Michael C. Moynihan, being reasonable in Reason:
After September 11, former Washington Post religion reporter Gustav Niebuhr set out in search of the great backlash against Muslims, finding instead anecdotal evidence in support of the Pew figures: "In the very week when the nation suffered a grievous injury from a stateless criminal gang that identified itself by its members' religion--as Muslims--some Americans chose to express concern and friendship toward their Muslim neighbors."So despite having the mother of all opportunities for a national convulsion of violence and discrimination against a religious minority, America, for the most part, chose investigation over emotion:, lay conversations about the tenets of Islam were ubiquitous, books detailing doctrinal differences between Muslim sects flew off the shelves, and the president beseeched his fellow Americans to understand that, despite acts of violence in its name, Islam was a religion of peace.
One can always find, in a nation of 300 million people, examples of boorish behavior towards religious minorities. But if Muslims that embrace violence against non-Muslims are a tiny minority, it is time to acknowledge that attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims in the United States are perpetrated by an even tinier minority. That the United States doesn't do backlashes needs to be restated frequently and forcefully, rather than ignored in favor of exploiting a "teachable moment" of religious tolerance.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Catholicism isn't new. Most people grew up around or in it and have an opinion about it.
I don't think there have been tons of converts to Islam since 9/11, though I imagine there has been an increase.
Islam to most Americans is completely new. It is not surprising that people with limited or lukewarm religious upbringing who have an internal desire for practicing a faith would be attracted to it. Really, it is an elegant faith. A form of monotheism which breathes a desert purity. Its adherents (if you've ever met any) are very generous, humble, hospitable. They still read their scripture in the original, again, this is attractive to some people. The Call to Prayer is haunting, it catches your attention.
Islamic extremism, however, is something else entirely. I also find it disturbing that any native-born American should be attracted to THAT. Islamic tradition - a matter of consensus more than authority, as there is no equivalent of a Pope or clear hierarchy in Islam - does not accept extremist teachings (specifically the ones that state that non-extremists, Christians, and Jews are infidels and that it's okay to kill women and children and non-extremist Muslims in Jihad) anymore than the Catholic Church condones sexual abusers.
That is to say, such behavior is NOT acceptable, but is so reprehensible that one almost always wishes more was done and said against it!
Re: Actually, as the major modern historians of the Crusades have concluded, the Crusades were a response to Islamic jihad.
There was no Jihad going on in the 11th century. What was going on was a massive breakdown in law and order in the Middle East as the Caliphs had become powerless figureheads, often addicted to opium and sex with their concubines and eunuchs while various warlords (mainly Turks) set themselves up as local poobahs. A few (like Alp Arslan) were decent or at least effective rulers, but many were no more than bandits who ignored the od treaties between the Caliphate and Byzantium, attacking and robbing pilgrims and merchants, often selling them into slavery. Then there was Hakkim the Mad, a rival Caliph in Egypt who was nuttier than a fruitcake and who persecuted just about everyone, including good Muslims; he had despoiled the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher. Finally, the Seljuk Turks inflicted a crushing (and very much unexpected) defeat of Byzantium at Manzikert and overran most of Asia Minor. This was the proximate cause of the Crusades as the Emperor appealed to the West for mercenaries, and the Pope decided to whip up armies on the basis of religious fervor.
Real history is far more interesting than the cartoon version. And the image of Islam alway on the offensive is a lot of malarky. For long centuries Islam (the civilization that is) has been corrupt, decadent and impotent. In fact, those labels rather apply to much of the Middle East today when you think about it.
And the image of Islam alway on the offensive is a lot of malarky.
Hmm, Jonathan Riley-Smith begs to differ: "[I]n the 50 years or so before the proclamation of the First Crusade . . . [a]fter a period of quiescence, fanatical Muslims, Turkish religious warriors in Asia Minor and Berber zealots in Spain were destabilising the frontiers between the religions. The development of crusading was in part a response to a huge loss of Christian territory in the east."
Re: Hmm, Jonathan Riley-Smith begs to differ:
Hmm, I believe I mentioned the Turks, and the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert.
My comment stands: Islamic civilization has knewn long periods of decadence and feebleness. And the 11th century Turks were more about aggrandizing their own power; they were not soldiers for faith; they were soldiers for plunder and power. They did far more looting and pillaging in the Middle East itself than in Christiandom.
"That the United States doesn't do backlashes needs to be restated frequently and forcefully"
TR: I think the Japanese (WWII) and Germans (WWI) would have good reason to dispute this. Perhaps we "don't do backlashes anymore" but to say categorically we're a nation that doesn't do them strikes me as a bit of that "we're so wonderful, let me tell you forcefully how wonderful we are" thing Americans do too much.
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.