A very interesting debate between Bill Herbert and Lewy 14 in our comments section the other day addressed the breadth of reaction to Beslan in the Arab/Islamic media, and what constitutes a real and sincere condemnation of terrorism (hint: has to address the moral dimension, and be universal).
Now Donald Sensing links to a compilation of translations by MEMRI, with many more examples from around the Arab media. From MEMRI:
"Some columnists condemned the use of terror and the harming of innocent civilians, others criticized the Russian forces' failed rescue attempt, and a few even blamed Jewish elements of being involved in the affair. In addition, many articles argued that the terrorists do not represent Islam and that Islam does not endorse violence. They also aimed sharp criticism against Muslim leaders and clerics who incite against civilians in the name of Islam."
We pay attention when the Islamists preach war, death, and hate - and we should. But just as we ask our media to report the good news with the bad in Iraq, we need to hew to the same ethic as we cover the crisis within Islam. There is a growing debate in the Arab world. Read the translations yourself, then decide for yourself which articles are worthy of respect and which illustrate the shameful attitudes that enabled Beslan to happen.
In the Western tradition there is a proverb: actions speak louder than words. Vocal outrage is good. Necessary but not sufficient.
Joe: Well, I do find Sensings' sample set both more believable and more statistically sound than Herbert's. But my faith in the law of large numbers prevails. There still are not enough dissidents to make a statistically significant difference. Perhaps this is a start.
when their condemnation will include condemnation of terror against jews, we'll have something to talk about. until then it's a smokescreen.
Let me ask a question I've asked elsewhere about this very issue. Does lionizing moderate Muslims who speak out help them or hurt them? Is it an advantage in their societies to be seen to be pro-West?
In addition, many articles argued that the terrorists do not represent Islam and that Islam does not endorse violence.
There's room to debate the former. But the latter...?
Which TV network, do you suppose, will win the bidding rights for the Beslan miniseries
[JK: Don't know. Don't care. Not relevant.]
The vets are finally out to forgive Kerry...
[JK: WTF?!? That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Gone. Next...]
Colt,
I don't believe a monolithic approach to "Islam" is going to lead to better understanding of the problem here. Let me try an approach I've put forward a couple of tmies already.
I think it can be argued that terrorist violence does find authentic basis in the canon and traditions of Islam. I'm finding these arguments persuasive and I don't believe it is "Islamophobic" to advance them.
I also think it is possible to argue against terrorist violence, also based on the canon and traditions of Islam, and I welcome these arguments - but not bald assertions to the effect that "this is not Islam".
Given an argument that a condemnation of terror can be authentically founded in Islamic canon and tradition, justication of terrorst violence must also be addressed, either by refutation or an admission that authentically Islamic culture can contain contradictory interpretations (which I believe to be the case).
Islamic canon often said achieve a degree of self consistency which cannot be attributed to, e.g., Christian canon. This may be the case. However, I don't believe that it necessarily follows the justification of terrorist violence is an "either/or" proposition with respect to the Islamic canon.
lewy14:
Given an argument that a condemnation of terror can be authentically founded in Islamic canon and tradition, justication of terrorst violence must also be addressed, either by refutation or an admission that authentically Islamic culture can contain contradictory interpretations (which I believe to be the case).
Basically, I think you're half-right; that there are imams and clerics who argue that offensive jihad* (to take one example) is forbidden. However, when they go head-to-head with someone familiar with the jihadist justification for offensive jihad, they usually cannot - using the Koran, haditha, Sunna, etc - refute the jihadist's claims.
*I say (violent) offensive jihad because I've never heard of an imam or cleric condemning defensive jihad.
I expect you'll find this of interest. Make sure to read the three articles linked in the first paragraph before reading the rest.
Ignore that last paragraph. Read this, then this, then this, then this and finally this.
I read the first three articles in the string you recommended. I agree it's an incredibly interesting debate and possibly the most important debate to flow from 9-11. Ultimately I'm left with this question: How the hell are Muslims supposed to reform their religion when the vast majority of the Muslims in the world today don't have freedom of speech guaranteed to them? Am I wrong on this? Let us address this basic question first. How much can Muslims living in the West or speaking to a Western audience really do to provoke a reformation when most Muslims aren't free to follow their lead?
Colt,
Thanks for my reading assignment. Seriously!
I’m familiar with Robert Spencer’s work, including the kind of debate which you refer to. In one of my Hatewatch Briefings last month I linked to this debate between Spencer, Bat Ye’or, and Khaleel Mohammed. (Echoing Glenn Reynolds, I’ll observe how civil the debate was, compared to, say, Hardball with Chris Matthews).
Alice,
You make a good point, and there are actually two constraints on free speech in the Arab world, the traditional censorship imposed by States, and the self censorship on the topic of Islam imposed by Islamic culture itself. While this is a huge obstacle, I think both constraints are less than total (as witnessed by the excerpts which are the topic of this post), and some trends are in the right direction (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan).
lewy 14, To add to your point, maybe this is kind of a chicken/egg situation. Do certain types of government flow from the religion, which is the seed of the self censorship? How do you get out of that one?
Does that make any sense?