In his op ed, "If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution", in the July 8 edition of the New York Times, Tom Friedman called on Muslims around the world to condemn the violence committed under their name by al Qaeda jihadists. Friedman's call is based on two false assumptions. First, he alleges that "to this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. For Mr. Friedman's information, hundreds of esteemed Muslim scholars and influential theologians have categorically condemned al Qaeda terrorism as unIslamic. They have repeatedly questioned the authority of bin Laden in issuing fatwas and the legitimacy of his so called jihad. It is not hard to find references to these condemnations. Here are few useful links, and I hope Mr. Friedman will check them out: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm and http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm . There are many articles about fatwas against bin Laden posted on the following website: http://www.cbc.ca/storyview . Yesterday in Tehran, the imam of Friday prayer, ayatollah Imami Kashani, also denounced the attacks in London as unIslamic. In his sermon, he reiterated the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' denunciation of the bombings in London and proclaimed that "the killing of innocent men, women, young, and old is neither conscionable nor a virtuous human quality." "These terrorist acts," he decreed unequivocally, "are not Islamic, they are savagery." The second false presupposition Mr. Friedman puts forward is that bin Ladenite jihadism is a Muslim problem that begs Muslim solutions. I wonder whether throughout the years that the IRA terrorized Britons in London any pundit ever called the predicament of the Irish a "Catholic problem with Catholic solutions." It is so convenient for Mr. Friedman to burry the historical facts of the emergence of al Qaeda with the aid and assistance of the Reagan administration and Pakistani intelligence services. The problem of violence wrapped in an Islamic cloak does not make it Muslims' problem. It is true that Islam, like any other religion, is understood in competing and at times contradictory ways. But each of these competing interpretations of Islam corresponds and reacts to particular situations in which Muslims find themselves. One cannot understand violent interpretations of jihad outside the violence to which Muslim majority nations have been subjected. In other words, Islam is not innately predisposed to violence; it does not breed savagery ex nihilo, thus the fallacy of terrorism as a "Muslim problem." Somehow it is easier for many western pundits to understand that rather than a "Catholic problem," violence in Northern Ireland had much to do with British Empire. Mr. Friedman declares that "When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem." Then he rushes to position himself as a defender of Muslims' rights in the West by observing that these attacks would harm their civil liberties and will turn each Muslim into a suspect. With friends like Tom, who needs enemies! As a zealous advocate of unregulated globalization, Mr. Friedman ought to know that jihadists fighting the Saudi police on the streets of Riyadh is hardly an internal matter of Saudi Arabia. Fighting a police force that is trained by American advisors, armed by American-made weapons to protect the interests of an oppressive Royal Family supported by the United States is far from a mere domestic dispute. What Mr. Friedman wants is a war away from home, where the casualties are unknown and the costs hidden. "Jihadist-style bombings," in London, Madrid, and any other European or American cities are not inherently different from the same kinds of attacks on civilians in Baghdad, Tehran, Bali, Riyadh, or anywhere else in the Muslim world. They are neither civilizational nor do they have anything to do with Islam. An al-Qaeda attack on innocent civilians is as much part of Islam as Timothy McVeigh was a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Friedman declares that "The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst." Mr. Friedman's prescription hides the historical and political roots of terrorism. It does not matter what the Saudis teach in their primary and secondary schools about Christians and Jews so long as every Saudi citizen understands which world powers support their corrupt regime, which countries seal their mouth against injustices in their country to keep open the flow of oil. It does not matter how much the "Muslim village and elders" condemn bin Ladenites, so long as the U.S. government continues to support tyrannical regimes of Central Asia, and builds military bases on soils tainted by the blood of innocent people. A just solution to the plight of Palestinians and the end of Israeli occupation of their land contains terrorism more effectively than hundred decrees against violence and the promotion of the peaceful nature of jihad. These murderous atrocities are perpetuated only by the global network of terrorism and the warmongering Anglo-American administrations who have substituted violence for critique, bullets for words, destruction for change, and occupation for liberation. http://counterpunch.org/ghamari07092005.html
Well, every Muslim knows that this "blame it on Islam" campaign by the American and British administrations is nothing more than a silly attempt to "shame" Muslim countries into action, since the Anglo-American coalition has failed to stem the tide of terrorism worldwide, and have in fact largely contributed to the massive increase in terrorism worldwide...which again was exactly what Bin Laden wanted and predicted. Plus, it's much more convenient when you fail, or when you draw the ire of Al-Qaida and suffer like the British did in London or the Spanish did in Madrid, to try and fend off criticism for your involvement in the war to begin with, since EVERY Briton in the last poll pretty much believed that there was a clear link between the London bombings and the Iraq conflict. Blair and his cronies tried to paint a different picture, that this was nothing more than an "Islamic problem" and blamed even Pakistan for it (the idiot Blair conveniently forget that Britain is the largest harbor of extremists, criminals, and terrorists worldwide -- half of those were runaways from the Arab world because they are wanted there, and instead are given asylum back in Britain). When the British public showed that they clearly understand that this bombings in London were a result of the bombings in Iraq, now Blair, Straw, and his cronies are on the defensive; Blair is now even weaker than when he was during the election. As for Friedman, every now and then he's been know to write something that makes you go "Huh?!!", so I am not surprised. Generally speaking, he is a hawk when it comes to wars, he loves wars and conflicts, and the only thing he cares about is "peace for Israel" and his personal pet project, "Globalization". He's written some articles in which he basically was babbling about how "protectionist" Americans are becoming and that he was all for Chinese and Japanese firms buying all major American Corporations, including Toyota buying GM, because it would lead to a more globalized world and force Americans to realize that "the world is flat". The guy is kooko sometimes, he makes you scratch your head. But anyways, as it relates to this specific articles, I have read no less then 5-6 articles of people "answering back" Friedman about his assertion (clearly false, and documented proof was repeatedly provided) that Muslim leaders weren't denouncing extremists in their midst. The funny thing is when people proved to him that he was wrong, he didn't retract that statement or make a correction in his weekly editorials or anything else, he just moved on to a different topic (with an ego as big as Friedman's, what do you expect?) Anyways, I think his argument has been deconstructed and dismissed more or less, but he's entitled to his own opinion. But meanwhile, I continue to be amused by how non-Muslims, who know nothing about Islam, continue to provide "solutions" for Muslims to address extremists among them. Well, the Bush administration, nor any Republican party official for that matter, are yet to denounce extremists in their midst who continue to utter Islamophobic remarks, despite being called upon to do so repeatedly. That's as much a "hate-speech" as what radical clerics say around the world. All indications point to a failed campaign against "terror" (they even changed the name now to a "struggle against violent extremism", did you notice that?) and a poor attempt to salvage it by the Anglo-American leaderships by throwing the "blame" at Muslims, instead of addressing the underlying causes/conflicts in the region that lead to such a response. A smoker can keep denying that his smoking led to his lung cancer, but that won't make the cancer go away.
LOL! Yah... BTW, all prominant Muslim organizations/scholars in all of North America are currently meeting to issue an official "fatwa" (religiuos decree) than condemns terrorism and extremism in the name of Islam: http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1673&theType=NR U.S. Muslim Religious Council to Issue Fatwa Against Terror CAIR to release English, Arabic, Urdu radio versions of anti-terror PSA (WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/27/05) - On Thursday, July 28, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to release a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) against terrorism and extremism. The fatwa is being issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and endorsed by major U.S. Muslim groups. Representatives of the Fiqh Council, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law, and leaders of several leading American Muslim organizations will take part in the news conference. (The term “fiqh” refers to Islamic jurisprudence.) WHAT: Release of Fatwa Against Terror and Extremism/Release of CAIR Radio Anti-Terror PSA WHEN: Thursday, July 28, 10:30 a.m. WHERE: National Press Club (13th Floor), Murrow Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, D.C. CONTACT: CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org At Thursday's news conference, CAIR will also release radio versions of its 30-second “Not in the Name of Islam” television public service announcement (PSA) in English, Arabic and Urdu. The PSA campaign ties into CAIR's “Not in the Name of Islam” online petition drive designed to disassociate the faith of Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. To view the television PSA, go to: http://www.cair-net.org/video/psa.ram CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 31 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding
Thomas Friedman, Liberal Sadist? by Norman Solomon * The acclaimed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has often voiced enthusiasm for violent destruction by the U.S. government. Hidden in plain sight, his glee about such carnage is worth pondering. Many people view Friedman as notably articulate, while others find him overly glib, but there's no doubt that he is an influential commentator with inherently respectable views. When Friedman makes his case for a shift in foreign policy, the conventional media wisdom is that he's providing a sober assessment. Yet beneath his liberal exterior is a penchant for remedies that rely on massive Pentagon firepower. And so, his July 27 column in the Times -- after urging Americans "to thoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow" -- scolds the commander in chief for being too much of a wimp and failing to demand enough human sacrifice. Friedman poses a rhetorical question begging for a militaristic answer and then dutifully supplies one: "If you were president, would you really say to the nation, in the face of the chaos in Iraq, 'If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them,' but they have not asked. It is not what the generals are asking you, Mr. President -- it is what you are asking them, namely: 'What do you need to win?' Because it is clear we are not winning, and we are not winning because we have never made Iraq a secure place where normal politics could emerge." Such a line of reasoning points to sending still more U.S. troops to Iraq. The result, predictably, would be even more mass slaughter from various directions. But there's no reason to believe such a result would chasten Friedman, as long as the eminent pundit figures the Washington-backed killing is for a righteous cause. In recent years Friedman has expressed much enthusiasm -- even relish -- for launching and continuing wars underwritten by U.S. taxpayers. During the last decade of the 20th century, Friedman was a vehement advocate of -- in the words of a January 1998 column -- "bombing Iraq, over and over and over again." In early 1999, when he offered a pithy list of recommendations for Washington's policymakers, it included: "Blow up a different power station in Iraq every week, so no one knows when the lights will go off or who's in charge." Such disruptions of electricity would have deadly effects, from hospitals to homes where vulnerable civilians live. Evidently, Friedman could not let those considerations get in the way of his snappy prose. But is it unfair to say that Friedman seems to get a charge out of urging systematic infliction of pain and death? Well, consider his fixation on four words in particular. During the spring of 1999, as the U.S.-led NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia went on, Friedman recycled his witticism "Give war a chance" from one column to another. "Twelve days of surgical bombing was never going to turn Serbia around," he wrote in early April. "Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance." (He used the same motto in a Fox News interview.) Another column included this gleeful taunt while vicariously threatening civilians in Yugoslavia with protracted terror: "Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." As on so many other occasions, Friedman's pronouncements gave off more than a whiff of pleasure at the spectacle of other people's anguish. "NATO began its second month of bombing against Yugoslavia today with new strikes against military targets that disrupted civilian electrical and water supplies" -- the first words of the lead article on the New York Times front page the last Sunday in April 1999 -- promoted the remarkable concept that the bombing disrupted "civilian" electricity and water yet the targets were "military." Never mind that such destruction of infrastructure would predictably lead to outbreaks of disease and civilian deaths. On the newspaper's op-ed page, Friedman made explicit his enthusiasm for destroying civilian necessities: "It should be lights out in Belgrade: Every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted." In autumn 2001, after the bombing of Afghanistan got underway, Friedman dusted off one of his favorite cute phrases. "My motto is very simple: Give war a chance," he told Diane Sawyer during an Oct. 29 interview on ABC Television. In November, his column was cracking the same rhetorical whip. "Let's all take a deep breath," he urged, "and repeat after me: Give war a chance." That fall, Friedman proclaimed that he was crazy about the craziness of top officials in Washington who were capable of going a bit berserk with the USA's military might. During an Oct. 13 appearance on CNBC, he said: "I was a critic of [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld before, but there's one thing ... that I do like about Rumsfeld. He's just a little bit crazy, OK? He's just a little bit crazy, and in this kind of war, they always count on being able to out-crazy us, and I'm glad we got some guy on our bench that our quarterback -- who's just a little bit crazy, not totally, but you never know what that guy's going to do, and I say that's my guy." Friedman kept writing along those lines. "There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like," he wrote in mid-February 2002, "but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right." Last week, when Friedman's column appeared in the New York Times on July 22, it mostly concentrated on denouncing Muslim "hate spreaders." And the piece ended by declaring: "Words matter." If words truly matter, then maybe it's consequential that some of Thomas Friedman's words -- including his flippant and zealous endorsements of mass killing -- have the odor of sadistic cruelty. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-35.htm
Good article, that's exactly what I was talking about above. There isn't a problem in the world that Friedman doesn't believe could be solved with "overpowering" military action. He makes GWB and his neoconservative cronies look like a bunch of chicken. He is as hawkish as they come. He loves war, he considers it a quick fix, and he is just voicing his massive frustration with Iraq because he was the biggest proponent of the war, promising anyone who would listen that Iraq was going to be a "model" for other Middle Eastern countries. So excuse Friedman if his emotions are running high these days, he realizes that his dream of a prosporous, stable, secure Iraq isn't going to be a reality at least within his lifetime, if ever. He's experiencing mood swings.
Friedman would do well to subscribe to the advice Shaq gave AC Green: "You just need to get laid, bro - then you'll be okay"
The young Jordanian King is a good, progressive leader, Jordan is better for it and is making probably the best progress of any country in the region. His father, King Hussein, however, was scum (may he RIP)
Proof of this? It's easy to toss out the "blame it on the administration card". Back it up with proof.
Sure, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Put your head back in the sand. We're told (a) this has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam THEN we're told (b) current policies are causing Muslims to become terrorists because they sympathize with the terrorists motivations. Is there a connection or not? It seems many posters advocate (a) in some places and (b) in some other places - each where applicably convienent.
