First of all, that was TSO who you quoted, not me. And no, really I don't think that Muslim leaders have any more responsibility to condemn these attacks than anyone else does. For the sake of their religion they should try to educate people on how this is not real Islam and that the Koran forbids these attacks. But the reason why you and others here want these condemnations is because Islam itself is seen by Christians as a breeding ground for global terrorism, so only by condemning them can the clerics put distance between the religion and today's acts in your mind. It's like they owe you an explanation -- they don't owe you anything any more than the Pope owes the world an explanation for the IRA.
My PM box on BigSoccer filled up with NegRep following my comments... I suppose like usual I was misunderstood so let me clarify, specifically and to the point... isaac101... in answer to your question above, what needs to be forthcoming is specific condemnation from Muslim leaders directed at the guilty from the Muslim community, not just condemning the act of terrorism! I read all the CNN, Fox, BBC accounts of what they said... go back and read them... they condemn the bombing but not the bombers... they condemn the terror but not the terrorists! Recall when the President said, "You are either with us or against us in the War on Terror"? That same sentiment needs to be forthcoming from the Muslim Community against their own, against the fanatical Muslim terrorists... Go ahead and neg rep away but I think my point is valid... and judging from the sentiment being expressed around the world I am not alone! ~ When did the Muslim Communnity at large SPEAK OUT against the insurgent terrorists who are bombing Iraqi civilians and Americans in Iraq? When?
Sorry about that, I did catch and fix it right after I posted. Muslim leaders loudly and publicly condemning these attacks will lead to two things. First, it will influence Muslims not to support AQ and, in some cases, it could influence young Muslims not to join AQ and carry out terrorist attacks. Second, it will lead to fewer misguided "revenge" attacks by non-Muslims who assume that all Muslims support AQ because they don't know any better than to think that. You lefties go on and on about how Westerners are so ignorant about Islam but how can you blame Westerners when Islamic leaders in all too many cases refuse to help educate them as to what Islam really teaches?? Muslim leaders have a responsibility both to their own congregations and to society at large to publicly draw the distinction between Islamofascism and the brand of Islam that 90-95% of the Muslim world follows. Muslim leaders in Western countries like the US and the UK, as well as in Muslim countries and areas with significant Western influence such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian areas have a particular responsibility to denounce violence. In all too many cases--not all, but many--they are grievously shirking their responsibility.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8496293/ Organisation seemingly disorganize. I mean. Information in several articles here. It makes like. They are writing history with every step. No real structure to follow. Amazing!
Wrong. It is Muslims who did the bombing and Islam is a breeding ground for terrorism at this day and age. It's not Christians who only say that. We all know that most world leaders will condemn those attacks. It's just that on mnay occasions, it's the Muslim leaders that chose to be silent, thus the biggest share of condemnation lies on their shoulders.
Alex, let's use some common sense here. Do you really think that there are everyday moderate Muslims in the UK today who saw these attacks and suddenly became radical, thinking, "Wow, I've got to get myself into that!"? I mean, honestly -- the people who carry out these attacks are brainwashed over years. Not a single person started the day as a moderate Muslim and then decided to join AQ. Interesting idea, but it's hard to say that anyone ignorant enough to carry out a revenge attack against Muslims is going to be influenced the words of a Muslim leader. So we're all supposed to assume that Islam = terrorism until they prove to us that it's not? Seems to me that the people who the clerics need to preach that message to are the ones going to Friday prayers tomorrow, not the non-Islamic world.
You are not getting any neg rep from me. I don't believe in it. But I'd like to ask a follow-up question....... If you want a condemnation of the terrorists directly (and not the act) then quite literally no one has met that standard. Not the Pope, not Blair, not Bush. At best, you have Bush's comment that: "We will find them (the perpetrators). We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate." There is no direct condemnation there. Just a comment that justice will be sought. In my mind, you are creating an exceedingly high standard for 'appropriate' condemnation, especially when considering that most leaders will only have had a few hours to really work on what they would like to say to the press. On top of that, many religious leaders are probably worried more about dealing with their worshipers in fear than trying to craft an appropriate response for the press. How is your interpretation of "acceptable condemnation" realistic given that no one in the world (Muslim or not) has yet met that standard?
isaac101: Thanks for your follow-up; I see that it is hard for you to accept the "condemnation" idea from the Muslim Community against their own... The only other general example parallel I can think of, and perhaps another way I can detail my point, is when sports enthusiasts have one of their own do something utterly stupid -- similar to the fan spitting incident a few years back in the NBA -- this individual was orundly criticized by all sports enthusiasts and the sports community in general! That is the type of condemnation that is needed, by the Muslims, against the fanatical Muslim terrorists...
THIS is the critical distinction. Yet it is interesting how often Islam gets more slack than Christianity around here. "Islamic" fundies are all too often viewed as representing hopeless, downtrodden groups where "Christian" fundies are radical war-mongers. The lack of identifying the differences hurts the credibility of the argument, IMO.
You're completely discounting the influence that a moderate cleric can have on his congregation or, if he's well-known enough, on the Muslim community at large?? No-one said that it happens overnight, but your argument seems to be "Well, since no-one becomes a radical Muslim overnight, then moderate Muslims can't have any influence on them" which is completely asinine. If radical Muslim leaders are capable of turning their followers into fundamentalists over a long period of time, then why aren't moderate Muslim leaders capable of the same?? You know better and I know better but a lot of people don't. Moderate Muslim leaders have a responsibility to the larger society to which they allegedly aspire to be a part of to warn their followers away from committing terrorist acts; and they have a responsibility to their congregations to protect them by helping educate the community at large about what Islam is and what it isn't. Am I saying any Muslim cleric who doesn't condemn the attacks should be thrown in Gitmo?? No--most of them aren't guilty of terrorist sympathy, just irresponsibility and neglect. But you have to remember that these aren't ordinary, everyday Muslims we're talking about; they are leaders in their faith, and as such they have a general responsibility to their congregation and to their society. To draw a parallel with Christianity, as you're fond of doing--if there was a spate of lay Catholics molesting little boys, no-one would really care beyond the individual cases themselves; because they were priests, men in positions of responsibility, however, it turned into a huge scandal. Anyone who accepts a leadership position in any religion or any element of society accepts with it a responsibility both to protect the members of their community when they can do so and to protect the larger society from misguided elements of their own community. Muslim clerics, being leaders of an element of British (in this case) society, are no different.
Muslims are all terrorists! Why can't we all just agree with that? Even if anyone from the Muslim faith does condemn the attacks, they are obviously dissembling and covering for their brothers. We should just nuke them all!
So you believe (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that the Muslim leaders have a higher burden/responsibility than other leaders because one of their "own" (potentially - this isn't actually confirmed yet is it, we are all working under the assumption that a previously unknown group claimed responsibility) was responsible for the attack. Since Muslims (allegedly - still not confirmed yet right?) initiated the attack, Muslim leaders need to speak out more forcefully against the attack? Is that your reasoning? If it is, I think is far too idealistic/unrealistic. Here is why: 1. Most radical/fringe members of a small group (for example, terroristic Muslims or Catholic clergy who sexually molest children) are often not representative of the larger groups they belong to (Islam and Catholcism). Leaders of the large groups know this, and believe that most people will be able to make the distinction between the radical/fringe group and the larger group. There is no need to directly condem individuals for certain acts, as it is widely known that these radical/fringe individuals and their actions do not represent the larger group. Sure, it would be nice to get a direct condemnation, but there is no moral responsibility to do this. 2. All leaders, be they political or religious, are politicians at heart. That being said, they have to play to their support base. It might not be politically wise to openly criticize and denouce members of your group (even if they are fringe members) for fear of destablizing your position as a leader. That is why most leaders will always take the "act is horrible" (we condemn the terrorist act, we condem the sexual abuse of children) approach to condemnation, rather than the "I condem person X" approach. 3. We are still only a few hours removed from the attack, and many leaders (Muslim or otherwise) simply might not have had the time to craft a response that is more appropriate. That's probably based on the fact that there is still no confirmation as to who actually carried out the attacks. Let me give you a hypothetcial example. What if a high-ranking Muslic cleric were to come out right now and give you an 'appropriate condmenation' not knowing all the facts. Then it turns out the attacks were really carried out by a French militant group ticked off at not getting the Olympics. The cleric would look like an idiot right? That's why you don't make strong statements until you are relatively sure of all the facts. Maybe we should give the Muslim leadership a little more time to craft a response than a few hours. That's all I'm saying.
Love the picture, but I think you need your sarcasm calibrator detected. This is vivzig, not InTheToilet.
Emm one of us missed the point, and I think it's you Vivzig's witty and highly original sarcastic remarks were attempting to mock some unidentified people who think all muslims are terrorists, etc.
Look at the original title of the thread -- USAS was looking for published public statements within about six hours of the original event. And his question wasn't just out of curiosity. Generally I agree with you here that any leaders of a community should speak out from their positions of power about issues or events that affect everyone as much as today's events did. But there's a parallel between the Catholic Church child molestation issue and the Islamic jihad issue that you likely haven't even thought about: the Church did some public hand-wringing, but in general it's a secretive organization that prefers to make its difficult decisions behind closed doors. In the Church leadership's mind, the child molestation trials are an internal crisis more than an external one. Compare this internal struggle with Islamic leaders who are, like other conservative religions, struggling to determine how they are to adapt to a modern, multi-cultural, increasingly secular world view. To them it's likely a crisis of faith, and it's up to them internally to resolve it. Public condemnations do nothing except temporarily placate angry non-Muslims (or not), and non-Muslims cannot solve this crisis for them - today seems to prove that.
Ok...I'll give them until tomorrow am, but I respect your opinion isaac101! I've watched this thread develop and there are many who post who still cling to the old ways and clutch their rules and Constitutional procedures closely and say we must fight terrorism with diplomacy and disagree with the Bush Administration... Lincoln said, "The dogma of the quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present..." He was talking about the Civil War and the House of the Nation he was trying to rebuild (A house divided against itself cannot stand), but the quote has application and reference to us today and terrorism. Terrorists have no Constitution to adhear to, no rules to follow, no code of conduct they respect... that is why they are so hard to fight...the dogmas of our past are inadequate to the terrorism strewn present... terrorists only code is to kill in the name of their radical ideology. Then let us oblige the terrorists then... let us fight them to the death, killilng them before they use their life in terrorism against the innnocent. And in the process, let us appeal to the Shepherds of the Muslim Faith: Condemn the fanatics among you by name... they are giving your faith a black eye!
Damned Constitution. Always getting in the way of a good lynching. Can't we just find an Imam somewhere and trump up charges that he raped a Christian woman like the good-old-days?
Just curious, Can't we wait to find out exactly who did the deeds - and specifically why - before asking mullahs and imams to codemn radical Islam. And in any event, shouldn't this specific demand for condemnation by Islamic leaders be isolated to just those flocks with followers who committed said deeds? I don't know. If Pat Robertson, for example, were to make a scathing indictment of, say, the U/U's for some terrible activity, would any of the U/U's even notice?
Great. I do understand how people view it as a necessity that Muslims apologize for 'Muslim terrorism', however, I don't agree with the view. Or more accurately, I just don't think it is a realistic expectation. Hasn't happend with other religous or political groups throughout history, no reason to think it will happen today. History is rife with political and religous leaders paying only lip service to heinous acts. Today's leaders (across all nations and faiths) are no different. I would argue that it is precisely our clinging to constitutional and diplomatic procedures which is what makes us different from the terrorists. The terrorists use violence as a way to obtain what they want. We (and by 'we' I mean those that are opposed to terrorism and its violence, which includes people from all faiths, nationalities, and political persuasions) would rather use non-violent means to respond to violence. Why you ask? Two reasons: 1. Using violence to fight violence only creates a vicious cycle. Particularly when our 'justified' or 'responsive' violence is covered in anti-terrorist rhetoric. The terrorits attack with violence. The non-terrorists respond with violence in an attempt to kill the terrorists. Surviving terrorists use this act of responsive violence as a recruiting mechanism for more terrorists. New terrorists attack with violence. Continue cycle. Your statement below is the perfect advertising pitch to recruit terrorists: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for targeted surgical miliatry strikes to hit high-value terrorist targets (like training grounds). As that will produce the direct result of preventing further terrorist attacks. However, I don't think that attempting to fight a conventional war (invading countries) to fight the ideology of terrorism will work. It will not work precisely because the 21st century terrorist organization is not bound by nation or constitution as you point out. They fight only for an idea, not a nation. Therefore, waging war against a nation will not eliminate terrorism. We must engage ideas. 2. The likelihood that terrorists will disappear or give up is pretty low. That means that "War on Terror" will likely not be 'won' as the enemy will always exist, and will not surrender. (Much like there will likely be no end to racism, sexism, or homophobia, or religious intolerance in the near future) That means we have to think about engaging the enemy in non-traditional ways. Does that mean we give up fighting terrorism (or fighting against these other socially questionable practices)? Heck no. But it does mean we need to think outside the box. Pure military strategies won't work, as there is no enemy who will surrender. Pure diplomatic approaches probably won't work either, as the terrorists will just view the lack of threats to themselves as a green light to do wrong. What is needed is a good balance, understanding that the terrorists view 'us' with as much disdain was we view them. Military, security, and police actions that can prevent terrorist actions are absolutely necessary. Military operations to teach terrorists a lesson or fight their ideology are counter productive.