Of President Obama, Politics, and the Another War-on-Terror Blog

This seems to be the weekend for navel-gazing on this blog: but I think it may help clear up a few points.

This Blog isn't Political

I've written a sort of disclaimer, from time to time, pointing out that this isn't a political blog.

I've noted that most blogs dealing with the War on Terror, or whatever the current conflict will be called, have a very identifiable political stand. They're either conservative, or liberal.

That is, I suppose, understandable. People who have decided that the west, as it exists, has to removed in the defense of Islam have a great deal of determination. And since their actions have, so far, killed several thousand people in New York skyscrapers, they are now extremely difficult to ignore.

The subject is emotional, and touches on real and perceived security: so it has become involved in politics.

But, I do not think the War on Terror is, essentially, a political phenomenon.

I do, however, sometimes discuss political matters. That's because in America, leaders are chosen by political means - and their decisions affect the conflict that is the topic of this blog.

I Must be a Conservative, Right?

Wrong. I discussed this yesterday, in "A Digression, About This Blogger."

My views, insofar as they are political, and affect my views of the War on Terror, are least unlike those of a contemporary American conservatives. But that's as far as I'll go.

President Barack Obama: An Historic Presidency

Barack Obama is America's first black president. For that reason alone, practically everything he does will be "historic" in one way or another.

He's also, to the best of my recollection, America's first Hawaiian president. But that's not considered to be quite so important these days. I suspect that someday, as Hawaii's role in the union is more in the forefront of American thought than it is now, America's first Hawaiian president will overshadow America's first black president.

I'm getting off-topic, but not by much.

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: I think Barack Obama is a highly charismatic leader, a skilled orator, and by no means either stupid or foolish. He has shown, in the first months of his presidency, much more good sense than might have been feared. Or, coming in from another angle, an appalling lack of consideration for the views and beliefs of some of his supporters. (December 22, 2008)

"The Whole World is Watching" - Brilliant Choice of Phrase

His use of the 1968 protest slogan, "the whole world is watching" was well-chosen. I suspect that one factor in that selection was a calculated effort to appeal to his (possibly disillusioned) supporters, by quoting something famous from 'the good old days' of the sixties.

I used that quotation as a jumping-off point for discussing how much the world has changed in the last half-century. And, how some people seem to be keeping up better than others. (June 20, 2009)

Using a Sixties Phrase Does Not Equal Sixties Thinking

A comment on that point made it clear that I had, apparently, stated that President Obama was engaged in 'sixties' thinking.

He's not. If he was, he'd have been organizing a sit-in at the United Nations, or been 'reaching out' to the Ayatollahs.

President Obama has "reached out" to some unlikely people. Earlier this year, for example, he was "reaching out" to the Taliban in Afghanistan. At least, that's the impression left by headlines.

The fact is, he was taking a page from America's Iraq playbook, and reaching out to Afghans who supported the Taliban, but weren't all that committed. Letting people know that Americans weren't the diabolical enemy they'd been told about made a difference in Iraq. I don't see why it wouldn't in Afghanistan.

So, apparently, did President Obama.

I Must Support Barack Obama, Right?

Wrong. I'm not "against" the American president, either.

On examination, some of President Obama's policies appear to be prudent. I support these. Other policies of the current administration are unacceptable to me. I do not support those.

As for President Barack Obama, I pray for him - and suggest that others do, too. (May 24, 2009, in A Catholic Citizen in America)

I support or oppose issues and ideas. People are a different matter. But, again, I'm getting off-topic.

Related posts:

• " 'The Whole World is Watching' - But This Isn't the Sixties"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "A Digression, About This Blogger"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
• "President-Elect Obama's Problem With Left-Wing Bloggers"
  (December 22, 2008)

---

A tip of the hat to markstoneman, on Twitter, for suggesting the topic of this post: in a comment on the ""The Whole World is Watching" - But This Isn't the Sixties" post.

A Digression, About This Blogger

I must be conservative, right?

This blog is on Urban Conservative's list of 'Best Conservative Blogs,' and I've been referred to as 'some conservative guy.'

If "conservative" means an American who is not liberal, and not 'moderate,' then I'm conservative. That definition depends, however, on there being only three possible philosophical positions: four, if you count disinterested.

In some respects, particularly regarding the subject of this blog, I resemble an American conservative. I:

• Think that America is, materially, a better place to live than many others
• Do not think that
  • America is to solely to blame for
    • The global economic crisis
    • Islamic terrorism
    • The extinction of the dodo
  • America is a racist country
• Regard the American armed forces as a group of intelligent, (self-) disciplined people with a sense of duty
• Think that war is
  • Exquisitely unpleasant
  • Sometimes the less unpleasant option
• Think that personal responsibility exists
  • And is a good idea

'Obviously,' by some standards, that makes me a conservative.

By the standards of contemporary American political philosophies, I may be more nearly similar to a typical conservative, than I am to a typical liberal.

And I'm certainly not, I trust, a 'moderate.'

But there are issues on which I am not so clearly a contemporary American conservative. This lack of conformity to cultural standards comes from my beliefs, and the views which arise from them. I am a convert to Catholicism, and have continued the study of Catholic beliefs and practices which led me to that conversion.

Not all Catholics see the world quite the way I do - which is a topic for another blog - but I try to form my views as closely as possible to what the Catholic Church teaches. (More about that at "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic, A Catholic Citizen in America (November 3, 2008). )

'Real' Catholics are Pacifists! / The Catholic Church Causes Wars!

Someone, in an online discussion thread, expressing shock and surprise that a Christian could be anything but a full-bore pacifist, asked, "wasn't Jesus a pacifist?" Apparently, that person wasn't aware of, or overlooked, that incident with moneychangers in the Temple.

Other people earnestly believe that religion is bad, particularly Christianity. It doesn't take much of a push, and that view would have it that without the Catholic Church, Europe would have war-free zone until 1776, when America started causing wars.

It's not easy to justify a war while following Catholic beliefs, but it is possible. The Catholic Church does not require predominantly Catholic countries to be overrun, until non-pacifists come and rescue them. (More, again, in "About the Just War Doctrine," (June 7, 2009), which is mostly an introduction to someone else's work: "Just War Doctrine," Answer Guide, Catholic Answers.)

Want Simple? Watch Television

If that sounds less than simple, welcome to my world. I didn't become a Catholic because it would let me stop thinking.

And now, back to my views on the War on Terror:

• "Truck Bomb Kills Five! (oh, and Iraqi Prime Minister Pledges No Retreat)"
  (June 20, 2009)

'U. S. Bombed Mosque:' Iran Official - 'When in Doubt, Blame the Americans'

A bomb damaged a mosque and killed quite a few people in a southeastern province of Iran. Muslims worshiping at the mosque are of the Shia variety.

Although each report seems to have a different death toll, it looks like well upwards of a dozen people were killed. Whoever set the bomb off had the loud taste to do so during Thursday evening prayers. Worshipers were commemorating the seventh-century death of Fatima, daughter of the prophet Mohammed.

'Obviously,' it's the fault of (the great Satan) America and the Jews.

"'The bomb tragedy that occurred yesterday in the city of Zahedan is awash with Israeli and US fingerprints,' said Tehran's Interim Friday Prayers Leader, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami.

" 'Without a doubt, it was a scheme to drive a wedge between the Shia population and the Sunni minority in Iran,' he added.

"Ayatollah Khatami said that the perpetrators of the bomb attack have been identified and will be brought to justice...." (PRESS TV)

"Round up the Usual Suspects"

That "perpetrators ... have been identified..." reminded me of the familiar "Round up the usual suspects. (Captain Renault, Casablanca, 1942)

There's little doubt that Iran's intelligence and law enforcement agencies work quickly. In this case, it seems that the dust had just settled when they arrested someone. It helps, I suppose, when you've got a short list of enemies of the state available for emergencies.

One problem with having a list of "the usual suspects" is that they're not always the guilty parties.

I think some elements in Iran's leadership may be doing a little preemptive damage control, in case the parties arrested turn out to be the wrong ones.

"Several suspects have been arrested and were being questioned Friday in the bombing of a Shia mosque in southeastern Iran, according to the provincial governor....

"...No group publicly accepted responsibility for the attack, but [governor of Sistan and Balochistan province, Ali-Mohammad] Azad blamed a terrorist group, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported. He said intelligence forces were quick to identify and arrest those behind the incident, who were trying to leave the country after the attack...." (CNN)

The score so far:

• "...The city of Zahedan is awash with Israeli and US fingerprints..."
  • Tehran's Interim Friday Prayers Leader, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami
• "...a terrorist group..."
  • Provincial governor Ali-Mohammad Azad

The CNN report didn't give much detail, so the provincial governor and Tehran's Interim Friday Prayers Leader may be on the same page.

The BBC gave a bit more detail.

"..Jalal Sayah, deputy governor of Sistan-Baluchestan province, said three people had been arrested following the attack.

" 'According to the information we obtained they were hired by America and the agents of arrogance,' he said...."

"...However, Jalal Sayah, in comments to the semi-official Fars news agency, accused the attackers of being mercenaries hired by the US.

"It is a common accusation from the Iranians, the BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says, and the facts of this case may never be known.

"But it is an open secret that former US President George W Bush directed large amounts of money to try to destabilise Iran and there is no sign the policy is any different under President Barack Obama, our correspondent adds." (BBC) [emphasis mine]

The Great Satan America, Diabolical George Bush, and - - - Oh, Say it Ain't So, President Obama!

Judging from the way BBC 'clarified' the Iranian accusations, I'd say that President Barack Obama's honeymoon is over, for at least part of the traditional news media.

Again, the usual disclaimer: this blog isn't political, but Western leaders get chosen by political means. And, since they're the ones making the decisions, the war on terror (which no longer officially exists) gets mixed up in politics now and again.

I doubt that Barack Obama will inspire the blind hate that the "diabolical" George W. Bush stirred up in 'sophisticated' Americans: but I'm quite sure that he'll be a serious disappointment to many of his supporters.

As I've said before: It's different, when you're in charge. President Obama's first hundred days in office have shown, I think, that he's not a fool. And, that he wants America to be around for his second term.

But I'm getting off topic.

Assumptions, the Great Satan America, Commie Plots, and Right Wing Extremists

One of the drawbacks, I think, of dominating a country's government, news media, educational institutions, and other information gatekeepers, is the tendency to start believing one's own propaganda.

In today's Iran, the Great Satan America and Israel are - if you believe the country's leaders - to blame for many if not most of their problems.

They're not the first, by far, to use 'those people over there' as scapegoats.

When I was growing up, there were still quite a few Americans who earnestly believed that commie plots were behind their troubles. The Soviet Block was a serious threat to American security at the time, assuming that living on collectives isn't a good idea. But 'real Americans' took that reality and ran with it: screaming right off the ragged edge of sanity.

Frank Burns, of M*A*S*H, is a caricature: But there were people with similar views.

'It Can't Happen Here'?

Today's America will not see an exact replay of the McCarthy era. Commie hunting has been discredited to an extent that I think ensures that it will not come back.

Human nature, however, hasn't changed in my lifetime.

It's very easy to assume that people you don't like, or whose ideas are not the same as yours, are to blame when bad things happen. That doesn't make it true.

I think we're seeing a sort of commie hunting - in reverse - emerging in America. And I don't like it.

"Right wing extremists," Ron Paul supporters, people with pro-life views, and American veterans have been identified - by government entities - as people who might be terrorists.

So were people in the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

On the surface, it looks like people with extreme liberal and conservative views were identified. Take a slightly closer look, though, and you'll notice that on the liberal side, it's discrete groups - which have been involved or implicated in domestic terrorism - on the extreme fringe of the liberal spectrum which are identified.

On the other hand, it seems that anyone who is distinctly to the right of center, or an American veteran, is - in the eyes of MIAC and the DHS - a potential terrorist. (April 15, 2009)

I saw the mess left by America's McCarthy era. I'd just as soon not see another period when people with views which deviate from officially approved beliefs are targeted as enemies of the state.

Related posts:

• "Homeland Security Report: American Veterans are Potential Terrorists - I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 15, 2009)
• "Professor Ward Churchill is Back: A Glorious Victory for Academic Freedom, Tenure, and the American Academic Way"
  (April 3, 2009)
• "Sounds of Silence: 2009"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "He's Not Biased: He's Brazilian"
  (March 27, 2009)
• "Missouri Focus Group MIAC: Ron Paul Supporters May Be Terrorists"
  (March 23, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)
• "Equality? Rule of Law? Limited Government?!"
  (March 14, 2009)
• "Fear of Right-Wing Extremism: Commie-Hunting in Reverse"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 19, 2009)
• "'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society"
  (February 24, 2009)
• "Army Emergency Relief Stockpiling Money Meant for GIs: Officers Involved in Coercive Tactics!"
  (February 22, 2009)
• "History, Jesters, and the American Political Scene"
  (February 15, 2009)
• "Murderous Muslims, Catholic Extermination Camps, and Common Sense"
  (February 8, 2009)
• "America, Racism, and What Didn't Happen at Virginia Tech"
  (January 22, 2009)
• "Another War-on-Terror Blog and Simplistic Views"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "All Those Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!"
  (January 4, 2009)
• "Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated"
  (January 3, 2009)
• "America is in Decline: and Has Been for Decades"
  (December 28, 2008)
• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)
• "Iranian Airspace Violated! Iran Forces Down American Warplane! (Whoops: Never Mind)"
  (October 7, 2008)
• "How Californians See America"
  (July 9, 2008)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)

In the news:

• "Suspects arrested in Iranian mosque bombing"
  CNN (May 29, 2009)
• "Iran mosque blast bears 'US, Israel thumbprints' "
  PRESS TV (May 29, 2009)
• "Iran official accuses US over mosque bomb"
  BBC (May 29, 2009)

What is Islam? Even Muslims Don't Seem to Agree

A simple version of the War on Terror is that crazed, fanatic Muslims, followers of an ancient death cult, are monolithically dedicated to wiping out Western Civilization, beer, and bikinis. And, that America Alone stands between the world of Sports Illustrated and Playboy, and a burqa-covered future.

Life isn't that simple.

For starters, there's more to Western civilization and culture than skimpy swimwear and tacky Superbowl ads.

And Muslims are nowhere near as unified - and weird - as some seem to think. Someone said, in a comment last month: "...You should read the Koran, but be careful, for the Koran prohibits non-Muslims from reading it...."

I'd been chatting online with quite a few Muslims - who knew I wasn't a Muslim. They were offering their opinions on which translation of the Quran was better, and where I could find it. They didn't have a problem with my possessing, or reading, their holy book.

On the other hand, Ahmad Ghaws Zalmai may be killed - executed - by the Afghan judicial system, for translating the Quran - and not putting the original Arabic alongside the translation.

According to The Associated Press, Muslims "regard the Arabic Quran as words given directly by God. A translation is not considered a Quran itself, and a mistranslation could warp God's word...."

I don't take The Associated Press as a final authority on Islam and Muslim beliefs. But that sounds more likely than what Geert Wilder's defender wrote, about the Quran (Koran, he spelled it) and non-Muslims being allowed to read it.

The Many Faces of Islam

I think that what many westerners are beginning to realize is that there are many different sorts of Muslims, and many different sorts of Islam.

There's Al Qaeda's Islam, the Islam of those weird (mouse-hating?) Saudi clerics, the Islam practiced in Indonesia and New York City, and many others. All of them with what seem to be distinct beliefs.

It's a complicated world out there: and Westerners who make wild statements about Islam and Muslims - without checking the available facts - are, I think, not all that unlike the 'Mickey Mouse must die' sort of Muslims. Both are, I think, sincere, passionate, dedicated: and a very real problem for the rest of us.

(I think that the Afghan courts are on the wrong page about that Quran translation - but that's a topic for another blog.)

Related posts:

• "Ayman al-Zawahiri: The Face of Islam?"
  (January 6, 2009)
• " 'Mecca is being blown into pieces' "
  (December 7, 2008)
• " 'Why is Everybody Always Picking on Me?' - The United Nations, Muslims, Zionists, and 'Those People' "
  (October 5, 2008)
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric"
  (September 19, 2008)
• " 'Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?' "
  (February 6, 2008)
• "Muslims Are Not All Alike"
  (August 19, 2007)
• "More about 'Yeh Hum Naheen' / 'This is Not Us' "
  (August 9, 2007)

In the news:

• "2 Afghans face death over translation of Quran"
  The Associated Press (February 6, 2009)

Background:

• "Catholics Not Allowed to Read Bible!! Catholic Church Banned Bible Ownership!!"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (January 27, 2009)

http://anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-islam-even-muslims-dont-seem-to.html

Muslims and Others Discussing Islam and Related Topics

That's a rather dry title, but I see the subject as quite interesting.

I started a discussion thread a few days ago, and have been very pleased at the often informed and focused discussions in it. The Muslims who contributed to the discussion did a better job of presenting their view of what Islam is than I could. There's a description of "Jihad" given, which I think is quite useful when trying to understand what's been going on over the last few decades.

"Help! Insight on Muslim/Islamic Beliefs and Culture Lost"
BlogCatalog discussion thread (started December 3, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up

Saudi women's eyes are too sexy, so they should wear a niqab: a veil that that only lets one eye look out.

The problem, it seems, is that if women are allowed to use both eyes, they'll be tempted to use makeup.

This bit of Islamic wisdom came from "Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd. " (BBC)

A Crackpot With a Thing About Eyes, Makeup, And/Or Women - So What?

One response would be to say that he's not a crackpot, he's a highly respected Islamic leader. The problem is, I've gotten the impression that these aren't mutually contradictory conditions.

Sheikh Habadan, the Muslims in Tayside who recognized a puppy as an insult to Islam, and Sudan's courts have done very little to make Islam seem like a belief system that belongs in the Information Age. As I wrote earlier this year, "...Muslims who decide that dog drool, and the dogs that make it, are "unclean" reminds me very strongly of members of those Protestant sects who are convinced that accordions, alcohol and/or tobacco, slacks on women, and wine glasses are the work of the devil.

"The difference is that, these days at least, members of outfits with names like 'First Church of the Hallelujah Few' aren't taken very seriously. Muslims who are offended by puppies are....

"...What concerns me is the way so many Muslims react to images and events:

(from Mail, used w/o permission)
"Unclean! Unclean!
"How Dare You Offend Us This Way!"

(NY WTC, unknown source)
"Hail the Martyrs!"

"...I'd like to believe that Islam can exist in today's world. But Islamic reaction to that cute puppy make me wonder."

I think part of the problem is that Islam has no formal, central, authority. It's very 'democratic,' in that when Islam came to different cultures, the local imams decided what they thought the teachings meant, merged that with local customs and beliefs, and called the result "Islam."

It's a bit like the more colorful parts of Protestant Christianity, where a clique can convince themselves that they, and they alone, recognize the demonic threat of Mr. Ed, or whatever it is that they don't like, or fear.

In the News:

• "Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil "
  BBC (October 3, 2008)

Selected posts on Islam, beliefs, culture, and over-the-top Saudi clerics:

• "Chief Saudi Judge: Death to Network Owners! "
  (September 19, 2008)
• "Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric "
  (September 19, 2008)
• "Brit Puppy Offends Muslims - Outrage Over Police Insult"
  (July 1, 2008)
• " 'Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?' "
  (February 6, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Brit Puppy Offends Muslims - Outrage Over Police Insult

I'd assume that this is a joke, but the issue has come up before.

(from Mail, used w/o permission)

Tayside's Islamic community is outraged by this obvious insult.

That's right: It's the puppy. That awful, horrible, offensive, unclean puppy.

I'm not surprised, not at this point. Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, here in Minnesota, refused to let people with guide dogs or booze into their cabs.

The Muslims had a good reason. The Islamic cab drivers "refused to transport their guide dogs because Muslims consider the saliva of dogs unclean." And, it looks like there's a difference of opinion here. "A well-known St. Paul imam, Hassan Mohamud,¹ called that a misinterpretation of Islam and said it shouldn't be a problem." ("Taxi proposal gets sharp response" Star Tribune (February 27, 2007))

I can see the Islamic response to dog drool. It's far from the most attractive substance around.

On the other hand, Muslims who decide that dog drool, and the dogs that make it, are "unclean" reminds me very strongly of members of those Protestant sects who are convinced that accordions, alcohol and/or tobacco, slacks on women, and wine glasses are the work of the devil.

The difference is that, these days at least, members of outfits with names like 'First Church of the Hallelujah Few' aren't taken very seriously. Muslims who are offended by puppies are.

There's more detail about the Tayside imbroglio at "Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat" (MailOnline (July 1, 2008)).

What concerns me is the way so many Muslims react to images and events:

(from Mail, used w/o permission)
Unclean! Unclean!
How Dare You Offend Us This Way!

(NY WTC, unknown source)
Hail the Martyrs!

I think that imam Hassan Mohamudhas has some truth on his side. Many people in western countries who aren't Muslims have developed a distinctly watchful attitude toward their Islamic neighbors. Sometimes that watchfulness turns to hostility. And, in my opinion, that sort of unthinking hostility isn't a good idea.

On the other hand, the Minneapolis dog drool incidents, and the Tayside puppy protest, do little or nothing to popularize the idea that Muslims are able to deal with Information Age societies. I'm glad that imam Mohamudhas said that rejecting people with guide dogs was a "misinterpretation" of Islamic teaching.

I'd like to believe that Islam can exist in today's world. But Islamic reaction to that cute puppy makes me wonder.

---

¹ Hassan Mohamudhas written a book, "Scapegoats in the War on Terror," which seems to bring up some good points. On the other hand, he seems to be very close to saying that Muslims are victims of oppression. Here's an excerpt from a piece on NPR, pushing his book:

"...The community is feeling a high level of scrutiny. Many of the people who give lectures at the mosque have quit. Even if they aren't saying anything against the government—just speaking about Islam, it looks like a crime. It draws attention to them," Mohamud explained. "How can a lot of people live in this fear from society? If I doubt and I fear my neighbor, it's not a healthy society...."

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Islamic Extremists, YouTube Censors, and Thinkers: They Care

For Christians, this is the season of Lent (today is the Third Sunday of Lent). It's a time of year for preparation and reflection on the great mystery of Easter.

As a devout Catholic, I reflect (more or less effectively) on what we believe and celebrate, and how we should live and pray.

Something came up that may belong on this blog.

Whether banning YouTube, blowing up shoppers at animal markets, or calmly discussing today's realities, many Muslims seem to care enough about their beliefs to do something about them.

There's something to be learned from that sort of dedication.

A Muslim Protest: Peaceful, Civil, Courteous

The Wikipedia English-language article on Muhammad has several illustrations that show the Prophet's face. This has often (but not always) been prohibited by Islam.

The on-again-off-again prohibition has its roots in the 'graven images' rule that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share.

A devout Muslim decided to do something about these images. He's set up an online petition, where he says "... I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations."

Although I think that banning illustrations made by devout Muslims, in order to avoid offending other Muslims, is a debatable policy, my hat's off to the creator of this petition.

Here's a devout Muslim group, United Muslims, faced by something that offends them. Of all the options open to them, they chose to start an online petition drive: and phrased their belief in very courteous terms.

I'm impressed.

---

More, with background, at "Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad" "FOXNews" (February 6, 2008)

Another side of Isalm: "Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?" (February 6, 2008).

Terrorists Living Among Us! No Big Deal?

" Kelly: Al-Qaida associates in N.J." Actually, it's the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Newark that says it's monitoring activities of a few New Jersey residents.

"There are people in your county who are affiliated with known al-Qaida members overseas," was how the FBI agent who heads the counterterror squad for Bergen County put it.

What's surprising about this revelation of terrorists-among-us is how little it's being discussed in traditional media, and Muslim-rights groups.

CAIR New Jersey doesn't mention the FBI activity on its home page, and its news page is either offline or available to members only. This may simply be a matter of common sense. "Civil Rights Advocates" jumping to the defense of people engaged in criminal behavior because they belong to an "oppressed group" may be wearing thin, these days. And, that's a habit that isn't unique to, or characteristic of, Islamic-rights organizations - at least as far as I can see.

The New York Times doesn't seem to be covering this, and I've seen precious little coverage in any news outlet.

• On the one hand, I admire this stoic, stiff-upper-lip approach: a presumed trademark of the British.
• On the other hand, I'm a little concerned at what appears to be another news blackout of news that's not fit to print - in the opinion of whoever controls editorial policy in the tradition news media.

The New Jersey situation is clearly no secret: FBI officials have discussed it with news media on the local level, without the "anonymous" mask that we're accustomed to in Washington.

I don't think there's some big conspiracy of silence here.

I do think that we are quite likely looking at very understandable behavior by traditional news men. Their jobs became high-profile, prestigious positions after the JFK assassination and Watergate. Until cable television and then the Internet came along, they were part of a small, lofty, circle of information gatekeepers.

Now, the journalistic old guard is faced with a situation that is a very poor match to their world view. The beliefs which worked so well for them while covering the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, and Watergate, aren't as relevant to the war on terror. Racism (as it's been defined in America), the military-industrial complex, and rampant corruption in places of power, don't seem to be the big problem just now.

So, it would be understandable if traditional news media decided to ignore the terrorists in New Jersey, and hope that the whole thing blows over.

Maybe I'm being unfair.

If I'm not, the rest of us will have to stop assuming that if something important happened, it will be in the paper or on the evening news.

It's What You're Biased About That Counts

Time for an admission. I'm biased.

I'm not a Muslim. Given my beliefs, I can't become a Muslim. Although I've learned to enjoy breathing in my half-century-plus of life, If I were forced to choose between an outward acceptance of Islam and death, I would have to choose death. I'm not being brave, just consistent. I've been Christian all my life, and, God willing, that's not going to change.

I won't kill my children because they "bring shame" on my family. My understanding is that honor killing may not be an integral part of Islam. It seems to be part of the flavor of Islam that outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda want to impose on the rest of us.

Then there's my wife. I won't beat her, I even let her drive around town without a male relative. In fact, she and my daughter are out, driving, shopping, and visiting my father-in-law, without a male escort: except for my father-in-law, of course. In Riyadh, that would at best cause remark. Here in Minnesota, it's just the way we live.

"Let her drive around town?" Americans will understand how bizarre that statement is. Or, maybe not.

Given my stubborn refusal to embrace the beliefs of some crazed imam, my insistence on viewing rape victims as victims, and my libertine attitude toward letting my wife get the groceries on her own, my next expression of bias may be understandable.

I don't want Al Qaeda to win. I don't want the Taliban to take over management of Minnesota. I don't want any of these jihadist crazies to make America a caliphate.

I don't care how anti-multicultural or intolerant it sounds: I want America to win the war on terror. Losing this conflict would be a disaster: take a look at what the Taliban's Afghanistan was like, for a preview of a sufficiently Islamic America and Europe.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

Muslims Are Not All Alike

This is a summary of earlier posts I've done about Islam.

If there's a sound-bite-size statement to summarize this post, it would be, "not all Muslims are alike."

What's the point of bringing up all this old news?

1. Not all who follow Islam are itching to kill people they don't agree with.
2. There are Muslims who are willing to say, publicly, that the people who say that they're killing for Allah aren't being good Muslims

Considering how easy it to lose your head over such statements, that takes nerve.

Fiqh Council of North America

I was particularly impressed with the Fiqh Council of North America a couple years ago, when they made a quite definite statement about the place of mass murder in Islam.

The short version is 'terrorism isn't right.'

The long version is still available online (NPR's All Things Considered, July 28, 2005) with a sort of digest in an MSN/NBC article of the same date.

I'm still impressed by this excerpt of the fatwa, taken from the NPR page:

"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.'

"The Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, states: 'Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' (Qur'an, 5:32)"

That's about as definite a statement as I could hope for. The statement about "religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives" needs a precise definition of "extremism" and "innocent" to make me completely convinced: but that's nitpicking.

Even more impressive, this was a fatwa, or "scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law" - which is about as authoritative as it gets in Islam. With no hierarchical authority, Islam leaves a lot of elbow-room for alternative interpretations.

Now, that keeps things interesting.

Islamic Society of Central Florida

More good news surfaced about a year ago in Florida. U.S. Muslims Warn of Threat From Within headed an article of August 31, 2006. Imam Muhammad Musri, head of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, was quoted as saying "'Here in Central Florida, talking to most people, they are literally upset by the actions of Muslims _ or so-called Muslims _ overseas in Europe and the Middle East, because they say, 'We wish they would come and see how we're doing here,'" Musri said. "'We know who the real enemy is _ someone who might come from the outside and try to infiltrate us. Everybody is on the lookout.'"

Muslims United!

Statements from an outfit in Great Britain called "Muslims United!" They're taking a phrase from Brits who don't like what's happening in Iraq, "not in our name". More surprising, to me anyway, is their use of the Quran (Koran for the less 'inclusive').

"Whoever kills an innocent soul, it is as if he killed the whole of mankind. And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind." That's what "Muslims United!" has been quoting.

A mosque in Fargo, North Dakota

They're not alone. A mosque in Fargo, North Dakota, gave the "Religion 100" class from Concordia College (across the river, in Moorhead, Minnesota) a positive experience with a Muslim community.

I'm pretty sure that there are more like these.

Salafi Islam, Wahhabi Islam, and the Muwahhidun

Salafi Islam, or Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam. Adherents more often refer to teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam." "Wahhabi" is a common term for the same group, although Salafi Muslims do not generally use it. People who belong to this type of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (that is, "Unitarians," or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). Wahhabism is one a particular set of beliefs within Salafism. Most Islamic "puritanical" groups are Salafi, but not necessarily Wahhabi.

Everyone Else

Then there's Sunni, Shiite, Kharijitis, Ismailis, Ismaili Druze, Hashshashin (I'm not making this up), Sufi, Baha'ism, Black Muslims (U.S.A.), Nation of Islam, and maybe Green Muslims(1) by now, but enough is enough.

Posts on this general topic:

• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us" (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks July 17, 2007
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2 (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" (July 6, 2007)

(1) An environmentalist sect? It could happen.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.