(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am saddened, that the reaction of someone Jon and I know to the Dayton mosque gassing was to complain that moderate Muslims don't condemn extremist Muslims loudly enough. Putting aside the obvious responses - a moment's Googling will find roughly a bajillion examples of Muslims condemning terrorism, poisoning sleeping children is not much of an anti-terrorism strategy, collective punishment is not justice, quit blaming the victims - something struck me about this line of argument that I'd never thought of before. Why assume that the opinions of "moderate Muslims" would have any effect on "extremist Muslims" anyway? This seems to assume that Muslims are a single group of people, all of whom have a say in any action one of them takes. We wouldn't expect, say, US Pentecostalist Jimmy Swaggart to take any notice of Australian Jesuit Frank Brennan, so why would we expect, say, a radical cleric in Islamabad to take any notice of an Iraqi refugee in Ohio?

Comments

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

When I see a phrase referring to moderates in any religious group not doing enough about their extremists, I tend to assume that it refers to the moderate leaders as opposed to the rank and file. This might be because of the first episode of "The West Wing" when President Bartlet almost took the head off one of his allies for not condemning extremist Christians enough.

And I don't believe that anything justifies an attack on a place of worship, whatever your own beliefs or lack thereof.

[daibhid-c.livejournal.com]

That makes sense, but even then I'm not sure an extremist would listen to a moderate leader. Moderate leaders of both the Catholic and Protestant faiths used to condemn the violence in Northern Ireland all the time, and didn't seem to make much difference.

I think the real purpose moderates condemning extremists serves is reassuring the rest of us[1] that they're not all like that.

[1]I was raised Church of Scotland agnostic, and later developed a vague interest in Eastern beliefs; whatever religion we're talking about (including atheism), I'm one of "the rest of us".

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

I think that in these instances, the point is that the moderate leaders denounce the extremists and make the position of the extremists less popular with the rank and file members. And yes, to reassure the people of other faiths that we're not going to be murdered in our beds!

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I think the real purpose moderates condemning extremists serves is reassuring the rest of us[1] that they're not all like that.

Yah, which makes it maddening when people assume that, because the media haven't shoved it right under their noses, no such condemnation is going on. But obviously "Beardy Terrorists Blow Up Something!!!" is a much more saleable headline than "Reasonable Person Says, Quite Sensibly, That Blowing Things Up Is Bad." Get your Google on, kids.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

And I don't believe that anything justifies an attack on a place of worship, whatever your own beliefs or lack thereof.

That's it, clear and simple. Doesn't matter which side you're on or what the other side did.

The horrible thing is that some fucker who blows up kids in Iraq or Israel or wherever is going to come out with exactly the same excuse - look at all the awful things their people are doing! (Sheesh, you even get this bs in the harmless microcosm of the shipwar.)

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am saddened, that the reaction of someone Jon and I know to the Dayton mosque gassing was to complain that moderate Muslims don't condemn extremist Muslims loudly enough.

Ugh, fail. Surely this friend of yours can see past this rationale and hate the hate that throws a CS canister into a daycare - no matter who perpetrates it on whom?

And there are moderate Muslims working on turning around the extremists. One such was described in "From Our Own Correspondent" (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7623097.stm)) as pointing out the flaws in the beliefs of a particularly conservative extremist organization and persuading away the leader of one particular band...

[elsaf]

That's the thing... Moderate muslims are more opposed to muslim extremists than non-muslims because moderate muslims are more often the victims of the extremists than non-muslims.

We're so focused on the threat of muslim extremism to the West that we completely forget the thousands of moderate muslims killed by suicide bombers in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Most of the people repressed by the Taliban were moderate muslims.

Many non-muslims simply don't think it counts when an act of terrorism is perpetrated against muslims.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

WORD

[edorm.livejournal.com]

Have to wonder where the phrase "moderate muslim" comes from, don't you? As if all muslims carry a card which displays their religious alignment.

It is meaningless, of course. Bigotry relies on the assumption of the homogenous whole, making it easier to attack or dismiss a group all at once. The reality is, of course, that you might be able to group some people together because of some shared affiliation, but that commonality is probably outweighed mightily by the DIFFERENCES between the different members.

Ed (Chaotic-Neutral Atheist)

[the-cockfighter.livejournal.com]

But you friend is correct, because its not really about the body of complaint or the rationalities, but whether the media makes that public knowledge.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

In the age of Google, we no longer have the excuse of "Oh, I didn't notice that in my paper, so it didn't happen." :)

[the-cockfighter.livejournal.com]

Whilst sourcing information from the internet has increased, people have their agenda set by the tabloids and talkback. Howard government rode on that and where successful for 11 years.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

The Internet has taught me enormous and very useful scepticism. Before that, the first inkling that the media could not always be trusted came from all the little errors and typos in newspaper items about Who... if they got this trivia wrong, what else had they got wrong?

[nyssa1968.livejournal.com]

Why assume that the opinions of "moderate Muslims" would have any effect on "extremist Muslims" anyway? This seems to assume that Muslims are a single group of people, all of whom have a say in any action one of them takes. We wouldn't expect, say, US Pentecostalist Jimmy Swaggart to take any notice of Australian Jesuit Frank Brennan, so why would we expect, say, a radical cleric in Islamabad to take any notice of an Iraqi refugee in Ohio?

*Applause*

During 7/7/2005 in the UK when the news finally came through about the bombs, a guy in my office sadly asked why it was all Moslems condoned such violence. I told him, calmly (colleagues were missing at the time; one was injured, but not badly, the others unscathed) that would be the same as thinking that all Christians supported IRA terrorism and anti-abortion bombings. He understood the point I made; he just hadn't thought of it that way.

In a linked thing, I heard something on the BBC radio that infuriated me the other day: a report about US 'missions' flown over the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, and the danger - politically - should a Pakistani soldier get killed or injured. To translate, or fill in the gaps: these missions drop bombs on villages and towns full of people who happen to be Pashtuns. People are getting killed, but the BBC in this interview obliterated them from existence.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

The "radical cleric in Islamabad" is Maulana Abdul Ghafar, who got stuck into President Zardari for flirting with Sarah Palin:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1002/p04s01-wosc.html

But what the US press isn't reporting are his further remarks:

"We are fighting the American war in our country and thousands of our people have been killed just to please Uncle Sam. Therefore, we demand that the military operation in the Pak-Afghan tribal areas be immediately stopped as it is creating hatred amongst the general public against the Pakistan army."

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1193958

[ashamel.livejournal.com]

This may be off interest (somewhat peripherally): Racism Without Racists

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Ooh ta muchly, that's fascinating!