Sanity Injection

Injecting a dose of sanity into your day’s news and current events.

Posts Tagged ‘Muslims’

Who does the word “Allah” belong to?

Posted by sanityinjection on January 8, 2010

That is the question at the heart of the current controversy in the majority Muslim nation of Malaysia, which also has significant religious minorities including Christians. The issue flared up recently when the Malaysian government confiscated loads and loads of Bibles written in the Malay language brought in by local Christian groups. The government claimed that the Bibles illegally used the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God and that the word properly applies only to the God of Islam. (Never mind that any half-trained theologian can tell you that the two faiths worship the same Supreme Being – the God of Abraham, though they view Him quite differently.)

The Christians had earlier filed suit against the government for outlawing their use of “Allah” in their religious newspaper, pointing out that “Allah” is an Arabic word that means “God” and that is used routinely by Arab Christians and Arabs of other faiths. The government responded that the use of the word was intended to confuse Muslims and trick them into converting to Christianity. (If that seems reminiscent of anti-Semitism, it should.) The government claimed that the Christians’ use of the word could lead to violent unrest.

On December 31, the Malaysian High Court ruled in favor of the Christians. Of course the government promptly appealed. It only took about a week after that before Christian churches started being firebombed. Now the government is in the awkward position of having to defend itself against charges that they incited the riots they had earlier predicted. While I doubt that there was any official involvement, I have no doubt that the pillars of society who threw those firebombs were incited and egged on by the imams of their mosques to strike a blow against the infidels.

The irony of all this is that Malaysia is generally considered one of the more secular, democratic, and largely free Muslim nations. And yet the difference in basic values between Malaysia and any Western democracy couldn’t be more clear. The very notion that our government could give a religion the exclusive right to use a foreign loanword is simply incomprehensible. (Heck, even Western Christians would never dream of trying to demand exclusive rights to the name “Jesus”.) What is most telling about the whole issue is not the ultimate outcome of the case, but the fact that the issue even arose in the first place.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

From your friends at Hezbollah: We’re changing to serve you better!

Posted by sanityinjection on December 3, 2009

Little noticed amid the furor over vital matters such as White House party crashers – and the admittedly important decision by the White House on Afghanistan – it looks like the good folks over at Hezbollah have decided to make some small concessions to the 21st century. Their new manifesto is both laughable and deadly serious at the same time. (The previous version dates back to 1985 when the political and military situation in Lebanon was very different than today.)

Key among the changes is the removal of language that envisions Lebanon as an Islamic republic. That represents a practical nod to the fact that Shiite Muslim Hezbollah is in alliance with a Christian party in Lebanon’s complicated internal politics. Of course, nobody believes for a minute that Hezbollah would not happily force their brand of Islam down everyone’s throats if they had the power to do so. This is not a change of heart, but rather an acknowledgement that the movement has to pay some attention to PR at least within Lebanon itself. Stripped of the shield of Syrian occupation which long protected them, they now have to work within the Lebanese political system to maintain their status – which they’ve become fairly adept at doing.

Predictably, the manifesto maintains that Israel “represents a constant threat and an impending danger to Lebanon.” I had a good chuckle over that one. Everybody in Lebanon knows that the only danger from Israel arises from the possibility of Israeli retaliation for Hezbollah attacks – as happened in 2006. Beyond that, Israel and Lebanon have no remaining issues other than the general Palestinian question which affects Israeli relations with all Arab states. It’s important to remember that Hezbollah was founded by the Iranians to combat the Israeli occupation of Lebanon which began in 1982. After the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah had to justify their continued existence by bizarrely claiming a small part of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as belonging to Lebanon rather than Syria.)

It goes on to state that an armed Hezbollah “is a permanent national necessity that should last as long as the Israeli threat, and in the absence of a strong, stable state in Lebanon.” This is priceless humor because Hezbollah itself is the biggest threat to a “strong, stable” Lebanon. Can you imagine if the states along the southern US border were controlled by an armed militia with representation in Congress? In the Shiite cities and villages of southern Lebanon, the central government’s authority goes only about as far as Hezbollah permits. The Lebanese Army pretends to control the Lebanon-Israel border, but in fact Hezbollah controls it – hence the Lebanese government is powerless to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel. In essence, Israel’s war against Hezbollah in 2006  helped to preserve the freedom and independence of Lebanon itself – though admittedly it would be hard for most Lebanese to see it that way especially if it’s their village being bombed.

Finally, Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in another nod to modernity, took pains to explain that Hezbollah is not anti-Semitic: “Our problem with them (the Israelis) is not that they are Jews, but that they are occupiers who are raping our land and holy places.” We’ve already discussed that no Lebanese land remains under Israeli occupation. As for the suggestion that Israel has been a poor guardian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, that is completely counterfactual. The sites continue to be administered by Arab Muslims, and Israeli security forces take threats against them by Jewish or Christian extremists just as seriously as they take  mobs of Muslims who routinely throw stones at Jews trying to worship at the Western Wall.

Hezbollah’s attempts to put a modern face on their decidedly medieval organization are amusing. I’m eagerly awaiting what comes next – an appearance by Nasrallah on Dancing With The Stars, perhaps?

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Want to shut down free speech? Just threaten some violence.

Posted by sanityinjection on September 9, 2009

Another sad milestone in the destruction of free speech at America’s top universities. The occasion this time is a new book by a Brandeis University professor, Jytte Klausen, about the now-infamous “Muhammad cartoons” which appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2005 and sparked riots by offended Muslims around the world.

Klausen’s book, The Cartoons That Shook the World,  is due to be published next week by Yale University Press, which unsurprisingly is owned by Yale University. However, Yale decided at the last minute to remove the actual cartoons themselves – the subject of the whole book – from the book. Yale’s explanation was that the sole reason for the removal of the cartoons was the fear that their publication would lead to more violence by offended Muslims. (Never mind that the same cartoons have been reprinted multiple times in various publications around the world without incident.)

Think about the precedent being set here. Intellectual content can be censored and all it takes is a reasonable expectation that some whack jobs might start a riot over it. Believe me, there are anarchists out there who would be only too happy to start a riot over any content you’d care to censor.

There is a big difference between reasonable and unreasonable restrictions on expression to prevent violence. A reasonable restriction, for example, is requiring neo-Nazi and anti-Nazi demonstrations to occur in different locations or at different times. Everybody still gets to have their say, just not right in each other’s faces.

Chief among those who pushed for the censorship was CNN/Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria, a member of Yale’s Board of Directors: “As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom,” Zakaria said. “But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life.” So now we have authors advocating the censorship of other authors. If I were to threaten to set fire to the CNN offices the next time Zakaria is interviewed, should CNN ban him from the airwaves?

Ironically, one of the main points that Klausen makes in her book is that the riots over the cartoons were not spontaneous expressions by ordinary Muslims but were deliberately orchestrated by groups already interested in provoking violence.

Score one for the terrorists thanks to the sniveling cowards at Yale.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Sharia law codes aren’t Islamic, just medieval

Posted by sanityinjection on August 19, 2009

Hardly a week goes by these days without a news story about someone in a Muslim country  – usually a woman – being punished for an Islamic religious offense under what is called “sharia” law.  Sharia is supposed to be the incarnation of the rules found in the Koran in a system of law. In some countries, sharia only applies to Muslim citizens, while in others no separate civil law code exists and sharia applies to everybody. Punishments under sharia can often be harsh including canings, amputations and death by stoning.

For example I recently wrote about a Sudanese woman who is facing 40 lashes for the offense of wearing trousers. In that case, there is a compelling argument that wearing trousers may not, in fact, be a violation of Koranic law.

But consider something a bit more concrete: the case of Malaysian model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, who has been sentenced to caning for drinking alcohol. It’s pretty hard to argue that consuming alcohol is not a violation of Islamic law. But the question is, is this a reasonable punishment? And further, why is it necessary to enforce such a violation at all?

Islam is certainly not the only faith to have dietary restrictions. Mormons are not supposed to consume alcohol or caffeine. Devout Jews, like Muslims, abstain from pork and observe other dietary restrictions. Other faiths abjure the eating of meat.

And yet, somehow none of these other creeds feel the need to have civil courts set up to punish people who disobey these religious laws. Why then, does Islam? And only in some countries – Muslims in the US are no less observant because they do not cane people for drinking.

If a Muslim drinks alcohol, is that an offense against the community or an offense against God? If the latter, then surely God is perfectly capable of imposing consequences on the offender. You could argue that public drinking has a negative impact on the morals of others who are exposed to it, but then why does Malaysia allow alcohol to be sold at all? Who ultimately was harmed by Ms. Shukarno drinking a beer, other than Ms. Shukarno herself?

The only rationale I can think of for making drinking a crime against the community is the old tribal notion that the Muslim community as a whole will be punished by God for the sins of the individual. In other words, the community has a vested interest in enforcing individual spiritual morality because the community will suffer the consequences if it doesn’t.

But even if we accept this notion, why then are there not canings for Muslims who fail to pray five times a day, or who fail to give to the poor? These requirements are far more fundamental in Islam than the prohibition against alcohol.

The inevitable answer is that sharia law codes are at least as representative of medieval cultural traditions as they are of Islamic law. That also explains why the details of sharia law – especially with regard to women – differ greatly from one country to the next. This is significant because freedom of religion is considered a basic civil right, and anything that can be brought under that umbrella is hard for Westerners to combat. But last time I checked, medieval cultural traditions are not a basic civil right that should trump other rights such as freedom of expression. We in the West are so concerned to avoid attacking the Islamic faith that we have allowed this masquerade to go on too long.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

We have met the enemy, and this is them.

Posted by sanityinjection on August 3, 2009

Americans are tired of war and military intervention in foreign countries. Some no doubt cast their vote for President in 2008 in part with that frustration in mind. And the weariness is understandable. No one can be blase about young American soldiers coming home in body bags.

It’s understandable, then to question why we are fighting. After all, it’s been almost a decade now since America was attacked by terrorists. Is the threat really still that serious?

It’s important to remember the nature of the foe we are facing. Unlike Americans, the terrorists do not weary of the struggle, because they do not have Xboxes and swimming pools and American Idol to go back to. They are not concerned with whether their goals can be practically achieved, because to them dying in the course of struggle is preferable to not struggling at all.

With this in mind I offer this article on Boko Haram, a homegrown Nigerian al Qaeda that unleashed five days of terror on a northern province of that country until federal authorities intervened. Boko Haram means “Western education is sinful,” and this is a brief glimpse at their program for mankind:

“He was taken from his house by Boko Haram. They stabbed him and he was losing blood…They insisted he was to convert to a Muslim. He refused, so on that basis they killed him.”

This philosophy at least has the virtue of simplicity.  Groups like Boko Haram do not spend much time and energy agonizing over ethics or human rights, or arguing about when violence is justified the way we do. In fact, they must enjoy quite a serenity after being brainwashed: the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, if you will.

Let’s recall that Nigeria is not a Middle Eastern country, and indeed is predominantly Muslim. This action had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians or US troops being in the Middle East. This was very simply a case of religious fanatics trying to violently impose their beliefs on fellow Muslims and non-Muslims alike in their own country. But it is in no way different from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar in Pakistan, or any of the assorted Islamic terrorist groups. Let the point be underscored: These people cannot be appeased. They cannot be bought off. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be negotiated with. America’s abandonment of its international responsibilities and national security interests would not pacify the Boko Harams of the world. On the contrary, it would embolden them and spur them on to greater violence, knowing that the one consistent champion of peace and freedom in the world is out of the fight.

So if you wonder why we must send our troops overseas to fight in strange lands, here is my answer: So that it will not be your father getting the knife in the side of the stomach.

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

How the Internet saved free speech in Canada

Posted by sanityinjection on May 5, 2009

In the June edition of the libertarian magazine Reason, Canadian publisher Ezra Levant tells the story of his fight to defend himself against the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. Levant’s crime? Offending Muslims by reprinting the now-famous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Of particular interest is the role the Internet played in Levant’s victory. Levant credits support from ordinary citizens – both written and financial – with helping him sustain his defense until his accusers ultimately withdrew their charges in the face of mounting public criticism.

However, the fact that Levant had to go through such an ordeal at all should serve as a wake-up call for freedom-loving people everywhere. Canada may be more politically correct than most democracies, but it is not a great leap to see similar tendencies in the US and elsewhere. There are those who would happily establish the equivalent of the Alberta HRC in every state or province of every Western country. In our desire to uphold human rights, we must not allow ourselves to be deluded into mistaking the right to never be offended as one of them. Thus, I may find Dan Brown’s books to be offensive and bigoted, but I strongly defend his right to write them and have them made into movies no matter how much they may offend me.

Over half a century has passed since George Orwell first introduced us to the Thought Police in 1984. (And if by chance, dear reader, you have never got around to reading this book, please do so at once.) How horrified would Orwell, a passionate socialist, be to know that Canada of all places has come so far in bringing his dystopia to life?

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Afghanistan: What the Left really thinks

Posted by sanityinjection on April 2, 2009

There is a common misperception that most of the Left in America supports the war on Afghanistan, and that it was only the war in Iraq they opposed. While this is true of some Democrats, most of the Left only focused on Iraq as the more obvious target. With the Iraq issue now essentially resolved, hardcore leftists are now turning their sights to Afghanistan in opposition to President Obama’s plan to slightly increase US forces there.

There is no more hallowed or respected liberal political journal than The Nation. And there is no left-winger with credentials more solid than Tom Hayden – founder of Students for a Democratic Society, member of the Chicago Seven, and former state legislator from California. Hayden is intelligent and articulate, and he cannot be dismissed as a crackpot of the Cindy Sheehan/Code Pink variety. Thus, his piece in The Nation last week deserves some attention as an authentic representation of the thinking of a sizable chunk of the American Left.

Hayden makes a number of interesting points, the first of which is his assertion that adding 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan will not prevent additional terrorist attacks. I have to say that I agree with Hayden, but only in the sense that I could agree with him that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun. The purpose of the troop buildup is not to eliminate Al Qaeda’s ability to plan a terrorist attack – there is no way to do that completely. The purpose of the buildup is to stabilize Afghanistan so that it will no longer be a haven for Al Qaeda or any other adical groups. Hayden actually undercuts his case by suggesting that Al Qaeda may be spurred by the buildup to launch an attack or “risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. ” So Tom, if you believe that the troop buildup could finally result in the complete destruction of Al Qaeda, isn’t that a great argument for doing  it?

Apparently not. Hayden argues that the US should maintain a “deterrent posture” – whatever that is – “while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir. ” That’s a dumbfounding statement. First of all, it suggests that Al Qaeda exists in order to pursue “legitimate Muslim goals”. Al Qaeda’s objective is a worldwide Islamic state under sharia law, and even Hayden wouldn’t call that a legitimate goal. Second, it suggests that the Palestinian quest for statehood is fundamentally a Muslim issue, which it isn’t – many Palestinians are Christians. Finally, the idea that there is a unified “Muslim” political agenda – can you imagine if someone started talking about a “Christian” or “Jewish” foreign policy agenda? Ye Gods!

Fundamentally, Hayden’s position is that Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks are provoked by our actions, so we should stop provoking them and giving them what they want – the total withdrawal of US military and economic interests in the Middle East. With bold naivete, Hayden actually suggests that this would make the world more stable than it is today.

He goes on to drag out the usual “Afghanistan is Vietnam” analogy, unfazed by having made the same argument about Iraq and having been proven wrong. He ends by asserting that the war in Afghanistan is likely to last throughout Obama’s Presidency, which I also agree with. (Hayden is way too smart to be wrong about *everything*.)

Again, let me reiterate: Hayden is not some wacko DailyKos type with no credibility. He’s practically the Godfather of the Left. So don’t be fooled – now that they have proven wrong on Iraq, the Left is undauntedly pushing the same tired arguments on the next most opportune target, Afghanistan.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis

Posted by sanityinjection on February 18, 2009

I learned an interesting tidbit today from a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman on the lack of support for terrorism among Muslims in India. Friedman quotes an Indian Muslim journalist, M.J. Akbar:

“Terrorism has no place in Islamic doctrine. The Koranic term for the killing of innocents is ‘fasad.’ Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis. In a beautiful verse, the Koran says that the killing of an innocent is akin to slaying the whole community.”

This is in line with comments I’ve seen previously from moderate Muslims who argue that the main meaning of “jihad” is the spiritual struggle to live according to the will of Allah rather than a physical one against infidels.

Therefore, I’ve decided that Sanity Injection will henceforth refer to Islamic terrorists as fasadis rather than jihadis. Not to be politically correct, or to avoid offending Muslims, but because I suspect that al-Qaeda types would consider it a gross insult. It’s fitting to slap these monsters in the face with a term from the book they claim to revere. And “the killing of innocents” is about as good a definition of terrorism as anything.

So fasadis it shall be. You learn something new every day.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Muslims who reject terror and religious hatred

Posted by sanityinjection on December 15, 2008

Two weeks ago I posted about the responsibility of Muslim communities to speak out against jihadism and terrorism and combat them within their ranks. I pointed out that Islamic terrorism will only die when would-be jihadis face derision, scorn, and ostracism from the Muslim community and find no financial support for their efforts.

I was originally going to post this as a comment on that blog entry, but it really deserves its own. The City Journal, a New York City conservative(!) quarterly, has a terrific piece out about the fledgling European nation of Kosovo. The overwhelming majority of Kosovars are nominal Muslims, but they are fiercely pro-American and have no sympathy for terrorists:

Some observers, especially in Serbia, have blamed the violence in 1999 and 2004 on Islamist jihadists. Those who live and work in Kosovo, and who are charged with keeping the peace, dismiss the allegation. “We’ve been here for so long and not seen any evidence of it that we’ve reached the assumption that it is not a viable threat,” says Zachary Gore, a U.S. Army sergeant stationed in eastern Kosovo…Religion in Kosovo is a private matter, not a public one.

There is, however, a small group of radicals inside Kosovo who would like to transform moderate Balkan Islam into the much sterner Wahhabi variety practiced in Saudi Arabia. Several well-funded Saudis and other Gulf Arabs moved to Kosovo after the 1999 war to rebuild destroyed mosques and to impose Wahhabism on the decadent locals. Most ethnic Albanians across the political and religious spectrum in Kosovo resent these intrusions, partly because ornate Ottoman-style mosques destroyed by the Serbian military are being replaced with severe Wahhabi-style monstrosities, but also because hardly any Albanians seek guidance from the backward and authoritarian Arab world. “We don’t call them Wahhabis here,” a well-connected Albanian woman tells me. “We call them Binladensa, the people of bin Laden.” In Kosovo, that isn’t a compliment.

“We never had them before,” a young Albanian journalist says. “We hear these rumors that they are paying people”—to visit mosques and cover their hair, that is. I can’t confirm the rumor, but it’s widely believed, and I heard it from almost a dozen people. If true, it means that even the tiny minority who are willing to adopt the outward trappings of conservative Islam will do so only if they’re paid. If false, the fact that so many believe it reveals a broad contempt for rigid Arabic Islam and a belief that Albanian culture will not bend naturally to it. “You should see how the general public receives these people,” says a Kosovo human rights official. “They certainly are not liked. I don’t think they will succeed.”

Wahhabis are encountering resistance from Kosovo’s religious community as well as from its atheists and agnostics. “We are working very hard to stop these kinds of movements,” says Hamiti. “These kinds of movements are dangerous for all nations, for the faiths, for all religions. The traditional Islam that has been cultivated in these areas is the best guarantee for the future. If we allow foreigners to come here and to push us to war with their ideas, then the situation will be out of our control.”

Tellingly, Kosovo’s only Islamist party got just 1.7 percent of the vote in the last election. Not even during the 1999 war, when ethnic Albanians were desperate for help, were Islamists welcome in Kosovo. Contrast this with Bosnia, which did accept help from mujahideen: after the European community imposed an arms embargo on all warring sides in Yugoslavia, leaving the barely armed Bosnians to twist in the wind, about 1,000 veterans of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan streamed into the country. “In Kosovo,” Berisha says, “they came to support us and we rejected them. . . . This is not jihad. We are not fighting for religion here. We are fighting for our freedom, for ourselves, and for our families.”

 

If that isn’t amazing enough, Kosovo’s Muslims are strong supporters of Israel. They identify with Israelis as people surrounded by enemies. And they proudly point to the record of Albania, their ethnic mother country, during the Holocaust:  Jews in Albania had a 100% survival rate, as both Christian and Muslim Albanians refused to surrender them to the Nazis. In fact, the Jewish population of Albania actually tripled during the war as Jews found a unique refuge there.

Some will object that Kosovars aren’t really Muslims at all, being so Westernized and secularized, much as most Israelis are. But the point is that it is up to them to choose their path, and they have chosen a path of religious tolerance and rejection of extremism. So, too, have the majority of Muslims in Western countries, but they need to be as firm in inculcating these values into their communities as the Kosovars have.

Please take some time to read the full article here:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_kosovo_muslims.html

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It is time for the world’s Muslims to take a stand

Posted by sanityinjection on December 3, 2008

I have many differences with Thomas Friedman, but I couldn’t agree more with his latest column in the New York Times regarding the reaction, or lack thereof, in the Muslim world to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Muslims around the world insist that it is not fair to lump them all in with terrorists when most are peaceful, law-abiding people. But if they wonder why they continue to be viewed with suspicion, it is because of the widespread half-heartedness among the Muslim community to combat terrorism and extremism from within.

To be sure, there are Muslim imams and other leaders who have spoken out against terrorism and condemned violence. What’s missing, though, is a coordinated effort within the Muslim Umma to stop the jihadis before they get started. In other words, Islamic terrorists don’t just spring up out of nowhere. They are nurtured by extremists preachers and madrassa schools, who fundraise and recruit in mainstream Muslim communities. Here’s a very small-scale example from a recent Muslim riot in Egypt against a Coptic Christian church:

“Muslims bought a parking lot across the street and started building a mosque — one of about five within a few blocks. It was from these mosques that the angry crowd rallied when word spread that the Copts were at prayer.” (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6383307)

I am sure there were plenty of peaceful Muslims at those mosques who did not attack the church. But how many of them made any attempt to dissuade their co-religionists from doing so? Islamic terrorism will only come to an end when those who fund, advocate, and perpetrate violence and hatred are publicly shunned by other Muslims.

This is no different than the responsibility of Israelis to condemn and discourage violent acts committed against Palestinians by fanatical Jewish settlers, or of Hindu political parties to condemn and discourage religious violence against Christians in India. If you don’t want to be blamed for something you’re not responsible for, all you have to do is speak out. Silence is tantamount to acceptance.

Let me use a different metaphor to illustrate the point. Let’s say a politician, any politician, we’ll use Barack Obama for name recognition, claims that he has my support, when in fact I do not support him. Of course he is wrong to make such a statement, but if I keep quiet and do not challenge that statement, it’s only reasonable that people will assume that I do in fact support him. Only if I speak up will anyone know that I do not endorse him.

Similarly, while it is wrong for the Islamic terrorists to claim that they are acting on behalf of true Islam, only by speaking out forcefully against them can Muslims show this to be untrue. One is reminded of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous lament, that it was through the silent acceptance of the majority that a fanatical minority (the Nazis) was allowed to become so powerful that eventually even the majority was no longer safe from them. The numerous Muslims who have been killed by terrorist attacks are a sad verification of this truth.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »