nation, we are simply going to give credence to the radicals in the Muslim movement who say that we are engaged in Crusade against them.
We need to be careful as we approach the issue of speech vs. actions. After all, it wasn't a Muslim religious leader who suggested, on television, that it would not be a bad thing if a nuke went off near the State Department.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/
Perhaps a question we should be asking our media is why they have been so quiet in reporting the reactions of moderate Muslim leaders to the terrorist acts of the extremists in their religion?
Rod...you are a member of that group. Why is it so difficult for the moderate Muslim leaders and scholars to be heard in our press? There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of statements made as to how these violent acts run contrary to the teaching of the Muslim religion.
Why do you folks in the media ignore them?
http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=17&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.unc.edu/%257Ekurzman/terror.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx
Why do you ignore these voices, Rod?
We could, indeed, end up with a network of lawless criminal radical Muslims that build each other up and occassionally make terrorist attacks.
As we already have such a Christian network, though, I'm really not seeing the huge problem. Any Muslim network would be a fraction of the size, population-wise, even if X number of all Muslims joined it and only X/50 of Christians join the blow-up-abortion-clinics-and-gay-bars movement. Considering that Christians outnumber Muslims in this country about 100:1.
Now, I can see the argument that the Muslim Brotherhood has more money and resources, but I'm not even entirely sure that's true. There are some very deep pockets on the extreme right, it's just that, so far, they don't appear to be funding attacks, just the hate, they leave the attacks to their followers. Right now they're going for quantity, not quality, but they could change that in a heartbeat.
Islamism is worth keeping an eye on, but I think our resources should be mainly directed to those domestic terrorists that have actually committed acts of terrorism.
It's always good to see folks in their tin foil hats coming out so reliably to raise the scary specter of Christian fundies. Thanks for the entertainment folks! How's the Easter Bunny doing these days?
"How's the Easter Bunny doing these days?"
He was banned by Sharia law because of the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.
I think both political sides of the arguments I briefly browsed through are incorrect. The left says we should ignore it because we are blowing it out of proportion. They are wrong, extremists, whether they are Muslim, Christian or atheist are extremists and a danger. The right says we need to crack down on these people, take away their rights. This has continually proved to be a poor way of handling situations like these, think of the Japanese internment camps. What needs to happen is that moderate Muslims and moderate Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc need to reach out to each other. I doubt many on either side who argue the loudest even have a clue what it means to be the other. How many of you liberals out there who say we just don't understand "fill in the blank of the minority group" take any time to actually understand the dynamics of that community? And how many of you conservatives who say we need to step up security think about the impact to our collective liberties? So I challenge everyone to take the time to actually learn about Islam, Arab history, and extremism from a source other than the 24 hour news channels. Then I challenge you to reach out to the Muslims in your community. Because after all we are all in this together.
Maybe I need to read more carefully, but the only people I heard say anything about taking away the rights of Muslims were those on the left who raising the specter of such in an attempt to discredit the right and cow people into agreeing to ignore the whole thing.
You are correct, Kim. (Except for the painting with rather large brushstrokes about conservatives and liberals.)
The US is a melting pot. Various people, in recent years, have tried to make it less of one, both with racism and religiousism (Is that a word? Firefox thinks not.).
Why? So they have someone to attack. Someone to rile their people up to hate. I've said it in the anti-immigration debates, and I'll say it here.
Although, in this case, it's exceptionally dangerous with Muslim. Riling up hatred of Mexicans isn't really going to do anything except hurt them. With Muslims, however, there's another group, doing exactly the same thing in the other direction, against the West. You hate them, they hate you, and we all get blown up.
Or, you accept them, live with them, and they'll reject what 'the other side' is teaching and melt into America. And, what's more, Islam will suffer a 'moderating' backlash and fanaticism will be reduced everywhere.
And, of course, some will not, and they will still attack, and we will still have to fight them, but it won't be 'Muslims vs. the West', it will be 'Lunatics vs. everyone else'. Just like Eric Robert Rudolph attack wasn't, despite him thinking so, 'Christians vs. the United States', everyone correctly saw that as 'A lunatic vs everyone else'.
The Hudson Institute shouldn't be complaining about the lack of news coverage on the Muslim Brotherhood when 1. they didn't advertise their own conference at all to reporters (I got nothing from them and I'm one of the religion reporters in DC who usually does) and 2. put nothing on their web site (as of yesterday at least) about the conference.
I sure hope much credit was given to the Chicago Trib for their magnificent story a few years back on the MB. I've tried myself to research that group and it's not for the faint-hearted.
Why limit yourself to criticizing Zeyno Baran and Husain Haqqani, Random Guy? All Muslim scholars or Muslims who speak out against the Islamists are automatically discredited (and must, of course, be Neocons) when they aren't threatened with death or actually killed.
I agree with Rod that the larger problem is that U.S. institutions aren't taking a strong enough stand relative to Islamist-inspired organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR.
I just read an excellent book by Reza Aslan, "No god but God," in which he says that extremist Muslims are a much greater threat to moderate Muslims than they are to the West. But, I'm reminded of what happened in Verona because of the feuding Montagues and Capulets. When a "family feud" begins to cause a lot of collateral damage, it ceases to be the business of the feuding families, and becomes the business of the community.
Which would be a great way to recruit more terrorists and push moderates into the radical camp. Heavy handed tactics don't work - they may get you small gains, but they won't win the war. It's a hearts and minds job and you don't win those at the point of a gun.
Cushy Butterfield - Note the conditional preceding the phrase you cite. I wasn't saying that's what we _should_ do; I'm saying that _if_ we let the problem sit 'till every American Muslim is a card-carrying MB member, _then_ we'll probably have to do something like that.
As for "winning hearts & minds", this only works when the populace whose hearts you're trying to win isn't already indoctrinated to hate you. It would (probably) be inapplicable in the scenario I posit.
RJohnson - I suppose I could cite civil liberties violations from the Civil War, WWI, & WWII by way of refutation, but I won't. I am not one of those conservatives who analogizes the "war on terror" to those previous wars, because I believe the analogy fails. Each of those wars had a defined end point, so that any damage done to civil liberties was at least temporally limited. But since the threat of terrorism may never disappear, our current "war on terrorism" might therefore last indefinitely; so if we follow (say) Lincoln's or FDR's approach to emergency powers, we shall find ourselves subject indefinitely to "constitutional dictatorship".
What I am saying is that abridgement of civil liberties _may_ be necessary in order to defend our rights, but I'm not sure how to do that without fatally wounding the Republic. I mention the Smith Act, the ISA '50, Alien Enemies Act, internments, etc. because these are what have historically been used against Communists, Copperheads, the Bund, and other real or imagined threats to internal security. When people talk about "dealing with" the Muslim Brotherhood, I want them to realize that these are the sorts of measures that _may be_ required. But I am not sure such measures _are_ necessary in order to eliminate whatever threat the MB might pose; and the slippery slope associated with using such measures against a religious group (even one with a political agenda) makes me wary of employing them in any event.
I note that the sort of measures you mention, i.e., "monitoring" potentially violent organizations, sound suspiciously like domestic spying, complete with wiretaps, informants infiltrating such organizations, etc. (Perhaps this is not your idea of "monitoring", but I'm not sure how else it could be done effectively.) We would be truly fortunate if such light-handed measures sufficed to defang MB & its cohorts.
Ray said:
"Islam is simply a miror of Christianity."
Ray,
Advocating for a certain position within the framework of a secular democracy is one thing . . . REJECTING the secular democratic framework altogether in favor of a fully formed legal and societal system based on the Quran as the immutable word of God (a set of laws which are completely hostile and incompatible to the EVERYTHING we stand for) is something completely different. Many, many muslims - at least the real ones who subscribe to Shariah - simply do not accept certain basic assumptions about our form of government - and that's fundamentally different from christian opposition to abortion or gay marriage, for example. Why invent a threat where none exists? There are, after all, REAL theocracies operating in the world today (in fact, several of them) and NONE of them is christian.
"I note that the sort of measures you mention, i.e., "monitoring" potentially violent organizations, sound suspiciously like domestic spying, complete with wiretaps, informants infiltrating such organizations, etc. (Perhaps this is not your idea of "monitoring", but I'm not sure how else it could be done effectively.) We would be truly fortunate if such light-handed measures sufficed to defang MB & its cohorts."
I suggest using the same monitoring techniques that we used prior to 9/11. As I understand it a number of potential threats were stopped by the measures in place during those years, yet basic civil liberties were upheld.
We have held off a number of domestic threats (KKK, rogue militias, minority extremists) over the years quite well without resorting to undue restrictions on the very freedoms we say we are protecting.
Julia: I sure hope much credit was given to the Chicago Trib for their magnificent story a few years back on the MB. I've tried myself to research that group and it's not for the faint-hearted.
I gave them credit in my talk, Julia. I'm sorry to hear that the conference wasn't more widely advertised. I figured I might see you there.
As for some of the rest of the comments, jeez, it's a straw-man convention here in the comboxes. Nobody's saying that the MB is going to take over the country (nobody, that is, except the MB). Nobody's advocating taking away their rights and incarcerating them. The point numerous people made at the conference -- including at least three Muslims -- is that the MB has taken over the institutions of Islamic life in the US, and has imposed its harsh, anti-Western, anti-democratic views on these institutions. These groups are educating Muslims, especially young ones, to hate the American system as anti-Islamic, and how to use the system to advance themselves and their views (it's a very Gramscian strategy, actually). As Zeyno Baran put it, this is exactly how you end up with homegrown radical youth who are willing to carry out violence for the sake of radical ends.
What people were advocating yesterday is nothing much more than that the US government, the news media and academia wake up and understand the situation we're in. Quit treating ISNA, CAIR and these other organizations as if they were nothing more than the Islamic version of the Christian Coalition, the ADL and other groups. Let's start to look more closely at what they're all about, and not give them a free pass.
It's just short of psychotic that the people who would stand to be attacked most fiercely if these Islamists prevail -- secular liberals -- are the first ones to scream about how there is no difference at all between the Christian Coalition and the Muslim Brotherhood. That says absolutely nothing of value about either the Christian Coalition or the Muslim Brotherhood, and everything about the irrationality of the person making the statement. But you'd better believe these Islamists know how to deploy the bizarre fear and loathing of the Christian Right in their appeal to journalists. I've seen it happen more than once.
"Advocating for a certain position within the framework of a secular democracy is one thing . . . REJECTING the secular democratic framework altogether in favor of a fully formed legal and societal system based on the Quran as the immutable word of God (a set of laws which are completely hostile and incompatible to the EVERYTHING we stand for) is something completely different. Many, many muslims - at least the real ones who subscribe to Shariah - simply do not accept certain basic assumptions about our form of government - and that's fundamentally different from christian opposition to abortion or gay marriage, for example. Why invent a threat where none exists?"
That's just it, Lynn. There is a threat present in extremist Christianity. There are those who advocate exactly the same kind of government that the extremist Muslims advocate...limited freedom for non-believers, death to homosexuals, adulterers, and even disobedient adult children.
Rod dismisses this threat as being imaginary, and instead focuses on the threat Muslim extremists pose.
"St. Paul, in reminding the Corinthian Christians of their destiny, said, Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? (I Cor. 6:2). Moffatt renders this, Do you not know that the saints are to manage the world?, a meaning we do not need to remind ourselves of. Church government is a prelude to world government, not by the church but by the saints. In trying to establish the necessary church government towards this end, Paul's constant appeal was, not to the form of church government or to the members, but to the law of God and the growth of the saints in terms of it (I Cor. 6:15-9:27). ....Judging, governing, or managing of the world is in terms of God's law. Because the saints were called to manage or govern the world, very quickly it became their purpose to move into positions of authority and power." [R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 773,742]
We have people in places of power in our government who believe this, with all their hearts. They believe that it is their God-given duty to institute Biblical law as the law of the land.
And they are already in positions of power, unlike the Muslims you fear.
Hmmm. I'm familiar with the Muslim Student Organization here at OU. I know many of their members. They are no more radical then a lot of the OU College Republicans. I know many of them as well.
As an Oklahoman, I don't judge all Christians by the standards set by Murrah Building Bomber - Timothy McVeigh and his ties to Elohim City. Nor do I tie all Muslims to the Twin Towers and Islamist terrorists.
Sorry Ds - Aside from the Westboro Church, which is so isolated and marginalized as to be utterly inconsequential, I see no real evidence of this, anywhere . . . please feel free to share your sources.
MI: Cushy Butterfield - Note the conditional preceding the phrase you cite. I wasn't saying that's what we _should_ do; I'm saying that _if_ we let the problem sit 'till every American Muslim is a card-carrying MB member, _then_ we'll probably have to do something like that.
Well that scenario is as likely as Islamists taking over the US government. Islamists make up a minority of the Muslim population.
As for "winning hearts & minds", this only works when the populace whose hearts you're trying to win isn't already indoctrinated to hate you. It would (probably) be inapplicable in the scenario I posit.
There are always going to be people set against you who you can't sway. The hearts and minds battle comes with those who aren't entirely for you or against you - the moderates. You have to try and stop those going over to the other side. And heavy-handed tactics will push them over to the radicals - effectively doing the recruiting for them.
"It's just short of psychotic that the people who would stand to be attacked most fiercely if these Islamists prevail -- secular liberals -- are the first ones to scream about how there is no difference at all between the Christian Coalition and the Muslim Brotherhood."
Speaking of straw-man arguments . . . boy, is this one a doozy.
Maybe the bigger question is why aren't conservatives--who are worried about the power of the government and religious liberty--not up in arms about the decision that we need to target people for investigation because of their participation in a religious organization or because of their religious beliefs. Why is it that "secular liberals"--whomever those may be--are more concerned about religious liberty than social conservatives.
I believe radical Islam poses a bigger threat to the U.S. than radical Christianity. But I'm also not naive enough to believe radical Christianity doesn't exist and my memory is long enough to remember when the greatest terrorist threats and actions were coming from far-right Christian extremists.
"Sorry Ds - Aside from the Westboro Church, which is so isolated and marginalized as to be utterly inconsequential, I see no real evidence of this, anywhere . . . please feel free to share your sources."
How many sources do you need, Lynn? I do not ask that in jest, but in all seriousness. Must I meet the same level of proof that Rod has met over the past months, or is the bar higher when it comes to folks who might share your religious belief?
Ds:
One may suffice, depending on the source and the circumstance. Give me your best shot. (And when it comes to my religious beliefs, you assume too much).
MI: Cushy Butterfield - Note the conditional preceding the phrase you cite. I wasn't saying that's what we _should_ do; I'm saying that _if_ we let the problem sit 'till every American Muslim is a card-carrying MB member, _then_ we'll probably have to do something like that.
Well that scenario is as likely as Islamists taking over the US government. Islamists make up a minority of the Muslim population.
Well, you're more confident than I am, and I sincerely hope you're right. Although minorities can grow, even absent outside persecution. Even strict religions/ideologies have, historically, shown some propensity for growth (at least in Christianity - Islam may be a different ball of wax). And, of course, even "conversion" of 10% of the American Muslim population to MB ideology would provide a recruiting pool of significant size.
But I don't know how likely any of that is. Given such uncertainty, I think Rod's idea - i.e., thorough, intelligent, & unrelenting criticism of the MB & its ilk - is probably the way to go, at least for now. Let's see how well that works, and then we can adjust fire as necessary.
Fair enough, Rod, I'm not psychotic. Liberal (and detester of the Religious Right) though I am, I've never drawn an equivalence between conservative Christians and radical Islamists. Certainly not since a certain day in September 2001 ... (Even when Falwell and Robertson themselves were trying to draw the equivalence, saying they all were avenging angels of G-d.)
Your almost (almost) casual reference to "Gramscian" thought is a nice example of why a guy who agrees with you on very few issues nevertheless considers you a must-read.
"We have people in places of power in our government who believe this, with all their hearts. They believe that it is their God-given duty to institute Biblical law as the law of the land.
And they are already in positions of power, unlike the Muslims you fear."
You paint a pretty broad stripe. Sure, there are many who might wish it. But how exactly is this happening? Show me examples. I can think of McVea and abortion clinics and nothing else. I can name many,many examples of Islamic fundamentalism. We should stand on guard to any group who threatens our system, including radical Christians, but let us be realistic about the threat. I am sure many in power wish Biblical law, but unless they go outside of the system, it won't happen. Islamic fundamentalists ALWAYS go outside the system.
Rod,
The conference sounds most interesting as is your report on it and your discussions with the muslim panelists. But...you do not mention at all what you had to offer on the issue you were to address- why is it other journalist don't write this story? I have my suspicions but was hoping to hear from a journalist that does report this story???
"One may suffice, depending on the source and the circumstance. Give me your best shot. (And when it comes to my religious beliefs, you assume too much)."
One site it is.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
But if that tires you, here is a another site to consider:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/
You can even take a test to see if you have a Biblical Worldview.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php
I have many more...many more that I could post. But I've offered as much, if not more than what Rod has offered concerning his fears of Muslim extremism. I do not disagree that we may well face a threat in coming years from Muslim extremists in our nation, but I offer that we face a more immediate threat from adherents to a Christian Dominionist worldview who have already taken positions of power and influence in our goverment, our businesses, our media, and our social institutions.
And I ask again...how much more evidence is enough to convince you?
I don't think either Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph professed Christianity at the time he turned to terrorism. McVeigh described himself as having drifted away from his Catholic upbringing and never returned. Rudolph's picture is more confused. He is on record as saying he prefers Nietzche to the Bible but also, since his conviction, that he hopes to die a Catholic. But he denies any connection to the Christian Identity movement which in any case is the fringe of the fringe of a fringe.
To be honest I believe that we are but one terror attack away from seeing a wholesale repeal of many of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When that attack comes (and given our behavior in the world, it will come sooner rather than later) there will be a tremendous hue and cry among the people. Politicians will react and clamp down on any and all who would question the government's reactions to this attack.
In short, we will see yet another wartime curtailing of the Constitution. It will be a de facto admission that our founding principles cannot function when our country is under attack. Past wars have shown our penchant for this, but with the political climate such as it is in the nation right now I believe the reaction to the next terror attack in our country will make the actions taken in the past pale in comparison.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt, from an editorial in the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
"But he denies any connection to the Christian Identity movement which in any case is the fringe of the fringe of a fringe."
Yet he is embraced by other Christian groups, such as the Army of God and Missionaries to the Preborn. And he had someone (or many someones) supporting him as he hid in the woods of western North Carolina.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E0DB1230F931A35755C0A9659C8B63
"''He was a man who stood for what he believed in,'' said Bo Newton, a short-order cook in Andrews. ''If he came to my door, I would've given him food and never said a word.''"
By the way, many Muslims claim that Wahabism is a fringe of a fringe within the Muslim faith. Do you accept their claim? Or do you believe that all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few extremists?
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w14.html
MI Well, you're more confident than I am, and I sincerely hope you're right. Although minorities can grow, even absent outside persecution. Even strict religions/ideologies have, historically, shown some propensity for growth (at least in Christianity - Islam may be a different ball of wax). And, of course, even "conversion" of 10% of the American Muslim population to MB ideology would provide a recruiting pool of significant size.
Yes, it would, but that still leaves 90% of the Muslim population who aren't part of the recruiting pool. The trick is to deal with the 10% who are, without pushing more into the pool. If you start 'persecuting' all of the Muslim population then you naturally set up a 'them and us' situation and the 'us' for the Muslims will become more radicalised.
But I don't know how likely any of that is. Given such uncertainty, I think Rod's idea - i.e., thorough, intelligent, & unrelenting criticism of the MB & its ilk - is probably the way to go, at least for now. Let's see how well that works, and then we can adjust fire as necessary.
I have no knowledge of the MB and have no idea if they are as Rod represents. Unfortunately the way Islam works at the moment, if the MB aren't doing this, then another group is. I'd love to be wrong about this. I've lived all my life with one bombing campaign after another, and it's not a nice way to live. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Ds:
I assume the first link was your best shot. I looked at it . . . lots of commentary about the importance of separation of church and state - very important, I agree - and here and there a distraught testimonial about how christians were pursuing their political interests in an organized fashion (It’s always upsetting when those you disagree with pursue their political interests in an organized fashion); but aside from that, not too much to indicate a rejection of the basic framework. Anyway, directing me to an entire website is really asking a bit much. I think I gave it a fair read, especially the section on separation of church and state, which seemed to be the most relevant, and didn’t find it terribly convincing.
Now, had you directed me to something like this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece
“Title: Our Followers must live in Peace until Strong enough to Wage Jihad” “ . . . One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Or this (As above - also about the Deobandis):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece
“Title: Hardline Takeover of British Mosques”“ . . . Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found. . . “
or this (about the Wahabbists):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo
(Money quote, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.” );
Well then, you might have gotten my attention.
I don't think either Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph professed Christianity at the time he turned to terrorism. McVeigh described himself as having drifted away from his Catholic upbringing and never returned. Rudolph's picture is more confused. He is on record as saying he prefers Nietzche to the Bible but also, since his conviction, that he hopes to die a Catholic. But he denies any connection to the Christian Identity movement which in any case is the fringe of the fringe of a fringe.
I'm pretty certain Muslim terrorists aren't members of traditional established Mosques either.
You start with traditional hardline communities talking about how bad everything else is, and then, from there, you carefully recruit people into, for example, the Westburo baptist church or a militia. Then you carefully pick 1% of those people that do the actual terrorism, and at that point, the people may even appear to move slightly away from the militia in order to remove suspicion.
People don't just drive by 'terrorist church' or 'terrorist mosque', see on the sign 'ALLAH WANTS YOU TO KILL SOMEONE', and decide to start attending. It's always a fringe of a fringe of a fringe.
It's just that, so far, Christianity haven't had anyone take advantage of the 'fringe of a fringe' to recruit terrorists one step further. Instead, they recruit them for political purposes. So any terrorists have been unsupported groups of less than half a dozen people, and something like 90% of them get caught because they stupidly continue to associate with hardliners, which the FBI does indeed watch.
The question is, in US, can Islamic terrorists operate any differently, somehow out of sight of the FBI and known terrorist recruiters? I suspect not.
I don't have any evidence of this except that the three or four groups of domestic Islamic terrorists that have been caught were a frickin joke that came to the attention of the FBI almost immediately and we wouldn't have spent the time and money we spent prosecuting them if the Administration didn't need some success stories. (The only one that vaguely came close to success was the only one that worked alone, Richard Reid.)
We are being pushed to have a siege mentality when there is no reason to see a siege.
We are being lied to. It's that simple.
The US has a long history of abuse of the innocent until proven guilty concept. We demand this right, but we don't hesitate to abandon it when we are given reasons to do so. The core issue has always been there has never been a rational, demonstrable reason for it.
Given a chance, people are cowards. They care more for their local comfort than for any abstract concept. This is the essential tool of politicians: tell them what to be afraid of, and tell them who to blame for it*.
The analogies are endless. We have tens of thousands of violent crimes every year, far more over the last 6 years than were killed in NYC. Why don't the politicians harp on this, calling for surveillance and restrictions to "prevent" them? The answer is simple: cowards will react to the specific, local effects. Most of them are never affected by those thousands of crimes, so the refuse to allow politicians to use the very same tactics being used against the so-called terrorist threat.
There are individuals and small groups out there that will commit terroristic crimes. They will always be there, have always been there, and so long as politicians can make you afraid of them, you will surrender to them the powers they neither deserve nor can use without abusing them.
"By the way, many Muslims claim that Wahabism is a fringe of a fringe within the Muslim faith. Do you accept their claim? Or do you believe that all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few extremists?"
ds:
Wahhabism is the STATE RELIGION of Saudi Arabia, keeper of Islam's holiest sites.
That would make Roman Catholicism "a fringe of a fringe within the Christian faith" under your analogy. Even Protestants and Orthodox like Rod visit the Vatican to take in the early history of Christianity -- and Shia and non-Wahhab Sunnis MUST try to visit Mecca for the hajj as part of the pilgrimage obligations of their faith.
Here's the thing, Franklin, and David TC. It's not just neocons and conservatives that say that there is potentially a real problem with a fundamentalist/Wahabi/Salafi/Islamist takeover of U.S. mosques.
Liberal Muslim feminists such as Asra Nomani (author of "Standing Alone") say the same things. Yet liberal Christians and secular liberals don't seem to want to support people like Nomani (who has led a movement to open up U.S. mosques to have women and men pray in the same space, and also to have women-led prayer).
I was recently in a "small group" discussion at my church and I suggested inviting some of these Muslim feminists, such as Asra Nomani, or Irshad Manji, to speak at my church (we hear from many interfaith speakers and are a very progressive church).
One response that I got was we shouldn't invite them to speak because they would be regarded as "Uncle Toms" by their communities if they came and spoke to us. That's a heck of a dumb reason not to learn about someone else's ideas -- unless someone is so afraid of what orthodox Muslims might say about us for inviting these feminists that they are willing to shut down even the possibility of doing so in advance.
"what the Islamic (NOT Islamist) scholars said about how the radicalization of Muslim organizations in the U.S. can be reconciled with the fact that the 9/11 hijackings were carried out entirely by foreigners and that -- unlike the homegrown attacks Europe -- there have been no terrorist attacks before or since 9/11 by U.S. citizens who are Muslim."
Iqnorance has never stopped you from posting. I understand that. But why cannot you learn how to use Google?
Subset from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents:
1993
February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people.
June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
1994
March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City in response to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre
1997
February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City.
2002:
October: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo conduct the Beltway Sniper Attacks, killing ten people in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area from October 2 until they are arrested on October 24.
2004
August 28: Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay are arrested for planning to bomb the 34th Street–Herald Square subway station in New York City during the 2004 Republican National Convention.
2006
March 3: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate (US citizen) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine.
August 30: An Afghani Muslim (US citizen) hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.
Now back to blaming Christians and Jews.
"Yet liberal Christians and secular liberals don't seem to want to support people like Nomani"
Liberal Christians and secular liberals supported women like Nomani before most conservatives could find Iraq on the map. The rights of Muslim women has been an issue in feminist and progressive circles for over a decade. It was liberals--not neoconservatives--who first raised concerns about female genital mutilation, the burqa, and honor killings.
I think the situation in the U.S. is a challenge, quite frankly, because it's hard to say that the different treatment of women in Muslim mosques in the U.S. is all that different from the treatment of women in some U.S. Orthodox Jewish communities, among the Amish and Mennonites, or even the role of women in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Fundamentalist churches.
I won't disagree at all, Alicia, mainly because I don't know anything about what's happening in mosques. While I would rather they became more 'liberal' (Which is a bad term for that, but whatever.), I have a hard enough time trying to convince fellow Christians do it...Muslims are not really going to listen to me at all.
What I'm saying is, I'm not seeing any sort of physical threat that plausibly exists at this point in time to the US. Obviously, one could develop in the future, especially if there is some sort of takeover going on, but it won't be comparable to the fanatical 'Zionist Occupied Government' 'Christian' lunatics for at least several decades.
Thanks, Daniel. Let me give you an example of what Nomani talks about in her book. If you haven't yet read it, I recommend it. At the mosque in her hometown in West Virginia, women were not only segregated from the men if they wanted to pray, for many years, women were actively discouraged from even attending the mosque.
When Nomani began to challenge that after her pilgrimage to Mecca, she discovered her local mosque had been essentially taken over by fundamentalist Muslims, and she heard this from other Muslims about U.S. mosques, and discovered it for herself when she tried to pray in the main hall (with the men) in many mosques in the U.S.
In New York City, at one of the most mainstream, central mosques, the Imam asked her to come and see him when she went to pray in the main hall. When she challenged him by saying that her actions were in line with American values, his response was classic, "America must submit to Islam."
Alicia, how is this that different than the calls for "America must submit to God's will, Christ, et cetera, ten commandments" that is the ongoing preaching and rhetoric of the Christian Right re: Abortion, homosexuality, sexuality in general, the family, the government. There are plenty of code phrases to cite with respect to that very generalized Fatwa among our own rightists and religionists.
Alicia,
My view is well put by David, though without the direct experience he cites.
A balancing statement I'd want to make is that many Muslim women find the objections to non-violent restrictions like hijab and burqa offensive. They consider that part of their culture and faith, and do not consider it a mark of oppression. I've not seen any extended statements about segregation and the like, so we must take that with a grain of salt.
The US has many examples of cultures/faiths that refuse to assimilate in basic ways. I will freely acknowledge that the Muslim proselytizing aspect is of concern, but it must be kept in perspective. So long as their internal practices are kept that way, and they break no secular laws, we are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with them. We can, and must, socially support figures like Nomani, but support cannot translate to interference.
Since I am conversant with employment law (I am not a lawyer), I can offer a precedent from that area. Non-profits, secular or religious, must comply with all employment laws governing discrimination if they receive taxpayer funds. So long as they do not receive such funds, they can discriminate all they want so long as they do not break other laws. Religious non-profits can refuse to employ those not of their religion, or women, or indignant cats. If they do not receive public funds, no one may legally interfere.
In many discussions here about Islam, I've noted that they are on much the same track that Christianity was on, albeit several centuries behind in finding accomodation with changes in social structures and mores.
An aspect of that is simple: over the centuries, many Christians voted with their feet, and we have the phenomenon called schism. Compare the many sects of Christainity to the few of Islam. My advice to someone like Nomani would be (hoping to avoid being taken as glib): don't fight the idiots, find like-minded siblings-in-faith and form your own group. Establish your own mosque(s), name leaders who agree with you, and be on your way to your own sect.
Franklin, and Anon, I will respond to your posts tomorrow (if you are still visiting this thread). I got hung up on a project at work, and have to leave for the evening. (Darn work! Doh!)
"In many discussions here about Islam, I've noted that they are on much the same track that Christianity was on, albeit several centuries behind in finding accomodation with changes in social structures and mores."
Please kindly elucidate the major differences between say, Wahabis today and Islam as practized in 10 century.
Are they more kind towards women?
Are they not as antisemitic?
Did goal of Islam change?
References will be appreciated. Assertions will not.
"The US has many examples of cultures/faiths that refuse to assimilate in basic ways."
Any examples and references?
Also, which culture/faith has at its center replacing Constitution of the USA with something else?
References will be appreciated. Assertions will not.
mik:
You are absolutely correct in that I should have included the first World Trade Center bombing. No Google needed for that. Mea culpa maxima.
The rest of your list, alas, is either criminal and not terroristic in nature (for Muslims can be criminals just as much as members of any other faith) or reflects foiled plots -- which may have been horrific, or may have been quite minor if actually carried out.
The credibility of the current Administration in reporting such plots, unfortunately, has come into question thanks to events of the past few years ...
PS -- I have as much right to post on here as anyone. And if you didn't really believe in free speech, you wouldn't be here, either.
mik_infidelos, if you're going to start posting lists of domestic terrorist attacks, you should probably know in advance that that the list of such attacks or foiled attacks by people identify as part of the 'Christian' or 'white supremacists' or 'anti-government' movement number about sixty over that same time frame. (Although a good third of those are just lunatics who boasted about crazed plans to government informants and were arrested on weapon violations after those boasts netted a search warrant. Same as the Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay case.)
And domestic Islamic terrorism has killed nowhere near as many people as domestic far-right terrorism.
Incidentally, the WTC 1993 bombing was not domestic terrorism. They were mostly Egyptian, and as far as I can tell none of them were citizens. Neither were Omeed Aziz Popal or Ali Hassan Abu Kamal. Including them as a response to 'there have been no terrorist attacks before or since 9/11 by U.S. citizens who are Muslim' is a falsehood.
And the Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay case is absurd entrapment that shouldn't have stood up in court, it's only attempted terrorism because the police found some people they could lead into terrorism, or at least lead into saying they were going to commit terrorism. Not that I mind much, if the police could lead them to it they were fairly unstable to start with, but pretending it was a serious attack is crazy.
Mik,
Please kindly elucidate the major differences between say, Wahabis today and Islam as practized in 10 century.
You are arguing against something I did not state. I offered a comparison of the ongoing evolution of the institutions of Christianity and Islam. You are welcome to compare their histories and make your own judgment of my opinion. Asking me to look only at the history of Islam is a non sequitur.
"...examples of cultures/faiths that refuse to assimilate in basic ways."
I grew up through the sixties and into the seventies amongst families (Italian and Greek) who insisted on speaking their native language at home, spent all of their discretionary money on trips to the "old country", subscribed to newspapers and magazines from (their term) home, and at least anecdotally refrained from any participation in local culture or politics. I've had conversations with people who grew up in places all over the US who had a similar story to tell.
That's just the experiential example. The Amish should be an easy example for you to research.
From your writing, I will make the assumption that English is not your first language. I suggest you be less ready to conclude the intent of other writers here before asking them what they meant. An opinion supported by an observation is not an assertion. An implied invitation to research something is not an assertion.
Rod, please release my post from the filter.
Thanks.
DavidTC said:
"I won't disagree at all, Alicia, mainly because I don't know anything about what's happening in mosques."
If you're interested, this is a good place to start:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf
Thanks for the link, Lynn. In case DavidTC is interested in whether the report you linked to is "credible" I have attached a link to the main website for this Eleanor Roosevelt-founded organization:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1
It is clear from the history of this organization that it is a non-partisan organization, highly prestigious organization, not a neoconservative or conservative think tank (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Franklin, I promised I would respond to your comments.
Re: the veil, my snappy answer is that it wouldn't be the first time that women have colluded with their own oppression.
However, my serious answer is: "It's not about the veil." I attend a group that includes four Muslim women. Two wear the headscarf, two do not. As long as it is a choice, and not something forced on them from outside by bullying or peer pressure, it's immaterial to me if someone wants to express their religious faith by wearing a hijab.
However, an interesting anecdote in Asra Nomani's book: During her pilgrimage to Mecca, with her family, her mother, who was staying with Asra and her niece in the woman's tent had an accident. Her headscarf, which she didn't normally wear, slipped. One of her fellow, women pilgrims upbraided her, "Your pilgrimage to Mecca is not accepted!" This was another woman, and there were no men present. Sounds like orthodox Muslims are trying to force their idea of Islam on everyone else.
Alicia, my heartfelt response to your snappy answer is: damn right. My personal "upbringing" was with the League of Women Voters. Oppression extends well beyond religion. Oppressors (the smart ones) work hard to make it self-perpetuating. They die in bed and pass on their power. The stupid ones (if there's any justice at all) end up executed, though that tends to lead to another oppressor coming to power with much more attendant violence. The women Nomani met are the puppets of smart oppressors.
I must hasten to add that Islam has no monopoly on any of that. Oppression comes in many forms, subtle and gross.
Agreed, Franklin. The larger point I was trying to address by citing Nomani's book was the evidence that "smart oppressors" have an undue amount of influence/control of U.S. mosques.
That is a problem for everyone, not just for moderate Muslims. The more we can do to make that agenda transparent, the more we can bring it into the light of day and talk about it and criticize it, the safer and freer we will be as a society.
Even if you disagree with Rod's emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood, I think we should all be listening very carefully to what moderate and progressive Muslims (even neocons) have to say about the state of Islam in the U.S.
It sometimes seems to me that my liberal friends are listening to the wrong people in order to determine who is a "legitimate" spokesperson for the Muslim community. The same people who wouldn't dream of listening to Pat Robertson or James Dobson about Christianity are listening to and taking seriously Muslims who are much more conservative than they.
Acknowledging that they are not necessarily deserving of being lumped under the heading of oppressors, Robertson, Dobson et al are excellent examples of the vote-with-feet point I made earlier. They are the modern avatars of schism. Nomani is well-advised to pay attention to their example.
The debate must be opened to the middle ground. We have liberals on the one hand, rightly criticized for superficial reasoning; we have conservative on the other hand, calling for aggressive intervention. The gripping hand has yet to be heard from, to doubly mangle two cliches.
If I may be so bold to coin a phrase: the US can be boiled down to a simple statement.
I will protect you from oppression, including at my own hands.
That is my personal litmus test for any politician. That most of them fail it just tends to fuel my cynicism.
I agree, Franklin. Aggressive intervention is rarely ever the right approach (except when it is) and then it needs to have a much more stringent criteria for intervention than what happened in Iraq.
(My other book suggestion of the week is Reza Aslan's "No god but God," which is an excellent introduction to Islam by a very sympathetic Muslim who loves his religion but who is also a true moderate. He is definitely in the non-interventionist camp and I think you would find him interesting reading.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.