Print
Email
From the D.C. sniper to Ft. Hood, it’s un-American to blame black people or Muslims for what crazy people do.
Long before bloggers were given front-row seats at Milan Fashion Week, or the president took questions from a blogger at the White House, two writers from the online Underground News Network scored press passes to cover the trial of the D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad.
The Web site’s editors followed some teachings of Islam and were fervent supporters of Muhammad, whose murderous rampage they believed was riddled with divine meaning. They traveled there to monitor the mainstream media covering the 2003 trial—me included—who didn’t realize that the shootings were actually “like a message from a high priest” intended to “take black people to a higher consciousness.”
Right…
After I published my interview with this kooky pair, I got an e-mail from a friend who is a journalist of Arabic descent who happens to be Muslim. She joked that it’s bad enough they presented themselves as journalists. They would have to be Muslim, too!
If you are a member of a persecuted group, you know the impulse. That tinge of embarrassment, that damn, why-can’t-we-get-it-together feeling when one of your contemporaries has gone off the rails. Jews know it. Black people have mastered it. And more recently, in the wake of the Ft. Hood tragedy, a whole lot of mainstream pundits are arguing, so should Muslims.
I can’t disagree more. One of the great things about being American is this clichéd notion of rugged individuality. We are not an old society like Europe or India, where your class and identity were established before your mother’s mother’s mother’s mother was born. This idea of personal responsibility and the self-made individual organizes the way we think about ourselves as Americans.
So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.
With far more nuance than exhibited by our nation’s most prominent pundits, in his Ft. Hood speech last night, President Obama drew a sharp line between religion and individual crazy: “It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know—no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice—in this world, and the next.”
I am all for straight-talk on religion and everything else. But sometimes you just have to call these arguments about the need for the Muslim community to take responsibility what they are: illogical and wrong.
It is particularly patronizing when these kinds of admonishments come from someone outside said persecuted group. I am not going around wagging my finger at my white neighbors, demanding they convene a White People Summit to dialogue about how they can avoid producing another Timothy McVeigh/Unabomber/Charles Manson—or even a George W. Bush. That would be an unfair attack on all decent white people.
And I’m not about to start feeling embarrassed about what the recently executed John Allen Muhammad—or the Underground News Network—decides to do. Neither should Muslims around the world feel guilty or responsible for the deranged behavior at Ft. Hood.
It’s real simple. Want to know why crazy people do what they do? Ask them.
Natalie Hopkinson is associate editor of The Root. Follow her on Twitter.
Comments
Wow another issue we can agree on! I don't think this is exactly red-alert material. This might squeak through the UN after they have implemented Sharia law in the EU for a few decades . A law like this would create one hell of an incentive to rule by theocracy.
Here's a good example of islamic xenophobia for you:
www@nytimes@com/aponline/2009/11/19/world/AP-UN-Banning-Blasphemy.html
[Just change the @ to . ]
Finally we can agree
"This is nothing to do with 'my religion is better than yours,' at least for me - I am an atheist. It is about 'how do we want to organize society?"
Although I am not an Atheist, I see no reason to negate belief systems that I don't ascribe to so I am Agnostic. I believe that racism xenophobia and intolerance are exponentially more destructive to our planet than Islam.
Amusing as your post is, I'm sure you recognize that some combinations of religion, morality, politics and law tend to create better societies than others. You'd have to be truly peculiar not to accept that. If not, then societies like apartheid South Africa or today's Saudi Arabia are just as 'good' as places like Canada, Australia and the United States. There is a huge, huge difference between these, I contend, in terms of universal suffrage, universal rights, and more.
You therefore have a choice. You can pretend that exploration of different religious systems and their impact of social structures is pointless and irrelevant (which, I contend, is ahistorical and ignorant) or you can, if you need to, hold your nose and read about them.
This is nothing to do with 'my religion is better than yours,' at least for me - I am an atheist. It is about 'how do we want to organize society?' And for me, societies that do not allow women to drive cars, or do not allow people to carry a Bible, or which seek to kill muslims who choose to leave islam, or murder authors because of their work are simply less decent and moral places.
...has this topic really devolved into a game of "my religion is better than your religion so nyeaah"????
Here's the wrap up...
All of your religions are wonderful in their own way.
All of your religions suck in their own way.
God shakes His head in dismay at all of your petty religions.
I have to imagine all of this religious piousness that has always served to do little more than incite conflict on this planet must be to God like your pet who, while you love it dearly, in its best efforts to please you comes and lays the dead stinking body of the mouse/bird they've recently slain in your bed - tracking mud the whole way. You know the intention was to please you but in its ignorance all this animal has done is caused you disgust.
Ah, that may be seen as a trick question... "5 good things about muslims"? Well, the best answer is maybe "which muslims? People are all individuals, and I've been talking about islam, not muslims." But, in the spirit it was doubtless intended, her goes:
Regarding islam:
1.) The structure of islamic morality, despite my concerns about some details, is very interesting. This is the facet that interests me the most. If I understand it correctly, instead of being focussed on rights, it is based more on responsibilities. Thus theoretically, if everyone fulfills their responsibilities - including responsibilities in respect of behavour to others - then the ever-growing lists of rights are superfluous.
2. & 3) Chastity [by which I mean an ethical and responsible approach to sexual relationships] and avoidance of alcohol are pretty good virtues too. Like Christian stipulations in the realm of chastity, some people apply them too strenuously to others,, but that is hardly a problem with islam itself.
4.) The requirement for some charitable activity or giving - again, a trait shared by many religions, but that does not make it any less of a good thing in islam.
5.) The notional absence of a hierarchical authority within islam. I recognize that there is a substantive theological difference between the role of the imam, and that of Christian priests. I rather prefer the notion of a direct and personal appeal to God (if one is a believer, which may make it odd that I would have such a preference...), since one might think it would reduce the influence of tyrannical or poisonous preachers. Sadly, in practice, I am doubtful about whether this one works as intended in practice.
I'm aware of islamic history, and the tremendously important contributions islamic thinkers made to mathematics (specifically, thinkers who happened to be muslim... "algorithms" are no more an islamic invention than optics are a christian one...), or to the preservation of vast tracts of classical literature. Tragically, such contributions have been few and far between for a long time now - it is noteworthy that, according to Martin Amis, more books were translated into Spanish in 2006 than have been translated into Arabic in the past 500 years (I believe that is the quote...). There is something going wrong with that culture (note: culture, I didn't say religion...) and until it is addressed, the Middle East will contineu to be a cauldron. Step one migth be to stop blaming the West, the US and Israel...
Ok, if you are not just spreading Islamophobia tell me five good things about Muslims and we can make that the last word.
Ah - the Palestine distraction... a common gambit...
I have no interest in being drawn into a distracting debate about Israel, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I will, however, say this: I think Israel is behaving badly and making both tactical and strategic errors in continuing the settlement expansions. I do not, however, accept Carter's analogy with apartheid. I believe Israel has every right to protect itself from a country/region that elected a government that is committed to the destruction of Israel. That protection could be military, or a wall. I would also add that I believe Israel should reduce electricity supplies to Gaza by 10% every week a rocket is fired. Maybe in future, Palestinians would think twice before voting for a party that was committed - before the vote - to attacking Israel.
The reason I will not go to Saudi Arabia is that it is a rotten, racist and mysogenist theocracy with no respect for human rights. It is nothing to do with familiarity. I actually spend as much time as I can afford in non-Western coutnries, particularly Asia. (I understand the point about gamalan music - though, amusingly and coincidentally, you picked a bad example: a in fact own more Javanese gamalan CDs than I do the Beatles! I picked them up in Bali...)
I understand the point about binding arbitration - but it is nevertheless symbolic of the creeping acceptance of a culture and system of morality that is fundamentally unjust. I am less sure about your comfort over the chance of sharia-compliant rules of testimony being accepted - after all, wouldn't that be the culturally-relativist thing to do? Don't forget - it is only 20-30 years ago that Britain still refused to prosecute people for female genital mulitation, on grounds of "cultural sensitivity."
You ask if I condemn "US militarism." Your question was phrased in a loaded way. I do not believe the US is a "militarist" country. I believe that the Iraq invasion was misjudged, and a terrible mistake. Easy to say in retrospect, of course. I believe that the Afghanistan invasion was justifiable. I do not buy into the muslim (racist) fallacy that "infidel forces" should not be allowed in "muslim lands," however.
President Carter makes a substantive argument showing many similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Today Israel approved 900 new homes on the West Bank do they also receive your condemnation.
The fact that you would be more comfortable in a cultural that is similar to your own acculturation is not much of a surprise. I bet you like the Beatles more than Javanese Gamelon music. This is just an example of the cultural bias that the academic application of cultural relativity attempts to alleviate.
What you label as British implementation of Sharia law is nothing more than binding arbitration. Both parties can choose their arbitrator. There have been Jewish courts of this type in Brittan for over 100 years. Criminal cases such as rape are never handled this way.
You may not be interested in invading any Muslim countries but America currently has occupation forces in two Muslim countries. Do you condemn this militarism?
As far as Sharai law goes, I personally would not conduct business that way, but that's not the point. I believe that people have the right to self determination. Of course this also applies to you.
This is going on longer than I expected! :-)
With respect, you are simplifying and erring in many ways in your response.
Your stance seems to be that if anyone has ever - in the last 1000 years - done something they claim was justified by their religion, we have a piece of evidence of value. I disagree. I think we need to take into account two other factors: (1.) the authority of their claim, and (2.) when it was made.
I am less interested in claims made hundreds of years ago, as the world, and human knowledge, were so very, very different. That's not to suggest that history is not important, but merely that when we have so much contemporary, immediate evidence and information, there is little need to use stuff so old.
There is a world of difference between a whackjob making a claim to be motivated by the Bible and going out and killing an abortionist (and receiving no support of any kind from any serious religious figure or theologian), and a muslim murderer going out, with the full knowledge and support of their imam, to slaughter a busload of schoolchildren, and having a street named after them. The "Christian" is roundly condemned. There is no authority at all to their claim. The muslim murderer makes claim to koranic support - and is rewarded by his community.
Likewise, there is a huge, huge difference between Catholic priests being caught abusing kids and prosecuted, and a key leader in a large section of the muslim world writing a book singing the praises of child rape.
Then we have the careful, academic presentation of a Pope, who made the mistake of reading from a mediaeval text about the relationship between Christianity and islam, which suggested some violent aspects of the latter. Substantial sections of the muslim world responded with "how dare you say we might be violent... we will now try to kill you for suggesting that..." Maybe the muslim community has a strong line in ironic humour? On the other hand, we have senior imams at the holiest shrine in islam making outrageous speeches condemning all Jews.
I recognize the claim that this is all about bad people, not a bad ideology. I don't know how old you are, but you might recall so many similar arguments being made about communism... "great system, badly implemented..." went the argument. But after massive human rights abuses, and some 70M excess deaths in the Soviet union, it is incredibly hard to hold seriously the position that it is a "great system."
So - where would you be willing to live? Christian countries like Italy or Ireland, where Catholicism still holds significant sway? (I don't include the US in this test, as we've done more to formally secularize our state). Or Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia - where you get to see the muslim world up close and personal, and where you get to follow muslim law, or else... muslim or not... For me, it is simple. I will not go to Saudi (just like to would not go to "old" South Africa). Italy? Great place.
Finally, a simple question.... since there is no chance of South-African style Apartheid being implemented in the US, can I assume that you don't not feel any need to condemn it? After all, that was the moral test you used for sharia. I don't have this problem, see, as I condemn them both.
Moreover, in Britain - and doubtless before long here - small elements of a sharia infestation have begun to plague the country. Sharia-compliant financial products... then sharia-courts that have the force of British law behind them. What next? Sharia-compliant rape laws? Do you think they would only apply to muslim women? Or to muslim-men who rape any woman? (I trust you know the problem of how sharia handles evidence/testimony in rape cases?)
I have no interest in invading any muslim country, I have no interest in killing muslims, or barrign them from the US. I do, however, want to get people to recognize that islam is a supremacist ideology, and to do my best to stamp out the "islam is a religion of peace" fiction wherever I see it.