CAIR tells Boosh a thing or two
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- (OfficialWire) -- 01/30/06 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today urged President Bush to avoid using "loaded and imprecise terminology" relating to Islam in Tuesday night's State of the Union address.
In a letter to President Bush, CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed wrote:
"While you prepare for tomorrow's State of the Union address, I would like to offer a suggestion that could serve to strengthen America's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. You have stated repeatedly that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. Unfortunately, the use of loaded and imprecise terminology by our nation's representatives has often served to promote that negative perception.
"When you describe America's efforts to fight terrorism and spread democracy worldwide in Tuesday's address, I think it would be best to avoid the use of hot-button terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire.'
__________________
Ok, I am OK with the concept of avoiding branding Islam or any religion and all its adherents as terrorists or fascists. Not only would that be incorrect to do so, but needlessly inflamatory and insulting. Also, the phrases listed are not very useful. Islam, the religion of the Prophet Mohammed is extolled as the peaceful religion and it would be wrong to imply that it is not.
Which is where we get to the sticky bit. But what should we call this "movement" then ... "loonies with bombs who want to kill us because we are Western and/or American, but only just happen to be part of a militant group and who happen to all be Muslims and really don't represent mainstream Islam at all?" You see, from the American point of view, the unifying feature of the recent global spate of terrorism is that the perpetrators have all been Muslim. So to describe the threat to America, of necessity, one must look to the single unifying theme: a radical, non-mainstream view of Islam to be enforced on the rest of the world by its followers by means of violence, intimidation and coercion. That is, it is just plain stupid to ignore -- for the sake of political correctness -- that these people were and are planning to hurt us, kill us if possible. The Grand Mufti in Mecca proclaimed as much recently, but in terms of resisting by all means the inroads of western culture. The various Imams and Ayatollahs in Iran and elsewhere have made no bones about their view of the West and Israel. The preachers of hate in the Finsbury Park Mosque similarly produced some fine examples of tolerance such as Abu Hamza, some of the terrorists involved in the Beslan massacre, the shoe bomber, Zacharias Moussauoui. Who knows what is taught and advocated in the madrassas of Pakistan, but you can be certain that it does not follow a theme such as "hug your neighborhood American/christian." Does this represent Islam? No.
BUT, from the Muslim point of view, the shoe is on the other foot: many Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere in Indonesia, Africa and Asia see the United States as the antagonist. The US-inspired corruption of their culture -- Big Macs in every Middle Eastern city (Mc Shawarma?) -- a decline in morals, libertine behaviour by women, "unwanted freedoms", etc. They perceive this assault as no less real than dropping bombs and murdering the innocent. So, since you cannot beat the US militarily (or Israel for that matter), you use what weapons you have.
I am getting off the subject ... who the hell is the Council on American Islamic Relations ("CAIR") to even suggest or urge the President of the United States (such as he is) to do anything?
In a letter to President Bush, CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed wrote:
"While you prepare for tomorrow's State of the Union address, I would like to offer a suggestion that could serve to strengthen America's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. You have stated repeatedly that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. Unfortunately, the use of loaded and imprecise terminology by our nation's representatives has often served to promote that negative perception.
"When you describe America's efforts to fight terrorism and spread democracy worldwide in Tuesday's address, I think it would be best to avoid the use of hot-button terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire.'
__________________
Ok, I am OK with the concept of avoiding branding Islam or any religion and all its adherents as terrorists or fascists. Not only would that be incorrect to do so, but needlessly inflamatory and insulting. Also, the phrases listed are not very useful. Islam, the religion of the Prophet Mohammed is extolled as the peaceful religion and it would be wrong to imply that it is not.
Which is where we get to the sticky bit. But what should we call this "movement" then ... "loonies with bombs who want to kill us because we are Western and/or American, but only just happen to be part of a militant group and who happen to all be Muslims and really don't represent mainstream Islam at all?" You see, from the American point of view, the unifying feature of the recent global spate of terrorism is that the perpetrators have all been Muslim. So to describe the threat to America, of necessity, one must look to the single unifying theme: a radical, non-mainstream view of Islam to be enforced on the rest of the world by its followers by means of violence, intimidation and coercion. That is, it is just plain stupid to ignore -- for the sake of political correctness -- that these people were and are planning to hurt us, kill us if possible. The Grand Mufti in Mecca proclaimed as much recently, but in terms of resisting by all means the inroads of western culture. The various Imams and Ayatollahs in Iran and elsewhere have made no bones about their view of the West and Israel. The preachers of hate in the Finsbury Park Mosque similarly produced some fine examples of tolerance such as Abu Hamza, some of the terrorists involved in the Beslan massacre, the shoe bomber, Zacharias Moussauoui. Who knows what is taught and advocated in the madrassas of Pakistan, but you can be certain that it does not follow a theme such as "hug your neighborhood American/christian." Does this represent Islam? No.
BUT, from the Muslim point of view, the shoe is on the other foot: many Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere in Indonesia, Africa and Asia see the United States as the antagonist. The US-inspired corruption of their culture -- Big Macs in every Middle Eastern city (Mc Shawarma?) -- a decline in morals, libertine behaviour by women, "unwanted freedoms", etc. They perceive this assault as no less real than dropping bombs and murdering the innocent. So, since you cannot beat the US militarily (or Israel for that matter), you use what weapons you have.
I am getting off the subject ... who the hell is the Council on American Islamic Relations ("CAIR") to even suggest or urge the President of the United States (such as he is) to do anything?
posted by Zaphod at Tuesday, January 31, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home