That's the title of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam.
In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren't, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.
He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case — all of it condemning the plot — that he says got scant coverage.
I didn't follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he's right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims "speak out" against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:
1. They do. All the time. I've cited multiple examples in the past year.
2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don't have AQ's number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.
3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.
Let's expand on that last point for a moment because it's an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.
The underlying logic of the "Muslims must denounce terrorism" goes as follows: The terrorists are Islamic, and therefore Muslims have a particular duty to denounce Islamic terror.
This is reasonable to an extent: disavowing the nutjobs operating under your banner is sometimes necessary. But where it goes off the rails is when people demand that every Muslim denounce every act of Islamic terror every time one occurs.
This is ridiculous. Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious — that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views? Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Zedd
Sean,
Thanks!! Beautifully stated.
2 - Kyle
You have some fair points.
The problem is that while millions of Christians in America and Europe have simultaneously marched in support of Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, etc.. we have yet to see millions of Muslims march in support for the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims.
For example, about a million Muslims around the world marched against the Danish Cartoons. Many of these marchers included signs calling for the beheading of anyone who Insults Islam and praising Hitler.
In contrast, there were no marches in support of the 100 innocent non-Muslims who were killed by fanatics because the cartoons hurt their feelings.
3 - STM
Yep, spot on ... what about the IRA and its splinter groups? An organisation of radical Catholics (admittedly many weren't practising, although their families often were) who thought it was OK to let off bombs in high streets across Northern Ireland and England, killing and maiming innocent women and kids to achieve their goals.
Or the radical protestant Ulster unionist militias, killing Catholics for dating protestants, or for having the temerity to live in a non-Catholic area?
Don't hear much about that, do you? Yet all violence carried out by Ireland's terror groups had Christian sectarian roots.
Just as those atrocities committed by the IRA or the Irish Unionist militias who "opposed" them had nothing to do with real Christianity, radical Islamic terrorism doesn't have a lot to do with mainstream Islam. It has everything to with twisted, warped ideologies that attract people who are psychopaths and enjoy violence and killing and use it to justify an end.
It's a crime and law-and-order issue, not an issue of religion.
4 - Dave Nalle
Nice to see you back with us, Sean. Hope we'll see much of you down the line with fine articles like this one.
Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists.
Not only do they not have influence, when given the choice, the radicals often choose to moderates on the top of their list of targets. Nothing makes extremist angrier than fellow believers who are willing to compromise with the enemy.
Dave
5 - Richard
All people must realize that these extremists in any religion have parents and religious examples that taught them to be that way. You don't grow up without having been exposed to hatred to be a hater. Simply put, if all the parents raised their children to have respect for the fellow human being, (leave religion out of it) the world would be a little better. Everyone knows as previously posted, there are wars all over the world and for every reason. Let us put our efforts to respect each other, help each other, and not fight each other. If you are a real parent you would teach your children so the fighting may stop around the world. It starts at home. The governments can't help you unless you help yourselves. Think about it for a while.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Nothing makes extremists angrier than fellow believers who are willing to compromise with the enemy.
Hence the ire of Fred Phelps and his ilk towards 'moderates' like Jerry Falwell.
7 - Dave Nalle
Exactly, Dr. D. - which also reminds us of the troubling similarities between Phelps and the radical Mullahs.
Dave
8 - kafir
You forget, most Muslims nod their heads when the extremists talk about murdering kafir (non-Muslims).
Islam is ALL ABOUT murdering unbelievers, taking over governments and imposing Islamic rule. Read their "holy book"! Read about the Islamic conquests! Read how they took over Spain for christsakes.
If you honestly believe that there is any hope that Muslims will stand up to those preaching hate... you are hopelessly deluded. The religion is about hating non-Muslims, and the so-called extremists are merely following their "holy book" the closest. The problem is not "extremists", the problem is Islam!
It's a religion of violence, and it is infesting our countries. Something must be done about it, and I'm sick and tired of the so-called "Left" ignoring their subjugation of women and support of terrorism in the name of tolerance. Stop caving in to these barbarians, or you can kiss Western civilization goodbye. If Muslims become the majority, we will end up in a theocracy aka a caliphate. Is that what you want?
9 - Dr Dreadful
kafir (which, by the way, in apartheid South Africa meant something quite different...):
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you take your xenophobic drivel, and substitute the words "Muslims", "Islam" and "Spain" with "Christians", "Christianity" and "Palestine" respectively.
If the resulting post reads like bollocks to you, congratulations. That's how your comments read to the rest of us.
10 - gazelle
as the iraq example demonstrates clearly :
it is one thing to be critical of US policy and another to be an extremist.
so there can be and there are legitimate political struggles against US policies and presences in the wider Middle East, for example.
some muslims are silent, some are critics (even blogcritics), and some more radicalized - well its common sense - not understanding or working with these distinctions is just neanderthal stupidity.
g
11 - JD
You save the important part to the end:
"Now, political reality is a different matter, and not always fair; in this day and age, there is more political need for Muslims to speak out than there is for Christians. But that doesn't make demands that they do so any less illogical."
You say yourself there is more need for Muslims to speak out than Christians. So why spend an entire post arguing there is not the case? Trying to apply simple logic to a huge complex situation is, well, not very logical.
If the best you can do to prove that the Muslim community *is* speaking is to quote online chats, you really are missing the point. Deliberatly, or because you're letting the details confuse you? It's hard to tell.
There are enough prominent, well connected Muslims that it is quite logically possible to expect the Muslims to speak out. Visibly, on national TV and in the press, and repeatedly so. It hasn't happened. Whether you think this is right or not (I've got a whole other point of view on Iraq and suchlike), there is nothing illogical about a basic stance that wishes moderate Muslims would speak out more.
12 - Maxwell
Hey Dr Dreadful
While the tone of kafir's comment was a bit shrill his fears are moe than justifiable.
If you dont watch it Muslims will outbreed you, they already routinely outfight you and they are much more willing to die for their cause than any westerner will ever be. Quite simply you are the rich and decadent empire while they are the hungry barbarians on the frontier (Byzantium anyone?). It may not be humane or honourable but If you want western civilisation to survive drive away or kill them now while they are still few.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Max, you still commit the logical error of taking the behavior of a few extremists and projecting it onto an entire population. Yes, Islam sees the world differently than our culture does - it's understandable that because this is outside your comfort zone you perceive it as a threat. But that's xenophobia, not rationality. The activities of al-Qaeda and their ilk are no more representative of Muslims than Fred Phelps is of Christians.
14 - Abdullah
The title of the article is correct but I wouldn't read anything that Schwartz writes. He is an extremist in his own right. He accuses anyone outside of his Islamic cult as being Wahabi. He is an undercover neocon proven by his appearances on familysecuritymatters.org. I can speak on behalf of all Muslims by saying we condemn both terrorism and Schwartz.
15 - High Heels
An excellent article, well done.
16 - bumbledraven
Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious " that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?
No, but whenever someone commits mass-murder in the name of Christianity, it wouldn't hurt for Christians to stand up and say, "hey, this guy is not Christian."
17 - Lee Richards
#13:
It isn't reasonable to compare a local nuisance like Phelps and his 70 or 80 followers to a multitude of ticking time bombs all over the world.
"a few extremists" does not accurately reflect the beliefs, goals, laws, methods, and scope of mainstream Islam worldwide. Anything outside the Bill of Rights is, indeed, outside my comfort zone and I don't see any tolerance within the aims and structure of militant Islam for that almost-sacred statement of American principles and freedoms.
18 - Nancy
Unfortunately I must side more with Kaffir & Maxwell than Dr. D: having read both the qu'ran & hadith (the doings of Muhammed) - altho admittedly in English translation - albiet by native Arab-speaking scholars - & quite a few related commentaries, I can state that there was no doubt left in my mind after I finished that both Muhammed & Islam in general do indeed call for conversion by violence if necessary, or eradication should the targeted convertees remain stubbornly non-muslim. Actually, it varies: early on in the first books Muhammed was very much in his pacifistic mode, saying that non-believers shouldn't be pressured to convert, that fellow People Of The Book (i.e. Jews & Christians) were to be left alone & treated equally, etc. As time went on, however, the later chapters become steadily more aggressive & damning in nature, until in the last few books he calls outright for the killing of anybody refusing to convert to Islam, & rails rabidly against both Christians & Jews, or tries to insist that there are no such things as Christians/Jews, that all the great Christian or Jewish saints & patriarchs to that time were actually Muslims, etc. So when you get right down to it, there's far more in the Qu'ran & Hadith about approving the killing of innocent non-muslims & their status as less-than-equals than there is about letting them live in peace. In all, Islam is NOT a "peaceful" religion: the "peace" it consistently refers to is strictly a "peace" that will exist only when the entire world is either muslim or under muslim control, & this is spelled out pretty baldly as well.
muslims . They wouldn't have gotten the rep if they hadn't been doing the act - & the rest of them going along with the 'whackjobs' by tacit group/community support, either by silence, providing cover, or other means.
Fortunately, most muslims are more interested in the daily struggle for earning a living than they are in jihad & conquering the world for Allah & Muhammed. Unfortunately, a sizeable percentage of them - including Americans born & raised here as muslims - also thoroughly approve of what muslim extremists & terrorists are doing, & support them tacitly, if not actively, through donations or other methods through their local mosques, etc. One reason the extremists can get by with their widespread support like this is exactly because the Qu'ran contains so much explicitly violent & violence-advocating material in it, which considerably overwhelms & outweighs in quantity & virulence the admonitions for non-violence. This last more than anything else seems to be what sticks in the collective craws of non-muslims, who on their part HAVE indeed marched for the rights of muslims, while few or no muslims ever reciprocate - and non-muslims are getting tired of this being a one-way street when it comes to tolerance, since Islam & muslims are notoriously intolerant of non-muslim religions, & rigidly intolerant of those who leave for (or even listen to) non-muslim theologies. Furthermore, while demanding freedom to worship in non-muslim countries, they refuse to extend the same courtesy to non-muslims in muslim countries.
Try as you might, those of you who argue for the benignity of muslims can't or don't address those aspects of it, & frankly I doubt you could, because there IS no refutation of these facts.
Again, comparing Phelps, hateful as he is, with radical muslims is apples & oranges, because as obnoxious & rude as his actions are, Phelps has not yet (as far as is known) descended to actual violence, advocating violence (except by God), or inciting followers to violence...probably because he knows the moment he does, he & his flock will be rounded up & sent to the old hoosegow for conspiracy, etc. Far too many muslims, on the other hand, not only advocate it, they go out & DO it; then have the gall to whine about being targeted by non-muslims as 'violent'. Well - DUH! It ain't radical quakers, zoroastrians, or zen buddhists who are out there attacking innocent people left & right; it's
If the shoe fits....
19 - steve
Unfortunately, while plenty of "Christians" commit the act of murder, far fewer do so in the name of Christianity.
20 - Nancy
Having read both the Qu'ran & the Hadith as well as numerous commentaries on both (by muslims, not outsiders) I have to say that Islam is definitely NOT a religion of "peace". Quite specifically & frequently Mohammed calls for the forcible conversion or eradication of non-muslims, a 180 on his very earliest strictures to respect the religions of others & force no one's beliefs. The preponderance of violence-advocating statements & directives far outweigh & outnumber those to peace & are far more virulent & emphatic.
Furthermore, there is the sore issue of muslims demanding freedom to worship in non-muslim countries, yet they do not reciprocate by allowing non-muslims to worship freely in their muslim countries, & they pursue extremely rabid zero-tolerance policies when it comes to any muslim even listening to non-muslim theologies, let alone converting, which is without fail punished by either death or being committed to an insane asylum. In other words, do as we say, not as we do. This sort of totally bald-faced hypocrisy & intolerance is what sticks in the craws of most non-muslims who are not inclined to view Islam & its adherents with an overly friendly eye.
Finally, as vile as Phelps & followers are, they do not (that is known, anyway) advocate violence (except by God, who seems to be ignoring them) against those who irk them. Muslims, on the other hand, no only have a sizable portion of believers who DO advocate it, but actively recruit and/or practice it, either against others or as suicide bombers, while the rest, apparently, according to recent polls both here & abroad, tacitly approve & support said extremists/terrorists, through donations, through silence, through covering or providing sanctuary, etc. Muslims have the bad rep because they've EARNED it. It ain't militant zoroastrians or radical quakers who are out murdering everyone in sight.
21 - Dr Dreadful
True, Steve, you don't see murder committed much in the name of Christianity.
Nowadays in the 'West', anyway.
However, in many parts of the world (e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda) and on many occasions in the past (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition), such murders are and were committed frequently.
They aren't/weren't true to Christian principles, either.
22 - Dr Dreadful
It isn't reasonable to compare a local nuisance like Phelps and his 70 or 80 followers to a multitude of ticking time bombs all over the world.
The scale is different, but the aim - to cause maximum pain and disruption in furtherance of some perverted ideal of the 'true' faith - is the same. I think the analogy is perfectly reasonable.
23 - Lee Richards
#21:
Then, according to your thinking, flying planes into buildings and blowing up restaurants, buses, planes, ships, etc. is analagous to carrying a rude sign at a small demonstration. "The aim ...is the same." Really?
I do agree that "disruption in futherance of some perverted ideal of the 'true' faith", by some adherents of Islam and any others who want to express their religious beliefs in compelling political terms, will cause some maximum pain.
24 - Lee Richards
Sorry, I was commenting on #22.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Nancy #18 and 20: I don't see that the other Judeo-Christian religions are any better. In the Old Testament, God frequently commits genocide - or encourages his 'chosen people' to commit it for him - against nations unfortunate enough not to enjoy his patronage.
Since Islam derived from these two, I wonder where Muhammad got his ideas from?
Still, as you say, most Muslims (along with most followers of any other mainstream religion) do not interpret the entirety of their holy book literally. They are more interested in getting on with life than in blowing infidels to kingdom come, which they quite rightly perceive to be evil, stupid and a waste of precious time.
#23: Yes, really. The fact that Phelps doesn't have the balls to do more than shoot his mouth off doesn't make him any less of a terrorist. The only difference is that his violence is psychological rather than physical. He emphatically does not advocate non-violence: quite the opposite, except that he has an imaginary enforcer (his fantasy version of God) to do it for him.