The battle over Islam

[Azat]

The battle over Islam

10/11/01

Larry Elder

 

They sought to issue a joint statement of condemnation of the terrorist attacks. Nineteen Christian and a dozen Muslim delegates -- members of the clergy, scholars and theologians -- assembled. But the delegates smashed into a roadblock.

 

The Islamic delegation agreed to condemn the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, but insisted on condemning Israel for its alleged "terrorism" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. George Freeman, the general secretary of the World Methodist Council, said, "The Islamic Community wanted the document to say something about Palestine, but that wasn't something everybody could agree with."

 

Mohammed Said Noamani of Iran's Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations insisted, "America has contributed to many terrorist attacks in the world: Vietnam ... the continuous support for Israel against the Palestinian people. For that reason, America cannot be the champion of the struggle against terrorism in the world." So the summit concluded with a watered-down statement generally condemning violence against innocents, but failing to specifically condemn the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

 

President George W. Bush repeatedly calls Islam a "religion of peace." But how many Arab leaders or Muslim clerics residing in the Middle East said, "The act committed by these people -- in the name of my religion -- is a sin, an act of pure evil that denies the perpetrators admission to Paradise"? Oh, certainly, Arab leaders and others issued statements condemning the attacks, but take a look at the fine print.

 

For example, Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia (a "moderate" ally of the United States), said, "Our action should be directed at the criminals, and we shouldn't seek revenge. Instead, we should punish the guilty and bring them to justice." But he also added, "Israel is a terrorist state, based on occupation, and is ruled by a world-famous terrorist." The foreign minister urged the United States to avoid "the Israeli version of terrorism, which defines resisting occupation as a form of terrorism." This is "moderation"? Other "moderate" leaders, scholars and commentators in the Arab world, while condemning the Sept. 11 attacks, insisted on accusing Israel of committing terrorism.

 

Hours after the United States-led coalition bombing of Afghanistan began, an Arab news organization aired videotape of Osama bin Laden, a speech he apparently filmed before the airstrikes against Afghanistan. On the videotape, bin Laden never denies his involvement in the terrorist attacks. In fact, he praises the terrorists and says, "When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States. I ask God Almighty to elevate their status and grant them Paradise. He is the one who is capable to do so."

 

Bin Laden expects God to grant these terrorists admission into Paradise. Again, how many Arab leaders and Muslim clerics in the Arab world issued a statement denouncing bin Laden's interpretation of the Koran as "perverse," a "sacrilege" or a "sin against Islam"?

 

Now, before we brand the Islamic-Christian Summit a complete bust, note that the delegates did agree on one thing. They condemned Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for his alleged "racist" remarks. Berlusconi's crime? After the terrorist attacks, he said, "We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries."

 

About Berlusconi's remarks, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the archbishop of Milan, said, "The terrorists must be identified and disarmed, but that cannot be done if an entire culture, religion or nation is held responsible." How dare Berlusconi suggest a superiority of the West, where the people elect their representatives, and where citizens enjoy individual rights such as the freedom to worship any God, or no God? How dare he argue the inherent superiority of freedom? Who does he think he is?

 

In his latest videotape address, bin Laden warns America, "As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed ... " The failure of Arab leaders and Muslim clerics in the Arab world to denounce Osama bin Laden as an infidel suggests two things. Either many agree with his goals, if not his tactics; or, Arab leaders fear reprisals if they condemn bin Laden. Either way, bad news.

 

Islam now stands at a crossroads. And the burden rests on the majority who call Islam a "religion of peace" to show us that they mean it.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryel...e20011011.shtml

[ThornyRose]

Some of them very good points, though not entirely, IMHO.

Religion of peace - let them prove it if they claim to rule Islamic states. If there isn't anyone sensible who stands up to defend the name of the "religion of peace" as just that, then it shows that people have been lied to - not that it makes a whole world of difference - it's just that some people who had been practicing "tolerance to the point of indifference" (copyright Thorny, 2001 - LOL) will think twice before they "respect" everything. If only those living in the West and Turkey could also reassess their Muslim identities. Unlikely.

 

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thorny Rose ]

[ThornyRose]

One thing I had meant to say was: does the U.S. allow a country that oppresses 51% of its population (the average percentage for females in a country) to be its ally? Yes. Does it allow a country that doesn't say what it likes about Israel to be its ally? It will doubt the sincerity of that ally. Exactly what is the author's problem here? Where was he before? Why is he turning it into a moral dilemma (of "saying theirs is a religion of peace and they meant it") when there wasn't a moral problem with the Saudi regime's treatment of women and why only now? Religion of peace because warring acts do not respect boundaries, right? But human rights, especially those of women, are not that important, since that regime is not going to flow out of its borders, right? As if the Saudis will threaten to raise oil prices if someone from the State Department criticizes them for their treatment of women - as if they did think about it when Madeleine Albright gently scolded them "on the gender issues" (CNN from over six years back).

I wouldn't say that Israel is a terrorist state, although very, very cruel in its ways (the torture done in prisons ought to remind us of Turkey's records - and the bull-dozing of homes and similar acts), and I do condemn the "Palestinian strugglers" for their methods, namely, the use of terrorism (they have created more enemies than sympathizers in a world where everyone was to sympathize with Israel anyway).

[bellthecat]

Under new legislation just announced by Britain's prime minister/"Great Leader" Tony Blair, Larry Elder would certainly be imprisoned for writing this artice. Chriticising Islam (or any organised religion) will soon be classed as a "racist hate crime" in Britain, with those who commit it subject to severe punishment.

[ThornyRose]

... which will translate into many people feeling safe and venting out only on the internet, like me.

[ThornyRose]

The answer is a big "no." Reason: I don't know what kind of a reaction I might get. I go by the motto, "Better paranoid than regretful." Haven't done so within close circles of friends, haven't done so within family, given the opinions of both on this issue (and the way they see me as "muhalefetçi" anyway, someone who opposes everything [untrue - but I do say some things that probably seem weird to them - if only they gave it a moment's thought ]).
Actually, my mother and her family could be sanction for me, but... They are not everything.
I'm also thinking, perhaps that group of high-school friends might be the best ones to talk about these to... Those two girls... But they are too busy with their own lives, I'm left with the "dumb" part of the group (maintenance of close ties still continued). I'd actually like to talk to the one whose mother is from Muş sometime - I wonder if there is anything she can tell me that I might find value in knowing...
I'm not the only one to be worried for career (though I doubt I will be working for the state, in any way) and even life (OK, that's too paranoid - nobody fanatic is going to go after a little girl - maybe if I were some "alternative" journalist - still - read motto above). Ali has made mention of similar. He HAS recognized it in public, even in the presence of retired army officers... But then, he's a big boy.

When it comes to the religion thing and especially Islam, I do not refrain from voicing my opinions, except with my aunts, because they are very religious and would be hurt no matter what you say. After all these years, how are you going to make them accept that reading the Qur'an while not understanding Arabic, just mumbling it, is ridiculous? So, that is a different matter.
Actually, one funny thing was that, when we three friends went to our summer practice together last year (myself and two boys), one used to go home after work and come back in the morning - the other stayed with his uncle and I stayed in the guest-house. There were other kids, so we used to talk at length about things. Therefore, the one who stayed with his uncle knew I was an atheist.
Well, the other never got to learn about that, apparently (make that "oddly"), and, just recently, said atheists were dumb. I looked at him, amused, but he didn't get it. I think the other one told him about it sometime - I've never heard the follow-up of that!

[ThornyRose]

Just looked up the word "sanction" - it's not the right word... What was I thinking of?

Make that "safe-haven," though it's not quite what I wanted to say.

[Azat]

Hey Thorny
I think the authors "problem" is with our leaders who for the last month have been claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion and that what happened on the 11th of September is not something that Islam loving people would do. I feel like he is asking the questions that many of us ask here which is "if it is against Islam, how come it is not being condemned by Islamic scholars" (I do have to say that it could also be the US media not mentioning anything about Islamic Scholars condemning it) Larry Elder similar to Rush Limbaugh(sp?) and Bill O'Riley is a conservative reported and he has been in TV and Radio for some 5-10 years in the US. (By the way, I am atheist myself and I know about Islam as much as I know about Christianity and Buddhism which is not much)

In regards to your comments about Israel. I would partially agree with you. I do think that Israel does commit some acts that can be classified terroristic, however government of Israel has the responsibility for the safeguards of it's citizens and they claim they do everything for that reason.

I do have a question for you personally. I know in many countries Internet surfing is controlled. People are restricted to visit all sites. Is this also true in Turkey, or can you visit any site you wish?

[wh00t]

Thorny, have you ever publicly recoginized the Genocide in Turkey? If yes, what was the reaction? If no, why not?

[aurguplu]

thorny,

 

1. is the word you are looking for "sanctuary"?

 

2. reactions to public recognition of the armenian genocide can be diverse:

 

i. some, esp. in the conservative traditionalist faction either look at you with sarcastic eyes and say "who are they? i don't know them." and when you reply with a capsule description of them (not containing the genocide), they reply back "are you one of those who says that there was a genocide, and that we should give anatolia back to the greeks, armenians and kurds?" it is a waste of time and probably dangerous to talk to them.

 

ii. some others say that it was a tit-for-tat, or merely in self-defense, as they had rebelled and tried to carve up the empire. it is very difficult to argue against them, as a) what they say is partially true, and a lot of turks have had personal experience of armenian brutality in ww1 and later in the independence war, they are understandably not symphatetic to anything armenian and their attitude is pretty much a mirror image of the general armenian attitude towards the turks.

 

iii. some others say that it is all lies, and that we good turks should not believe in them, for they (the west) is still trying to put an end to the existence of turks.

 

iv. some tell personal experiences of the genocide, like an armenian grandmother (surprisingly common), the loss of armenian neighbours, the loss of their masters (many artisans, especially the coppersmiths of erzincan. others say that they know in their village people who tried to save the armenians, and perished with them (quite common, this is gonna be serious trouble for the turkish govt when they recognise the genocide).

 

v. an enormous number of people who try to hush it up are ex-armenians. it is even said that by looking at the current name of such a "suspect", you can in some cases tell the original armenian name. for instance, vahap is basically vahan or vartan, numan is nubar, arman is ara (arman is also an armenian name, but some turks have it) erman is either arman or armen, ragıp and yakop are hagop, hayri is hayk, and there are a few others. i have found these ex-armenians the most difficult (and untrustworthy) ones to deal with.

 

vi. there are quite a few people, especially amongst the kurds, and in the anatolian countryside, who had armenian neighbours and deplore their fate. these do not deny the genocide (or rather the killings, the concept of genocide is a bit abstract to them) and mistrust the government or anything that smacks ofthe state. many yörük and türkmen tribes saved quite a few armenians from the massacres, and were in any case horribly treated by the ottoman state throughout the centuries.

 

vii. your sophisticated intellectual city-dweller accepts the killings, and then goes on to extreme lengths to "prove" that they were not part of a genocide. they would go as far as saying that turks would be incapable of genocide, because if they were, then why didn't they do it earlier on, when they were strongest. i personally find it rather tedious to argue with such people, especially when i know that their attitude is not sincere in any case. besides, i happen to be a straighforward man, and simply not capable of nor inclined to the pseudo-logical, -philosophical, and linguistic gymnastics these people resort to. they are expert demagogues.

 

 

viii. some are more or less along my lines.

 

ix. some, usually among the the grey wolves, say things like "serves them right, they killed us we killed them back, i wish there were more so we could kill more of them, we gave them a lesson they still didn't get it, let's give another one, the ottomans were so stupid not to have killed them off when they had the power, etc etc". i deem it pretty dangerous to hang around anywhere near these guys and usually keep silent when i see them.

 

x. some deplore the whole thing, and yearn for the "good old days" of the empire when everybody lived in harmony. of course, they know zilch about the last century.

 

azat,

 

i doubt if the internet is controlled in turkey. i have been saying what i have been saying for a year now, and am still alive.

 

regards,

[Azat]

Ali,

I did not mean controlled as in what you could say, but what sites you could visit. There have been reports at in China and in Iran people could not visit any old site they wanted, I was just wondering if Turkey had controls like so.

Azat

[ThornyRose]

I'm not sure, though I have experienced weird things. Maybe you guys can help me out on this. Here is what: I was looking for something sometime, and I clicked on what it was that I had found on Yahoo. The page said "Error How-Many-Hundred Whatever: Access Forbidden" or something like that. I thought it was odd, because I was going after an HTML document. I noticed it was something on ozgurluk.org... No amount of going back to parent directories (ozgurluk.org on its own COULD be accessed) or whatever helped, because I couldn't find my way back to that document through whatever links. I had recently been experimenting with anonymizing software, and I turned it on - and voila! It downloaded. So, whadaya guys say?
I had saved the url for future reference; unfortunately, like everything else in my previous HD, I have lost it.
I think there is some such censorship, but it is so little of this that it goes un-noticed by us. The contents of that file weren't that objectionable, actually, so I am suspicious of this whole business in every which way.

[ThornyRose]

Yes, thank you.

[wh00t]

Thank you both Thorny and Ali for your informative responses.

[aurguplu]

ladies & gentleman

 

it is a fact that many sites give error: unable to retrieve the requested url etc. i do not know whether this is the result of turkish censorship, poor maintenance on the part of the website concerned, problems with electronic data transfer, or simply something wrong with my hardware, or worse still, with my ability to use the computer (i am a homo neanderthalensis electronicus when it comes to using technological gadgetry).

 

certainly, quite a few sites are off my reach, but since i have never been unable to reach certain well-known sites where i could get my daily dose of turk-bashing, i doubt it is intentional.

 

regards,

[ThornyRose]

But then how to explain how and why one can circumvent these barriers with such a simple thing as changing your IP address to one that does not originate in Turkey?

[aurguplu]

thorny,

 

i don't know. i don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of internet communication to comment. all i can say is that if you want to be exposed to hefty doses of anti-turkish propaganda, all you have to do is log in, point your mouse and click. if anyone is out there to prevent us access to it, they are not very efficient, are they? after all, what are we turks doing in an armenian forum? would the national security council approve of such subversive behaviour?

[ThornyRose]

I don't think it should come as a surprise, for, as everything else in the hands of whoever involved with government or state, it is handled half-brainedly.