Islamic scholar expresses frustration

[Rick Wilson]

cxt:


”The problem is not with the religion (Christian, Muslium, Buddist, pick one or feel free to list your own) the problem are the radicals that want to use relgion as a shield or to justify acts of hate and violence.

What also makes it tough is that most Western nations are currently secular--we may have a Chrisitan foundation for our nations.
But most Western nations cut a pretty clear line between Church and State.”

Yes, the first statement is the issue with terrorists and the second a major cultural distinction between North America and the Middle East that affects how we view things.

[Bill Glasheen]

most Western nations cut a pretty clear line between Church and State

Amen!!!!

Jorvik

Good point about the opportunity to listen.

- Bill

[jorvik]

I've just been reading the English Sunday papers ( rather late )..in one there is a referance to the Britains who supported Osama in afghanistan. These were Muslims whose families were originally from Pakistan....they certainly don't like America called the " Great Satan" by one of those interviewed, Shaheen.
Some interesting points..the Fighters or supporters, were from many different countries...the U.K.
Pakistan,Chechnya and the middle East.
In one part it says that the reason Al-Qaeda attacked the twin towers was because of US support for Israel ( Bin Laden admitted this on a video on 26th December)

I've got the magazine..The "Sunday Express"...can't find an internet link to this story

[Akil Todd Harvey]

The tragic events of the last week in Spain are deplorable. Terrorism is never an acceptable means of accomplishing a goal (the ends do not justify the means). My prayers go out for those who were killed, maimed, injured, put in fear of further attacks, and with the friends & family of those affected.

I have to wonder, after having read recent newspaper headlines and articles about the tradegy in Spain, When is a terrorist NOT a terrorist?

When he is a basque separatist, a terrorist would not be a terrorist and when he is a Muslim, he would clearly be a terrorist, or so the logic of the Newspaper headline business seems to go.

(The headline read: Basque Separatist or Islamic Terrorist to Blame). I just have to wonder, if the same blast was performed by a Basque separatist, would that not be considered tterrorism if the guy was not a Muslim?

Ian, Sorry I have not gotten to your questions.......They have not been overlooked........The good news is that my three week stint in San Diego is soon over and I will be working way closer to home (at least for a few weeks until the next job).

I'd be happy to explain my feelings on the roots of various stereotypes of at least three demographic groups I'm lumped into.

I am quite interested Ian........

Hope eveyone is well.....CXT....Not much of a reply to my PM, whatever........

Akil

[Bill Glasheen]

Akil

I'm sure all in Spain view the actions of ETA (the Basque separatists) as terrorism. Perhaps you are being sensitive. But then again, maybe we all should be cognizant of our language.

I've heard a term thrown around lately that had me intriqued - Islamofacism. I got to wondering if this made up word would elicit different ractions if, for example, folks called members of the IRA christianofascists. Certainly Hitler would qualify to the extent he used religion to justify his actions (if indeed he ever did). Just wondering...

Simple people need names for the bad guys. They want to dehumanize these killers, and separate them from the good guys. It gets confusing when a group claims affiliation with a larger group. Before you know it, everyone is tainted by the actions of a few - directly or indirectly.

- Bill

[cxt]

Akil


The ETA are clearly listed as terrorist by the international community.

They are listed and referred to as terrorists by the Spanish and French govs.

The USA also lists them as terrorists.

It may be that the use of a headline that read "terrorist or terrorist" was considered redundent.

I am pretty sure that the terroist groups in Algeria were commonly refered too as "Algerian Separatist."

Am quite sure that the Irish Republican Army was commonly called "terrorists" by the media--as they should have been.

[IJ]

I guess the headline could have been, "Basque or Islamic Terrorists?" which would have evenhanded. Seems like a little thing but I'm well aware that a bunch of little things and words can convey big meanings. It's interesting to note that while there's little disagreement that Palestinian bombers are terrorists (among westerners, since they have a lot of mideastern support) there is concern from some that their title "suicide bombers" detracts from the horror of what they do. Going off to a field in Kansas and self detonating is "suicide bombing." Getting on a bus and doing the same is "homicide bombing," these commentators feel, to emphasize the fact that they're taking out noncombatants and children.

I think the biggest thing driving ATH's perception, which is not hallucinatory, is that whenever Islamists are making the news, they're Islam is generally relevant only in the context of terrorism. I'm not saying that SHOULD be the only thing islamists are making the news for, but you don't hear "Islamic oil producing countries," because the islam isn't relevant there. The terrorists, however, are trumpeting their religion and making their label stick.

Warning, tedious reply follows....

ATH, the three easiest labels to pin on my soup can would be martial artist, doctor, and gay. Each have a handful of stereotypes... can anyone else here recall being asked why (in the context of discussing the martial arts) you would want to do something violent, or hearing someone say, "well, I'm for peace / nonviolence" as an explanation as to why they don't do them, as if we go out seeking fights? They sometimes think I'm going to go postal on them.

As for doctors, people assume we're smart (often true, but not always) hardworking (generally true--when I got my first day off after 6 weeks without, I felt guilty and selfish) but there's also a presumption we're overpaid for what we do or in it for the money (lousy way to get rich and you generally earn it and when doctors ARE insistent about their income, it's often in relation to their educational debt or tender memories of abuse they've suffered to date).

The biggest concern about doctors these days is that they're careless / don't care, spend too little time with patients, make a lot of mistakes, and put the bottom line before patient care. The media does an abysmal job discussing medical errors and malpractice issues. There ARE many flaws in our system and if I were ever sick myself, I'd be hypervigilant about not falling victim to one. At the same time, that isn't because we WANT to be bad people, and not care, or make mistakes. It's because we're a lot like grocery checkout clerks. We don't have control over the length of the line or how well the scanner works, and when we're busy we can make mistakes and be less than courteous. Problem is, our mistakes are more costly than omitting the coupon for Ben and Jerry's--and the few bad apples make the news and make our appearance worse overall.

As for being gay, people (very rarely the ones I work with regularly) make a lot of interesting assumptions--they've ranged from assuming (per one new college roomie) that I would "lick the dishes to give [him] AIDS" and that I have anonymous sex (actually 1 long term significant other is more like it) and a lot of unprintable and unpleasant assumptions (among them that I apparently want to overthrow the foundations of society) and reactions from verbal to physical assault, disgust etc etc. I find that most of these reactions are based in simple prejudice and stereotypes.

But it's important to be honest about the half truths that underlie some stereotypes. Self identified gay men DO have a much higher risk of getting HIV and other STDs than other folk--there's a subculture of stupid, unsafe, and often nearly anonymous or intoxicated sex that fuels that risk; I also know HIV+ gay men who continue to practice unsafe sex and don't tell their partners. Why? Partly, gay people were deliberately excluded from the rules of mainstream culture and thumbed their noses at the rules. Partly, MOST men would jump at easy sex--if women would let them. Then there's a second culture that says it's not polite to "judge" this risky behavior. I say, people who give no thought to spreading HIV do more damage than the gay bashers ever could, and ethically, they're just killers.

And this is a culture I also interact with as an outsider. I see the participants as patients now and then, but not socially. Yet these are the people I'd generally compared to when my civil rights are up for discussion. I don't see why being stupid means you don't get civil rights, or why mistakes of others apply to me, but a lot of voters and government officials are scared of what is different (bland OR reckless) or what scares the voters. Basically, I think it's my job as a martial artist not to go postal, as a doctor to take good care of people and try to fix the system, and to lead an example as a boring gay person while acknowledging the flaws of some within my demographic groups--without having to feel responsible for them.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

Ian,

Nice post, Thanks. It made me laugh at points and made think in others........It starting making me think about all the advanaged and/or misunderstood groups to which I belong........

White male ................ It has opened so many doors ........job offers all day long, you just couldn't believe it.........

Well educated...........Posesssing a college eduation and speaking in a manner that is usually correct grammatically. This one was supposed to be a significant advantage in life, but it can be counted against you as much as for you........

Electrician........I am now working as an electrician. First thing out of everyone's mouth is how much money they can make, while rarely recognizing any potential danger, how difficult it might be either physically or mentally. I will let you know when the pay has surpassed my ability to spend all the loot.

I have discussed the Muslim thing a wee bit already so I wont get into that at this point................

Perhaps you are being sensitive. But then again, maybe we all should be cognizant of our language.

Alert the press. I can see the headlines now. Hypersensitve Muslims a major danger to our ability to scapegoat.

Damned if you do and damned if you dont. I dont support the terrorists and I dont condone their actions either. I am sensitive to having my entire religion maligned because osama bin dirtbag has done his despicable deeds and will continue to do them, regardless of what GW does (if not Osama, someone will take his place-wrongheaded people will always exist). If my only crime is being oversensitive to being insulted, then judge me guilty, but I can think of a lot worse crimes that deserve our attention........

Akil

[KZMiller]

Language is important. It was unbalanced to call one group separatist and the other terrorist. The headline could have been written very differently with far more balance.

I see the same thing when it comes to Republicans and Democrats in the US. Republican is always tagged on when something bad is going on, like it's a bad word itself. "Republican Bob Rat Accused of Molesting Hamsters" would be considered a perfectly fine headline, whereas if a Democrat is doing something bad, more often than not Democrat is left off the name or buried deep into the article, like 'btw, she's a Democrat but that doesn't make any difference.' Not that I'm particularly fond of Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) but I get very tired of the slant. From what I've read about the subject, the media doesn't see it as a slant because they're so immersed in it. I think that's also the case with reporting on terrorism. They're so immersed into their point of view, they couldn't possibly write a balanced article. Besides, then it might be more boring and wouldn't sell newspapers. We seem to be stuck with it, as not enough people complain by keeping their wallets folded. They're all too willing to run out and buy the newspaper or watch tv to get their information. Giving in to convenience, lack of awareness, lack of interest. Most go the easy route.

Kami

[Glenn]

Actually this categorization is not unreasonable, if you look at their goals and motivations.

ETA, IRA, etc, are groups using terroristic methods to seek autonomy, i.e separation of their homelands from the ruling national government. They are seeking self-rule and the creation of new countries (or with the IRA, some members are seeking unity with Ireland), but using violent methods to do so.

Al-Qaeda is a more nebulous and diverse entity not fighting for self-rule of any particular place or group, but rather against western and globalistic ideas and practices. It cannot be classified as separatist, so you are left with just "terrorist".

Think of separatist as a subset of terrorism, although not always as not all Separatists are Terrorists. Separatist groups in Scotland, Wales, Quebec, and Puerto Rico have generally been non-violent during the past 100 years for example.

[Bill Glasheen]

Thanks, Glenn, and well stated. As a distant offspring of County Cork, Ireland, I appreciate the distinction. We Irish were never fond of the actions of the Anglo Saxons in the north. They committed their own atrocities in history.

It's just a shame that things got to innocents being killed to achieve an end. But I'm thankful that period is over, and believe it says a lot about members of the IRA that it evolved that way.

- Bill

P.S. Happy St. Patty's Day!!!

[Glenn]

Thanks, Glenn, and well stated. As a distant offspring of County Cork, Ireland, I appreciate the distinction. We Irish were never fond of the actions of the Anglo Saxons in the north. They committed their own atrocities in history.

It's just a shame that things got to innocents being killed to achieve an end. But I'm thankful that period is over, and believe it says a lot about members of the IRA that it evolved that way.]

This has been an interesting discussion for me. We cover the geography of ethnicity, religion, and language, as well as diversity and conflict arising out of diversity, in the college course I teach (Intro to Human Geography). So following this has been useful in terms of looking at perception and getting different perspectives.

One of my students made an excellent observation when talking about religious conflict and terrorism in class. I had commented that while religion is not necessarily the cause of conflict, it is a common pawn in rallying the troops and becomes a focal point in many conflicts. She brought up that it is easy for people to use religion as justification in conflict because people are so passionate about their religion. For many people their religion defines their core values and beliefs, they've been raised with their religion all their lives, and many of the people they respect (older relatives, clergy, etc) have the same religion...and to accept the validity of other religions can be perceived as decreasing the validity of one's own. Religious diversity and tolerance is thus one of the hardest concepts for many people to accept, and they are willing to jump at anything that promotes their perception of their own religion being better than others.

P.S. Happy St. Patty's Day!!!

I've had a variety of Irish (and some Scottish) music playing here at work all day...everything from the more traditional Gaelic Storm to the Celtic rock of Wolfstone. So far the cube-mates haven't minded.

[KZMiller]

Good point re: separatists vs. terrorists. But from my understanding the Basque separatists bomb too. I think it would be more apt to call apples apples and leave the term separatist for non-violent separatists.

There's all kinds of flavors of terrorist, but they have one thing in common. They kill innocents to get attention for their cause. And that's horribly wrong. There are other ways, and the separatist movements that don't use terrorist tactics deserve to be held apart from terrorists.

Kami

[Akil Todd Harvey]

When is a Separatist Not a Separatist?

Another easy one.........When they are Muslim...........

Chechen rebels are fighting for their sovereignty and have been doing so since the days of the czars..........These Muslims will never be called separatists........And the war on terror has been a very useful cover to hide so many of the human rights abuses committed by the Russians (nowadays, nobody likes a terrorist, so define their separatist movement as a terrorist one and all sympathy for that group will be lost........

Kashmir was a province of India that, at the time of independence from Britain, had voted for and won a referendum in which the majority of its people voted to be part of the presently named state of Pakistan (democratic principles at play-elections, etc.). Kashmir, a Muslim majority province of India, to this day, has not been granted its independence from India and as such, there has been an active separatist movement ever since, but we simply refer to these separatists as mere terrorists.......

What I hear from Glenn is that Separatists have real causes that people can relate to (like fighting for something that was stolen from them-like their land) and terrorists (almost all terrorists are Muslims since we have not been able to find any terrorists who are not Muslim, even if the perform acts that we perceive to be the acts of terrorists) have no cause to which any rational person can relate to for reasons that I have yet to understand. I am very apt to surmise why these seeming double standards exist. Anyone have ideas why these double standards are not manifestations of outright hostility towards Islam (a long time historical enemy o0f the West whom we have successfully demonized to the point that we don’t even deem any of their concerns to be valid).

The break up of the Soviet empire involved the freeing of nearly a dozen indentured Muslim States. The record of promoting democracy within these former republics is abysmal and our lack of support for separatist groups is deplorable. As such, within almost each and every one of these newly independent Muslim states exist a separatist movement seeking to overthrow the puppet government that for the most part is in the pocket of the Kremlin.

Each and every one of these separatist movements will never get the “pass” as some would so fondly call our penchant for overlooking the ill deeds of a dictator whom we support and be labeled a separatist group. Nope, each and every one of these Muslim groups that seeks as its primary objective territorial sovereignty is conveniently labeled as a terrorists group and their movement that easily ignored (to me, this in part, encourages terrorism by limiting the attention that their cause gets-let's face it, terrorism is most often a call for attention-it is a despicable and unforgiveable call for attention, but a call for attention that these causes so often do not get, and for this we need to take some responsibility).

Coincidentally, these former soviet states are rich in petroleum reserves and as we all know, black gold has no effect on people’s perceptions or actions and greed rarely, if ever, plays any part in making foreign policy decisions of our government, so I won’t lower the quality of our discussion by even hinting that these other influences might affect how we otherwise might act in the case of a humanitarian crisis (people being denied their rights of sovereignty.

Akil

[Glenn]

When is a Separatist Not a Separatist?

What I hear from Glenn is that Separatists have real causes that people can relate to (like fighting for something that was stolen from them-like their land) and terrorists (almost all terrorists are Muslims since we have not been able to find any terrorists who are not Muslim, even if the perform acts that we perceive to be the acts of terrorists) have no cause to which any rational person can relate to for reasons that I have yet to understand. I am very apt to surmise why these seeming double standards exist. Anyone have ideas why these double standards are not manifestations of outright hostility towards Islam (a long time historical enemy o0f the West whom we have successfully demonized to the point that we don’t even deem any of their concerns to be valid).

Not quite what I said, since I said that separatists using terroristic methods are merely a subset of general terrorism. But your point is well made that people seem to relate to separatist issues more than non-separatist ones.

History tends to be remembered and recorded based on the outcome, frequently the details get lost. The U.S. revolution tends to be remembered/taught as a righteous struggle for independence by the oppressed colonists, and presented in an all-colonial vs Britain perspective. Nevermind that the colonials were British and the colonies weren't really their homeland. When the revolution started it was a group of separatists using terroristic methods against royal troops and loyalist colonists (which accounted for a large percentage of the colonists). There was a reason loyalist colonists felt the need to flee to Canada when the British pulled out of the colonies.

You won't see any U.S. history school books refer to the "revolutionaries" as "terrorists" though. History simply does not remember it that way due to the outcome. History likely would remember differently if the empire/loyalists had won.