This week, always-controversial President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinejad gave a speech at the United Nations in which he effectively claimed the U.S. government was conspiratorially involved in the Sept 11 attacks on its own people. Specifically, Mr. Ahmedinejad claimed that among the prevailing "theories" about responsibility for the attacks, was:
In response, the United States (which hosts the United Nations headquarters in downtown NYC), all 27 members of the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, immediately walked out of the General Assembly in open protest (a common diplomatic move to express displeasure).
In response to the remarks, American President Barack Obama said in a speech, that the suggestion of American involvement in 9/11 was "offensive" and "hateful":
Now, call me crazy: but I think we should do as Ahmedinejad says. Hear me out:
First of all, the man gets away with saying what can only be called crazy bullshit very often, yet receives a considerable degree of respect in the non-Western world because he manages to make these claims without being effectively countered or shamed by his opponents in the US, EU, and elsewhere. So, it's time to end his reign of crazy in the international community.
Here's what I say, Mahmoud: I'll consent to the creation of an independent commission to study whether the US government (or "certain segments") were active co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. On one condition: if the commission's finding's do not support your stated "widely supported" theory, then you will come to Washington D.C. and deliver a formal letter of apology to the people of New York and the United States of America in general, and be barred from speaking at the United Nations General Assembly for the remainder of your term.
It's time you were muzzled, and this time, I want to see your own words do it. Let's go Ahmedinejad, back up what you say you analyze to be the truth. If, of course, you're man enough, and not some shadow of a real leader making empty gestures to make up for your lack of real power with rhetorical attacks on this country and our integrity. Go ahead and decide.
Watching the coverage of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has made me progressively angrier, primarily because the entire debate is based off of misconceptions and false logic. The argument over the building of this mosque/community center has become a microcosm for Muslims' place in American society, and as such it bears thoughtful, thorough analysis---and is being given none on the airwaves. In an effort to defend Muslims' equality in this nation, here's some of the most popular myths, misconceptions, and downright lies about Islam and its followers, and why they need to go away. 1: "Islam is a political religion! They want to take over! The Koran says their duty is to spread their religion over the whole world!"
This one's popular among Islamophobes because, at its core, this statement is true. Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad in roughly 610 AD, but his followers in Mecca were persecuted by the existing authorities, so they fled to Medina to start a kingdom there, with Muhammad as leader. He and his successors were incredibly efficient in conversion and conquest, eventually coming to rule vast swathes of what is now called the Middle East and North Africa. This rule spread the Islamic faith across continents, until it dominated more than a billion (almost 20%) of the world's people.
If you're wondering, Mohammed was REALLY GOOD at Risk.
Muslims, believing that their faith is the true religion of Allah (who would adhere to a religion they didn't believe was true?), feel it is their duty to spread this truth to every corner of the Earth, to the benefit of mankind. Those who violently oppose this spread are subject to war with Islam.
It's that last bit that has Christians, but many others, worried about the intentions of Muslims, particularly Muslim immigrants in the West. And it's true, look how worrisome this text is. God tells the reader that the people of a different religion in their land must be destroyed:
Frightening, eh? But wait, that's the Bible, commanding the Jews to commit what can only be described as genocide: the text doesn't make exceptions for women, children, animals, unarmed bystanders, it just says kill everything. How horrifying! Should we be worried that our Christian neighbors going to church on Sundays are secretly plotting our murder? "No," you say, "because they're rational people who live righteous lives without having to follow the murderous commands of every verse in the bible." Right...and so, what's the difference between that, and the Muslims who abide all our laws, live well, and choose not to follow the more violent parts of the Koran?
See folks, there's just one problem with accusing Islam of being a political religion: virtually every other religion is political as well.
Ever wonder why the largest Christian denomination on Earth is called the ROMAN Catholic Church? Because it was decreed into existence by the Roman Emperor Constantine, in the Edict of Milan. Long story short, it was the Emperor who not only legalized Christianity, but formed one church from it, and organized the Bible's contents. The Catholic Church would become the main source of political law in not only Rome, but the Medieval kingdoms to follow, and for more than one thousand years dominated politics of the European continent.
That's just one huge example, and the Catholic Church takes a lot of heat. "But Eric," you might argue, "that's just one Christian religion. You can't say Catholics represent all Christianity!" And to that I would say "how are you talking to me in an article? But anyway, you're right, I'm being unfair." So, let's see: there's religious conservatives, self-proclaimed activists who point to their religious doctrines, mainly the Bible, for influence in politics. They range from the Catholic to the Evangelical to the Presbyterian and Methodist, and everything in between. These very same people who are arguing against the mosque being built because of Islam's political nature, happen to also claim that America's politics should be dominated by Christianity (note--only watch up to 1:40, the rest is the host's opinons):
Here's my other problem with that claim: if Muslims want to take over the country, where are they? (Besides Obama, of course...) I mean, if Islam is so dominant a political powerhouse, then why are there no major Islamic political movements? Why is the Tea Party winning some elections but no Muslim party is registering on the radar? Maybe the Secret Muslims are taking seats in Secret Congress so they can pass Secret Laws to Secretly Rule Behind The Scenes America...or maybe the idea that there's an active attempt by Muslims to dominate American politics is bullshit and fearmongering. Moreover, given the fact that these Christians want to dominate politics to establish their own theological laws, the accusation that "Islam is a political religion" reads more like thinly-veiled attempt to drown out their competition than a real warning to fellow Americans.
"Warning! There's only 130 of us to every 1 Muslim! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"
Let's look at reality here people: every religion in existence, by the simple reality of possessing rules for how you should live and conduct your affairs, is a political religion. A community made up entirely of Christians will live according to Christian rules. A community made up entirely of Muslims will live according to Muslim rules. A community, such as ours, made up of a huge amalgamation of every people, race, tongue, and religion known to mankind, must find common ground to live on, not attempt to dominate and castigate one another.
"Islam is a violent religion, just look at the Koran!"
Obviously, this claim begs us to actually look at the Koran to tell whether it's true. So, let me get my trusty copy out, and look...oh, here we go, violence:
"[If a man tells you to follow another God,] thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from...thy God"
"Honey, those Mormons are back at the door!"
Aw Islam, you and brutally stoning people for proselytizing their faith to you, it's like peanut butter and---oh, wait, whoopsie folks, I'm afraid this is a quote from the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:9). Let's try that again. Ok, here we are, one that demonstrates Islam's desire to conquer in the name of God and glorify it:
"[Our proud kingdom] smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them."
Wow, God gives you free reign to attack and murder those who hate you? How can any religion under a peace-loving God believe tha-- oh wait, that's the Jews. That's the Jews killing all of their enemies, proclaimed with the help of God, in Esther 9:5.
Then there's the genocidal reference from the previous section. You see my point? Just because a text says something violent, and even if some adherents of the religion have acted on that text (David and Solomon, Pope Urban II, etc), does not and should not condemn all the adherents of a religion. Most religions have embarrassing textual issues, that's just the reality of trying to believe in something written for the harsh times and rules of the Iron Age. But, then, that's a problem of....
Guilt by association We all know the burnouts from our schools: the kids who never cared, who didn't want to be told what to do, and will end up serving you a McFlurry one day, provided they stay out of prison. Every single school has them. Now imagine for a second, if you applied for college, and they pulled up that kid's record from your school. And evaluated YOU based on HIS record.
That's what judging regular Muslims against the record of terrorists is---that's the logic involved. Terrorists are burnout, monstrous idiots who also happen to have guns and bombs. And we lump in every other person because we don't know much about the religion to make the distinction.
Imagine, for instance, that Americans were judged by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, that somewhere in the world there are people who believe that, by association, you must also be a skinhead, anti-Semitic racist maniac. That's insane, nobody's done that, right? Wrong:
This is a poster from the Soviet Union during the Cold War, enlarged so you can see details. The caption reads "FREEDOM...AMERICAN STYLE." The Soviets pointed out that the freedom and tolerance-loving American people also had the KKK and lynchings, along with the armed breaking up of protests shown in the bottom right. Now, think about it: technically, the poster isn't even lying. The United States HAS had these people and events take place: KKK lynchings, Kansas State protests that resulted in deaths. But tell me this: is it fair that the USSR, or anyone else, judge the entire country and all its people based on these things? Do you like the idea of being spoken for by the KKK? Of course not.
Well then why do we justify doing the same thing to Muslims? The counter-argument is often that Muslims all believe in the same religion, thus they must reach the same conclusion. Really? Because the KKK and the Unabomber and the Olympic Park bombers of 1996 were all Christians. So, using the Bible as inspiration, should all we Christians reach the same conclusion about sending bombs through the mail, hanging blacks and Jews and Catholics, and loading up pipe bombs with shrapnel in the middle of crowded places? I think not. Similar to what Christians would say of the Bible, the Koran is a document heavily open to interpretation, and many Muslims have divergent opinions on exactly how and what to emphasize certain aspects of the writing. Judging them all on the views of minorities is very simply wrong. But that brings me to my last idea to counter:
"Violent Muslims aren't a minority of Muslims! Many of them see violence as ok and will kill Americans here!"
Now this one is probably the single most insulting of those covered in this post because you are legitimately calling an entire group of people murderers or would-be murderers. Let's back this up, shall we?
However, those who look at the numbers realize that Muslim Americans are solidly American citizens, with the greatest rates of accepting their society and functioning well there, as well as providing some of the smallest amounts of danger of any Muslim or general minority population anywhere.
Now, America's always been a highly successful immigration-oriented state, so this makes sense. Americans can be xenophobic, but generally our society and institutions are built to accept a large number of immigrants and build them into our society. The fact is, the system is working with Muslims just as well as it did with my Italian and Hispanic ancestors, and the Irish, German, Chinese, and African immigration waves before: hiccups and struggles with discrimination yes, but otherwise contributing well to the migrants and the Americans "already here".
So, why do we think Muslims will just start shooting at us at random? Well, paranoia and fearmongering. The American media and state have been very effective at making terrorism, particularly Islamic-based terrorism, seem like a real and ever-present threat to every American. And while this threat should be taken seriously, it has been significantly played up. There isn't a terrorist ready to blow you up in every major city. But, the true threat of terror is a topic I'll cover in the future---just know that the perception that Muslim=terrorist and terrorist=EVERYWHERE is pretty wrong.
Conclusion If you have gotten to this point, let me begin by thanking you for sticking it out. I understand this was a long, verbose document and reaching the end is no small feat, as I think even I might have abandoned such a long post by now. However, I have a few words in closing.
First, let me emphasize that I am proud to count among my friends several believers in the Islamic faith. I have benefited both from their personal contributions to my life as well as the perspectives their faith has offered at different times. Their value is not tied to their faith, but it is also certainly not a detractor.
Furthermore, I have never once believed myself to be in danger around these friends. They are good friends of mine who I do not think of as Muslims first, so why would I feel any more insecure than I would with Christian, Atheist, or any other friend of mine. So, when people begin to discuss "Muslims" as one, monolithic institution, they are choosing to lump my friends into the discussion---and when they then insult that proud religion through lies, misinterpretation, and challenge their freedom to exercise their faith, they are launching an attack directly on my friends. Because of the way I view friendship, by extension they are launching an attack on me. I do not take this lightly.
As such, I feel strongly on this issue. I refuse to lie down and ignore the hateful, deceitful rhetoric coming not simply from ignorant backwaters, but from self-proclaimed educated and trustworthy sources like Fox News. These people regularly insist on their own rights to exercise religion and influence society with it. Yet when they turn around and insist that these rights either be denied or self-limited by Muslim-Americans, they are acting counter to the entire purpose of the American system. Commonly, conservatives and other groups so fearful of Muslim influence call upon the Founding Fathers for answers in their debates (which is a fallacy-style argument I'll cover in a future post). But, let's see about the Founders' feelings then, shall we? Washington himself claimed that he had no discrimination against Muslims, and would welcome some to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen", the requirement he used for any worker. Jefferson was proud that the Virginia legislature did not issue any limitations on religious freedoms for anyone, including Muslims, a topic which had been raised. The Founders saw religion as only one factor in judging a person, not the principal means.
I'll close with the support of the first generation of Americans, signing a petition no fewer than 225 years ago:
"Let Jews, Mehometans [Muslims] and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys" .... "It is men's labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds [emphasis mine].
Even the founding generation of this nation, with less information about Islam, less interaction with Muslims, and less reason to tolerate them, viewed them with the same eyes that the Reverend King would have, insisting on the "content of their character" and their ability to contribute to society, not their religion, which is no indicator of them as a person. From 1785, to 1963, to today, this has been a unifying value of American democracy. Let us not, after so much progress, give this value up because of madmen. Stand in the face of fear and, like millions of Americans before you, show that it has no bearing on the greatness this country has to offer.
