Sunday, May 5, 2013
An update on the words of the ambassador
Extracts from An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia by Ali A. Rizvi
So where did Abdul Rahman Adja's bin Laden-esque words come from?
They couldn't have been a response to American imperialism (the start of the conflict precedes the presidency of George Washington), U.S. foreign policy, globalization, AIPAC or Islamophobia. Yet his words are virtually identical to those spouted ad nauseum by jihadists today who justify their bellicosity as a reaction to these U.S.-centric factors, which were nonexistent in Adja's time.
Too often in the aftermath of these tragedies, whether they occur in Boston or Karachi, I notice people rushing to defend the faith from judgment instead of acknowledging the victims. If a link is considered or even discovered, everyone from the Western media to Hollywood deems that person "Islamophobic" for linking Islam to terrorism.
But the number-one reason that terrorism is linked with Islam is not the media or "Islamophobes." It is that jihadi terrorists link themselves with Islam. Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the word) didn't yell "Jesus is great!" before carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing.
...[..] the onus is on the Muslim community, not just here but the world over, to start dealing honestly with the parts of their religion that undeniably promote armed jihad.
[..] Why not be honest about the parts you don't like? If you're being discriminated against, why not protect your people first instead of jumping to protect your beliefs, books or religion every time someone driven by them commits mass murder?
Our critical words aren't an attack on people. They are a challenge to what we consider bad ideas that drive bad behavior. Saying "smoking is bad" does not translate to "all smokers are bad people."