MEANWHILE: At The Washington Post: "After Paris and California attacks, U.S. Muslims feel intense backlash."
American Muslims say they are living through an intensely painful moment and feel growing anti-Muslim sentiment.... Muslims said they are bracing for an even more toxic climate in which Americans are increasingly suspicious of Muslims. Muslims say that Americans, like many in Europe, often do not draw a distinction between radical Islamist militants, such as those associated with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the religion of Islam and its followers who have no ties to extremism.They seem to be saying that they are afraid that they are feared. If you are afraid that other people are afraid, what should you do?
On Tuesday morning, Terry Cormier arrived to open her Anaheim, Calif., Islamic clothing shop and found a Koran, riddled with more than 30 bullet holes, left at the door.... Cormier, who wears the head scarf known as the hijab, said she has felt little anti-Muslim sentiment in her ethnically diverse community in Southern California until now. “But especially after what happened yesterday in San Bernardino, it’s pretty intense,” she said. “But I really think that if people would just get out there and talk to a Muslim person, they would see that they are human just like you. We’re just as upset about what’s going on and how people are being hurt. It’s devastating to us as well.”...
One recent evening, Haneen Jasim, 22, a University of Cincinnati pre-med student who wears the hijab, said she had just left a Starbucks where she was studying for an exam when a man approaching in a car began honking his horn. With his window rolled down, he began shouting insults at her and called her a terrorist.
“He was yelling, ‘Paris!’ and told me to go back to my country,” Jasim said in an interview. As he yelled, she said, he drove toward her, “almost running me over.” Three people pulled her to safety on the sidewalk, she said. “I’ve never gotten anything negative about being a Muslim, ever,” she said. “I always read articles about other people, but I honestly did not think it would happen to me.... I am terrified. My friends are scared. My family is scared. I’m scared for other people, but this is an opportunity to show to people what Islam is, instead of what the media or ISIS shows.”
Posts
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214From one commentor:
Yeah. And until they reform their religion, purging it of violent jihad, dhimmi status, and the call to rid "dar al Harb" of fitna (i.e. the "strife" of not being shariah-governed), then this will continue and continue and continue....
Another commentor replies:
Awesome, R&B. We've been at loggerheads more often than not, but I must admit I have never read a more succinct or coherent summation of the problem faced by our country and the civilized world generally.
Readers, these commentors have it wrong. It is pointless to wait “until they reform their religion” because the Muslim reformation has already been going on for years. 9/11 was one of the first manifestations of this reform. Osama bin Laden is the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation’s Martin Luther.
Islamic terrorism has often been correctly described as the work of Islamic “fundamentalists.” A return to fundamentals is also what Martin Luther espoused.
As did Luther with Catholicism, Osama bin Laden wanted to purge his religion, Islam, of corruption – such as allowing the kafir(Western businessmen) to set foot in the middle east; such as allowing Western culture to “corrupt” Islamic populations.
This Islamic reformation, instead of “purging” violence, demands violence from the faithful. Whenever the rare debate occurs between “moderate” Muslims and fundamentalists(I’ve never seen one but have read that they occur) the fundamentalists only need to recite the Koran, which routinely calls for violence against the ‘unfaithful,’ and the moderates immediately lose the debate. Sharia, a suppressive totalitarian social system, will be adhered to by all with no exceptions under pain of draconian punishments such as public floggings, mutilations, amputations, stoning and other methods to inflict pain, misery and/or death.
Waiting for Islam to become benign and nonviolent is pointless. It’s waiting for something that cannot happen because of the basic, fundamental, unarguable violence of Islam itself.
Also: With Christ and the New Testament the way was opened for a kinder, gentler interpretations of religion than that represented by the Old Testament. There is no such corollary personage or document in the Islamic sacred texts. “Moderate” interpretations of Islam are not allowed and are punished severely if they occur.
Furthermore we can see by looking at countries with Muslim majorities(or even sizable minorities) that there seems to be something about Muslims that dislikes the basic human rights that we take for granted in the West. They seem to want to be ruled by their religion in all aspects of their lives, both public and private. Freedom and democracy only makes them anxious and confused.
Good luck on waiting for Islam to turn nonviolent.
From one commentor:
Yeah. And until they reform their religion, purging it of violent jihad, dhimmi status, and the call to rid "dar al Harb" of fitna (i.e. the "strife" of not being shariah-governed), then this will continue and continue and continue....
Another commentor replies:
Awesome, R&B. We've been at loggerheads more often than not, but I must admit I have never read a more succinct or coherent summation of the problem faced by our country and the civilized world generally.
Readers, these commentors have it wrong. It is pointless to wait “until they reform their religion” because the Muslim reformation has already been going on for years. 9/11 was one of the first manifestations of this reform. Osama bin Laden is the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation’s Martin Luther.
Islamic terrorism has often been correctly described as the work of Islamic “fundamentalists.” A return to fundamentals is also what Martin Luther espoused.
As did Luther with Catholicism, Osama bin Laden wanted to purge his religion, Islam, of corruption – such as allowing the kafir(Western businessmen) to set foot in the middle east; such as allowing Western culture to “corrupt” Islamic populations.
This Islamic reformation, instead of “purging” violence, demands violence from the faithful. Whenever the rare debate occurs between “moderate” Muslims and fundamentalists(I’ve never seen one but have read that they occur) the fundamentalists only need to recite the Koran, which routinely calls for violence against the ‘unfaithful,’ and the moderates immediately lose the debate. Sharia, a suppressive totalitarian social system, will be adhered to by all with no exceptions under pain of draconian punishments such as public floggings, mutilations, amputations, stoning and other methods to inflict pain, misery and/or death.
Waiting for Islam to become benign and nonviolent is pointless. It’s waiting for something that cannot happen because of the basic, fundamental, unarguable violence of Islam itself.
Also: With Christ and the New Testament the way was opened for a kinder, gentler interpretations of religion than that represented by the Old Testament. There is no such corollary personage or document in the Islamic sacred texts. “Moderate” interpretations of Islam are not allowed and are punished severely if they occur.
Furthermore we can see by looking at countries with Muslim majorities(or even sizable minorities) that there seems to be something about Muslims that dislikes the basic human rights that we take for granted in the West. They seem to want to be ruled by their religion in all aspects of their lives, both public and private. Freedom and democracy only makes them anxious and confused.
Good luck on waiting for Islam to turn nonviolent.
"Sorry, but if you are a Muslim then by definition you have ties to extremism."
It is more true to say: If you are an American then by definition you have ties to mass murder around the globe.
"...we can see by looking at countries with Muslim majorities(or even sizable minorities) that there seems to be something about Muslims that dislikes the basic human rights that we take for granted in the West. They seem to want to be ruled by their religion in all aspects of their lives, both public and private. Freedom and democracy only makes them anxious and confused."
Setting aside the gross generalization of this statement--that "there seems to be something about Muslims that dislikes the basic human rights that we take for granted in the West" (a taking for granted that is causing us to surrender our basic human rights in the name of "the war on terror" and "keeping us safe"--I see this same tendency in many Christian fundamentalists here in America. Look at the constant push to have Christian doctrine taught in public schools as "science," or to have discussion of scientific theories disliked by the fundamentalists (e.g., evolution) removed from school texts. These people also want civil laws written to express their own religious biases, (e.g., opposition to gay marriage).
I also see the same disregard for basic human rights among non-religious but zealous law-and-order authoritarians here in America, and in our goverment. (Dick Cheney is a good example, in his continuing grotesque championing of torture as a legitimate government tool to "make us safe." As if that isn't the same rationale provided by all similarly-warped tyrants around the globe to justify their own torture regimes. In truth, it is never about "keeping the people safe," it's always about keeping the people frightened and cowed.)
It's linguistically nit-picky to insist that reform has to = "fundamentalism". Reform Judaism ---> totally nowhere near the same thing as fundamentalist (by which I assume one would mean Levitical) biblical Judaism. Not even in the same galaxy.
Setting aside the gross generalization of this statement--that "there seems to be something about Muslims that dislikes the basic human rights that we take for granted in the West” … I see this same tendency in many Christian fundamentalists here in America.
As soon as I see Christian fundamentalists in America directing public floggings, mutilations, amputations, stoning and throwing homosexuals from high places, as soon as I see Christians forcing an extra-legal system of totalitarian suppression such as sharia on America – then I’ll contemplate agreeing with the comment. Until then …
I wonder, on that issue of “gross generalization,” can the commentor cite Muslim-majority countries that have a good history with human rights? A good place to start looking would be the US Dept. of State’s own Reports on Human Rights. That’s where I looked – in vain it turns out – for such an example. Perhaps I overlooked some sterling models of freedom among them. Because until some examples to the contrary are offered I’m going to have to stick to my opinion that there’s something about Islam that is incompatible with basic human rights.
It's linguistically nit-picky to insist that reform has to = "fundamentalism". Reform Judaism ---> totally nowhere near the same thing as fundamentalist (by which I assume one would mean Levitical) biblical Judaism. Not even in the same galaxy.
No, a reformation doesn’t have to equal fundamentalism. Readers, my point was never that a religious reformation has to be a return to fundamentalism but rather that there are parallels between the reformation of Islam today and the Christian version of yesteryear.
And that it is useless to hope for a Muslim reformation, perhaps to liberalize Islam, sometime in the future when the reformation is already happening apace. The Muslim reformation manifested itself in America with Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 and continues with this latest atrocity in San Bernardino. It represents a return to the core teachings in their sacred texts.
Robert Cook said...
--I see this same tendency in many Christian fundamentalists here in America.
If you laid off the drugs maybe hallucinations wouldn't form the basis of your worldview.
"Perhaps I overlooked some sterling models of freedom among them. Because until some examples to the contrary are offered I’m going to have to stick to my opinion that there’s something about Islam that is incompatible with basic human rights."
The human rights we take for granted are an aspect of civil society, not theocratic societies. The "something about Islam that is incompatible with basic human right" is not Islam itself, but Islam as the state. One's choice to follow the tenets of one's faith with greater or lesser degree of fidelity would be greatly compromised, if not erased entirely. It is the imposition by law that makes any doctrine tyrannical. If we were a Christian theocracy, you can be sure some of the basic rights we take for granted would not be ours to take for granted. It's not that the people who live in Muslim societies would not appreciate having the rights we take for granted, it's that the political systems they live in do not permit them the basic human rights we take for granted.
In fact, how well do many of our citizens actually appreciate the rights we take for granted? I don't sense that most people care in the least about the unceasing spying on all of us by our government, in violation of the law and of our constitution. I don't sense that most people care in the least that we have become a nation that considers torture to be just one more tool to be used as and when desired. I don't sense that most people are outraged at our out-of-control police forces, who murder citizens at whim, with impunity most of the time. But then, like most people in most societies, our fellow citizens are just trying to get by, often in difficult circumstances, and they are focused on their daily lives and worries, and are largely oblivious, or resigned, to the ways our society fails them.
Ok grackle. Then you go get to work on converting them or apostasizing them (punishable by death) instead. Clearly that's the more appropriate paradigm than anything that Majid Nawaz or Irshad Manji are up to, or any of the countless other Muslims who would much more easily follow their ideas than your own course.
I agree with grackle about Islam already having its reformation. However, Bin Laden is not their Luther. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is more nearly like Luther. If anyone, Bin Laden is more like John Calvin. Al qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Isis, etc. are just different denominations of Wahhabism. None of them has direct parallels with the development of Christianity. The bloodiest leaders of the 30 Years War are not part of our public memory. If they were, they would probably give good parallels to the murderous bunch we are now faced with. The so-called moderate Muslims are just lukewarm backsliders who want to go to Mosque and celebrate the holidays they grew up with in peace. However, they are subject to experience revival and sudden jihad syndrome. If they want to reassure non-Muslims, they need to have a real Peace Movement, mass demonstrations, and Peace Imams similar to Rev.Sloan Coffin leading them and making public statements constantly. The CAIR group is too transparently anti-American and not pro-peace at all.
The "something about Islam that is incompatible with basic human right" is not Islam itself, but Islam as the state.
I repeat: Show me any majority-Muslim country that possesses a sterling human rights history and I’ll reassess my opinion. Until then the commentor is stuck with the sad fact that in Muslim-majority countries human rights are routinely trampled.
If we were a Christian theocracy, you can be sure some of the basic rights we take for granted would not be ours to take for granted.
There is only one existing Christian theocracy that I know of: the Vatican. And we do not see gays being flung from high places, any floggings, amputations, mutilations, stoning, etc.
In general Westerners do not seem to favor theocracies these days, perhaps in part because they have found them historically unfavorable to the human rights that civilized countries take for granted in this post-US Constitution era. Let’s not overlook the fact that many nations have used the US Constitution as a model for their own constitutions.
Freedom does seem to catch on once the theocrats are eliminated from calling the shots in a culture – at least in the West. Muslim-majority nations seem to be a ripe exception to this rule. They just cannot seem to get rid of the Islam-inspired barbarity that is rife in their cultures. Why this is so can be debated but the fact of its pervasive existence in Muslim-majority countries cannot be denied.
In fact, how well do many of our citizens actually appreciate the rights we take for granted?
Oh, I think many of our citizens do appreciate freedom. And like a fish that only appreciates water once it is caught and tossed on land the rest may wake up if those freedoms begin to disappear.
Bin Laden is not their Luther. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is more nearly like Luther. If anyone, Bin Laden is more like John Calvin
Precise parallels are impossible when comparing two vastly different cultures represented by Islam and Christianity. I used bin Laden and Luther as examples because both are well-known historical figures, while Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is an obscure figure to most of our readers. It is possible to get a bit too deep in the weeds and there is a danger of obscuring good points because most readers are probably not familiar with the founder of Wahabism. But I’ll readily concede that the commentor has a valid point.
"I repeat: Show me any majority-Muslim country that possesses a sterling human rights history and I’ll reassess my opinion. Until then the commentor is stuck with the sad fact that in Muslim-majority countries human rights are routinely trampled."
I repeat: show me a Muslim-majority state that is not a theocracy (or a secular dictatorship, such as Hussein's Iraq). In the case of theocratic states, any theocracy will curtail human rights, in favor of God's decree, (however the respective god be named or worshiped). In the case of secular dictatorships, they're secular dictatorships, and the majority religion of the nation has little or nothing to do with the repression of human rights.
"There is only one existing Christian theocracy that I know of: the Vatican. And we do not see gays being flung from high places, any floggings, amputations, mutilations, stoning, etc."
????
The Vatican is not a theocracy. It's not even a state.
Post a Comment