Cab driver stabbed after being asked if he was a Muslim

[MJS]

This is what intolerance leads to.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/musli...-stabbing-hate-crime-charge/story?id=11480081


The attacker is said to have been very drunk, and has been taken to the hospital for psychiatric examination as well. He faces attempted murder and hate crime charges.

I find this very sad. It's nothing more than a modern-day lynching.

Very sad indeed. I'm sure we saw quite a bit of hate after 9/11 and even moreso now, with the mosque debate going on. Guy trying to make an honest living driving a cab, and gets attacked by someone who shouldn't be walking the streets.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Very sad indeed. I'm sure we saw quite a bit of hate after 9/11 and even moreso now, with the mosque debate going on. Guy trying to make an honest living driving a cab, and gets attacked by someone who shouldn't be walking the streets.

I think it is very premature to attempt to define what this guy's reasoning was - sick in the head or some other reason - but I do think it is appropriate to talk about radicalization.

Normal, everyday people can be made into radicals. The most common examples of this are mob actions, like historical accounts of lynchings. Elder posted a video of a man nearly attacked in a rally against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque because it was 'thought' he was a Muslim.

But that's a temporary madness, the madness of mobs and crowds. It tends to vanish when the crowd disburses. People do things they would not otherwise do.

There are other forms of radicalization, and it is those that I fear more than mob actions at the moment. I do not know if this guy, supposedly a peace activist, became radicalized by what he saw and heard when he was in Afghanistan, but it may be possible that's what happened. The stories I've read so far indicate that he embedded as a video journalist with a high-school buddy, a Marine in combat in Afghanistan. I'm sure he saw and heard a lot while there; it has been reported that he returned 'changed' (PTSD?).

It should also be noted that radicalization happens unintentionally (such as in battle) and intentionally (by indoctrination and massive rhetoric) and it happens on every side of a conflict. Muslims who are radicals became that way somehow, it never happens in a vacuum. In other words, their radicalization makes terrorists. Are we also going to produce radicals? That's my fear.

And of course, radicals breed radicals. I can well imagine that if these sorts of attacks proliferate and Muslims who live in America become fearful of it happening to them, leaders in their own community will arise who will attempt to radicalize them too, and if their fear is well-grounded by reality, they may get lots of converts. Then we've got a real problem.

This nearly happened during the 'Militia Movement' ten years ago in the USA. It could happen again, with a religious component. Ugly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Additional note: I just saw this online, and I agree with it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cab-d...ed-attacker-michael-enright/story?id=11486802

"This is what the terrorists want," said New York Gov. David Paterson Thursday. "This is the terrorists getting a yield on their investment when they attacked this country and blew up the World Trade Center, that we're now fighting each other. This is making their day."

We lose when we turn against each other - Christian against Muslim, American-born against legal immigrants. We play directly into the hands of those who would destroy us. It is very little more than political Aikido - using our own strength and anger against us. The terrorists did not do this to us; they set the stage and we're doing it to ourselves.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Additional note: I just saw this online, and I agree with it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cab-d...ed-attacker-michael-enright/story?id=11486802



We lose when we turn against each other - Christian against Muslim, American-born against legal immigrants. We play directly into the hands of those who would destroy us. It is very little more than political Aikido - using our own strength and anger against us. The terrorists did not do this to us; they set the stage and we're doing it to ourselves.

So obvious, even a blind man could see that.

 

[MJS]

I think it is very premature to attempt to define what this guy's reasoning was - sick in the head or some other reason - but I do think it is appropriate to talk about radicalization.

Normal, everyday people can be made into radicals. The most common examples of this are mob actions, like historical accounts of lynchings. Elder posted a video of a man nearly attacked in a rally against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque because it was 'thought' he was a Muslim.

But that's a temporary madness, the madness of mobs and crowds. It tends to vanish when the crowd disburses. People do things they would not otherwise do.

There are other forms of radicalization, and it is those that I fear more than mob actions at the moment. I do not know if this guy, supposedly a peace activist, became radicalized by what he saw and heard when he was in Afghanistan, but it may be possible that's what happened. The stories I've read so far indicate that he embedded as a video journalist with a high-school buddy, a Marine in combat in Afghanistan. I'm sure he saw and heard a lot while there; it has been reported that he returned 'changed' (PTSD?).

It should also be noted that radicalization happens unintentionally (such as in battle) and intentionally (by indoctrination and massive rhetoric) and it happens on every side of a conflict. Muslims who are radicals became that way somehow, it never happens in a vacuum. In other words, their radicalization makes terrorists. Are we also going to produce radicals? That's my fear.

And of course, radicals breed radicals. I can well imagine that if these sorts of attacks proliferate and Muslims who live in America become fearful of it happening to them, leaders in their own community will arise who will attempt to radicalize them too, and if their fear is well-grounded by reality, they may get lots of converts. Then we've got a real problem.

This nearly happened during the 'Militia Movement' ten years ago in the USA. It could happen again, with a religious component. Ugly.

Well, be that as it may, IMO, this guy has some serious issues, and this seems to me that it was premeditated. Why do I say that? Because this guy was probably pissed off at the Muslim population as a whole, and was seeking out anyone of that faith, to attack. He probably would have done the same thing if he walked up to a passerby or street vendor.

 

[crushing]

The guy is not your typical person whom you'd expect to see out there protesting against the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'. In fact, just the opposite.

I don't think anyone knows what was going on in this guy's head at the time. Being 'very drunk' as he is described as being doesn't make a peaceful person become a murderous thug, at least not in my experience. There's something else going on.

Various news stories report:
"An officer there noticed the commotion, found Enright slumped on the sidewalk and arrested him."

Given Enright's background and community involvement, this whole story seems kind of suspicious. I wonder if they did any toxicology tests on Enright? Wouldn't the story take a strange turn if they found some sort of date rape type drug in his system?

Anyway, Enright's media conviction so far appears successful. The legal conviction should be pretty easy, especially if Enright can't remember anything and the cab driver is scared to death and there aren't any witnesses to come forth other than an "officer that noticed the commotion".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, be that as it may, IMO, this guy has some serious issues, and this seems to me that it was premeditated. Why do I say that? Because this guy was probably pissed off at the Muslim population as a whole, and was seeking out anyone of that faith, to attack. He probably would have done the same thing if he walked up to a passerby or street vendor.

If true - and we don't know yet, but I'm leaning that way too - then it is an example of radicalization.

 

[yorkshirelad]

This cabbie being attacked pisses me off! Obviously the guy who did the attack is a pratt and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The most annoying thing about this whole episode is that the lefties are going to use this example everytime someone even attempte to speak out against this Sharia academy juast a couple of blocks from ground zero.

The Imam who will be leading this 'cultural center' has expressed his antiAmerican views time and time again, but according to many of you, it is inappropriate to speak out against him and his ilk.

Let's see who amongst you would be tolerant of a branch davidian church being built next to the Federal building in Oklahoma.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This cabbie being attacked pisses me off! Obviously the guy who did the attack is a pratt and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The most annoying thing about this whole episode is that the lefties are going to use this example everytime someone even attempte to speak out against this Sharia academy juast a couple of blocks from ground zero.

And they shouldn't because?

The Imam who will be leading this 'cultural center' has expressed his antiAmerican views time and time again, but according to many of you, it is inappropriate to speak out against him and his ilk.

No, according to me, he's neither anti-American, nor has he expressed anti-American views.

Let's see who amongst you would be tolerant of a branch davidian church being built next to the Federal building in Oklahoma.

Branch Davidians and Federal Buildings in OKC? I think you've got a few wires crossed. OKC is Timothy McVeigh. Branch Davidians were in Waco, Texas. They didn't blow up any buildings, although they were in one that burnt down.

But as far as a Branch Davidian Church next to a federal building? Sure, why not?

 

[Archangel M]

Perhaps the lefty, film student, pro-mosque dude decided that he had to sacrifice a Muslim "for the cause" of uniting the "pros" against the "antis"? And maybe he had to liquor himself up in order to do it?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453450937635686.html

Mr. Enright is also a volunteer with Intersections International, an initiative of the Collegiate Churches of New York that promotes justice and faith across religions and cultures. The organization, which covered part of Mr. Enright's travel expenses to Afghanistan, has been a staunch supporter of the Islamic center near ground zero. Mr. Enright volunteered with the group's veteran-civilian dialogue project.
Joseph Ward III, the director of communications for Intersections, said that if Mr. Enright had been involved in a hate crime, it ran "counter to everything Intersections stands for" and was shocking.

And oddly enough some sources are saying that the cabbie is against the planned Mosque.

But Sharif — who expressed that he personally feels the mosque should be built elsewhere — said he suspected the tension over the debate may have served as a motive for the assault.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Kn...sts+Governor/3446449/story.html#ixzz0xkwpV2IJ

Hows that for a conspiracy theory?

Or maybe it was just some lone nut vs an example of widespread anti-Muslim violence.

 

[yorkshirelad]

And they shouldn't because?






Branch Davidians and Federal Buildings in OKC? I think you've got a few wires crossed. OKC is Timothy McVeigh. Branch Davidians were in Waco, Texas. They didn't blow up any buildings, although they were in one that burnt down.

But as far as a Branch Davidian Church next to a federal building? Sure, why not?

Actually one of Tim McVeigh's twisted views was that the feds should pay for the Waco debarcle.
Now when it comes to the Imam's views stating that the US is partly responsible for 9/11 and that we are the most Sharia compliant nation on Earth is quite anti-American in MY opinion.
My point is, that one guy stabs a muslim in NYC and the leftists use the incident to tar all of us who disagree with this sharia academy with this bastard's brush. Now I know you don't believe that Bill due to your past posts, but plenty are now using this as lefty propaganda

 

[Empty Hands]

Maybe it would be more difficult to tar you with any brush if you didn't call the proposed center a "sharia academy".

Again, cry foul at being called a bigot, and then go on to demonstrate bigotry.

 

[Sukerkin]

Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", EH? Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand.

Also, YL's point is a valid one about how the actions of one extremist will mar the ability of those holding views disputing the issue to make their point.

Of course, that truism does cut both ways, as any really good blade, whether physical or philosophical, will .

 

[elder999]

Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", EH? Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand

Have a look here:

The community center will reach out to all New Yorkers with six programmatic areas: 


1. Culture and Arts - 500-seat auditorium, exhibition


2. Education - Lecture hall, conference rooms, library, classrooms

3. Social Cohesion - cooking classes, senior citizens space, childcare, banquet hall

4. Religion + Healing - Muslim prayer space, Contemplation and reflection area, 9/11 victims memorial


5. Global Engagement - Mapping studies on trends in the Muslim world, providing resources on good governance and principles of liberal democracy, promoting women’s empowerment issues, encouraging youth development, countering religious extremism.


6. Recreation - pool, gym, medical education and wellness programs

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually one of Tim McVeigh's twisted views was that the feds should pay for the Waco debarcle.

I'm still not sure how that affects Branch Davidians.

Now when it comes to the Imam's views stating that the US is partly responsible for 9/11 and that we are the most Sharia compliant nation on Earth is quite anti-American in MY opinion.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008260002

Any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah compliant, in its substance. Because these rights are God-given, they are inalienable and cannot be deprived of any man or woman without depriving them of their essential humanity.
What I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant.

He's talking about a different understanding of Sharia than you think, but that's a nuanced viewpoint that would require a nuanced understanding of religion. The current shoot-first-ask-questions-never zeitgeist doesn't support deep thought, IMHO.

My point is, that one guy stabs a muslim in NYC and the leftists use the incident to tar all of us who disagree with this sharia academy with this bastard's brush. Now I know you don't believe that Bill due to your past posts, but plenty are now using this as lefty propaganda

Well, they're going to use it, but that's what happens. The fact is, this guy could just as well have been a Tea Party freakazoid. While most Tea Partiers would not do such a thing, once you get a crowd riled up, things start to happen. That's the level the rhetoric has reached. I hope people take a step back now instead of continuing to make up crap about Islam that they clearly don't understand to support their odd anti-freedom position on the so-called mosque.

 

[WC_lun]

This is a sad story. not just because an innocent man got hurt because of his religious preference, but because it seems so many are at a place where they think he probably deserved it for being muslim. Looking at all the protest I am seeing against mosque all over the US, it is becoming very worrisome.

As far as an extremist actions making it hard to argue your point...welcome to how most Muslims feel. Ironic, huh?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As a practical Catholic, I respectfully offer this:

http://www.zenit.org/article-30169?l=english

ZE10082701 - 2010-08-27
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-30169?l=english

Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan

"Christians Are Spiritually Close to You During These Days"

VATICAN CITY, AUG. 27, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a text published today by the Vatican of a message sent to Muslims by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. The message was sent on the occasion of the end of Ramadan.
...
4. There are many causes for violence among believers of different religious traditions, including: the manipulation of the religion for political or other ends; discrimination based on ethnicity or religious identity; divisions and social tensions. Ignorance, poverty, underdevelopment are also direct or indirect sources of violence among as well as within religious communities. May the civil and religious authorities offer their contributions in order to remedy so many situations for the sake of the common good of all society! May the civil authorities safeguard the primacy of the law by ensuring true justice to put a stop to the authors and promoters of violence!
5. There are important recommendations also given in the above mentioned text: to open our hearts to mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, for a peaceful and fruitful coexistence; to recognize what we have in common and to respect differences, as a basis for a culture of dialogue; to recognize and respect the dignity and the rights of each human being without any bias related to ethnicity or religious affiliation; necessity to promulgate just laws which guarantee the fundamental equality of all; to recall the importance of education towards respect, dialogue and fraternity in the various educational arenas: at home, in the school, in churches and mosques. Thus we will be able to oppose violence among followers of different religions and promote peace and harmony among the various religious communities. Teaching by religious leaders, as well as school books which present religions in an objective way, have, along with teaching in general, a decisive impact on the education and the formation of younger generations.

 

[Empty Hands]

Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", EH? Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand.

Because when Islamophobes talk about "Shari'a" in the West, they mean it as a takeover of Western law and society by the rules of shari'a. They mean that suddenly all the women must walk about in burqas, non-believers must pay the jizya, and a host of other things which will never happen in the West. Thus to call the center a "shari'a academy" is to claim that the center is a sinister place for the export of totalitarian ideology and law that will attempt to take over the West. These sorts of overblown fears are extremely easy to find when you start looking around.

These sorts of fears are also explicitly negated by the words and actions of this Sufi Imam himself. That has been ignored however in favor of trying to paint him as a terrorist-sympathizing extremist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

These sorts of fears are also explicitly negated by the words and actions of this Sufi Imam himself. That has been ignored however in favor of trying to paint him as a terrorist-sympathizing extremist.

I absolutely agree. I knew little about this Imam before the recent debate; however, I have known of Sufism for a long time (back to the 1980's) and I've found much to admire about it. If one wants to have an interesting layperson's perspective, read the science fiction novel 'Dune' by Frank Herbert. He took a lot of concepts from Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, and even Christian Gnosticism and melded them together to create situations and characters. The 'Fremen' were in fact based on Bedouins, the war that created the current environment was the 'Butlerian Jihad' and the Bene Gesserit were Kabbalists of a sort.

I read the Imam's carefully-parsed language. I understand what he is saying. I don't think he has much chance of selling it to the rank-and-file of everyday Islam, let alone the hard-core Islamists, Wahabists, Salafists, and the like. But he is clearly a moderate, and he clearly believes what he is saying - he's been saying it all his life, apparently. He is no Johhny-come-lately to the situation.

However, to understand the Imam's writing in context, one has to have a grounding in the language of religion at the least, apologetics and linguistic, and then there is the layer of translation to deal with. Hard enough to have these types of discussions with Christians about Christianity; the subtle distinctions are lost, or purposefully ignored, or see as apostasy and therefore not worthy of consideration; assuming one even thinks critically about one's own religion.

I do not think the current audience has any such background, for the most part, and many if not most of them are unwilling to learn what is needed to follow the thread of the Imam's arguments.

I debated even posting such arguments here; my first instinct is to do so, but I held back, thinking that such posts would be utterly lost on those who do not care to learn anything, and not necessary for those who have an understanding of the many traditions inside Islam.

But here is an example of the Imam's explanation of 'Sharia Law':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages//frontline/shows/muslims/interviews/feisal.html

Can you explain Sharia?
The word "Sharia" is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Quran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that. So any law, anything studied in the Quran or the hadith, is definitely [Sharia]. The idea is that it is divinely legislated, that the creator also has legislated certain things for us.
But in the community of Muslims, it was recognized very early on that the Quran and the hadith do not speak to all issues. And there are many issues which are not necessarily addressed in the Quran and the hadith, that the Quran is silent on. ... There is a recognition in the [science] of Islamic jurisprudence that there are issues which have to be obtained by analogy, by consensus, and other [subsidiary] sources of jurisprudence. But as long as they don't conflict with the Quran and hadith of the prophet, it's considered to be, quote, unquote, "Sharia."

...

In what ways do Western values, morals, and cultural practices, intrude upon, and [in what ways] are they at variance with Islamic ideals?
I think there are two aspects to this question, in the broader sense of the word. There is Western values regarding governance; Western values regarding separation of powers; Western notions regarding what the role of government is in society; Western notion in terms of democratic institutions and principles and ideas. And to a large extent, Muslims are very enamored of these systems, and would like to implement them in their own societies ... because these principles and norms are completely in sync with the principles of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. Muslims would like very much to implement these norms within their societies.
When you come to speak about things like behavioral norms, gender relationships, or the kind of things that people will do, this is a separate issue. And there is another aspect of the West, and that is the attitude of the West towards the non-Western countries, in terms of trying to be presumptuous in telling them how they should even live their lives in ways that they are not accustomed to -- like modes of dress, for instance. In the 1930s, when the first shah of Iran forced his soldiers at bayonet point to force Iranian women to take off the chador, for instance.
People don't like to be told how to dress. This is a matter of personal individual conscience. Even we here in the West do not insist that our students in public schools wear uniforms. We give them that level of freedom. People do not like to be told how to do certain things in their personal lives.

I would also like to say that I am not agog over Imam Rauf's intellectual prowess. I think he is a very decent man, and that his ideas about America and religion are not at all worrisome to me; I like the man; and I truly see him as a very moderate Muslim, like most Sufis. But I do think he is a bit out of his depth when speaking apologetics, and that doesn't help matters. However, in this case, it is a bit like a high school graduate teaching a college-level course, but the audience has been usurped by booger-eatin' fifth-graders who are armed with spitballs and straws. It's an unfortunate situation all the way around.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's an interesting piece that Imam Rauf wrote in 2008, well before the current mosque brouhaha:

http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Islam_28/Islam_and_the_West_When_religions_talk.shtml

I won't quote it, but I found the entire short piece well-written and exemplary of the type of statements Rauf has made consistently. Note well how he takes the Saudis and extremists to task; this man is not a friend of extremism in any way; he'd be chopped up unto tiny bits by many Islamists, I have no doubt. This is the guy everybody thinks is trying to usher in a 'Sharia Academy' and take over the USA? I don't think so.