The politics of the Muslim Silence in America

Whaddya sayin' bout Muslims and Jews boyo? Why I oughta...

Jim
Am I to understand that you speak Arabic or at least understand it. I'm reasonably certain Aljazzeera does not broadcast in English since it is their intent to forcefeed hatred to the Arab world.

What is your take on the article and the claim that 80% of the Islamic mosques in America are controlled by the Wahhabists?????

Huh? All you have to do is be curious and look it up. It's really easy to find exactly where their funding comes from.

Hint: Qatar Monarchy (though the official subsidy has ended and advertising revenue and deals like the Sky Digital distribution have started to replace Qatari money).



Jim, given what you know about the outlet I'm going to have to strongly doubt the validity of your personal experience.

I think you are confusing "Saudi line" with just the general Arab line.

Al-Jazeera "toes" the Qatar monarchy line most of all, and are the mainstream Arab press that has most attacked the house of Saud in history.

IMO, you are taking a superficial impression and takling leaps of faith from there. There are a lot of similarities between the "Saudi line" and the general Arab population in the region but Al-Jazeera's main bias is to avoid hard hitting reports about the Qatar monarchy and the house of Saud is free game.

Your claim that the Saudis are using the channel to spreat their "thought" is, IMO, baseless (except for a very circumstantial angle in that some Saudi journalists who were unable to kick off a free press in Saudi Arabia have worked for Al-Jazeera).

Now in all seriousness, while not the same, the original post does remind me of what many Jews outside of Israel feel about Sharon. They are embarrassed into silence regarding his politics because of a belief in the need for a Jewish homeland. There is so much room for non-extremist Jews and Muslims to understand each other. Ahh, screw that, there is PLENTY of room for all human beings to get along. For me, the question is do we give in to the fear that because the squeaky wheel gets the oil we should remain silent if we are associated by religion but do not support radicalism? I think the moderates need to be a bit more squeaky.

It's very common to see people take their superficial impression and assert it as fact. Is this one of those times?

Do you have any substantiation to the claim that Al-Jazeera has "intent to forcefeed hatred to the Arab world" or is this just another flippant "fact"?

Fosfyre

Thanks for that link to Frontline. Another good sourse of info on Wahhabism is the book "Hatred's Kingdom"

Craven
Do you have any evidence that is not their intent? If you're here to pick a fight, go get some sleep then come back and we'll talk.

Sofia, that's really all you take from your thread?

perc,

I have no intention to fight, and was merely requesting substantiation. But sleep does sound good.

Perception - no, I'm not fluent in Arabic, but after 12 years here I've picked up enough to know what's going on.

Also, you don't have to be fluent to understant the message when they show Berg murdered and your co-workers are cheering while watching it.

In this paragraph, you express an attitude that I found very irritating when I started my frequent visits to the United States as a teenager. Wherever I went in these days, Americans from my grandparents' generation would ask me about the Nazis, expected me to take a stand against murdering 6 million Jews, and acted disappointed when I was slow to speak out on something I had no responsibility for.

Same thing with communism. One of the first questions after being introduced inevitably was: "Which part of Germany do you come from?" When I anwered "West Germany", everything was fine. When I dudged the question and answered "Northern Germany", where I was living back then, I was immediately expected to take a stand on communism, and people reacted disappointed when I didn't speak out against it on my own initiative.

Even from a distance of 15-20 years, I can't think of these incidents without thinking: WTF? Who were these Americans to hold me accountable for events I was in no position to do anything about? Who were they to insinuate that I thought the holocaust and the Gulag were okay unless I spoke out against them? And who are you, Sofia, to hold 800 million muslims accountable to your idea of what the proper response to a few thousand fanatic terrorists is? And to insinuate they're fine with terrorism unless they speak out against it?

The moderate Muslims of the world have my deepest sympathy.

Thomas I found your opinion very close to mine. But I think there is one big difference - while I completely agree with you that those that are not responsible for terrorism have absolutely no reason to explane that to Americans, as well as regular Americans have absolutely no reason to apologize to all world for Bush - in the same time I think that everybody should talk in his own yard if you know what I mean.

So, in this particular example, I don't expect Muslims to speak out in USA - they have no reason for apology for something they haven't done. BUT, I think that Muslims (in this particular example Muslims, in other example someone else) should talk much more and very loudly when addressing.

E.g. Not only that it's not their obligation but its also insulting to request of Arab American to apologize for idiots that happen to be of his religion, but in the same time I really expect of this Arab American to speak loud if he comes to opportunity to talk with those that twist Koran upside down to justify their lunacy

Here is the take on wahabis, the major source of extremist islam:

The movement started all teh way back in the 18th century in the saudi desert (of course back then there was no saudi, it was hijaz). Its main prescription was that islam had lost touch with its origins, the many non arab muslim converts and their pre-islamic cultures had bent it out of recognition, therefore they said that we should return to the roots of islam. They started to purge any part of islamic doctrine not based solely on the qoran and the 20 or so very strong hadith. They also started a rebellion against the ottoman empire. Well things were quited down when the ottomans cracked down on them. They took their teachings back to the medrasas and that was the end of that, or so people thought. Well appearantly they just spread the message and at the end of the 19th century they found a new champion of the cause the saud family. Well they were very zelout in their fallowing of the teachings of abu-wahab and more or less made it the unofficial belief of the arabs in hejaz. Later on, during WWI you have lawrance entering the scene and promising the sauds, and hashemis british help and independence if they rebel against the ottomans. They do, and in keeping with their promise (well the brits basically promised both the sauds and the hashemites the same thing, reign over hejaz) and give them independance, in the same geographic area. What ensues is a bitter and bloody struggle between the parties and by 1924 you have the sauds established in, creatively enough saudi arabia, and the hashemites in jordan. Now the hashemis were not wahabbis, they were mainstream, but the sauds were and they make the teachings of wahabism official religion (and law) in S.A. From that moment on first british and later US support for the saudis has meant a prosperous and burgeoning wahabi society, intent on guiding the misguided on to the right path. As a result you have all these saudi based banks such as faisal, and al-baraka all over the islamic world. Also there are more clendistine groups spreading the wahabi vision such as the aqwan. Later on the soviet invasion of afghanistan and the afghan jihad gave the wahabis the perfect opportunity, there they set up training camps and all over the world started recruiting mujahidin for the cause. There they learned guerilla warfare, recieved explosives training and the like from, well of course not the S.A. intelligence, CIA. All through the eighties some (there have been exagerated numbers all the way up to 100,000) 20.000 or so mujahidin get training and build combat experience. After the wars end many of these people returned back to their countries and started spreading the message, thats why the rise of islamic extremism coincides with the fall of the USSR.

Hmmmm - Al Jazeera reports that the Hezbollah (and other Muslims) have condemned the beheading of Berg:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=1950

Hezbollah Condemns ?Un-Islamic? Berg?s Beheading
- 13/05/2004 21:26:00 GMT


Joining forces with Muslim scholars and Arab and Muslim public opinions, Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance group condemned the beheading of an American hostage by some unknown Iraqis, dubbing it "an ugly crime that flouted the tenets of Islam".

"Hezbollah condemns this horrible act that has done very great harm to Islam and Muslims by this group that claims affiliation to the religion of mercy, compassion and humane principles," the resistance group said in a statement Wednesday, May 12.

A video put on a website Tuesday, May 11, showed the beheading of Nicholas Berg with his executioners saying they were linked to al-Qaeda and avenging the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops.

Hezbollah, which the United States blacklists as "terrorist", said Berg's killing had diverted the world's gaze from an escalating furor over the abuse of Iraqis by U.S.-led occupation soldiers.

"The timing of this act that overshadowed the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in occupation forces prisons is suspect timing that aims to serve the American administration and occupation forces in Iraq and present excuses and pretexts for their inhumane practices against Iraqi detainees," read the statement carried by Reuters.

The Lebanese resistance group, which forced Israeli troops to unilaterally and hastily withdraw from south Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation, said the executors' behavior was closer to "the Pentagon school - the school of killing, occupation, crimes, torture and immoral practices that were exposed by the great scandal in occupation prisons".

Popular Condemnation

Berg?s beheading has also been widely condemned throughout the Arab world.

"This action was bad because it makes Arabs look like barbarians but that's what the Americans think anyway. My fear is that now Americans will feel Iraqis deserve the torture," Mamdouh, an Egyptian pharmacy student who did not want to give his full name, was quoted by al-Jazeera.net as saying Wednesday.

Some Arabs said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian Washington accuses of being a leading al-Qaeda figure who is alleged to have led the decapitation, had failed the very people he said he was avenging by strengthening Washington's hand in Iraq, al-Jazeera reported.

"Zarqawi is an enemy of the Arab and Muslim nation because he distorted their image and portrayed Islam in an incorrect manner," Hasan Ahmad Jar Allah, 41, a Saudi government employee, who had seen the tape on the Internet, told al-Jazeera.

"What religion or sect condones such a barbaric act? This is abominable, God curse Zarqawi," he said of the tape which showed masked men sawing Berg's head off with a large knife and holding it in the air.

Al-Jazeera also quoted an unnamed Gulf analyst as saying the killing would prove counter-productive for Iraqis.

"This strengthens the position of Americans in Iraq . American people are going to start asking their government when it will retaliate."

Al-Azhar scholars and Iraqi scholars ? both Sunnis and Shiites ? have also condemned the beheading.

that's positive example - people should clean their own backyard. I never expected them to apologize for jerks that happened to be of their own by accident. But fighting against them in own backyard is something completely different.

there are some serious question marks on the berg issue to begin with, but I for once condemn such grotesque violence, regardless of the perpetrators. There should be some honor in war.

that's also true. I was speaking more generally.

The 'hon' **** is tiring.

OK, hon. :wink:

But nowhere near as tiring as your relentless anti-left, agenda driven posts, that you deny posting.

At least have the courage to own them. I have no problem owning my distain for the right and everything your side of the aisle represents.

BTW, spare us the vulgarity? That type of language is inappropriate.

In this paragraph, you (sofia) express an attitude that I found very irritating when I started my frequent visits to the United States as a teenager. Wherever I went in these days, Americans from my grandparents' generation would ask me about the Nazis, expected me to take a stand against murdering 6 million Jews, and acted disappointed when I was slow to speak out on something I had no responsibility for.

That's right, Thomas. Sofia's simplistic take on things remind me of a friend I had growing up who moved into my home state from Dallas, TX. She was a gem, as were her parents, but she said people were always asking her about the Kennedy assassination - how she felt about it, did she feel responsible for it, stopping just short of wanting her to apologize for Kennedy's murder. My friend hadn't even been born yet!

It's like 'hello?" Do these right-wingers want American muslims to slit the wrists en masse in Times Square to show their outrage for a few whackos in Iraq?

Maybe then the right-wingers will pronounce them "some of the good ones."

I apologise for Rupert Murdoch quite often....