Good Point
I usually enjoy the writings of Thomas Friedman, even though I often disagree with him. Here, however, I think he's on the mark.
Read the whole article: If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden....
The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.
Read the whole article: If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution
6 Comments:
Here's a question:
Why do Muslim communities in the US condemn the attacks (generally speaking) and Muslim communities in the Mideast do not (generally speaking)?
Also, I was the "DC" from a few days before, if you couldn't figure it out from my trademark style.
Yeah..I knew it was you, Drew.
I think the best answer to this question is that American culture and society does a far better job of neutralizing the radical components of Islam. Our country has always been a massive assimilator of all sorts of people--regardless of their religious, cultural, or ethnic background. While there will always be pockets within society that resist some degree of Americanization, it is relatively easy to become American and function and participate normally in society here without losing distinctive features of your culture.
The mideast (and Europe for that matter) have very specific cultural molds that are historically entrenched and very hard to overcome if you're an immigrant. Part of the problem, then, is that in the Mideast, freedom of thought, dissent, religion, and expression have all been historically stifled. As a result, groupthink takes hold and the reactions of the masses are easy to control--and those reactions (and I think you and I would agree on this) will tend to gravitate to the baser side of things.
Perhaps, too, Muslims in America have first hand experience of how they can live within and benefit from American society without having their religion compromised.
Also, I would think that a lot of the Muslims in America are immigrants fleeing despotic regimes and a miserable existence (like the large Arab population in Michigan that fled the burality of Saddam). They're coming here to live--and Islamic terrorism only threatens there life here.
It's a tough question because there's a lot going on.
To take of on your use of the Orwellian "groupspeak" . . .
Would all this mean that it's a good thing that Christianity has so many different sects? It seems to me that the theocratic society that has such negative effect in the Mideast is akin to the (semi-)theocratic society that was prevalent in Europe during the Middle Ages. Of course the correlation isn't the same, and of course a democratic government is integral to even the possibility of neutralizing the more sinful components of any belief system, and yet . . . I find that when the pope exerted the most authority over the lives of Europeans, that's when Europeans suffered the most, in some sense, the Holocaust notwithstanding, although even that is a result of a lack of individualism. For my part, I do believe that Christianity exhorts both community and individualism, as I'm sure you do, but does modern Christianity, not to mention the American government, work because we sharpen our own ideas against those of others? Does this make sense? The question also entails that of: Do Muslim terrorists do what they do because they listen too much to what their leaders tell them and don't think enough for themselves?
Hey, Jordan. :) I've been lurking here occasionally for a while, and finally felt like posting today.
I think it's pretty clear that one of the root causes of terrorism is that these kids are too trusting. They are fed cherry-picked lines from the Qur'an that promise this and that for a life spent fighting the oppressor, and they become convinced that waging war on the "enemy" is a just and honorable use of their lives. (Off topic - the Qur'an's statements against killing innocents and taking this kind of war to the extreme are not, contrary to popular belief, figments of the media's collective imagination, as one of the previous entries in this blog suggests. ;) Being taken in by this argument is clearly "listening too much to what their leaders tell them."
But I'm sure there is a deeper reason why young men and women in the Middle East are more likely to be drawn in by these vague guarantees of posthumous glory. The easy answer is that it's a product of living conditions, that they need some way to find meaning in their difficult lives. Maybe it's just a result of subconscious jealousy. Who knows? Whatever the case, it seems like it would be worth however many resources it takes to figure it out.
Drew,
I think you raise a good point. The large number of sects in the Christian church (not to mention the prevalence of debate within any given assembly) does Christianity a great service by sifting the truth and refining its defense. I can't say with certainty what level of dissent and debate exists within a Mosque or within a broader Muslim community, but I have a hunch it doesn't rival what you see in Christianity. Muslim seem far more likely to automatically trust (and follow) the teachings of their religious leaders. I suppose in the absence of any political leader (or system) that you can trust, it becomes a lot easier to rely on the words of your religious leader--especially if he speaks of Paradise.
And on that note, it's interesting to note that to a Muslim, paradise is viewed very much in a materialistic and hedonistic way--full of rivers, gardens, and virgins constantly pleasing you. This seems to me to be a reflection of their dismal state in their present life. They long for in heaven the material contentment they don't have now. While the lustful component of the 72 virgins is a large (and interesting) part of their vision of heaven, it suggests a broader material focus for something that--at least to the Christian--should be primarily spiritual in nature and conception.
Of course I'm beginning to beg the question: has Islam thrived because of the poverty and social oppression that has been so characteristic of the Middle East for such a long time, or is it the other way around?
Shayon,
Great to know you lurk around every now and then.
I definitely agree that the young kids in the Middle East are far too trusting. It seems that they really don't have a choice, though--at least not openly. Dissent is one of the best parts of a free and open society. It mitigates (if not eliminates) massive amounts of extremism. Critical thinking skills are sadly not developed within their education. If they were, they would know that when their teachers use the Protocals of the Elders of Zion as a text book its nothing more than brainwashing and a sham.
But I agree, we need to devote as much resources to solving the problem in the Middle East. The debate, obviously, is what exactly is the problem? Islam? Poverty? Education? Political?
I think most would say its all of these. I would say all of them play a role, but that Islam is the greatest problem because all of those other issues are administered through the structures of Islam.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home