NOTE TO READERS AND COMMENTERS: We'll be on the road for the next few weeks so postings may get off schedule and replies to comments may be a bit erratic. Thanks for your tolerance.
-0-0-0-0-
While attention is focused on Friday's deadline for funding or shutting down the federal government, there are other things going on. Next week a House committee will hold hearings on what its chairman sees as the growing radicalization of American Muslims. Representative Peter King of New York said his Homeland Security Committee will also look at what he asserts is non-cooperation by U.S. Muslims with law enforcement and counterintelligence investigations. While these are King's assertions, the most immediate outcome from the hearings is likely to be another wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric and stereotyping.
In a previous posting, "Clash of Civilizations," the case was made that the anti-Muslim attitudes that have sprung up in this country and several western European countries are manifestations of a fundamental clash between the western and Islamic civilizations. The clash was the thesis of a l996 book by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington. To capsulize that thesis, Huntington said that cultural and religious identification would replace the ideological and economic differences of the Cold War as the root cause of world conflict. He said there were seven distinct civilizations in the world, of which the western and Islamic were two. The most evident form of this conflict has been the multitude of Muslim terrorist attacks around the world. Some have been in western countries such as Spain, Britain, and the United States. Muslim terrorists have also struck in Muslim countries such as Indonesia where the attack was on a night club filled with western tourists.
In the United States, the "us vs. Muslims" took firm root with the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center which was planned and carried out by Arab Muslims. Since then the word "Muslim" has become synonymous in the minds of many Americans with terrorism and/or repressive Islamic religious law. In the case of terrorism, King seeks to show that a big threat comes from the radicalization of U.S. Muslims and their becoming a source of home grown terrorism. That concern was also expressed last month by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in another hearing before King's committee. For those focused on the Taliban/Iranian models, anti-Muslim rhetoric and action takes the form of opposing the construction of mosques, a fight that extends from California to New York City, and places in between. Or, as in Oklahoma, an effort to write into the state constitution a provision that Islamic Sharia Law could not be used as a basis for judicial decisions in state courts. That effort was struck down by a federal court, but the attempt reflected how "Muslim" has come to be equated with a modern day bogeyman and evil.
No less troubling than this American-based anti-Muslim mind set is when the heads of government in Germany and Britain repackage it by declaring that "multiculturalism" has been an utter or total failure in their countries. "Failure of multiculturalism" is basically a euphemism for anti-Muslim sentiment, also found in France and some other countries of western Europe.
As suggested above, just the term "Muslim" sets off alarms in the minds of many as evident in the recent revolution in Egypt. As the street protests continued, a lot of media attention and right wing talk shows focused on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Egypt and the possibility of it coming to power and bringing with it fundamentalist Islamic law and anti-western policies. Some of the early concern dissipated, at least in the media, as the media took a closer look at the MB and found it did not represent a majority of Egyptians and its religious agenda was more moderate and less threatening than initially presented. Nevertheless, the "M" in MB stands for Muslim and thus remains for many in the United States and elsewhere a movement/organization to be feared or at least not trusted.
The concluding point is that next week's hearings in King's committee, regardless of his way of characterizing them, are also seen as a witchhunt likely to feed the anti-Muslim attitudes that already exist in this country. We hardly need more of that.
It is sad to think that there is such a big concern about radicalization of American Muslims. Sure, it is probable that some will become home grown terrorists for whatever reasons they have but that seems like it would be more the exception than the norm. The toughest law against sharia law in the US is being posed in Tennessee. It would make Sharia Law punishable to 15 years imprisonment. If sharia law becomes a part of our judicial system then which version of the law is it going to be? There are four main schools of sharia law and all have different applications. After all is said and done I agree with the opposition to the mosque near ground zero but not to the general opposition of mosques anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteIf there is anything that might radicalize a group of American citizens, it is treating them like they are not full citizens. Ignorance and bigotry are such unnecessary afflictions. As I understand it, the Islamic center is a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Surely there are hundreds if not thousands of shops, businesses and organizations within that same perimeter. So how near is near? And it wasn't Muslims who attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon but a whack-job Islamic faction led by a megalomaniac. If the perpetrators of 9-11 were a group of radical Amish, would we disapprove of a Christian community center and church
ReplyDeletebeing built a couple NY blocks from Ground Zero?
I don't know. I think not building a mosque near the trade center bombings is just a question of consideration. There are lots of places that mosques could be built so why would it have to be so close to GZ when there is obviously so much opposition (and so many other places one could be built). I guess I swayed toward opposition myself when Imam Feisel stated the building was to improve relations but didn't back away when all the controversey started and it was clear relations were getting heated. I agree with the statement that no group of citizens should be treated as though they are not full citizens. Lets not repeat the treatement of Japanese Americans during WWII. It was a black mark in our past.
ReplyDeleteThe Amish question is hard to answer as it isn't just a question of a one time event being the 9-11 attack. Muslim terrorists have been terroroizing the world for decades with more than just the 9-11 attack. That includes here in the US the original attack on the World Trade Center North Tower in 1993 and at least as far back as 1988 with the Lockerbie bombing. There should be some consideration for the feelings of the families of the 9-11 victims and some consideration to just move the mosque to a different location. The lines of communication need to be open for the sentiments of both sides of the issue to be able to be expressed in an open, non judgmental and peaceful way. That said, it is a shame that the question of the location of one mosque has lead to a anti mosque sentiment in general.
ReplyDeleteSheila, Cosmo, dpchuck
ReplyDeleteGetting a lot of sun and sand puts me in an agreeable mood.
The biggest point of disagreement among all seems to be in relation to the NYC mosque. The real problem here, it seems to me, is that there would be some in NYC who would be sensitive toward any mosque within at least a mile radius. What aggravates me is that any real grievances from such people has become a vehicle for the bigoted anti-Muslimites to ply their usual hate messages. It becomes difficult to separate the two groups but you can count on the latter being much larger and the most vocal. And what bothers me even more is when people like Bruce Springsteen jump on the anti-mosque bandwagon.