Israeli terrorists on the rise

As a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, I would naturally be accused of anti-Semitism if I were to say, “An evil wind of extremism, of hate, of maliciousness, of violence, of losing control, of lawbreaking, of contempt for the institutions of state, is passing though certain sections of the Israeli public.” This statement is in reference to Israeli terrorists who are threatening and attacking those who don’t agree with them.

But the statement was made by outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, so arguably, it’s not anti-Semitic but merely a statement of informed opinion based on facts.

And it’s interesting – and more than a little frustrating – that these extremist Israelis are not being called what they are: terrorists. For God’s sake, these people planted a bomb at the home of a prominent Israeli critic of the Settler Movement. This and other actions are described by Olmert as “threatening Israeli democracy and the ability of those in charge in Israel to make decisions, and the ability of people to freely express opinions without fearing that they will be hurt by wild and violent people, people who break the law and break the framework of normal democratic life.”

To any reasonable person, that is the definition of terrorism: causing fear and disruption of life.

But despite the fact that these people – the hard-core Settlers – are absolutely committed to wiping out the Arabs, think of them as sub-human, and see their killing as not just acceptable, but as a moral duty, they are somehow not called terrorists. And, just as important, they are not seen as characterizing Israelis or Jews as a whole.

This latter distinction is critical. Fear-mongers and racists like Daniel Pipes and Brigitte Gabriel look at the actions of radical Islamists and extrapolate them to all Muslims, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim; that any Muslim who really believes in their religion is necessarily in agreement with the radicals. But you can be sure that if the same logic were used to characterize Jews as being violent, racist, intolerant fanatics, they would (rightly) point out how absurd such a contention is.

Let’s be logical about this: if it’s indeed true that all 1 billion Muslims on the planet are as radical as the nut-cases we see publicized by the anti-Muslim folks, what chance would any country in the world have against them? The truth is that most Muslims see these radicals as so out-of-touch as to be beneath contempt. Most Muslims in Western nations are grateful for the opportunities afforded them. I know I thank God that my father came to the U.S. and that I was born here. The last thing on my mind is going to a “Muslim” country or changing the U.S. to be a “Muslim” country. As far as I’m concerned, the U.S. is just as Muslim as it is Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Pagan. Nobody stops me from worship or tells me I have to do it differently.

There are Israeli terrorists, just as there are Islamic terrorists. Most Muslims are moderate and want only peace, just as most Jews and Israelis are moderate and want only peace. It’s pathetic that extremists on both sides point to the evil elements in each others’ camps as evidence that an entire religion is worthy of contempt and persecution.

“Obsession” is biased, but so what?

Among those involved in the debate over radical Islam vs. “moderate” Islam, the film “Obsession” has become quite the spark for igniting fiery rhetoric. As a former journalist and a Muslim, I watched parts of the film as part of a Fox News report on it. Perhaps the report was not entirely unbiased (certainly the networked earned its stripes as a neo-con mouthpiece with that report), but nor did I find what I saw of “Obsession” to be all that egregious. It doesn’t purport to be a balanced look at Islam; it says right up front that it’s talking about the crazies – the ones that make me cringe when I hear them talk because they identify themselves and their views as representing true Islam.

The disclaimer that the film is not about the majority of Muslims – who it describes as peaceful – is derided by the film’s critics as hollow lip service, while the rest of the film “blurs the line” between the extremists and mainstream Muslims.

I suppose that’s true of viewers who aren’t discerning and apt to generalize inappropriately – and arguably that describes most of the American public, ignorant as it is about all things relating to Islam – but what would be the remedy to this criticism? Should the film’s producers have repeated the disclaimer several more times? Are they obligated to include just as many moderate Muslims in their film as they do radicals? Why?

Clearly, “Obsession” is a work of propaganda and fear-mongering. But it’s not the “hate speech” it’s being made out to be by critics like Hate Hurts America. It’s just plain-old free speech. And, as any red-blooded American knows, the answer to error is truth. Hate Hurts America is responding with detailed rebuttals and discussions about why “Obsession” is problematic for moderate Muslims, which is the way it ought to be. But I’m less enthused about it’s suggested remedies. It’s recommended action steps include badgering the newspapers into which the DVD was inserted (as a paid advertisement), and accusing them of carrying racist hate speech.

This, in my opinion, is unfortunate. It is taken from a page from the pro-Israelis’ play-book: accuse anyone with a concern about anything even tangentially related to Jews as being anti-Semitic. This, effectively, removes everyone’s ability to criticize the state of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism, no matter how egregious the behavior being addressed. If Muslims begin accusing people of “hate speech” for pointing out that there are hate-mongers in the Islamic world, it might end up being a successful strategy in the short-term, but it will stifle much-needed debate of radical Islam and its role in, and effects on, the rest of the Muslims throughout the world.

As a final note, I share the concerns expressed about those interviewed in “Obsession,” in that they are generally vitriolic, uncompromising and intellectually dishonest purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric that purposely seek to eliminate the demarcation between Islam and radical Islam. However, from what I’ve seen in “Obsession,” they largely kept the most heinous of those views under wraps, so the film should be evaluated on its face, rather than on its background.

Radical Islam vs. Islam

It seems to be quite in vogue for demagogues to make much of the threat posed by radical Islam. As a Muslim myself, I entirely agree. The problem is how people define “radical” Islam. Personally, I define it as the rigid, culturally-based (as opposed to divinely-inspired) religion practiced by the so-called “Wahhabis” prevalent in Arabia and other pockets throughout the Middle East, as well as in the backward hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They insist on treating women as second-class citizens, despite the fact that Islam was meant to provide women more rights than they previously had; they believe that Jihad is something to be waged violently at the slightest provocation, and against innocents, despite Islam’s injunction against such barbarity and requirements of mercy and forgiveness by the faithful; they insist on certain modes of dress and facial hair for men, despite the lack of any reference to such things in the Qur’an; they issue “fatwas” about coffee, cigarettes, music, television, cartoons and anything else they can think of, calling for death to those who disagree, let alone disobey.

In short, they have allowed their cultural biases to overwhelm the very clear words of the Qur’an – upon which they allegedly base their worldviews – and then construe their own biases as the word of God.

And because these people are the most vociferous, most threatening, and most sensationalist faction of Muslims today, they get the most press coverage, which fools Americans into thinking they are the majority of the religion. They are not. They are despised for their uncompromising sense of personal rectitude and looked down upon for their fanatical adherence to brittle rules unreflective of modern society. But most of all, they are disdained because of their inability to recognize that Islam came into being as a paradigm-shifting revolution in a society that was mysogynistic, heedless of the poor and helpless, and greed-centered in the extreme.

Islam gave women rights they had never dreamed of and required mercy and charity to all society’s members – including one’s enemies – to an unprecedented extent. Given this context, the logical conclusion is that Islam’s mission to reverse and prevent injustice should continue to this day, rather than remain stuck in an outdated historical context that renders it a tool of oppression in the hands of its “official” interpreters, rather than a tool of liberation.

So where are the voices of the moderates who believe that historically contextualizing Islam is important to its proper interpretation? Where are those of us who believe that the United States of America is just as perfect an “Islamic” country as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Egypt? For the most part, we’re everywhere. But we hide and stay relatively quiet. Why? Because unless our lives revolve around denoucing the radicals and advancing the cause of moderates, we have other concerns (family, job, aspirations for a peaceful family life) that prevent us from wanting our lives turned upside down by death threats and fatwas from the fanatics.

Nonetheless, there are some things we can do. I wrote a novel, for example, that I hope makes a difference. It starkly – and entertainingly, I hope, makes the case for differentiating between the Islamofascists and the real Muslims.

jacket-front-cover1