If Muslims had blamed Catholicism as a whole, citing some stuff in the Old Testament as the reason for Catholics in the IRA killing people in Ireland, then that would be okay, right?
It referred to the violence that has followed since including the murder of a nun in Somalia, the attacks on churches internationally, and the calls by Muslims to murder the Pope himself.
Was the Pope blaming Islam "as a whole" or quoting old text? In any case, Muslims are entitled to their opinion. Imagine if you can if mobs of Catholics burned down mosques, killed Muslims, and called for the murder of Muslim leaders simply because, as you stated, a mullah "blamed Catholicism as a whole and cited some stuff in the Old Testament as the reason for Catholics in the IRA killing people in Ireland." What do you think would happen? I'll wager that Catholic leaders, including of course Benedict himself, would quickly condemn those actions, and that the vast majority of Catholics would agree and do their utmost to right the wrong. Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslim voices condemning these actions - the murder of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches, the mobs mutilating effigys of the Pope and calling for his murder?
This is exactly what has been missing since 9/11 - an widespread, organized, unequivocal and ongoing condemnation of Islamic terrorism by this supposed majority of peaceful Muslims. I was waiting for it after 9/11... and it never came. Then when some teenage Muslims who were born here in Canada got busted for downloading a bunch of bomb-making instructions from the 'net and then trying to procure 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, the Canadian Islamic Congress or whatever the hell they're called (there are two competing groups up here) piped up and said... yep, you guessed it... this was racial profiling and ... wait for it because you're gonna love it the fact that this was front page news showed why 'disenfranchised' young Canadian Muslims would be attracted to these kinds of groups, and that these young Muslim terrorists in training were the victims because they were being tried in the press. The world's 1.3 billion Muslims remained silent after 9/11 because....because?
Not that I'm a fan of any religion, as I think they're for idiots (except Eastern religions -- far superior), but I think people that endlessly rant about how Muslim leaders don't speak out are being disingenuous and get a rise out of their own carte blanche to be ignorant. Take 3 seconds and look. http://www.google.com/search?source...GGIC:2006-36,GGIC:en&q=islam+condemn+violence I see scholars denouncing violence and terrorism after every major attack in online news, but of course they don't get much time in the light because no one knows who they are. A standard bonehead doesn't seem to realize that there is no equivalent to the pope in Islam. There is no one voice that commands attention. Islam is decentralized and dispersed, divided between two main interpretations of the religion that are vastly different. The violent and backward sects producing terrorists all happen to exist in the same key parts of the world, with the same dire GDP, corrupt evil governments, and unemployment. You never see bombings or riots by the HUGE number of Muslims in Xinjiang China, for instance. Muslims in the U.S. earn more than the mean of white Americans. They are better educated than the average American. Within one generation, their children are assimilated. Why is it ghettoized immigrants in France blow shit up, but no one blows anything up here? I have absolutely no love for Islam itself. But I have much less love for my countrymen who insist on being boneheads and dumbing down discourse. Boneheads attempt to blame Islam itself while ignoring demographics and factors based on political economy. It's easy to be a bonehead, but it is not good to be a bonehead. See?
As I just mentioned, the kids up here in Canada who are in jail right now were all born here - think baggy jeans and Nikes and 'yo-yo, what's up dawg?'. 3 tons of ammonium nitrate and bomb making plans... right? I too hesitated to blame Islam, preferring instead to lay the blame for brutal terrorism at the feet of bad individuals. That link you provided didn't do your argument much good, because if you look carefully at the hits on the first few pages, many of them have nothing to do with Islamists condemning violence. The problem is that the search returns pages with any combination of these three words. (As an aside, you may want to do these searches using closed quotes. The search for "Islamists condemn violence" returns these results. There are 22 hits. I am not sure what this means). At any rate, you talked about Muslim clerics speaking out (you describe them as 'scholars'; I don't think there's much of a distinction, in most cases; all clerics are scholars, but the opposite may not be true). Of course there will be clerics who say 'we condemn these attacks'. I was waiting for an organized and unequivocal reaction from ordinary citizens. There has been nothing of the kind.
Your hesitation to blame Islam, at first, is very noble. A hard struggle in us all to not blame entire religons when someone does something stupid. An organized and unequivocal reaction from ordinary citizens? Gotcha. Like, say, the organized reaction from ordinary U.S. citizens when soldiers massacred civilians in Haditha, shooting children and old men in the head? Or Abu Ghraib? How about an organized unequivocal reaction from ordinary Catholics for the sexual abuse of children? Let's be honest. You know these things don't exist and you would never see it if it did. Be honest even further: in the West, if an evangelical Christian demands the murder of homosexuals, we do not expect the entire community to denounce that person. But the moment a Muslim from North Africa burns a car in Paris, boneheads expect entire Muslim communities in Canada to beg for forgiveness. And not in their communities alone, but to contact journalists for every English speaking newspaper and perhaps knock on your door. This is because in the Western mind, there is a slight temptation to think all Muslims are either secretly plotting our deaths or frothing at the mouth with an AK-47, burning a flag. And we <i>like</i> thinking this and being able to express those thoughts, a little, don't we? Bonehead talk on forums like this makes it seem easier for people to ACTUALLY think that's true, and not know the obvious truth that the majority of Muslims are people with families and jobs who just want to live in peace. I encourage you to do a search for yourself on Muslims who condemn terrorism and the violence of 9/11. In fact, read more about Muslims in general. It is everyone's responsibility to learn to not be a bonehead by reading things outside of our normal scope. http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ She's a decent start. Quite anti-war, but if you read about her experiences, you get a better picture of why.
Your point is taken, but I feel it misses some essential points. Yes, Islam is fragmented and has no centralized voice, unlike Catholicism does with the Pope. So what? You say you read about Muslim "scholars" condemning Muslim violence, but why haven't the head Muslim clerics in each Middle Eastern country - Sunni or Shi'a - condemned these threats on the Pope, the killing of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches? And how about the heads of state? Are you telling me it wouldn't be big news if, for example, Sistani in Iraq condemned it, or the Ayatollah in Iran? You also fail to point out that leading clerics and Muslim political leaders are demanding the Pope's apology and calling his remarks, among other things, ignorant and an assault on Islam. Furthermore, those links you posted - not one in the first three pages of links mentions Muslims in the Middle East condemning the action of other Muslims about violence related to the Pope's statement. Not one! Also, many of the ones I took the time to click on are organizations in the West, not the Middle East, and even among them there is dissention about apologizing. What was interesting in the ones mentioning Muslim authorities in the Middle East, many were about the Danish cartoons, not about the Pope issue. Furthermore, those very same articles pointed out that, although some Muslim clerics had condemned the violence in the wake of the Danish cartoons, their governments had acted in the opposite manner and did things such as recall their ambassadors from Denmark in protest. Do another google search using these keywords: Islam Pope Condemn Violence - and see what you come up with. You should find it interesting. The bottom line is that although, as you have pointed out, that Islam is fragmented, the heads of these fragments have not come out and condemned these actions against the Pope. If the situation were reversed, I am positive condemnation by Catholics worldwide - religious leaders, common citizens, politicians - not just "scholars," would be much louder and swifter than what we have heard from the Middle East Muslims on this issue. You also say, "The violent and backward sects producing terrorists all happen to exist in the same key parts of the world, with the same dire GDP, corrupt evil governments, and unemployment." Well, why is it, then, that the major terrorists, i.e. bin Laden, many of the 9/11 hijackers, the guy whose supposed to lead the next attack on the US, "Jaffar the Pilot," come from backgrounds that were far from "dire" and in fact middle or upper class? So do your research before you accuse those of us who point out the flaccid nature of Islamic response to the Pope issue as being "disingenuous" and "ignorant." Don't be a bonehead.
Quote from hapaboy: You say you read about Muslim "scholars" condemning Muslim violence, but why haven't the head Muslim clerics in each Middle Eastern country - Sunni or Shi'a - condemned these threats on the Pope, the killing of the nun in Somalia, the burning of churches? And how about the heads of state? Who are these "head Muslim clerics" and what did they say about these events? You have to know who they are to make this claim, so I'm curious. I don't even know, and I doubt you do either. What did they say about 9/11 for that matter? What did Tony Blair say about Haditha? What did Pat Robertson say when Anne Coulter said we should invade every Muslim country and convert them all to Christianity? ... Are these smart questions or bonehead questions? <b>Are you telling me it wouldn't be big news if, for example, Sistani in Iraq condemned it, or the Ayatollah in Iran?</b> It would be big news. But that's because it's Sistani and the Ayatollah of Iran. These are people put in power by people who represent the theocratic, reactionary groups who have a specific hatred of the U.S. and Israel (and, might I add, Operation Ajax by the CIA was a direct cause of these people's prominence in the first place). Yes, these reactionaries form a large part of many ME countries, and their political leaders pander to them to maintain power. But we are not asking whether radicals exist, but talking about Islam, and Muslims -- since boneheads are claiming that Islam and Muslims are, by nature, radical. <b> You also fail to point out that leading clerics and Muslim political leaders are demanding the Pope's apology and calling his remarks, among other things, ignorant and an assault on Islam.</b> Again, who are "leading" clerics and who do they represent? And ... why is it an issue if they're calling for an apology and calling it an assault on Islam...? <b>Furthermore, those links you posted - not one in the first three pages of links mentions Muslims in the Middle East condemning the action of other Muslims about violence related to the Pope's statement. Not one!</b> so .......? <b>Also, many of the ones I took the time to click on are organizations in the West, not the Middle East</b> ....so? <b>What was interesting in the ones mentioning Muslim authorities in the Middle East, many were about the Danish cartoons, not about the Pope issue.</b> ....so......? <b>the heads of these fragments have not come out and condemned these actions against the Pope. If the situation were reversed, I am positive condemnation by Catholics worldwide - religious leaders, common citizens, politicians - not just "scholars," would be much louder and swifter than what we have heard from the Middle East Muslims on this issue.</b> Find out for me how long it took Bush to comment on Haditha. It seems as if every time there is any controversy you expect all Muslims across the world to immediately inform the English speaking press that they disagree with what some extremists somewhere say. If they don't, or if they say something to their community only, or if they say something to the press and you don't hear about, then ... what? All Muslims are sympathetic with extremists? You have carte blanche to assume they hate you and want to rape your wife? <b> Well, why is it, then, that the major terrorists, i.e. bin Laden, many of the 9/11 hijackers, the guy whose supposed to lead the next attack on the US, "Jaffar the Pilot," come from backgrounds that were far from "dire" and in fact middle or upper class?</b> This is supreme bonehead think. Never did I say that ALL terrorists come from poverty. I never will. But it's an extremely OBVIOUS fact that extremism finds ripe breeding ground in areas where there is high unemployment, low development, and where the middle class has little access to the political process. It's a waste of time for me to get in convesations with people that don't understand this very basic observation that people have been saying for centuries. Pick up the "Eurabia" issue of the Economist if you think this opinion is hairbrained. Look closely at this map: http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/cartoons_protests.html This should make my point a bit more clear. And before you get an enormous erection and think all those red dots are huge, massive zones of bloodshed, zoom in and look at each country.