Why aren't Muslims speaking out? Options

[radhikaeatsraman]

I was having a discussion with my uncle and my father about the current situation with terrorism and the Middle East. During the discussion, I kept emphasizing that the majority of Muslims are good people and probably don't support terrorists and their actions. But then they said that they're all keeping quiet, and that by doing that, they're indirectly supporting it. By ignoring it, it's going to continue.

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

So why aren't "good Muslims" speaking out? Is it because of fear, or are they quietly supporting it?

[Spirited Away]

Islam itself is not violent, Islamic fundamentalism is, and Islamic fundamentalism combined with extermist Arabs... well, you all know well the consequence. Interpretation of the holy text, depending on political ideals or the lack thereof and culture, is the main cleavage.

Islam "[tries] to conquer" other religions as much as Christianity tried, and is still trying, to conquer. These two religions' history of intolerance and tolerance is almost similar. Muslims practice belief in human justice, love and freedom as much as Christianity and Judaism. Again, we mustn't confused them with fundamentalists or else, to be fair, we'd have to mix Christians with radical Christians.

The question of why Muslims aren't speaking out enough reminds me of something and the point is to compare the questions of the why's. After 9/11, there was a wave of violence against Muslims and Arabs throughout the US. President Bush made a point that these attacks are inhumane. Of course, many Americans find these attacks to be wrongful as well, but why didn't they speak out enough?

For the record, I don't know how much is "enough" or how much a few of you expect these Muslims to speak out, but I do agree that they do need to sound their intolerance of extremist Islam a little louder. In my opinion, ONLY THE MEDIA can aid them in this. And then the question is, why don't they complain about the media not broadcasting enough. My answer: how loudly do they need to complain about the media to get coverage?

[*kryogenix*]

Islam itself is not violent, Islamic fundamentalism is, and Islamic fundamentalism combined with extermist Arabs... well, you all know well the consequence. Interpretation of the holy text, depending on political ideals or the lack thereof and culture, is the main cleavage.

I'd like to believe this, but at the moment, I'm not sure.

Islam "[tries] to conquer" other religions as much as Christianity tried, and is still trying, to conquer. These two religions' history of intolerance and tolerance is almost similar. Muslims practice belief in human justice, love and freedom as much as Christianity and Judaism. Again, we mustn't confused them with fundamentalists or else, to be fair, we'd have to mix Christians with radical Christians.

Remember, Islam started out with nothing. They had to conquer Mecca to get started. Christianity was an underground group for the most part until the Roman Empire embraced it.

Maybe you are referring to the crusades as evidence of Christian conquering. I don't agree with killing in the name of God, but to say that the Christians were barbaric attackers is misleading.

Outside of the crusades, how much of Christian conquering was religiously motivated rather than nationalistically motivated?

The question of why Muslims aren't speaking out enough reminds me of something and the point is to compare the questions of the why's. After 9/11, there was a wave of violence against Muslims and Arabs throughout the US. President Bush made a point that these attacks are inhumane. Of course, many Americans find these attacks to be wrongful as well, but why didn't they speak out enough?

People did speak out. If I remember correctly, Rudy came on the TV and addressed the issue and told people not to beat up random arab people on the street.

For the record, I don't know how much is "enough" or how much a few of you expect these Muslims to speak out, but I do agree that they do need to sound their intolerance of extremist Islam a little louder. In my opinion, ONLY THE MEDIA can aid them in this. And then the question is, why don't they complain about the media not broadcasting enough. My answer: how loudly do they need to complain about the media to get coverage?

I would think that Al Jazeera would want to help the peaceful Muslims get their voice heard, but I haven't heard anything about them yet. In fact, some of what Al Jazeera runs is what sparks violence in the first place.

How come Muslims can gather millions to protest against Israel, but they can't protest the violence on part of fellow Muslims?

Not only this, but why aren't peaceful Muslims reaching out to the violent ones and telling them they are interpreting the Quran incorrectly?

[Spirited Away]

1. I'd like to believe this, but at the moment, I'm not sure.
Remember, Islam started out with nothing.
2. They had to conquer Mecca to get started. Christianity was an underground group for the most part until the Roman Empire embraced it.

3. Maybe you are referring to the crusades as evidence of Christian conquering. I don't agree with killing in the name of God, but to say that the Christians were barbaric attackers is misleading.

4. Outside of the crusades, how much of Christian conquering was religiously motivated rather than nationalistically motivated?

5. People did speak out. If I remember correctly, Rudy came on the TV and addressed the issue and told people not to beat up random arab people on the street.
I would think that Al Jazeera would want to help the peaceful Muslims get their voice heard, but I haven't heard anything about them yet. In fact, some of what Al Jazeera runs is what sparks violence in the first place.

6. How come Muslims can gather millions to protest against Israel, but they can't protest the violence on part of fellow Muslims?

7. Not only this, but why aren't peaceful Muslims reaching out to the violent ones and telling them they are interpreting the Quran incorrectly?

1. What is there to not believe? Do you consider all Muslims violent or condone the kind of violence terrorists have subjected the world to?

2. One religion, with the advantage of a democratic society, won majority by conquering politics and the other, in a society with no semblence to democracy, by conquering Mecca. Two distinct societies, two distinct strategies that reflected their political environment (or lack of one). When in Kansas, do as Kansians do (or something like that).

3. You don't think the Crusades was barbaric? Well, here's another Christian's take on the Crusades. According to that, the words "evil" and "horrors" were more accurate. Of course to be fair, there were horrors committed on both sides, but one side was quite persistent and came back for more. Come on, you know which one.

4. I honestly don't know but I'm going to attempt a smart-mouth answer. For the most part, I'm sure Christian conquests are religiously motivated, but I'm also sure that political motivation had, perhaps still has, something to do with it. As for nationalistically motivated, the Arab culture had a lot to do with it. I've seen the phrases "Arab conquest of the Middle East" and "Islam conquest of the Middle East" being used interchangebly (depending on the source, of course) and that confuses me because again, being Arab had a lot to do with what you see as religious conquest motivated by nationalism.

Nationalist conquerors, namely the Umayyads, emphasized Arab authority among Muslims. You can read some background here and here. The point being that the culture of nationalism may have served as the motivation in their conquests more so than Islam was because there was a period in which rulers weren't so interested in the religion itself. "The empire built from these conquests was Arab rather than Islamic" [source], and so we mustn't think that all conquest in the name of Islam had been for national gains, whatnot.
I hope this softens your view a bit.

5. And as I've said before, Muslims spoke out, too, in general. But you know what, they have no "Rudy" to speak out for them. I will quote loosely, as my memory isn't so great (burned out, you understand), from an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle, dated February (forgot date, don't sue) 2006, that "Muslims have no Martin Luther King, nor a Mahatma Ghandi to speak out for [them]". The writer continues that this "Dr. King" of the Muslims will have to know sacrifice--I think he/she means here a violent death or certain dangers, and as he must know no compromise--in the sense of not giving up civil liberties. And because they don't have a "Rudy" or a "Dr. King", the best we're going to get is scattered voices, until a "Rudy" or "Dr. King" unites and strenghtens them.
I'm a little curious as to why you haven't heard from your local Muslims because the article I read was the third of which I've read in our town's Chronicle. I'm sure there are more because the three articles were from the only three newspapers I picked up thus far this year.

6&7. Both good questions, but here's another attempt at a smart/dumb-mouth answer because I don't want to admit that I don't know. The next time I see an infamous serial killer on the verge of killing crashing his plane in a woman in an alley, I'll walk up to him and present my moral ideals. I hope you, and others, see the comparison.


Okay, alright, I'm not going to lie, I don't know much about Islam aside that there are different groups who claim to represent it. I've seen violent Muslims on TV and then my one of my best friends since 8th grade is a Muslim. I'm on good terms with her parents, too, and one of them's a Muslim (obviously) from Jordan. Her Dad hasn't flown a plane into my living room yet for being a heathen and even invites me over for Mom's special Thanksgiving dinner. If you're confused, her Mom's a Catholic who still goes to Church every week. I digress. Yes, I don't know much about it, but I'm not going to judge Islam as a whole based the actions of the violent-prone, just like I'm not going to judge Christianity as a whole based the words of the idiotic-few.

Kay, I've said enough. Until next time.

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: Mar 31 2006, 03:10 PM

[*kryogenix*]

1. What is there to not believe? Do you consider all Muslims violent or condone the kind of violence terrorists have subjected the world to?

I'm sure I said it before, I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think all Muslims are violent. I have a Muslim friend that decided that he wanted to join the Airforce after 9/11.

I've come across this website, and it's led me to question how peaceful Islam really is. Check out how many civilians Islamic terrorists have killed this year (1,822) compared to the number of civilians that US soldiers have colaterally killed (23). But who is portrayed as the bad guy around the world? Why does the US military get accused of killing civilians and babies when the Islamic terrorists get only a slight condemnation?

2. One religion, with the advantage of a democratic society, won majority by conquering politics and the other, in a society with no semblence to democracy, by conquering Mecca. Two distinct societies, two distinct strategies that reflected their political environment (or lack of one). When in Kansas, do as Kansians do (or something like that).

Who is better, the person who convinces someone by using facts and historical events, or a person that holds a sword up to your throat and threatens to kill you if you don't convert?

3. You don't think the Crusades was barbaric? Well, here's another Christian's take on the Crusades. According to that, the words "evil" and "horrors" were more accurate. Of course to be fair, there were horrors committed on both sides, but one side was quite persistent and came back for more. Come on, you know which one.

I'm not saying the Crusades were barbaric. I'm saying the Christians were not the aggressors. The Crusades were by no means an unjustified offensive war. Muslims were waging war and attacking pilgrims (just a tidbit, the Stations of the Cross were made because it was impossible to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land due to the Muslims).

Calling the Christians evil for launching the Crusades would be like calling the Allies evil for undertaking the invasion of Normandy (trying to tiptoe around a Hitler reference to avoid invoking Godwin's Law ).

4. I honestly don't know but I'm going to attempt a smart-mouth answer. For the most part, I'm sure Christian conquests are religiously motivated, but I'm also sure that political motivation had, perhaps still has, something to do with it. As for nationalistically motivated, the Arab culture had a lot to do with it. I've seen the phrases "Arab conquest of the Middle East" and "Islam conquest of the Middle East" being used interchangebly (depending on the source, of course) and that confuses me because again, being Arab had a lot to do with what you see as religious conquest motivated by nationalism.

Nationalist conquerors, namely the Umayyads, emphasized Arab authority among Muslims. You can read some background here and here. The point being that the culture of nationalism may have served as the motivation in their conquests more so than Islam was because there was a period in which rulers weren't so interested in the religion itself. "The empire built from these conquests was Arab rather than Islamic" [source], and so we mustn't think that all conquest in the name of Islam had been for national gains, whatnot.
I hope this softens your view a bit.

It's funny that you mention this, because Islam is trying to appeal to African Americans when Arab Muslims viewed Africans as second class. I have my doubts that they were motivated by nationalism simply because a fundamental part of Islam is sharia rule. Just because the Umayyads were elitists doesn't mean that religion had little to do with it.

5. And as I've said before, Muslims spoke out, too, in general. But you know what, they have no "Rudy" to speak out for them. I will quote loosely, as my memory isn't so great (burned out, you understand), from an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle, dated February (forgot date, don't sue) 2006, that "Muslims have no Martin Luther King, nor a Mahatma Ghandi to speak out for [them]". The writer continues that this "Dr. King" of the Muslims will have to know sacrifice--I think he/she means here a violent death or certain dangers, and as he must know no compromise--in the sense of not giving up civil liberties. And because they don't have a "Rudy" or a "Dr. King", the best we're going to get is scattered voices, until a "Rudy" or "Dr. King" unites and strenghtens them.
I'm a little curious as to why you haven't heard from your local Muslims because the article I read was the third of which I've read in our town's Chronicle. I'm sure there are more because the three articles were from the only three newspapers I picked up thus far this year.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "Rudy." If you mean a leader figure with political power, then who is Louis Farrakhan? I think he's too busy being anti-semitic and racist to complain about Islamic terror.

Or do you mean a "Rudy" as in a moderate leader? What about the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR). Their goal is to promote understanding of Islam in America. Funny thing is, they've been criticized as having connections to terrorism.

Not too many Muslims live around here (a good friend who was Muslim converted to Christianity when we were in elementary school), but as I said earlier, my friend who wanted to join the Airforce is one of the nonviolent Muslims.

So the question is, who will stand up for Islam?

6&7. Both good questions, but here's another attempt at a smart/dumb-mouth answer because I don't want to admit that I don't know. The next time I see an infamous serial killer on the verge of killing crashing his plane in a woman in an alley, I'll walk up to him and present my moral ideals. I hope you, and others, see the comparison.

The next time I see a serial killer killing a woman in the alley, I'll call the police.

The next time Islamic riots occur, the good Muslims should inform their governments and clerics and authorities. Unless, the authorities tend to side with the rioters. Muslim countries boycotted Denmark over the cartoons. If the good Muslims truly are in the majority, why aren't they being represented in the government?

Okay, alright, I'm not going to lie, I don't know much about Islam aside that there are different groups who claim to represent it. I've seen violent Muslims on TV and then my one of my best friends since 8th grade is a Muslim. I'm on good terms with her parents, too, and one of them's a Muslim (obviously) from Jordan. Her Dad hasn't flown a plane into my living room yet for being a heathen and even invites me over for Mom's special Thanksgiving dinner. If you're confused, her Mom's a Catholic who still goes to Church every week. I digress. Yes, I don't know much about it, but I'm not going to judge Islam as a whole based the actions of the violent-prone, just like I'm not going to judge Christianity as a whole based the words of the idiotic-few.

Kay, I've said enough. Until next time.

I'm not going to judge any religion based on the actions of a minority. I'm going to judge a religion based on what they teach. I think Islam gives too much leeway for violence, especially since the Koran commands Muslims to slay the infidels and conquer the world. Christianity does not teach people to bomb abortion clinics. Given the oppressive nature of many Islamic governments and the history of Islamic violence, forgive me if I'm a little worried.