When Muslims Commit Violence

[Big Don]

When Muslims Commit Violence

08 Nov 2009 09:37 am
Jonah Goldberg The Atlantic EXCERPT:

A consensus seems to have formed here at The Atlantic that the Ft. Hood massacre means not very much at all. Megan McArdle writes that "there is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this." James Fallows says: "The shootings never mean anything. Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre 'mean'? A decade later, do we 'know' anything about Columbine?" And the Atlantic Wire has already investigated the motivation for the shooting, and released its preliminary findings. Of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Wire states: "A 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, he appears to have not been motivated by his Muslim religion, his Palestinian heritage (he is American by nationality), or any related political causes."

>>>SNIP<<<
Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
END EXCERPT

If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack?

You better believe it. Had a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck book been found in his possession...

 

[Big Don]

If the attacks of 9-11 didn't trigger massive attacks on Muslims, last week's murders at Fort Hood won't. By that standard, Hasan is a piker.

 

[Marginal]

Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
END EXCERPT
You better believe it. Had a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck book been found in his possession...

Heh. How cheesy. More Christians playing the victim card.

Who started calling for the regular debriefing of all Christians in the military when McVeigh acted?

 

[grydth]

As full of PC compost as the media surely is, I'm not sure what motivated this homicidal maniac at Ft Hood. Maybe we ought to debate this when we do know.

Even if he turns out to have been driven by radical Islam, why take it out on some innocent Arabic guy? He didn't do anything..... Hell, Tim McVeigh was a white Christian Army vet with a medal for service in the Middle East. So am I - - - by the prevailing (ir)rationale I should shoot myself for what he did at Oklahoma City....... well, not just yet thank you.

 

[Carol]

McVeigh called himself an agnostic.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4

 

[Big Don]

McVeigh called himself an agnostic.

That's OK, it gave someone a chance to blame Christians.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People who are members of an organized religion always believe that those who are members of a different organized religion have different experiences and different control systems than their own.

When a Muslim commits a terrorist act, some Christians say:

"Why didn't his neighbors turn him in?"

"If other Muslims are against this sort of thing, why aren't they speaking out?"

"If Islam is a religion of peace, why do Muslims commit these acts?"

And so on.

What they never do is ask themselves these questions.

If you are a Christian, and your neighbor is a Christian, would you have any way of knowing if he were planning to shoot an abortion doctor? Would you know if he made bombs in his basement? Yet you assume that all Muslims know what their fellow Muslims are doing and simply refuse to inform on them.

When a Christian commits an atrocity, such as shooting an abortion doctor, do you march in the street as concerned Christians to inform the world that you decry his actions and do you write to newspapers to let them know that this is not the sort of thing that Christianity teaches? Yet you assume that if a Muslim commits an atrocity, his fellow Muslims must rise up by the millions and hurl themselves into the streets, apologizing and weeping with shame, or they must be secretly in favor of what the criminal Muslim did.

When a Christian commits a crime of violence, do you think it marks Christianity as a violent religion, do you think your beliefs are now tainted and unworthy of being called 'peaceful'? Yet you think that a Muslim who does these things is simply demonstrating that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Most of this is straight out of psychology books. We identify with our own groups and have innate understanding about them that allow us to disassociate ourselves from any feelings of guilt over what someone else does in the name of our religion, or as a member of our religion. We do not consider them to be 'of us' or 'representative' of us. We do not grant other people the same level of understanding, though, if their belief system differs significantly from our own.

We do not permit others to have similar reactions and innate understandings of their religion as we do of ours. They are 'the other' and they are 'different' and 'they don't think like us'.

It is human, it is understandable, but it is wrong. If Islam itself were the problem, we'd have bigger issues than we do. 1.2 billion Muslims live on this planet, and the overwhelming majority of them do so peacefully, harming no one. The same can be said of the overwhelming majority of Christians. Same for Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and so on. Most of us are no threat to anyone else, regardless of our belief systems. If we were, our lives would be much shorter and much uglier than they are.

Islam is not the problem. People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are. Christianity is not the problem. People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.

 

[Big Don]

Islam is not the problem. People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are. Christianity is not the problem. People who use it as an excuse to commit violence are.

Avoiding any criticism of Islam feeds the problem of people who use Islam as an excuse to commit violence. Christianity has been, and will continue to be criticized rightly and wrongly. Why can't Islam do the same? Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?

 

[Marginal]

McVeigh called himself an agnostic.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4

Close enough to Christian for at least 75% of the people in the US who claim to be Christian regardless.

 

[geezer]

Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?

I wasn't aware that Islam was given any special treatment, but it's a fair question. I've heard it criticized a lot, but maybe I just hang with a critical crowd! Is Islam criticized less than other world religions? If so, then why?

 

[Kajowaraku]

I wasn't aware that Islam was given any special treatment, but it's a fair question. I've heard it criticized a lot, but maybe I just hang with a critical crowd! Is Islam criticized less than other world religions? If so, then why?

Well... I'd say ask the Jyllands-Posten. They published some cartoons of the prophet and got a variety of reactions, including both praise for speaking up, outrage and (here it comes) threats to blow their offices of the face of Denmark. Being threatened does have that special property of making people careful when choosing their words. Still, it's a minority of radicals doing the threatening and bombing, and as we all know Islam is not the religion of violence some people think is (including both the extremist Muslims and non muslims with an oppinion).

Still, these radicals do exist. I'm not sure when somebody blew up a building in the name of scientology recently, but i reckon it doesn't happen that often. As for judaism, well... they have a record of blowing their adjacent countries to smithereens, not for terrorism in our backyards. It affects the way people respond, and the liberty they take when responding.

All in all, I find myself in full agreement with Bill on this one. it's not the religion, it's what some people do in the name of that (any) religion that matters.

 

[KELLYG]

I think that of all the religions that I can think of in current times the word Jihad is only coming from one religious sect. This may be the reason that their motives are being examined closer than the others.

 

[xJOHNx]

Jihad is a common arabic word, stemming from JHD. Which means to strive.
The inner jihad is often called the big jihad. Letting go of the ego and such.
The outher jihad (what everyone calls holy war) doesn't mean holy war. It means outward striving. War can be a facet of that.

 

[Gordon Nore]

"If other Muslims are against this sort of thing, why aren't they speaking out?"

"If Islam is a religion of peace, why do Muslims commit these acts?"

And so on.

What they never do is ask themselves these questions.

If you are a Christian, and your neighbor is a Christian, would you have any way of knowing if he were planning to shoot an abortion doctor? Would you know if he made bombs in his basement? Yet you assume that all Muslims know what their fellow Muslims are doing and simply refuse to inform on them.

Damn straight. My Catholic friends who oppose abortion personally are not obliged to apologize to me or anybody because someone who professes to Christianity blew up a clinic, shot a doctor, or harassed a patient. Those who expect them to have an agenda that goes beyond protecting a woman's right to choose. They're fighting about something else.

Do the 3500 Muslim US armed forces members have to atone as Muslims for the acts of Major Hasan? They are members of the armed forces, and I believe they should be permitted to feel the same outrage as others in uniform.

 

[Ramirez]

Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism?

I am not sure why you think Islam is immune from criticism, I don't think the opinions of a couple of writers at The Atlantic means Islam is immune.

I have read columns by Muslims being critical of Islam.

eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah

 

[Marginal]

I am not sure why you think Islam is immune from criticism, I don't think the opinions of a couple of writers at The Atlantic means Islam is immune.

I have read columns by Muslims being critical of Islam.

eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah

"Criticism" in this case means crying about not being allowed to make wild links between an isolated shooting and an imagined global caliphate trying to destroy 'Merica.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Avoiding any criticism of Islam feeds the problem of people who use Islam as an excuse to commit violence. Christianity has been, and will continue to be criticized rightly and wrongly. Why can't Islam do the same? Why is Islam and its adherents seemingly immune from criticism? If it is merely politeness that creates that, then why isn't Christianity likewise immune from criticism? Scientology is widely criticized, Judaism is widely criticized, why is Islam given special treatment?

Don, this is the reason that few board members, if any, take your posts seriously, especially on this alleged immunity of Islam. All of Bill's post, all of the points he raised about group psychology and double standards, and you choose to zero in on the one line that lets you stick to your Christian-victim agenda, ignoring everything else. Honestly, I'm impressed that your response was more than one sentence.

The reason we shouldn't blame Islam for the tragedy at Ft. Hood, or even for the catastrophe of 9-11, is the same reason that Christianity and Catholicism shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City or the various abortion clinic bombings. Any religion can be hijacked as justification for atrocity. As Bill was trying to argue, any distinction or immunity for Islam is really just based on your own perception.

Allow me to apologize ahead of time to the rest of the board members for the vitriol in this post, but it needed saying.

 

[Nolerama]

Once all this is said and done, and it's found that the shooter was simply out of his mind and not motivated by race or religion...

It's still going to be painted as a Muslim committing violence.

Because that's the double standard American media upholds... Mainly to sustain sensationalism and boost ratings.

(I'm making this assumption, but it's certainly valid...) Many people are more likely to maintain interest in a story when they feel like they are affected (as Americans) and certainly more interested in said story when the shooter is of Middle Eastern descent and perceived to be a practicing Muslim.

Those easily affected by the media can view the shooter not as a troubled human being, but as a Jihadist terrorist, removed from humanity in the eyes of the general public.

It's the same double standard that a crime committed by a white person is less sensational as that of that same crime committed by a black person in the US.

It's sad. But some countries are run by dictators. Others are run by a singular ethnic group that totally craps on minority groups. Yet still, others are far more openly corrupt than other countries...

And Americans are stuck with the kind of media that operates more like a dowsing rod, than an information medium.

 

[Big Don]

Nowhere have I blamed Islam, however, there is a certain segment of Islam that flies planes into buildings, blows themselves up in discos, car bombed a Marine barracks, blew up embassies, nearly sank the USS Cole, beheads journalists. Immediately after Dr Tiller was murdered we heard, on every channel and in every newspaper and news magazine, about how his killer was a Christian, and that is OBVIOUSLY and SELF-EVIDENTLY why he killed the abortionist. However, when a Muslim man shoots more than forty people at Fort Hood, his religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and any suggestion that his attempted calls to Al Qaeda, his frequenting a mosque where 9-11 terrorists also worshiped, saying that suicide bombers were as heroic as a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, all that has NOTHING to do with his crimes. But, there is no double standard, I'm just a Christian, who, by the way, has never identified my religion on any website, playing the victim card?

 

[Big Don]

Major Hasan's presentation on Islam: Via The Washington Post