[mojo2]

Why Don't Moderate Muslims Speak Out Against Jihadists?

Most everyone agrees that not ALL Muslims are violent jihadists. I believe the large majority of Muslims really are peace loving and do not approve of these violent jihadists' actions, even though they know these actions are ordered by the Koran.

These moderates have not risen up in any large number so far to denounce violent jihad in pursuit of a global Islamic dominance.

Why?

I believe one reason is because they KNOW the jihadists can not be reasoned with and that they are very willing to kill anyone, even other Muslims, who oppose their actions in pursuit of their jihadist aims.

The other reason I believe is that the moderate Muslims tacitly approve of the jihadist's actions.

So, which do you believe? Are the moderates afraid of speaking up in denouncement of violent jihadism or do they tacitly approve of their actions?

Is there a 3rd reason?

[mojo2]

So many visits and mine is the only vote?

This is the only comment?

I think this should tell you something.

[- - e r i k - -]

Freedom of _Expression
(Statement by a group of Muslim scholars, academics, and journalists)
February 8, 2006

As a group of scholars and intellectuals from various Muslim societies, we express our deep concern over the latest wave of attacks on freedom of belief and expression that we have been witnessing in response to the publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper and elsewhere in the European press. We affirm the inviolability and universality of the basic human rights to exercise and defend freedom of expression and to organize and engage in peaceful protest. On the other hand, we regard violence, threat, and intimidation as methods that suppress open discourse, promote self-censorship, and eventually put an end to the process of dialogue between civilizations.

Inasmuch as reasoning is part of the human nature, the realm of religious belief is not immune to critical analysis. This is particularly true of Islam in view of its profound impact on the political, social, and cultural landscape of Muslim societies and its centrality to world politics today. Especially in parts of the world where the concept of red-tape and censorship is an anachronism, it is unreasonable to expect that open discussion of Islam’s political role remain a taboo, or the use of some of its directives by opportunistic and radical elements enjoy invulnerability to criticism. Further, it is our belief that criticism seeks multifarious channels for its expression and is not limited to satire and caricature, and to the extent that the recent caricatures of Prophet Muhammad have been singularly the target of protest and anger, we conclude that there are other elements at work that give shape to these protests.

Insofar as there has been no dearth of dissenting voices within the Muslim world that have faced similar reprisals under the pretexts of blasphemy, we are led to believe that the latest episode is not a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Rather, the stark absence of open discourse and dialogue within Muslim societies is an aftereffect of the totalistic control of various aspects of life throughout the histories of many of these societies. One cannot explain the violent backlash to the publication of the caricatures except by resorting to this history of control and conformism.

We further express our deep concern at the political opportunism that has led to the hijack of freedom of expression as a potent political tool in the turmoil that currently engulfs the Middle East, especially in the aftermath of the victory of Hamas in Palestine, the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. There is no doubt that the ongoing discussion over the limits and bounds of freedom of expression is highly politicized. Therefore, it is high time that intellectuals and academics everywhere rise to the occasion and prevent the further politicization and exploitation of the current situation by extremists on all sides. We believe that it is uniquely important that intellectuals and academics within the Muslim societies take a stance on this issue.

In the end, reaffirming our belief in the inviolability and universality of the right to freedom of belief and expression, we condemn resort to violent, illegal, and undemocratic means of confronting international issues. We call upon all the leaders of Muslim societies to work towards creating more open political spaces and building the foundations of civil society within their countries, and to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities therein. Now more than ever there is a need to demonstrate in action that a culture of dialogue is the most rational, effective, and peaceful method to deal with issues of national and international gravity.


Habib Rahiab: Research Fellow, Human Rights and Justice Program, MIT,
Phone: 1 617 625 9465
Cell: 1 617 699 8088
Ali Payam Sistani, Journalist and Poet, (Europe)
Phone: 011 475 614 5199
Cell: 0047-99318366
Masoomeh Atashfaraz, Women Rights Activist and Poet, (Europe)
Phone: 011 475 614 5199
Cell: 0047-99318366
Said Hussein Mahdavi: Poet, Journalist and Editor, (Canada)
Phone: 1 905 526 9350
Cell: 1 905 531 6236

It was in response to the cartoon brouhaha, but I'd say this qualifies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why don't moderate Americans speak out against the violence of the US government? Oh I don't know, maybe every time they do they're cast as traitors and ignored. And that's in the land of free speech.

You're being an amazing hypocrite to ask the "other side's" moderates to end the conflict, but you won't even listen when "our side's" moderates try to do the same. I bet a dollar I get on mojo2's ignore list for even suggesting it. Pathetic.

[Kr0nos]

Interesting article on a group of moderate muslims getting together and denouncing "radical islamists"…(sorry, in German)

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Why don't moderate Americans speak out against the violence of the US government? Oh I don't know, maybe every time they do they're cast as traitors and ignored. And that's in the land of free speech.

Or maybe most moderate Americans simply agree with it. The poll itself allowed for both possibilities on the side of moderate Muslims; why not allow for both on the side of moderate Americans?

Or are uncommon beliefs only uncommon because they're being repressed?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Or maybe most moderate Americans simply agree with it. The poll itself allowed for both possibilities on the side of moderate Muslims; why not allow for both on the side of moderate Americans?

Or are uncommon beliefs only uncommon because they're being repressed?

What's "both possibilities?"

Anyway, the poll is stupid, because how are any of us supposed to know what motivates "moderate muslims?" You'll have to ask them. But I do know that the poll poster is also stupid, because on the issue of "moderate Americans" he is at the forefront of simply ignoring them, once he identifies them as such. That's what makes him such a hypocrite, that he questions why the moderates of the other side aren't having more influence when he specifically rejects the possibility that moderates on his own side should have any influence on him. From what we can see in this conflict (our own side's politics), what moderates do or say (short of actual military action, which would make them extremists, not moderates) is irrelevant because the extremists ignore them wholesale, and it's the extremists who are acting in the fighting.

[awcopus]

What is a moderate Muslim? A moderate Jew? A moderate Christian?

A moderate Jew or a moderate Christian takes the Bible seriously but not literally. Is that fair?

So that sections of the Bible that call for killing women for adultery, for example, are kind of passed over with an eye-roll? Or does the moderation take the form of believing that it was right to kill but limiting one's behavior so that he or she doesn't kill? Or does the moderation take the form of believing that the text is meant to communicate ideas about right and wrong, so that the killing is a metaphorical device used to designate what behavior should be considered good/bad NOT an actual directive to kill at all?

Or does moderation imply a mean, an average between being somebody who says "I'm a ___" because his parents are and somebody with a fundamentalist interpretation of a religious text?

People who drink in moderation still get a buzz going but the amount of alcohol it takes to get that buzz differs from person to person, and how uninhibited they become varies too. They just tend not to Gibsonize themselves.

Hmmm. I like e r i k's post. We must be getting terrible new coverage of opinions in Muslim societies if their comment that "there has been no dearth..." of anti-extremism criticism is correct.

[Spliffdaddy]

Um, moderates in America support the war on terror.

It's only the liberals that don't.