Radicalization in Islam?

Hello, just wanted to post a nice article authored by a Muslim friend against the "new wave of anti-Islamic rhetoric".

I would advise to read it on the site, it has pictures to go along with it and a booklet in the site of an extensive report conducted by Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill entitled “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans.” It compiled a list of 139 individuals categorized as “Muslim-American terrorism offenders” who had become radicalized in the U.S. in that time — a rate of 17 per year. Please don't post unless you've read all of this article and what I've posted myself at the near end (about Wahhabis).

Hate undermines productive dialogue

Hate undermines productive dialogue



Hate has a new name these days, and it’s name is Islamophobia. A new wave of anti-Islamic rhetoric has hit the airwaves. The most prominent of these instances comes in the form of harassment of Muslims in Orange County, CA. Several hundred members of the Tea Party hurled lewd comment after lewd comment at Muslims attending a fundraiser. Their venomous words and uncensored bigotry were utterly baseless. One woman said that “I know a few Marines who will be happy to help ‘these terrorists’ to an early meeting in Paradise.” This is an explicit threat. If a person made such a claim in reference to Judaism they would be indefinitely branded an anti-Semite and have no chance whatsoever of a political career. Another person made accusations that Muslim men beat their wives daily. Did I mention that the fundraiser was to help combat homelessness and hunger and support women’s shelters?

The original video has actually been taken down due to a copyright claim. Unsurprisingly, this group’s efforts backfired and the outcries across the country at the incident have only exposed them for what they are: a crowd of bigots with nothing better to do with their time. Several members claimed that Islam in itself is evil: what? Where did this come from? One has to question the intelligence – or lack thereof – and sanity of anyone who would make such a sweeping claim without a shred of evidence. Others who do not identify with this group have the slightly more tame position that Islam is the source of violent radicalization, which is still an essentialist claim and clearly reductionist. This notion is related to the current situation on Capitol Hill.

In the coming weeks, congressman Peter King (R) of New York intends to hold congressional hearings on what he calls Islamic radicalization. He also contends that Muslims have not been cooperative enough with law enforcement on helping deal with problems of radicalization. His claim needs to be substantiated, which we’ll see as the hearings proceed. As for his terminology, there is a problem of language. Islamic orthodoxy by definition does not condone radicalism or extremism. This is not mere political correctness as he has claimed, but rather a distinct specification that not only clarifies the phenomenon, but on a more practical level prevents actual extremists from using incidents like this to radicalize susceptible youths by pointing to the demonization of Islam worldwide. It is easy to stir up youths who feel as though their very identity is being attacked when they see the general air of negativity around Islam, see Muslims being killed in the media, and want to do something about it. Extremists offer them something to do, but it is clearly something that is destructive for both themselves and the society at large. This clarification of terminology does not mean that radicalization is not an issue: it is. Are there Muslims who are radicals? Yes, but that does not mean that Islam as a religion condones their actions, just as Christians would not condone the blowing up of abortion clinics. This is a crucial point of distinction because the term: “Islamic radicalization” implies religious justification of terrorism, of which there is none. Nothing could be theologically farther from orthodox teachings and practice. Allah revealed in the Holy Qur’an a verse that means: “Whoever kills one person [unjustly] it is as if he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves one life it is as if he has saved the lives of all mankind”

A primary reason that many tie Islam in particular to radicalization is that many terrorists who are self-proclaimed Muslims – even if not in actuality – identify the religion explicitly as a motivating factor for their actions. Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of the Gallup center, says that such actions are “often times framed as being devoted to the faith rather than being deviant.” Her sentiments are echoed by others in the academic community. Current Senior Director for Global Engagement of the National Security Council and former Rhodes College professor Quintin Wiktorowitz posits that very religious Muslims are in fact the people who end up being the most resistant to radicalization; those who do not have a good grounding in the religion are the most susceptible to radicalization. This is no surprise for any Muslim with modest religious education, but the fact that this claim is backed by substantive qualitative data conducted by himself and others speaks volumes. In addition to this hearing, there is also related legislation being put forward at the state level.

Recently a bill was proposed before Tennessee legislators by State Sen. Bill Ketron (R) and state Rep. Judd Matheny to make following Shari`ah law a felony. 12 other states have also proposed similar bills. Firstly, what is Shari`ah law? In brief, it is the code of conduct followed by all Muslims. This includes prohibitions of killing unjustly, harming one’s spouse, etc. Without delving unnecessarily into its legal nuances, it is enough to say that following Shari`ah does not necessitate undermining US law as is suggested by these two legislators. That is to say, following Shari`ah does not necessitate breaking US law. On the contrary, such legislation will only serve to alienate and ostracize Muslims further and create fertile ground for radicalization. The code also includes aspects specifying the ritual ablution before prayer, the integrals of alms-giving, etc. So, according to this bill, it would be illegal for a Muslim to wash his/her feet in order to pray. Moreover, consider the prohibition of stealing. If this bill was passed, it would be like saying “not stealing is illegal.” So, does he want Muslims to steal? Spare me this nonsense. Lastly, every Muslim follows Shari`ah law (to varying degrees, granted, but they follow it nonetheless). Such legislation would effectively make it illegal to be a Muslim in the United States. This is insanity.

(TN Sen. Bill Ketron)

The Tennessean hosted a poll in which it asked respondents for their thoughts. About 40% of people that voted on this poll are in support of an anti-Shariah law of some kind. Such a number should trouble any sane, concerned citizen who knows that this proposition is not only horrendously misinformed and rooted in bigotry, but a waste of taxpayers’ money and legislators’ time. Now, I don’t anticipate that the bill will pass, as it is so glaringly unconstitutional, but the fact that it was even proposed and that a considerable percentage of poll voters supported it is unsettling to say the least.

(Various community leaders in opposition to the Anti-Shari`ah bill)

The take away point from this is that radicalization is not Islamic. In fact, orthodox Islamic education is the antidote. Intelligence and law enforcement is part of it, but it cannot be the basis if long term, positive results are to come from such an effort. “Counter-radicalization also has to include things like politicians visiting Muslim communities, messaging, and beefing up education about Islam among Muslims themselves, so they can better resist radical recruiters.” says Wiktorowitz. Muslims are allies in the fight against radicalization according to his data and the extensive report conducted by Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill entitled “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans.” It compiled a list of 139 individuals categorized as “Muslim-American terrorism offenders” who had become radicalized in the U.S. in that time — a rate of 17 per year. One wonders in light of this information where this mass hysteria over “creeping Shari`ah” comes from, but that is for another article.

(Click to go to report)

I also propose the somewhat basic, yet profound act of shared experiences with Muslims. A survey conducted in 2010 by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies found 53 percent of Americans view Islam unfavorably compared with 42 percent who view the religion favorably. It is no coincidence that those who tend to view Islam unfavorably have never met a Muslim. 63 percent of those surveyed said they either know just a little bit about the religion or don’t know anything at all. It is much easier to demonize a person when one has had no interpersonal contact to humanize them. Perhaps the Muslim next door likes baseball. Why not ask him to play a game? Perhaps that girl who wears hijab would like to go to the gym with you. Mutual distrust and hasty generalizations will only fan the flames of radicalization, not douse them. There is a hermeneutical dimension to this proposition that I believe will help facilitate disclosure of the most effective approach to radicalization that these hearings will hopefully shed light on.

Hate undermines productive dialogue

Initially, I just wanted to post the article, but this is also related to it (at least to extremism), part of a previous thread of mine:

PBS had done an interview on a Shia' guy who had went to a Wahhabi school, the following is the link and the interview from the link:

Wahhabis

Reporter: If you go to school in Saudi Arabia, what do you learn about people who are not followers of Wahhabi, of the prophet?

Boy: "The religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia teaches you that people are basically two sides: Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others. They are either kafirs, who are deniers of God, or mushrak, putting gods next to God, or enervators, that's the lightest one. The enervators of religion who are they call the Sunni Muslims who ... for instance, celebrate Prophet Mohammed's birthday, and do some stuff that is not accepted by Salafis. And all of these people are not accepted by Salafi as Muslims. As I said, "claimant to Islam." And all of these people are supposed to be hated, to be persecuted, even killed. And we have several clergy -- not one Salafi clergy -- who have said that against the Shi'a and against the other Muslims. And they have done it in Algeria, in Afghanistan. This is the same ideology. They just have the same opportunity. They did it in Algeria and Afghanistan, and now New York. ..."

Reporter: What do you mean, it reached New York?

Boy: "Well, when it was a local problem, the American media did not really care much about it. But until September 11, you saw how this faith of hate, I call it, did to all of us, to New Yorkers and to the rest of the world, honestly. ..."

Reporter: But the Saudi government has condemned what happened on September 11.... Boy: "... Yes, Prince Nayif condemned bin Laden, and other princes... Prince Turki condemned bin Laden. They did not condemn that message. They condemned bin Laden. ... Bin Laden learned this in Saudi Arabia. He didn't learn it in the moon. That message that Bin Laden received, it still is taught in Saudi Arabia. And if bin Laden dies, and this policy or curriculum stays, we will have other bin Ladens. ..."

In short, Wahhabis misconstrue Religious Scriptures to legitimize what they call "honor killings" or "jihad", among other egregious acts of which aren't in Islam.
_____________________________________________
Random question, but what does OP mean?

Proud Anti-Islamic member here, call me anything you'd like it won't hurt me. Muslims in America are nice and friendly because they make up a small minority of people, wait till the numbers grow and some enabler comes along. All I see from muslim countries are people burning western flags and dolls, people running around with ak's, gays being hung, adulterers being stoned to death and thieves getting their hands chopped off. Some say Christians are just as violent but I don't see any christian countries doing these type of things, yes I believe Islam is a violent and intolerant religion.

reply to post by Fitch303


You don't know Islam, if you believe that is Islam.

(P.S. I find it funny how people who don't trust their government completely eat up the anti Muslim propaganda from the media.)

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
reply to post by Fitch303

 

You don't know Islam, if you believe that is Islam.

(P.S. I find it funny how people who don't trust their government completely eat up the anti Muslim propaganda from the media.)

Sorry to say history and facts don't support your point of view. I don't need the media to tell me who is bad or who isn't, nor do I watch more than 30 minutes of tv a day.

Originally posted by Fitch303
Proud Anti-Islamic member here, call me anything you'd like it won't hurt me. Muslims in America are nice and friendly because they make up a small minority of people, wait till the numbers grow and some enabler comes along. All I see from muslim countries are people burning western flags and dolls, people running around with ak's, gays being hung, adulterers being stoned to death and thieves getting their hands chopped off. Some say Christians are just as violent but I don't see any christian countries doing these type of things, yes I believe Islam is a violent and intolerant religion.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

What's so bad about burning dolls...? And many Muslims hate the U.S. because of the tremendous funding they give to Israel (the most of any other nation, despite it's miniscule size), which then establishes more illegal settlements and kills Palestinians.

Although you may seem it unfit, if a man or woman become stoned to death after committing adultery, no one in the community would ever even think of committing it, thus saving unwanted diseases and children from wedlock. Likewise, with the robber's hand being cut off, he wouldn't steal again. It saves prison time (let's the person continue there life, as opposed to it being ruined in prison), taxpayer money, and you have one less thief on the street, not to mention that when a person walks with a missing hand and people on the street see him, it will remind people of not to steal - they would actually never think of stealing when they see that.

You certainly haven't seen much.

Originally posted by Reprobation


What's so bad about burning dolls...many Muslims hate the U.S...Although you may seem it unfit, if a man or woman become stoned to death after committing adultery, no one in the community would ever even think of committing it, thus saving unwanted diseases and children from wedlock. Likewise, with the robber's hand being cut off, he wouldn't steal again. It saves prison time (let's the person continue there life, as opposed to it being ruined in prison), taxpayer money, and you have one less thief on the street, not to mention that when a person walks with a missing hand and people on the street see him, it will remind people of not to steal - they would actually never think of stealing when they see that.

You certainly haven't seen much.

You can't say Islam is nonviolent because they've justified their violence. I mean, you can but you'll be immediately discredited as a a blind fanatic. Which you sound like you are.

In fact, if I thought you were in danger of becoming even more radicalized and endangering your community, maybe I could justify the removal of your head from your body for the greater good? According to your logic, we'd have far less Islamic Extremism if we just showed the moderate Moslems how we deal with subversive behavior?

reply to post by Reprobation

Although you may seem it unfit, if a man or woman become stoned to death after committing adultery, no one in the community would ever even think of committing it, thus saving unwanted diseases and children from wedlock. Likewise, with the robber's hand being cut off, he wouldn't steal again. It saves prison time (let's the person continue there life, as opposed to it being ruined in prison), taxpayer money, and you have one less thief on the street, not to mention that when a person walks with a missing hand and people on the street see him, it will remind people of not to steal - they would actually never think of stealing when they see that.

Wow. It's shocking to see a person in the 21st century, and here on ATS, endorsing this type barbaric and inhumane behavior.

Besides, it does NOT seem to be very effective. If it was, it would have only happened ONCE right? Only ONE woman would have needed to be stoned to death, were it as effective as you suggest here.

That doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

It has to do with the goverment not having the right to tell me what I can do, you see.
It's none of their business.

There is little value placed on human life in these situations. Little value. Those who engage in these behaviors disgrace themselves.

Originally posted by Reprobation
What's so bad about burning dolls...? And many Muslims hate the U.S. because of the tremendous funding they give to Israel (the most of any other nation, despite it's miniscule size), which then establishes more illegal settlements and kills Palestinians.

This is certainly an understandable position to take.

Originally posted by Reprobation
Although you may seem it unfit, if a man or woman become stoned to death after committing adultery, no one in the community would ever even think of committing it, thus saving unwanted diseases and children from wedlock. Likewise, with the robber's hand being cut off, he wouldn't steal again. It saves prison time (let's the person continue there life, as opposed to it being ruined in prison), taxpayer money, and you have one less thief on the street, not to mention that when a person walks with a missing hand and people on the street see him, it will remind people of not to steal - they would actually never think of stealing when they see that.

You certainly haven't seen much.

I understand how those concepts served the people of Islam for a time my friend. Those traditions are embedded in the culture from before Muhammed. However, isn't there a better way in this modern age to deal with these things.

For example, marriage is a concept created by men to control the populations of their people. Women are considered property (by all faiths) and thus are traded off to families in exchange for increased status and worldly gain. Now, given that the creator has endowed all of his creation with intelligence and free will, wouldn't a natural next step in the understanding of his grace be to recognise us all as equals? When faced with a disease, wouldn't it be more prudent to look at it as a blessing rather than a curse and use this new blessing to find a cure?

On child rearing, there is an old African proverb that says "It takes a village to raise a child." Wouldn't society be stronger and more glorious if every child was considered a blessing to the community and rather than put the burden of raising that child squarely on the parents, take it as a community responsibility to bring each child up in bliss that none go hungry, all are educated, all are cared for, and all receive absolute love. Imagine a world after two generations of this type of upbringing on a global scale.

On thieves, when a man is in want, he takes. We have the resources in this world to ensure that every person can sit at a table of plenty. There is no reason other than greed for anyone to want for anything. Thus, if one steals, who is the greater criminal, the thief or the greedy person who lives in excess? In a world of limited resources it is understandable to be protective over limited resources, but what if the whole world shared that none would be short on what they needed?

I suppose what I am getting at, is how rigid is your code of Laws to change and what is the process of changing them?

With Love,

Your Brother