Keith sent this very interesting link to Michael awhile back and he forwarded it to me. This is a great example of a moderate Muslim voice trying to offer a little fragment of the positive relationship that Jews and Muslims have enjoyed in the past. Mansur also offers advice for the future and the very necessary step of reconciling these two great world religions.
Having said that, the comments posted under the article remind me of the fact that the “war of hearts and minds” is not only being waged in the Islamic world. It’s also very much being waged in the “West.” Many, many Westerners, both Christian and secular are absolutely intent on rebuilding the spirit of the old Crusades. They are absolutely, unalterably convinced that Islam is the devil’s own religion and until every Muslim is butchered or converted (to either Christianity or secular humanism), the world will not be safe for “the righteous.” I invite you, gentle readers, to examine the comments in some detail and ask yourselves if you have not heard similar language before. The same rhetoric is broadcast daily by Islamic fundamentalists, yet here it comes from “enlightened” Westerners. Ironic, is it not, that those so intent on “saving” us from the fundamentalist terrorists are, themselves, unashemedly using the rhetoric of those like Iran’s President and OBL.
In particular, please focus on the position taken by the opponents of Islam in this comment section. Muslims are all heathen butchers. We understand your theology, laws, and holy scriptures better than you do. Our understanding of those things is the only true one (sound familiar?). We have a version of history which Muslims must accept or else be branded hypocrites or fanatic apologists. Either accept our vision of Islam and renounce it, or be squashed under the heel of “righteousness” like the fundamentalist terrorist that we consider you to be.
Until the “West” itself decides what its position on Islam is, then I can’t really see how any progress is to be made in interactions between the Muslim world and the western world. I can only hope that cooler, more rational heads will prevail in both camps and that this ridiculous alarmism will end soon.
I can sympathize. I see a lot of folks, some quite well-intended, confuse the effects of Middle East tribalism with that of religion. They’re right insofar as a lot of the problem stems from a tribalist understanding of Islam, but it’s more than that, it’s the tribalists understanding of everything, of the world around them, that makes us their enemies.
yours/
peter.
Omar, I went over and read the comments. Based on what I read there, I would consider your post to contain much hyperbole. Have they removed some of the more inflammatory comments over there?
Billy, here is a flavoring of some of the more uselessly inflammatory comments :
I could spend the rest of my years explaining and showing historical proof of Islam’s past and meaning and these people would continue to believe that Islam is a murderous death cult and that Muslims must either reject it and convert or die. That sort of option is no different than the one offered by OBL. How is it that these people who consider themselves so-called champions of “religious freedom” and “anti-terrorism” in the western world have the exact same mindset and language as terrorist fanatics?
Omar, it genuinely pains me to disagree with you intensely. But I think you’re way over-reaching with the rhetoric in the original post.
The top two paragraphs of your examples came from the only commenter that I thought was over the top. The rest of them are blunt, but I don’t see that they warrant the outrage you have expressed about them.
Islam, at least in some prevalant interpretations, *is* at odds with the Western idea of individualism, or at least it looks that way to me and many others. Do you think a majority of imams in the Middle East would consider Western individualism compatible with the practice of Islam as they understand it? I would consider that highly unlikely.
And moderate Muslims do take pains to use the “moral equivalence” argument even when it’s a pretty tenuous argument. I understand why they do it – they want their rhetoric to be palatable to other Muslims, and goodness knows I support them in that. However, I don’t see how it’s somehow borderline hate speech if someone considers that to be glossing over the offenses of various practitioners of Islam.
Your original post made it sound like the thread was totally populated by Neanderthals without an intelligent thing to say. Where did you get the bit about “until every Muslim is butchered or converted”, for example?
And even the most aggressive commenter made a point or two that was pretty well founded. He said:
Omar, as much as it may pain you, he’s right. He’s blunt, but his point is correct.
I simply don’t see the equivalence between Muslim actions and rhetoric and non-Muslim actions and rhetoric that you seem to see in the comments on that thread. For example, I didn’t see what inspired you to claim “Many, many Westerners, both Christian and secular are absolutely intent on rebuilding the spirit of the old Crusades.” Again, I think you’re over-reacting and over-reaching in your own rhetoric. Are there people who believe that way? Sure. Are they mainstream and respected? Nope. And therein lies the key difference, because it’s quite respectable for Muslims to preach all kinds of violence against the West and Israel.
As long as there are entire Muslim nations with no religious freedom and severe penalties for violating that constraint, whereas there are no such constraints in the West; as long as Muslim terrorists bombing Christian churches is fairly common but Christians bombing mosques is somewhere between rare and unknown (I can’t find a single confirmed instance – only one plot back in 2001 that was foiled when one of the Jews contacted tipped off the FBI); as long as a large part of your co-religionists call for death as the punishment for apostasy while Christians and Jews of all stripes shrug their shoulders even if a co-religionist chooses to become an atheist – well, I just don’t think making the equivalence argument between the two sides is going to get you very far.
Billy, it’s not so much this one set of comments. It’s the mindset behind the comments and the fact that such comments can be found all over the internet (at blogs as popular as LGF and QandO).
The imams in question base their opinions on their cultural heritage, which is to say that an imam born and raised in the US would most probably have a vastly different view of individualism than an Iraqi or Saudi imam. Individualism and Islam are in no way incompatible. The culture of many Middle Eastern nations is incompatible with individualism. The same could be said of most of the world, however (Asia, Africa, and South America, in particular, are not exactly champions of “do your own thing”).
I’m not excusing the equivalence arguments used by some in the moderate community, but, as a rule, I do try very hard not to engage in this type of behavior.
From the general comments that I illustrated above. What is the logical conclusion of accepting the idea that Islam is a dangerous, fanatical death cult intent on destroying the western world? Submission, while possibly acceptable to a Buddhist or Hindu audience, would be met with shock and derision by a western audience. This is nothing more than Bernard Lewis/Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations” rhetoric. Either the “West” kills or converts the Muslims or the Muslims kill or convert the West. What a cheerful world view.
So, a United States Congressman is neither mainstream, nor respected? How about a Jeb Bush appointee and leading Florida Republican leader? Or yet another US Congressman’s remarks which reflect the “under siege” attitude?
When such prominent people begin spewing garbage like this, one has to wonder how many of their non-prominent supporters believe it. Again, I point to such sites as LGF and other relatively far-right sites as examples of the ongoing “Crusade” against Islam that is building. Now I can’t personally testify to the words spoken in every masjik in America. Some of the imams may, indeed, use hate-filled rhetoric, but at the same time, can any Christian honestly claim that no words of hatred against Muslims have been spoken in America’s churches? Both sides are guilty of inflaming hatred and for no real reason.
Both sides are guilty of inflaming hatred and for no real reason.
While this is true (putting aside for the moment the markedly higher levels of prevalence and virulence on the Muslim side of things), the comments in the linked post are — with the exception Billy Hollis noted — very poor examples of ‘Western hatemongering.’ And lumping them with the venomous snakepit that is the LGF comment section is laughable.
If you honestly want to engage Westerners/non-Muslims in dialogue to correct misperceptions of your religion, then you’re going to have to actually engage them, not turn up your nose and sniff in haughty disdain. Trying to handwave criticisms of Islam as ignorant bigotry or mere ‘Clash of Civilizations rhetoric’ only plays into the hands of those who argue that Islam is nothing more than a mindless cult. Likewise trying to change the subject to criticism of other religions (‘but he did it too!‘ doesn’t really help your case).
If someone claims that Muslims Wherever commited X atrocity, or Sura Whatever mandates Y violence, or Imam Whosis preaches Z racism, then address the substance of X, Y, or Z. Don’t just make ad hominem blanket accusations of ignorance, dishonesty, or bigotry. The person making the claim may well be an ignorant, dishonest bigot, but you’re still going to have to disprove what (s)he’s saying.
Achillea, while I agree with your conclusions, you appear to have missed the point of the post. We hear daily discussions of the ongoing struggle within Islamic nations between moderates and radicals. We are told that there is now a battle for the “hearts and minds” of Muslims. I agree, however my point is that the same type of battle is occuring right here, as well. Although as a whole certainly has some problems relating to the “West,” the “West” needs to get its act together and figure out its policy and attitude toward Islam, too.
Part of this is manifested in the seemingly schizophrenic approach that I see here in the US. Fox News, talk radio, the blogs, etc. all call for moderate Muslims to stand up and shout. I think that’s great and certainly that message needs to continue, however, the problem is that when moderates do speak out (as Professor Mansur did in the article I linked to), they get chewed up and spit out. Not by radical, fanatic Muslims, but by the same, usually right-wing, Westerners that are demanding that moderates speak up in the first place. Can you see how this makes us feel? Don’t speak out, and you are condemned as being in league with terrorists. Speak out, and you’re liable to get your head handed to you by the same people screaming at you to speak out in the first place. This is rapidly becoming a lose-lose scenario.
I freely admit that the LGF’ers and some of those on QandO’s comments sections are much more virulently anti-Muslim than the comments to Professor Mansur’s post. The difference, to me, however, is not substance, but style. The underlying attitudes are the same. I get the same message from both sets of comments. Muslims are ignorant, barbaric savages who cannot be reasoned with and must be taught the truth of their own religion and history then forced to renounce it or die.