Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on Islamist Jihadism
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim Howard
May 14, 2013, 10:24:59 PM5/14/13
to
The following are excerpts from a great article I read recently...
By Ali A. Rizvi, Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician and musician
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the foiled al
Qaeda-backed plot in Toronto, the "anything but jihad" brigade is out in
full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were
influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we
take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and
consistently cite their religious beliefs as their central motivation,
we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something
deeper at play, a "root cause."
The taboo against criticizing religion is still so astonishingly
pervasive that centuries of hard lessons haven't yet opened our eyes to
what has been apparent all along: It is often religion itself, not the
"distortion," "hijacking," "misrepresentation" or "politicization" of
religion, that is the root cause.
This phenomenon can be wholly represented by loaded terms like
"Islamophobia." As an atheist Muslim (I'm not a believer, but I love
Eid, the feasts of Ramadan and my Muslim family and friends), I could be
jailed or executed in my country of birth, the country I grew up in and
a host of other Muslim countries around the world for writing this very
piece. Obviously, this is an unsettling, scary feeling for me. You may
describe that fear as a very literal form of "Islamophobia." But is that
the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry? No.
Semantics matter here. As much as I have differences with the contents
of Islam's canonical texts, I know that most Muslims are good, peaceful
people who have barely read the Quran and seldom follow it except for
the occasional cherry-picking and hearsay, much like the adherents of
any other religion. Most of the 1 billion Muslims in the world (with the
largest populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) don't
even understand Arabic.
I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of
that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its
fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a
left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you
imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded
social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the
Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects,
don't kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid
eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms
that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace,
the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and
perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite.
Too often in the aftermath of these tragedies, whether they occur in
Boston or Karachi, I notice people rushing to defend the faith from
judgment instead of acknowledging the victims. If a link is considered
or even discovered, everyone from the Western media to Hollywood deems
that person "Islamophobic" for linking Islam to terrorism.
But the number-one reason that terrorism is linked with Islam is not the
media or "Islamophobes." It is that jihadi terrorists link themselves
with Islam. Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the
word) didn't yell "Jesus is great!" before carrying out the Oklahoma
City bombing. His brand of terrorism wasn't linked to Christianity,
because it wasn't carried out in the name of it. (In contrast, the
bombing of abortion clinics is terrorism universally acknowledged as
being linked with Christian religious extremism.)
As Asra Nomani has bravely and effectively argued in her article
praising the attitude of the Tsarnaevs' uncle, the onus is on the Muslim
community, not just here but the world over, to start dealing honestly
with the parts of their religion that undeniably promote armed jihad.
This does not lose an individual any Muslim cred. Jews frequently
profess their faith without justifying or defending passages in the Old
Testament calling for the stoning to death of homosexuals, non-virginal
brides or blasphemers. In fact, most of them condemn these ideas.
Religious Catholics still identify with their faith in large numbers
without agreeing with the pope on birth control, abortion or premarital
sex. Like them, almost all Muslims cherry-pick the contents of their
faith as well. Why not be honest about the parts you don't like? If
you're being discriminated against, why not protect your people first
instead of jumping to protect your beliefs, books or religion every time
someone driven by them commits mass murder?
This is a key difference for "new atheists." To us, the fight against
religious ideology isn't a struggle against human rights but a struggle
for them. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books
and beliefs don't and aren't.
Instead of judging these religions by the actions of a few, we judge
them more objectively: by the contents of their sacred texts (revered by
fundamentalists and moderates alike). To us, a simple reading of the
Abrahamic holy books reveals endorsements of virtually all the
oppressive and discriminatory systems that civil and human rights
movements have tried to dismantle over time: patriarchy, misogyny,
slavery, tribalism, xenophobia, totalitarianism and homophobia, all
rolled into one.
Our critical words aren't an attack on people. They are a challenge to
what we consider bad ideas that drive bad behavior. Saying "smoking is
bad" does not translate to "all smokers are bad people."
It is also important to understand why criticism, satire or mockery of
any ideology isn't bigoted or racist. Criticizing capitalism does not
make you an anti-capitalist "bigot." Criticizing religious ideology is
no different. No one is born pre-circumcised or pre-baptized with a
hijab or a yarmulke sewn to their heads. It is clear now, as it always
has been, that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, educational status,
financial status, citizenship status, marital status and family
background have little to do with Islamist terrorism. Before the Russian
Tsarnaevs from North Caucasus, we've had Richard Reid, the Hispanic Jose
Padilla, the Nigerian underwear bomber, California's Adam Gadahn and
others. The only common denominator among them is Islamic belief and
religious fervor, which is not a race or ethnicity.
Overall, "new atheists" think of religion the same way. It is considered
sacred and untouchable now like white supremacy and patriarchy were less
than a century ago. The consequences for speaking out against it are
often as dire as they were for those who spoke out against white or male
authority back then. But the secularist struggle is bearing fruit, here
and elsewhere, particularly among America's youth.
For the fast-growing secularist/humanist movement, criticism of religion
isn't a demonstration of bigotry but a struggle against it. To us,
bigotry against bigotry isn't bigotry, and intolerance of intolerance
isn't intolerance.
By Ali A. Rizvi, Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician and musician
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the foiled al
Qaeda-backed plot in Toronto, the "anything but jihad" brigade is out in
full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were
influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we
take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and
consistently cite their religious beliefs as their central motivation,
we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something
deeper at play, a "root cause."
The taboo against criticizing religion is still so astonishingly
pervasive that centuries of hard lessons haven't yet opened our eyes to
what has been apparent all along: It is often religion itself, not the
"distortion," "hijacking," "misrepresentation" or "politicization" of
religion, that is the root cause.
This phenomenon can be wholly represented by loaded terms like
"Islamophobia." As an atheist Muslim (I'm not a believer, but I love
Eid, the feasts of Ramadan and my Muslim family and friends), I could be
jailed or executed in my country of birth, the country I grew up in and
a host of other Muslim countries around the world for writing this very
piece. Obviously, this is an unsettling, scary feeling for me. You may
describe that fear as a very literal form of "Islamophobia." But is that
the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry? No.
Semantics matter here. As much as I have differences with the contents
of Islam's canonical texts, I know that most Muslims are good, peaceful
people who have barely read the Quran and seldom follow it except for
the occasional cherry-picking and hearsay, much like the adherents of
any other religion. Most of the 1 billion Muslims in the world (with the
largest populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) don't
even understand Arabic.
I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of
that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its
fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a
left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you
imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded
social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the
Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects,
don't kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid
eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms
that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace,
the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and
perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite.
Too often in the aftermath of these tragedies, whether they occur in
Boston or Karachi, I notice people rushing to defend the faith from
judgment instead of acknowledging the victims. If a link is considered
or even discovered, everyone from the Western media to Hollywood deems
that person "Islamophobic" for linking Islam to terrorism.
But the number-one reason that terrorism is linked with Islam is not the
media or "Islamophobes." It is that jihadi terrorists link themselves
with Islam. Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the
word) didn't yell "Jesus is great!" before carrying out the Oklahoma
City bombing. His brand of terrorism wasn't linked to Christianity,
because it wasn't carried out in the name of it. (In contrast, the
bombing of abortion clinics is terrorism universally acknowledged as
being linked with Christian religious extremism.)
As Asra Nomani has bravely and effectively argued in her article
praising the attitude of the Tsarnaevs' uncle, the onus is on the Muslim
community, not just here but the world over, to start dealing honestly
with the parts of their religion that undeniably promote armed jihad.
This does not lose an individual any Muslim cred. Jews frequently
profess their faith without justifying or defending passages in the Old
Testament calling for the stoning to death of homosexuals, non-virginal
brides or blasphemers. In fact, most of them condemn these ideas.
Religious Catholics still identify with their faith in large numbers
without agreeing with the pope on birth control, abortion or premarital
sex. Like them, almost all Muslims cherry-pick the contents of their
faith as well. Why not be honest about the parts you don't like? If
you're being discriminated against, why not protect your people first
instead of jumping to protect your beliefs, books or religion every time
someone driven by them commits mass murder?
This is a key difference for "new atheists." To us, the fight against
religious ideology isn't a struggle against human rights but a struggle
for them. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books
and beliefs don't and aren't.
Instead of judging these religions by the actions of a few, we judge
them more objectively: by the contents of their sacred texts (revered by
fundamentalists and moderates alike). To us, a simple reading of the
Abrahamic holy books reveals endorsements of virtually all the
oppressive and discriminatory systems that civil and human rights
movements have tried to dismantle over time: patriarchy, misogyny,
slavery, tribalism, xenophobia, totalitarianism and homophobia, all
rolled into one.
Our critical words aren't an attack on people. They are a challenge to
what we consider bad ideas that drive bad behavior. Saying "smoking is
bad" does not translate to "all smokers are bad people."
It is also important to understand why criticism, satire or mockery of
any ideology isn't bigoted or racist. Criticizing capitalism does not
make you an anti-capitalist "bigot." Criticizing religious ideology is
no different. No one is born pre-circumcised or pre-baptized with a
hijab or a yarmulke sewn to their heads. It is clear now, as it always
has been, that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, educational status,
financial status, citizenship status, marital status and family
background have little to do with Islamist terrorism. Before the Russian
Tsarnaevs from North Caucasus, we've had Richard Reid, the Hispanic Jose
Padilla, the Nigerian underwear bomber, California's Adam Gadahn and
others. The only common denominator among them is Islamic belief and
religious fervor, which is not a race or ethnicity.
Overall, "new atheists" think of religion the same way. It is considered
sacred and untouchable now like white supremacy and patriarchy were less
than a century ago. The consequences for speaking out against it are
often as dire as they were for those who spoke out against white or male
authority back then. But the secularist struggle is bearing fruit, here
and elsewhere, particularly among America's youth.
For the fast-growing secularist/humanist movement, criticism of religion
isn't a demonstration of bigotry but a struggle against it. To us,
bigotry against bigotry isn't bigotry, and intolerance of intolerance
isn't intolerance.
Dakota
May 15, 2013, 12:08:09 AM5/15/13
to
read more of it. Thanks in advance.
BJ
May 15, 2013, 4:17:56 AM5/15/13
to
Message has been deleted
linuxgal
May 15, 2013, 8:08:05 AM5/15/13
to
Siri Cruise wrote:
> Judaism only expects Jews to obey its law; Islam expects the entire
> world.
Islam expects the entire world to confess Mohammad is the prophet of
Allah? Ever hear of the concept of the dhimmi?
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
> Judaism only expects Jews to obey its law; Islam expects the entire
> world.
Islam expects the entire world to confess Mohammad is the prophet of
Allah? Ever hear of the concept of the dhimmi?
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
Message has been deleted
Tim Howard
May 15, 2013, 10:40:28 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 4:17 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <06ydncVFII0o8Q7M...@giganews.com>,
>
>
> For extra credit, don't bother analyzing what you chose to misunderstand in
> pursuit of your religious agenda.
>
Getting back to the article...
> In article <06ydncVFII0o8Q7M...@giganews.com>,
> linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Judaism only expects Jews to obey its law; Islam expects the entire
>>> world.
>>
>> Islam expects the entire world to confess Mohammad is the prophet of
>> Allah? Ever hear of the concept of the dhimmi?
>
> Congratulations on this week's demonstration of belligerent stupidity.
>
>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Judaism only expects Jews to obey its law; Islam expects the entire
>>> world.
>>
>> Islam expects the entire world to confess Mohammad is the prophet of
>> Allah? Ever hear of the concept of the dhimmi?
>
>
>
> For extra credit, don't bother analyzing what you chose to misunderstand in
> pursuit of your religious agenda.
>
Getting back to the article...
Tim Howard
May 15, 2013, 10:47:55 PM5/15/13
to
0 new messages