Are There Any Islamic "Peace Groups?"

[Eve]

In the Times today, in an article about that horrible incident in Iraq yesterday, it was mentioned in passing that "many Iraqis are embarrassed by this."

Well, why don't we ever hear from them? Muslims are getting a worse and worse rep throughout the world because Islamic terrorists are killing people wholesale, worldwide. We read about and see wild-eyed "kill the infidel!" Muslims, but why do we never see any Muslim groups working for peace and against terrorism? I know a handful of Muslims, so I certainly know they're not all terrorists, any more than all Christians are Pat Buchanan. Is it because:

1) Peaceful Muslims are too afraid to come out against their terrorist brethren?

2) Peaceful Muslims are just unorganized?

3) There are Muslim peace groups, but they are being censored?

4) Or, maybe there just aren't any Muslim peace groups at all--and if not, why not?

[sibyl]

The media isn't going to report about Islamic peace groups any more than it reports about any other type of peace group. Thats just not a good story.

A quick Googling would find you multiple Islamic groups condemning acts of terrorism with more vehemence than most can claim. And beyond that, check out a local mosque, listen to their sermons (friday afternoons). You'll find pretty much every place in this country relating it to the image of Islam vs. the perception of Islam.

The amount of Muslims in the world who support the acts terrorists are using, which are emphatically prohibited in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, is surprisingly tiny. Its just that a few people with radical views are the ones who do the acts that get attention.

[GorillaMan]

I can't offhand think of a single "Christian Peace Group".

[Zagadka]

Of course there are. One pops into mind - the Red Crescent, but that is probably because of my Red Cross dealings.

The problem is severalfold. One, their regimes are more repressive, so you don't hear so much from them in official news channels, and they tend to be, as you suggest, unorganized. You don't have so many NGOs running around in Iran as you do in England.

Two, we have the same filtered view of them as they have of us - we look at them and see terrorists, they look at us and see our army and megacorporations. We all have a tendancy to view entire groups as homogenous, when this is anything but the case.

Three, they don't have the money that some American "peace groups" have.

Four, our medium is very restricted. Do a google search for "Islam," and you'll get a few educational and religious sites sprinkled among the billions of sites and reports on terrorism. I would expect that, when they catch up and start getting computers into individual's homes (not likely to be any time soon, obviously, given income disparity), that should start to change. Or there will just be more flamewars. *shrugs*

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by sibyl

And beyond that, check out a local mosque, listen to their sermons (friday afternoons).

You know, I've always wanted to do that, but I'm afraid. I keep trying to convince myself that my fear isn't of them, but rather guilt about being on the holy ground - but the scariest thing is that I have a hard time telling myself of that. I'm starting to get angry at myself about it. I think I'm going to have to bite my anxiety and give it a go some day. After eating a bottle of Xanax.

[bonzer]

Just this week, in response to the Madrid bombing, the Muslim Council of Britain has issued a statement to all mosques condemning terrorism and urging members to be vigilent and help the police.

[Jojo]

What would they protest against? Terrorism? Well you can take it as a given that they are opposed to terrorism.

You don't really get peace groups opposed to terror groups anywhere in the world. Peace groups tend to focus on governments because they can actually hope to effect change in government policy. Effecting change in terror groups is not so easy. If someone wants to be a terrorist they are best dissuaded from this course of action by their parents, teachers, friends, religious leaders, neighbours etc.

A large protest march against any particular terror group may make the marchers feel better but it wouldn't have much effect on the group itself.

This is the more general reason but then there are factors that are specific to islam. Islam doesn't have a culture of self-criticism. How can it? Islam comes from God and so muslims avoid ever saying anything that may be construed as a criticism of islam. Criticism of islam is even banned in most muslim countries.

And you will find that muslims, in general, disapprove of criticising religious belief. Muslim groups in my country (UK) say that they want the government to introduce a law banning incitement to religious hatred. Muslim groups in many western countries agitate for this. What they are trying to do is ban criticism of islam. It all ties together.

Where am I going with this? Well I just want to point out that there is a conflict within each and every muslim. On the one hand they don't approve of terrorism but on the other hand they want to remain loyal to islam and to other muslims.

As this article in today's Guardian points out, it can be a tough tightrope to walk.

Shortly after Sept. 11th one (very devout) muslim who was not born in the UK said to me:

"I live in this country, my loyalty is to THIS country"

But the inner conflict was demonstrated to me only today when a muslim I know said to me:

HIM: "Conspiracy."

ME: "Um, sorry?"

HIM: "Conspiracy, everything that's going on at the moment. It's very painful"

ME: "Cheer up. Things will get better, although they'll probably get worse first"

I don't think he really believes there is a conspiracy, it just pains him to see islam being publicly dragged through the mud on national TV every night. And every day the tabloid headlines read:

"ISLAMIC TERROR"

In the minds of non-muslims now, whenever they see the word "islamic" they almost expect the next word to be "terrorist". The reason why so many muslims think that there must be some kind of conspiracy going on is because the idea that there's anything wrong with islam is unthinkable so they have to look elsewhere.

I feel for them. But they need to be allowed to fight this in their own way. The leading muslim in Britain has issued a sermon to be read in all mosques this friday explicitly condemning terrorism and clearly pointing out that islam does not allow terrorist acts.

And he's right. Islam does not allow terrorist acts except in very narrowly defined circumstances . And Madrid (and 9/11) did not fit the circumstances.

[capacitor]

The leader of the Palestinian non-violence movement--Mubarak Awad--was exiled from the territories by Israel.

[sqweels]

On a related note, I've been wondering how many American Muslims have travelled to the Middle East or appeared on Al Jezeera, etc. to stick up for the US and condemn this Jihad agains the West?

[Atticus Finch]

Sqweels, why should they have to? Presuming you're American, did you travel to Japan to apologize for Hiroshima or to Iraq to apologize for civilian deaths in the last 15 years?

[Kimstu]

Eve: We read about and see wild-eyed "kill the infidel!" Muslims, but why do we never see any Muslim groups working for peace and against terrorism?

Well, the former type of story sells a lot more papers. I know that after 9/11 I went to a number of peace-group meetings where I heard very articulate and passionate condemnations of Islamist terrorism from Muslim religious leaders, but there were never any reporters there.

Muslim activists and leaders advocating nonviolent resistance and abjuring terrorism and other forms of violence include Mohamad Abu Nimer and Ramzi Kysia.

[Bob!]

Originally Posted by capacitor

The leader of the Palestinian non-violence movement--Mubarak Awad--was exiled from the territories by Israel.

Ya, but he is a Christian.

[Johanna]

Muslim Peace Fellowship
http://www.mpfweb.org/

[adaher]

Wouldn't that be great, to see Muslims marching by the thousands with signs proclaiming, "Jihad is not the answer!"?

[Alan Owes Bess]

Over the last 60 years, excluding WWII, there has never been any religiously based "peace group" of any significance that has worked for peace independently from an umbrella secular and, almost invariably, “progressive” organisation, so the question is, essentially meaningless.

To address another poster’s misconception, the Red Cross and Red Crescent are not "Peace" organisations, any more than your average "Peace" organisation is. The mission statements of those organisations make that fairly clear.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by bonzer

Just this week, in response to the Madrid bombing, the Muslim Council of Britain has issued a statement to all mosques condemning terrorism and urging members to be vigilent and help the police.

Ya ya, and Arafat has strongly condemned terrorism as well.

so I clicked on your first link tp get this opinion from the Muslim Council of Britain

The Muslim Council of Britain condemns in the strongest terms Israel's criminal assassination of Shaykh Ahmad Isma'il Yasin, the renowned Islamic scholar and founder of the leading Palestinian Resistance Movement - Hamas. "This heinous act of state terrorism against this disabled man as he was leaving the mosque after the morning Fajr prayers is pushing the entire region ever closer to the abyss of mayhem and must be stopped," said Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the MCB.

Hey, no reference to the fact that this man was a leader of a TERRORIST organization that has targeted countless little Jewish children. No hint that supporting Hamas is a bad thing. Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

[Eve]

Well, I'm glad to see there are indeed prominent Muslims and Islamic groups speaking out against terrorism and their so-called "fellow Muslims." I wish they had better PR organization, though, and media-smarts, so their message could get out: not only to "heathens" like myself, but to other Muslims who might feel compelled to do more. Your message doesn't count for dust if no one hears it.

[IzzyR]

Originally Posted by sibyl

The amount of Muslims in the world who support the acts terrorists are using, which are emphatically prohibited in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, is surprisingly tiny. Its just that a few people with radical views are the ones who do the acts that get attention.

This is totally at odds with every opinion poll that I've seen.

Originally Posted by capacitor

The leader of the Palestinian non-violence movement--Mubarak Awad--was exiled from the territories by Israel.

I believe this particular dude supported the "armed struggle" as well - he intended his non-violent movement as a "supplement" to terorrism, not as an alternative.

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by IzzyR

This is totally at odds with every opinion poll that I've seen.

Polls showing Muslims volunteering support terrorism, or support for the aims and objectives of the terrorists? A crucial difference. Throughout the last decades, the majority of the population of the island of Ireland have supported the aim of a united country - yet a majority utterly reject terrorism as a means to acheive that. The same is true in the middle east - most Arabs want the USA's influence on the region stopped, most want an independent Palestine, yet most abhor terrorism.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Eve

Well, I'm glad to see there are indeed prominent Muslims and Islamic groups speaking out against terrorism and their so-called "fellow Muslims." I wish they had better PR organization, though, and media-smarts, so their message could get out: not only to "heathens" like myself, but to other Muslims who might feel compelled to do more. Your message doesn't count for dust if no one hears it.

I wish they had a right to free speech so they could. Most people in the Soviet Union weren't too keen on the idea of MAD (well, those who knew about it), but there wasn't much chance for them to really organize and protest, as opposed to the US. It makes you feel a bit more grateful for what free speech is all about. They also don't have access to the kinds of mass media that we are used to. It doesn't help that most of the people who are against the violence support the cause, though.

Then you have stuff like the media not covering the riots in Iran or kissing China's butt or universally avoiding the word "mercenaries" in the recent events in Iraq, and it raises questions.

[IzzyR]

GorrilaMan, I'm talking about support for things like suicide bombers etc. I'll try to find you a cite if I get a chance. But I am hastening to wrap things up at the office before taking an extended absence.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

I wish they had a right to free speech so they could. Most people in the Soviet Union weren't too keen on the idea of MAD (well, those who knew about it), but there wasn't much chance for them to really organize and protest, as opposed to the US. It makes you feel a bit more grateful for what free speech is all about. They also don't have access to the kinds of mass media that we are used to. It doesn't help that most of the people who are against the violence support the cause, though.

It is my understanding, from what I've read, that it is the terrorists and their supporters who are being suppressed, more than the anti-terrorists. IOW, most Muslim governments are more anti-terror than their populations are.

(Government censorship is more often used to supress anti-Western sentiments than pro-western.)

I think it is often a premise of democracy that the people are basically good, and any evil is to be attributed to bad rulers. This is not necessarily the case.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by IzzyR

It is my understanding, from what I've read, that it is the terrorists and their supporters who are being suppressed, more than the anti-terrorists. IOW, most Muslim governments are more anti-terror than their populations are.

(Government censorship is more often used to supress anti-Western sentiments than pro-western.)

I think it is often a premise of democracy that the people are basically good, and any evil is to be attributed to bad rulers. This is not necessarily the case.

In some contries, true. In other countries, untrue. We aren't dealing with a homogenous group here... they have diverse governments. Granted, most Muslim governments are officially very hesitant to take an anti-American standing, but that does not mean that they are bastions of free speech. I'm sure that most of their governments were being honest when they expressed dismay and sadness after 9/11.

For instance, Iran had been trying very hard to develop relations with the United States, despite trying to keep a cap on its own population. Keep in mind that there is only one independent Muslim news station. In most cases, it is a matter of foreign relations, from what I've seen. The Taliban were the first to speak up of their outrage about 9/11. Like many other things, we have driven that subversion underground, so it is hard to tell who is hostile and how hostile they are.

[sqweels]

Originally Posted by lambchops

Sqweels, why should they have to? Presuming you're American, did you travel to Japan to apologize for Hiroshima or to Iraq to apologize for civilian deaths in the last 15 years?

So no Americans ever went to Hiroshima as part of a peace movement? Didn't Sean Penn go to Iraq? Or how about Jane Fonda? Still, these aren't very good analogies. A better analogy would be if my parents had emigrated from the US to, say, France and American right-wing militias were trying to destroy France with terrorist attacks. In that case, as an American-Frenchman I would be happy to come to the US and/or go on CNN to stick up for France and criticize the anti-French equivilent of white supramicists or whatever.

Why should they have to? You mean besides the fact that their co-religionists are trying to destroy their country? Those Muslims in Malaysia didn't have to turn out to protest the US operation in Afghanistan but they made it their business anyway. Should they have it both ways? When bad things happen to fellow Muslims they make it their business, but not when fellow Muslims do bad things to others.

You get a lot of American Muslims on TV criticizing Homeland Security and telling fellow Americans they've got the wrong idea about Islam. These are valid concerns, but they pale in comparison to the threat of Islamic Jihad. American Muslims are in a unique position to--to exaggerate a bit--save the World. You'd think that some few would want to give it a try.

[Kimstu]

sqweels: A better analogy would be if my parents had emigrated from the US to, say, France and American right-wing militias were trying to destroy France with terrorist attacks. In that case, as an American-Frenchman I would be happy to come to the US and/or go on CNN to stick up for France and criticize the anti-French equivilent of white supramicists or whatever.

I'm trying to figure out why you think that would do any good. Why would terrorist militias listen to you? Just because you're American by descent? Wouldn't they be more likely to fume about your being a French-loving traitor and plan their next attack on your city? And as for the vast majority of Americans who don't support terrorist militia attacks on France---what would you be telling them that they don't already know?

American Muslims are in a unique position to--to exaggerate a bit--save the World.

Again, I don't really get your reasoning here. You think that Islamist terrorists would react with something like "Oh my goodness, there are Muslims living over there in the Great Satan! We didn't know that! And wow, they say that the place isn't actually so bad. Hey, cancel the next scheduled attack, Salim, we've obviously had the wrong idea about all this"?

I don't mean to be snide if you've really got a point here, but I confess that so far I'm not seeing it.

[sqweels]

Well, maybe they wouldn't be all that influential. But pro-American, anti-jihad Muslim voices need to be heard over there. When non-Muslim Americans condemn jihad it only reinforces the notion that America is "against Islam". The views of fellow Muslims couldn't be so easily dismissed.

I believe that our only hope lies in "triangulation". Liberal Americans, Europeans, and liberal Muslims must unite to counter Bush and bin Laden et al. If no liberal Muslims stand up it can't work.

[DSeid]

Well, I recall, but cannot find the cite, reading that a group of Arab intellectuals urged restraint in response to the Israeli action, with peaceful protests

As to the pervasiveness of attitudes there is this recent Pew Research report that documents the magnitude of support for suicide bombings

Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.
...
Overwhelming majorities in Jordan and Morocco believe suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. As a point of comparison, slightly more people in those two countries say the same about Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis.

About half of Pakistanis also say suicide attacks on Americans in Iraq – and against Israelis in the Palestinian conflict – are justifiable.

Fewer respondents in Turkey agree, but slightly more Turks view suicide attacks on Americans in Iraq as justifiable as say the same about Palestinian attacks on Israelis (31% vs. 24%).

[sqweels]

Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.

My point is simply that if American Muslims can't convince these people that they're wrong then no one can.

[DSeid]

Ah, but sqweels, it is on this point that you might have a hard time finding someone able to make the case with a straight face. At least they are far from alone in that assessment. From the same Pew Research report:

Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. On balance, people in the United States and Great Britain disagree. Still, about three-in-ten in the U.S. (31%) and four-in-ten in Great Britain (41%) say leaders of the two countries lied to provide a rationale for the war.

<snip>

At least half the people in countries other than the U.S. say as a result of the war in Iraq they have less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Similarly, majorities in all eight of these countries say they have less confidence that the U.S. wants to promote democracy globally.

The erosion of confidence in the U.S. – in its trustworthiness and its commitment to promote democracy – is particularly apparent in Germany and France. Compared with the other countries surveyed, more people in Germany and France say as a consequence of the war they have less confidence that the U.S. is trustworthy (82% Germany, 78% France).

And nearly eight-in-ten French respondents (78%) – a higher percentage than any other country surveyed -- say that because of the war they have less confidence that the U.S. is intent on promoting democracy around the world. Seven-in-ten Germans agree.

A large percentage of the world, including many Americans, see little connection between the Iraqi fiasco and: a war on terror; or some alleged Iraqi threat to the West; or promoting democratic values. It is broadly percieved as an effort (and an unsuccessful effort at that) to control oil and to be the imperial world power.

I doubt that any American Muslim outreach would convince the majority of Arabs that the US is really a trustworthy ally selflessly promoting democratic values. Or that suicide bombings against innocent civilians is wrong. Not when Bush is having us play the part exactly as OBL had it written in his wildest dreams.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

I can't offhand think of a single "Christian Peace Group".

Then you haven't been looking. Tolerance.org is a good starting place. Most Christian peace groups tend to be grassroots organizations, that come together in national or international federations, either within their denomination, or in some cases in ecumencial organizations.