I’m arguing the mere fact that you live under the impression that you should find such reactions.
Why?
By the way: The Arabic media in general comment daily on the invasion and that isn’t always with the same politeness as you witness on AlJazeera.
I read this morning for example a comment describing how the real motives behind the invasion are showing more and more daily and about the whole scandal of unilateral and pre-emptive attack. And whily busy they make it clear that the USA under this presidency denegrated itself to a power-hungry war-mongering nation out on ruling the globe.
And mind you that this is published in a newspaper in a nation that is known as “a friend” by the USA.
If the IRA commits a terrorist attack, do you expect the Vatican and all the leaders of every nation where Christianity in general belongs to the State Religion or State endorsed or by whatever means Christianity trives in that nation, to publish a condemnation?
Do you expect every Christian to apologize for these actions?
Do you expect all those Christians and all those leaders of all those nations to undertake actions against the IRA?
If no, then why do you expect it of Muslims?
Salaam. A
I apologize if I sound a bit irritated in my anwers.
But believe me, it is irritating when people seem to be convinced that every Muslim is responsible for what every other Muslim on earth wants to do and has to beg for forgivness for that Muslim’s actions.
If you think we don’t have enough to do with trying to prevent fundamentalism to take over inside our own nations and with trying to prevent that we ourselves come under attack…
We don’t get much help in that from the West, on the contrary.
Please USA invade some more Islamic nations and shoot some more holes in the bucket we have to fight the flood.
Well… in fact there is now thanks to the nice peaceloving US president and government no bucket left. And the result is now surfacing inside Iraq.
If they did condemn they were given just as little media attention as American clergymen that did protest the invasion. (If there were any…) Which is what I think happened with the muslims.
We are talking about condemning wrong things... thou we could talk about consent by silence. The way I see it why should Muslim clerics be held to a higher sandard than protestant americans ?
Seems like a double standard...
… let me add that few Muslims Clerics openly applauded the WTC attack. I can see quite a few loud mouth generals in churces and some US priests supporting the invasion.
As SimonX said, ME leaders don’t get much press coverage in the english language. However, if you follow Juan Cole’s Informed Comment for any length of time, you’ll find Imam’s condemning attacks, and issuing fatwah’s on a regular basis. These guys aren’t just sitting on their butts, but we don’t usually hear them.
i told u he equated the 2. And I since Rashak did not read what I wrot I will write it again. The silence fromAmerican prominent figures more than likely means they approved of the war. Do u get it now? And since u are equating the Muslim leaders wit those guys I am asking you does their silence mean they approve? Or are they one of the things asked in the OP.
and to all of those who say that anyone on this post has said muslims have to appolgize…where do u get that crap? We want to know why they are not vocal in condemning the acts, especially when the are done with the pretense of their religious tenets.
Ihonestly do not think Christian leaders are very vocal about the attacks on the abortion situations because I do think that in a sense they approve. To them abortion is murder of the most innocent of people. And those attacks are usually centered on the “murderers” or places where the murder happens.
So tell me if u think they approve or are they cowards?
If said clerics are in Iraq they very well could be cowards, and with good justification; in any case, what do you expact?, that Clerics call the press for a conference and say “We condemn that”? Certainly it would be a nice attitude, but I don´t think it´s something we should demand.
That is in incorrect analogy. Tim McVeigh never stood up in front of a crowd and asked Christians to fight for his cause. If he had, you can bet a substantial number of Christian leaders would have verbally bitch slapped him from one side of the country to the other.
Muslim Clerics simply can’t stand up publicly and say that another leader is wrong, murderous, and going to hell. It would start a riot in places like Pakistan and it would also endanger the person who said it. To this day, Salmon Rushdie’s life is in danger because his works were considered blasphemous.
Mcveigh was a self-avowed athiest. I doubt the Archbishop is, but who knows?
Regardless, if the attack was carried out by Ansar al-Islam or Al Queda, they certainly were motivated by religion. A religion that seems to be having a problem with ultra-violent extremists these days.
Okay, to use a more contemporary example, how many Christian leaders condemned General Boykin’s whole “we’re a Christian nation fighting Satanic Islam” bruhaha? Considering he was airing his “holy war” views to religious leaders long before the spotlight landed on him, I’d wager the answer is “not many”.
Loyalty to evil is itself evil. Loyalty itself is not admirable; it is the cause to which one is loyal that matter.
I do not judge Muslims by the actions of a few, but I do judge Islam by the aggregate. If a significant fraction of those that claim to be Muslim devoted their lives to the positive ideals that Islams claims to believe in, the amount of terrorism would drop tremendously. A similar statement can be made about Jews and Christians. Why is it that so many people are willing to give their lives to hurt other people, and so few are willing to give their lives to help other people? Why do people who all claim to follow the same basic principles run around killing each other?
toadspittle
While it is true that there was no Worldwide Conference of Muslims which voted to engage in this sort of act, I think that it is naive to think that Muslims in aggregate are not in any way responsible for this. Muslims have allowed a culture of hatred and fanatacism to fester which encourages these sort of acts, and the fact is that Islam is not a presenting a united front against this attitude. Christianity isn’t fully committed to the Kingdom of God, either, but there is quite a contrast. AFAIK, not a single Arab or Muslim was killed in the US in retaliation for 9/11 (yes, there was a Sikh). This was a result of widespread efforts to stamp out intolerance. The president called upon Americans to respect Arabs and Muslims. Preachers preached tolerance. Police department offered extra security. The attitude of “Well, if some Muslims get killed, it’s an individual’s decision; society is not responsible for that” was not much in evidence.
Some countries have more religious fanatics who kill people than others. Surely you don’t think that this is because of factors out of the control of the populace?
The fact that there are suicide bombings further suggests religious motivation; Watergate unravelled because people weren’t willing to go to jail for the President, but Iraqis are willing to die to continue Saddam’s reign of terror?
mascaroni
Why? Did McVeigh act on behalf of Christianity? Were most of his victims non-Christians? Was there a large crowd of Christians at his funeral cheering him and declaring him a martyr? Did his family receive gifts in honor of their “sacrifice” to the Christian cause? If one enters a Christian home, is one likely to find a shrine or other memorial to McVeigh? Did any Christian groups offer to halt further bombings if McVeigh were released?
Probably because Boykin is not advocating or condoning terrorism.
P.S. You terribly mangled what he actually said. You are certainly willing to lie and attribute statements to people that did not make them, aren’t you?
Your last question is contradictory as it gives only 2 options vs the 3 the OP gives. Yes, I did compare the clerics on both sides of the issue. Both sides are wrong in what they have done... so the comparison is apropriate.
The muslim clerics seem mostly silent and in my opinion they have that right. Those who are not silent are not being given media time. Part of it is loyalty to their fellow muslims possibly. Naturally some do approve of it... clerics are humans and are as split on these issues as anyone else. So to answer the OP there are a few cowards, a few loyals and many ignored probably.
In contrast... certain american clerics and sects are blabbing away in joy over the religious confrontation. When I made my original question it was as a contrast to the OP. It seems to me there is a double standard... if muslims should speak out... then protestants should do it as well. I think more muslims spoke out against terrorism than protestants against the Invasion.
I do not take the answer of loyalty as a valid excuse. there is not justified reason to tolerate what you know is wrong due only to loyalty. As a matter of fact i am sure the Bible and Koran both say something against that.
I can somewhat see that they may be under-reported, but then agains, If I was a cleric of any faith, devoting my life to making that faith prosper, and I saw only the bad being put in the media about it. I would fight like hell to make it publicly known that my faith does not tolerate such actions in my god’s name.
That is not an unreasonable question to ask. Islam is a very powerful religion. Hell, it controls many governments. I do not think they are just powerless to get their message out.
So I think they either have to be cowards (in fear of reprisal from their fellow muslims while they let the evil done in their name go unabated), or they approve.
I keep seeing the same question, “why do I feel that Islamic leaders need to condemn anything”. Although it may be like comparing apples to oranges, think of the Catholic sex scandal. Diocese in the Catholic church are autonomous they try and work within the rules set by Rome, but are free to govern their churches how they see fit. So why should the Pope, and other Catholic leaders, come forward and condemned the actions taken by Catholic priests?
Because what they did smeared the whole Catholic religion, not just a Diocese or a few churches. Obviously the Islamic faith breeds intense loyalty. Muslims just don’t follow Islam; they live it (unlike most Catholics I know). And anything one would do to smear the faith would reflect badly on all.
Do you think if Islamic Imam’s were molesting children everywhere Islamic leaders would be condemning them?? I would think so. So why not when they continue to bomb and kill innocent civilians? Or when they hold rallies calling for a Holy War and death to all Americans??
btw Alde no need for apologies. I didnt think you sounded irratated. But I thank you anyway.