Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

[padhu]

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.

Here are five of them:


(1) Why are you so quiet?

Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.

There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians.

Instead of confronting these problems, too many of you deny them. Muslims call my radio show to tell me that even speaking of Muslim or Islamic terrorists is wrong. After all, they argue, Timothy McVeigh is never labeled a "Christian terrorist." As if McVeigh committed his terror as a churchgoing Christian and in the name of Christ, and as if there were Christian-based terror groups around the world.

As a member of the media for nearly 25 years, I have a long record of reaching out to Muslims. Muslim leaders have invited me to speak at major mosques. In addition, I have studied Arabic and Islam, have visited most Arab and many other Muslim countries and conducted interfaith dialogues with Muslims in the United Arab Emirates as well as in the U.S. Politically, I have supported creation of a Palestinian state and supported (mistakenly, I now believe) the Oslo accords.

Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.

We await your response.




Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show is heard daily in Los Angeles on KRLA-AM (870). He may be contacted through his website: www.dennisprager.com.

[echarcha]

Padhu, after such terrorism, the silence from the Muslim community is deafening and explains a lot. The communist socialiost French dont want to admit that Muslims were upto these riots and arson. The socialist commie media in teh USA does not want to show their idol France in a bad light. So we did not have any coverage here. When a girl vanishe din Aruba the media kept showing it for more than 40 days. Katrina disaster was a good chance to show BUsh in the bad light.

Riots in France were a good opportunity for the media to show the concerted Ramazaan intifada but the media immediately killed the story because it would show the epitome of socialist communists nonsense France in a bad light.

As for Muslims - I have observed, like this radio talk show host, that they are NEVER friggin' happy even when they have a majority in a country. When they live with others they always say - we are persecuted. When they live as a majority they always fight because of Shia and Sunni. I dont care if they bomb each other where they are the only inhabitants of a nation.

However, the problem is that there are many people in the media and politics the world over who are ashamed to be born in their own religion - Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc. and secondly they are extremely politically correct with a socialist communist mind set. This leads them to never call a spade a spade.

Well, padhu, such questions have been asked many many times before. Nothing will ever come of it. The new Hitler and his Nazi marchers are nothing but the mullah in a head towel and his terrorist followers!!

[rameshp]

there are no answers to these questions coz all muslims who keep quiet when terror occurs in the name of their religion are also co-participants! period.

[Satyam]

there are no answers to these questions coz all muslims who keep quiet when terror occurs in the name of their religion are also co-participants! period.
What can we expect from the followers of an evil-cult invented by an utter illiterate & terrorist. Ironically he chose to be illiterate even when God asked him to read.

[Dot_Calm]

The whole thing boils down to fanatacism, period. Fanatacism spread through religion, not because of the religion itself but because the religion members congregate regularly- and those that have a message of hate to spread have a captive audience that believes because they are hearing what they hear where they are hearing it, it must be ok.
Fanaticism need not be driven by religion, but when it is, they like to go for the apocolyptic effect. Maybe its how they figure their own twisted version of god would want things to go down. Whats worse is that this crap takes in both educated people who should know better as well as those that those that aren't. Those who carry out terrorist acts believe implicitly that there is some reward for appeasing their sick god :mad:

[echarcha]

The whole thing boils down to fanatacism, period. Fanatacism spread through religion, not because of the religion itself but because the religion members congregate regularly- and those that have a message of hate to spread have a captive audience that believes because they are hearing what they hear where they are hearing it, it must be ok.
Fanaticism need not be driven by religion, but when it is, they like to go for the apocolyptic effect. Maybe its how they figure their own twisted version of god would want things to go down. Whats worse is that this crap takes in both educated people who should know better as well as those that those that aren't. Those who carry out terrorist acts believe implicitly that there is some reward for appeasing their sick god :mad:


Along wih these questions, how about some answers to this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260131/103-3315307-8779065?v=glance)?

Or maybe this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022495/ref=pd_sim_b_2/103-3315307-8779065?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)?

[Dot_Calm]

Never read the books but I know about the convert 'em or kill 'em clauses in Islam. They are in the Koran, yes. Which returns us to fanatics, who while in positions as religious leaders, still take the literal, before-the- wheel was -invented interpretation of their book to the people. For whatever reasons, Islam doesn't have too many 'liberal' clerics. They are available in only moderate, ultra conservative or turban-hiding-the-lobotomy-scar versions, and this is why the religion has been unable to evolve into a more modern form. The Spanish Inquisition isn't still an annual event all these years later; they don't feed christians to lions in Rome anymore, people choose their own life partners.....So it has been done by those who want to move out of the stone age.

[MalsiKham]

Yes,

I will answer your questions. ALL of them. However, it is easy to ask questions, answering them takes time. The questions are short. The answers will be long.

[MalsiKham]

To understand why we Muslims are quiet, we need to understand the concept of "media" and "freedom of expression". I will explain this by means of a story of a man called "Mugarmulla"

This happenned in 1947. Israel was being formed. The great powers that be - Britain and US, arbitrarily created Israel and Israeli inodus began. The Western Press, led by Washington Post and NY Times were all for the jews. This man Mugarmulla pleaded, begged almost of these two power media houses then, not to be onesided. They were moulder of public opinion. What we faced was scorn. Utmost scorn. We only got a lecture on Freedom of Press. How important it is!!

Mugarmulla came back enraged. He swore to create a world class press. He raised money to create an infant radio station. It did not prove to be world class. It was a two bit shack. He died. His son took on the mantle of creating a world class press. His son was a genius. His name was Altaf. He would create the greatest press the world had ever seen! And yet it would be invisible!!

He saw the concept of strategic business advantage. US had a lead in technology and brandname. What was ours? Surely press doesnot just mean printed material or books or TV or net? Freedom of Expression is any foirm of non-violent communication. He knew one. The spoken word!!

With great energy and enterprise he created a network of messengers - shopkeepers, merchants, tea-vendors, coffeeshops to spread his message. This network is diffuse. The NYT can be felt. Google can be seen. This network cannot.

This network spreads news. It tells stories. It is the greatest influencer in the Muslim world. And it influences these people by non-violent methods. In Chad where there is an eartquake, it spreads that Americans have created it. In Indonesia where there is Tsumani, it tells about the undergroud top secret but faiuled US experiment to create it. All lies of course, but people believe it. These people, angry with US for the great genocide which the US is NOT responsible for, will take up arms.

Unfair you say? We never created 'Freedom of Speech'. You did. Your press wrote articles about Palestinians and jews. These prompted the US army to create Israel. Many many Arabs died. Your Press created news about Iraq Bomb. It influenced Ameriacn army to attack.Many people died. We cannot do anything to your press because of Freedom of Speech. But that is exactly what Altaf does. Like your press, he too spreads news. Your people die!!!

My friends, remember one thing - Freedom of Press does not just mean that you can reouse the people to anger and attack another. It also means that someone else can rouse the people to hurt you.

ut your blood is different - is it not? When NYT and Post spread stories they serve democracy. When Altaf spreads stories, he peddles hate!!!!


Yuk Yuk Yuk!!!!!


More Later

[brahmchari]

Now I am more convinced that the entire middle east area should be nuked. It is the place which is root cause of all problems in the world today.

People of this area were always born with SHIT in their mind. This is the same area where we find confused lots of people, for whom GOD had to send (???) so many Messengers!!!.

This is the same area where people were so evil that GOD had to literally destroy them as He claims to have done so (pls chk Old Testament).

If you think otherwise (like dhurs pai) then it means that rest of the world was without any problems and people of rest of the world were good, thats why no messengers were needed and the God did not destroy them.

Problems started when these shithead started spreading to other parts of world in the name of PEACE (shit) (sic!) and the God should now destroy them all, destroy the place so that no shithead remains and no shithead can be born in that place again.

I wonder if there is any history of people fighting in the name of religion? Anywhere else?


We all know of the real reason for friday networking, no secrets there. Breeding grounds for would be assasins and terrorists and liers. Scum!

[MalsiKham]

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?

This requires an answer, as it has been asked very many times. I will ask another question to that one -

"Why is it that in the 60 democratic countries only one is Islamic? (Mali is the exception)" In this, I start with the assumption that being Islamic is goood. Then I use the fact that out of 60 democratic counties only 1 is Islamic - Mali (restatement of your own fact). And conclude that democracy is bad!

Thats what you did! You started with the assumption that Democracy is good (no questions asked). And concluded that Islam is bad!!

Ever thought that your assumption about goodness of democracy may be open to question? Why?? I do not know why people who believe in democracy hate Islam. But I know why Islamists do not like democracy.


The fundament principle of a republican system is "One man one vote" - "all of us are equal". That is the GREAT FAULT LINE!!! Human nature is such, that if All of us are equal, who is not equal? We need an unequal to define our own equality. Don't believe me? Then listewn.

England, the 'mother of democracies' started by saying that we are all equal. The unequals were the colony natives. Americans said that they were all equal. Who are the unequal? The natives (wiped out) and the blacks (enslaved). The Brahmins believed in equality and meritocracy. Whow were non-brahmins? The Dalits. Downtodden. The lesser than equal. Remember that the two great world wars were all fought by democracies. Bay of Pigs - US (democracy). Vietnam War? US - Democracy. Shanghai Massacre? Democratic China. Want to see the effect of democracy? Go to Hiroshima and Nagasalki.

Democracies are inherently violent. They believe that votes are right. Not right is right. In a democracy, whether it is a bull or a cow is decided by votes. US presidents got elected by a democracy - and felt that gave them a moral right to dominate all.

Most of you are Indians. Consider a 'democratic' govt deciding on 100% affirmative action. It is quite possible. There would be riots. Is it because Hindus are terrorists, or because their rights are trampled upon by democracy?

Think a bit. You think that democracy is the greatest. But you are sadly, sadly, mistaken.

[shahenshah]

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.



Hi Padhu,

Even the western media is not really seeing the France unrest as a primarily Muslim-terrorist issue. Check out the various op-edits and magazines: the Economist calls it the Failure of France, it is more of a socio-economic issue. So why bring that up?

From the Economist:
On the cover

The biggest lesson of the French riots is not about Islam but that more jobs are needed

http://economist.com/printedition/

[echarcha]

Hi Padhu,

Even the western media is not really seeing the France unrest as a primarily Muslim-terrorist issue. Check out the various op-edits and magazines: the Economist calls it the Failure of France, it is more of a socio-economic issue. So why bring that up?

From the Economist:


http://economist.com/printedition/

How come the media calls it everythingh except the truth when the concerned people are Muslim? All these Economiost and Time magazines are socialist communist media!

YOu never read such things about immigrants from other countries or specifically NON MUSLIM who are also not so well to do but never pick up a pebble against the country!

Who cares if France blows up? Just keep being "oh youth.. oh this" and not face the real Islamosfascist threat and within 5 years you have a Eurabia (Europe + Arabs ) with towelheads running the show.

[King]

This happenned in 1947. Israel was being formed. The great powers that be - Britain and US, arbitrarily created Israel and Israeli inodus began. ...


Why do all Muslims have such strong feeling about the creation of Israel? This is the same as the creation of Pakistan for muslims. In fact I feel that the creation of Israel was inevitable as the Arabs would never have allowed the Jews to live with them. And the creation of Pakistan could have easily been avoided as Hindus and Muslims lived in India for centuries. Imagine the Pakis all gunning for Israeli blood - what hypocracy.

[MalsiKham]

You specifically asked about Taliban disfiguring images/icons of Budhists. True. This includes the Bamiyan statues of Budha. No one denies that they did it. What no one seems to do is try and find the reasons behind it.

The Budha had been put by Emperor Kanishka when he conquered Afghanistan. It was a measure of his power (The same way Babur built a mosque at a very special place). Our angst is the statue itsel. Its huge, naked, with the penis popping out.

Tell me, if a buch of people had invaded and conquered US and placed a statue of their 'God' - tall and erect, with a massive penis would not the US try and evict him out? Would they care that there are some people who worship him as God? Would not the erect manhood be seen as a symbol of humiliation?

Similarly, why was Babri Masjid destroyed? Not because of it being a mosque - but because it was perceived as a symbol of humiliation.


Much the same way, we feel that the statue with the huge masculity is a sense of humiliation. (At least the mosque did not have any humiliating gestures)

Do you now understand why Muslims hate it around the world? Why they don't break any and every thing under the sun. Why the great Rama temple at Khandahar is left untouched, even to some extent beautified, but the damn Budha with its huge penis that dominates the Bamiyan landscape has to be destroyed? Thing men, think. We too are humans like you. We too are gieved.

[MalsiKham]

Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.

We await your response.


This is a very important questions that you have raised - very important. I do not need to point out that there are terrorists in every religion, in every nation. However, the difference indeed is that Muslim terrorists are fighting for religion. While there are religious fanatics in every religion (Khalistan - remember?), the percentage of Muslim terrorists (compared to population) appears anormally high. Why is that so?

Muslims are afraid of an extremely strong cohesive group of people who go on murderi and slaughter. Their slaughter of the last years has been dramatic. This group worships a symbol with 13 (or s it 12?) bands on it. There is some
sort of stars around too. Last time I cpunted, there seemed to be 50 of them!!! I am not sure I understand the symbolism - there is some story of a bald eagle somewhere. To be a member of the group, you have to have and show ABSOLUTE OBEISANCE to this symbol of stars and the bands and the eagle. In fact, for this symbol, they even thew atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the man who threw the bomb was asked whether he had guilt, he said he followed orders. The other members of this group cheered. Aloud!!!

Worshipper of no other icon has done as much damage as this group of fanatics. They declared war on Vietnam and threw napalm bombs on it. The pilots who threw those bombs were trained to "obey orders, no questions asked". In fact, the boss man goes around giving orders and the others follow - blindly. Tey feel they are doing a great duty to this stars and eagles and stripes. In fact the boss man asks - "Any Questions or Doubts?" and the youngsters are supposed to say "No Sir!" No other answer will do to these fanatics!!!

Their indoctrination starts from childhood. Since childhood they are made to say "Star Spangled Banner...." - it is some form of worship - that at the end of it all, they cheer aloud!!

Apparently some building of theirs got destroyed. It was a high temple or something - like the Golden temple is to the Sikhs. They got so furious that they bombed Afghanistan lustily - 2 million people died. They arbitrarily invaded Iraq - death toll 10 million to date.

Tell me, how many deaths has Islam committed compared to this monster? This eagle needs oil - there is some mythology here, I don't seem to understand. To feed oil to this eagle, they mobs go in a frenzy, unquestioning, ravaging the cities of Islam.

We fear this group very much.

Hundreds of millions of non-eagleites want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in the eagle." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-eaglites.

We await your response.

[MalsiKham]

Why is the Jewish Problem so important?

You go in N America, and you will see very many issues about the holocaust. Why? What is America so guilty of? The holocaust was truly grave some 3-6 million jews suffered. My sympaties with them. But there have been many many such events. 100 million Native Indians, millions of Chinese under Japanese attack. Demolition of Aborigines, S. Africa, Uganda. Why only the jews? Surely US was not responsible for the holocaust? As any US guy, he tells how the jews were slaughtered. He seems to have not the same sympathy for others. Why?

The crux is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs were an extremely hienous act. In order to forgetr about it, they picked up the jews and shifted focus. (It' s coomon. In Pakistan, Aurangzeb's bigotry is washed away the same way) The moment the world's attention is diverted from the Holocaust, A-Bomb terror will come to the fore.

But paradoxically, this problem has made them invade Iraq, leading Iran and N Korea to get their own bomb. Paradoxically, the A-Bomb threat is spreading. Rather than divert attention to jews and harrass Muslims, the simple acceptance of the great blunder of the A-bomb would slowly reduce proliferation (Most US sites seem to vindicate the US use of the bomb)

Terrible state of affairs really.

Think. Think all of you. Think

[echarcha]

Thank you MalsiKham.. YOu have given me an opportunity to reply to such an entertaining and moronic post!! :D Just wait.. I am on my way to work.. Will reply then... :D

[chando]

You specifically asked about Taliban disfiguring images/icons of Budhists. True. This includes the Bamiyan statues of Budha. No one denies that they did it. What no one seems to do is try and find the reasons behind it.

The Budha had been put by Emperor Kanishka when he conquered Afghanistan. It was a measure of his power (The same way Babur built a mosque at a very special place). Our angst is the statue itsel. Its huge, naked, with the penis popping out.

Tell me, if a buch of people had invaded and conquered US and placed a statue of their 'God' - tall and erect, with a massive penis would not the US try and evict him out? Would they care that there are some people who worship him as God? Would not the erect manhood be seen as a symbol of humiliation?

Similarly, why was Babri Masjid destroyed? Not because of it being a mosque - but because it was perceived as a symbol of humiliation.


Much the same way, we feel that the statue with the huge masculity is a sense of humiliation. (At least the mosque did not have any humiliating gestures)

Do you now understand why Muslims hate it around the world? Why they don't break any and every thing under the sun. Why the great Rama temple at Khandahar is left untouched, even to some extent beautified, but the damn Budha with its huge penis that dominates the Bamiyan landscape has to be destroyed? Thing men, think. We too are humans like you. We too are gieved.


Lets get our facts straight. Bamiyan buddha was carved in 4th and 5th AD and islam was founded in 622 AD. Buddhas statue was not built agaist the wish of a islamic country or it was not build on islamic site.

second. Bamiyan Buddha is not a naked statue.

[Desi24]

Lets get our facts straight. Bamiyan buddha was carved in 4th and 5th AD and islam was founded in 622 AD. Buddhas statue was not built agaist the wish of a islamic country or it was not build on islamic site.

second. Bamiyan Buddha is not a naked statue.

You are right. Bamiyan Buddha is not a naked statue. Take a look below. You can clearly see clothing. Get your facts right Khan before you talk. And like Chando pointed out....this statue was built before islam was founded. :mad:

[MalsiKham]

My dear Chombo and desi,


The statue you are showing is the statue of the "Al-Sarel Waltuf Bouddikala" - literally "Clothed Budha". There were not one budha in Bamiyan - more than 100. Most of them were naked (leaving 3 or 4). Most of the naked were obscenely so. They were all the legacy of a vengefu; conqueror. That is why they were destroyed.

Yes, they were there before Islam. So what? They were not there before Afghanistan were they? So many statues of King George were removed/defaced since Independence. This was because it was the reminder of a humiliating era. Saying that there was no Independent India before the statues is meaningless. Suppose, just suppose a bunch of johnies decide that King George is their 'God' - that makes the destruction fanatic?


You want to know real destruction? Its in the looting that has taken place in the museums of Iraq. The great rod of "Archapalus" - gone. The 4500 year old shawl of Balthzaar - gone. The countless artefacts of Mesopotamia and Babylon - gone. I fail to understand this. When such looting was going on, in ANOTHER MAN'S COUNTRY, how can you be silent?? YET, WHEN WE DO IT IN OUR COUNTRY, IT EXCITES YOU!!!! Funny.

[MalsiKham]

No Churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia

This has often been cited to prove that Muslims are fanatics. The fact is true - the conclusion is not. Most people don't just know why no churches are allowed in Arabia.

It started in 1948, during the early days when the UN was formed. At that time, there was a move asking for Vatican to be considered as a country. Many people argued against it - Nehru included, saying that a religious country was not desireable. However, the European powers, due to their own compulsions disagreed - and Vatican was allowed in. This also paved the way for Israel, a Jewish state. Asia and Africa was appalled. This was a time of great anti-west feeling. So, for parity, Nepal became a 'Hindu State', reportedly with connivanve of Nehru, China a 'Budhist State' and Saudi Arabia a 'Muslim State'.

China became communist and the Budhist state lost its Budhism. India lost interest in Nepal, charting out its own destiny.

This was when Saudi Arabia was not the rich state it is now. Then came the oil boom, and Arabia became rich. People start asking why are there no churches allowed here? Well, are there Mosques allowed in Vatican? The Christians are allowed to practise their own religion in Saudi. Is that so in Vatican?

But Vatican is an expressedly Chistian state, you say. But Arabia too is a Islamic state. Then you get upset.

There is one difference however. How many times have you heard of "Destroying the Vatican" from the Muslims? How many times have you heard of "Destroying Ararbia?" Nixon talked openly of nuking Arabia. Israel has too. Someone on this board too talked about nuking arabia.

If someone talks about destroying Vatican, or Kashi you would call him a terrorist no? Then what of those who talk of destruction of Arabia? Vatican is no Democracy as we know it. Only some "Cardinals" elect the Pope. The Cardinals are themselves selected by the Pope! You agree with this, but argue that Arabia is not a democracy??

This problem was created by the West for their deep interest. Remember, a Muslim who comes to this site and reads about nuking Arabia will get scared and will think of only one thing - that Hindus are fundamentalists!!

[max de Indiana]

[B]??

This problem was created by the West for their deep interest. !!

here i am with you :D

[charminar]

I know its not worth answering those five questions, because even if answered, they will not try to understand it because they have brains but don't use em, they have ears and eyes but dont use them.

ISLAM-OPED: A Muslim Response to Prager’s ‘Five Questions’


A MUSLIM RESPONSE TO DENNIS PRAGER'S ‘FIVE QUESTIONS’
By Hussam Ayloush

[Hussam Ayloush is executive director for the Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA). He can be reached at socal@cair.com. CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group.]

In a recent commentary, radio talk show host Dennis Prager posed five questions that "that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims."

SEE: “Five Questions Non-Muslims Would Like Answered”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,1904398.story

Prager said his questions were prompted in part by recent rioting in France "by primarily Muslim youths," despite the fact that neutral experts say the violence had little to do with Islam and it was Muslim leaders who ultimately helped quell the violence.

Faulty premise aside, here are answers to Prager's questions:

Q: Why are you so quiet (about terrorism carried out in the name of Islam)?

A: One might argue that Muslims could do more to get their anti-terror message out. But to say Muslims have been quiet about their unequivocal condemnation of terrorism is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and reeks of Islamophobia.

It was after all a coalition of American Muslim groups that issued what was perhaps the first condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also published a full-page advertisement condemning the attacks.

Muslims have consistently condemned suicide bombings in the Middle East, attacks on the London transportation system, the bombing of hotels in Jordan, and many similar outrages.

Muslims scholars recently issued a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, condemning terrorism and religious extremism. (See: www.cair.com ) Muslim groups in Texas and Arizona held anti-terror rallies. In Jordan huge demonstrations were held against the recent terror attacks. Muslims in Lebanon demonstrated against the terrorist assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Harriri.

Outrage can be expressed in many ways. Public demonstrations are merely one of many different methods available to oppose terrorism.

Q: Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

A: Robert Pape in his book, "Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," shows that between 1982 and 1986, 71 percent of the Lebanese suicide attackers were Christians and 21 percent Communists/Socialists. Pape states, "Of the 384 attackers for whom we have data, 166 or 43 percent were religious, while 218 or 57 percent were secular. Suicide terrorism is not overwhelmingly a religious phenomenon." It is a response to occupation.

Inquiring minds might also consider the suicide bombings carried out by non-Muslim groups such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the religious orientation of the abortion clinic bomber or the depredations of Serbian forces during the Bosnian conflict.

Q: Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

A: Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Turkey among many others having held free elections and being governed by popularly elected governments will dispute the charge that they are not "free."

Moreover, only in the past 50 years, have more than half of the Muslim-majority nations been freed from their European colonizers. Despite winning this freedom, most continued to be client states of their former colonizers who through the imposition of dictatorial regimes maintained control, some even to this day.

Opposition to such lack of freedom is generally Islamically-oriented. Lack of freedom in Muslim nations is in spite of Islam, not because of it.

Q: Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

A: All major faiths have people who commit, or have committed atrocities in the name of their religion. But no faith should be held responsible for the crimes of a few individuals. It seems Prager believes that any act by Muslims should be blamed on Islam. Just as we do not blame the Crusades or the Israeli atrocities on the faiths of Christianity and Judaism, we ask others to offer the same respect for our faith.

Again quoting Pape, "The world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka - a secular, Marxist-Lennist group drawn from Hindu families."

Q: Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

A: While there are areas of the Muslim world in which religious freedom is not granted to all citizens, it is unfair to claim that this phenomenon as a problem unique to Islam. Blaming persecution of minorities on Islam is akin to blaming slavery and segregation on Christianity. Choosing the Taliban as an example of religious intolerance in Islam is disingenuous, because the Taliban's religious perspective has been rejected by mainstream Muslim scholars and Muslims worldwide.

Every religious group has a responsibility to challenge hate by their fringe groups. It is unproductive to single out Muslims while remaining silent about the extremists of other faiths who vilify the faith of Islam without similar repudiation from Prager and others.

Dealing with the impact of war, poverty, racism, and injustice is our collective duty. To achieve solutions to these real problems we need voices that accentuate our common humanity, not use opportunistic smears of an entire faith to further their parochial agenda.

I would offer a challenge to Mr. Prager. Are you willing to enter into a real dialogue, not an exercise in one-upmanship, with mainstream Muslims? If so, CAIR stands ready to facilitate that dialogue, just as I did when I appeared recently on his program.