For years Muslims have been wondering aloud why everyone insists on specifying the religion of the terrorists (when they happen to be Muslims) while neglecting to do the same for other criminals. The most common response is that the terrorists are committing their acts *in the name* of their Islamic beliefs while the everyday criminal couldn't care less whether his religion condones his act or not.
However, they fail to mention that although the terrorists are indeed acting on their Islamic beliefs, they are following deviant interpretations that are in the clear minority, as classified by the majority of Islamic scholars. Thus it would be more appropriate to label them 'deviant Muslim' terrorists, but as we all know that isn't done.
So you can imagine my complete surprise when I read that Gordon Brown, the new PM of UK, banned his administration from using the term Muslim in connection with the car bombing fiasco of last week. Not only that, he also proclaimed that the coinage 'war on terror' be dropped from everyday usage.
I must say that I'm impressed. This is clearly a step in the right direction. It shows a willingness to understand the complexity and the nuances of the crisis, something missed by the 'you're either with us or against us' Bush administration.
I just wonder how serious this will be implemented, especially by the media and the public. As can be seen in the comments section of this article (which I reproduced below), the public isn't going to warm too quickly to Brown's suggestions.
But then again, didn't Bush make a similar gesture after 9/11, when he went to the Islamic Center in DC, saying that we need to be careful in not indicting the entire Muslim population. Yeah, alot of good that did.
Finally, I wonder if Brown's stance has changed since it did come out that the perpetrators were Muslim. Now *that* would make me VERY impressed.
===================
BROWN: DON'T SAY TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS
Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorism crisis.
The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase “war on terror” is to be dropped.
The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair.
However, the change provoked claims last night that ministers are indulging in yet more political correctness.
The sudden shift in tone emerged in comments by Mr Brown and Ms Smith in the wake of the failed attacks in London and Glasgow.
Mr Brown’s spokesman acknowledged yesterday that ministers had been given specific guidelines to avoid inflammatory language.
“There is clearly a need to strike a consensual tone in relation to all communities across the UK,” the spokesman said. “It is important that the country remains united.”
He confirmed that the phrase “war on terror” – strongly associated with Mr Blair and US President George Bush – has been dropped.
Officials insist that no direct links with Muslim extremists have been publicly confirmed by police investigating the latest attempted terror attacks. Mr Brown himself did not refer to Muslims or Islam once in a BBC TV interview on Sunday.
Ms Smith also avoided any such reference in her statement to MPs yesterday.
She said: “Let us be clear – terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected.”
Tory backbencher Philip Davies said: “I don’t know what purpose is served by this. I don’t think we need pussyfoot around when talking about terrorism.”
But former Tory homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said: “This is quite a smart idea. We know that the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in terrorism and we have to accept there are sensitivities about these matters.”
Just don’t call it genocide
1 week ago
8 comments:
The US is "at war" with all kinds of things. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror. Yawn. We use the word "war" to get people's attention, motivate them. Let us then ponder the suitability of the term war-mongering.
But this week's Newsweek asks the question, Are we winning the war with Radical Islam?
Hold up...
We are at war with radical Islam? What is radical Islam? Is it different than just "Islam?" Depending on what politician you ask, it would be "fundamentalist Islam" or "extreme Islam" or "Islamism" or even... snicker... "Wahhabi Islam."
The funny thing was that according to Newsweek, the answer was yes! Are we merely battling semantics or is something more sinister at work here? When will people realize that being at war with something only means two sides lose. Going to war, declaring war on anything, drugs, poverty, terror, or even gambling, if it's physical or metaphorical, is nothing these days but an attempt to polarize people against a clearly identified "enemy."
If they didn't keep calling those terrorists Muslims, they couldn't keep pretending Muslims are the enemy! And it wouldn't make a lot of sense to be at war then... would it? Then they couldn't say they were winning the war, and they would be obligated to start relieving poverty instead of creating it, and discouraging drug use instead ot perpetuating it.
/rant
Salaam Amy,
What you said is absolutely correct...I especially liked your concluding remarks: "Then they couldn't say they were winning the war, and they would be obligated to start relieving poverty instead of creating it, and discouraging drug use instead ot perpetuating it."
Preach sista!! :-)
And it is because you are right that I am very impressed with (and even a bit suspecting of) Brown's proclamation against the usage of 'war on terror'.
Is this a shift in their policy? I strongly doubt that, so why is he taking this (principled) stance??
Wasalaam, and thanks.
I got something interesting in my email today I thought was somewhat relevant to this discussion. It quoted some of a Washington Post article by Zbigniew Brezinski (sp?)
Basically he was saying that the "war on terror" was creating a "culture of fear," essentially doing more damage than 9/11 or any real terrorism. That ties in to the idea that people are just afraid, and I think pointing out religion naturally ties the religion to the "evil" the world perceives.
So if they stop calling the terrorists, what are they going to call them? I just wonder. I think it's good, turning politics from fear-based to hope-based. That and making a conscious decision to stop smearing 20% of the global population as terrorists.
I should admit, though, that I doubt it will work. Hope I'm wrong. :-) Maybe he's trying to warm up to Muslims, maybe he's trying to add a new label to the mix in defining 'good' and 'bad.' Who knows?
Assalamualaykum
Very good points sister!
As a resident of the UK, (In all my own personal opinion). Brown did this because he knew that Blair lost ALOT of brownie points with the Muslims, thus the Muslims voted anyone besides Blair and as national elections should be coming up soon ... need I say more.
But we can always be optimistic and say maybe one PM is actually on the side of the Muslims.
Ma'assalam
AA- Radiant Light,
Thanks for your insight. Do UK Muslims have that much say in politics to force Brown and Co. to make such a drastic move? Are the impending elections seen to be so close that he needs to pander to the Muslim vote?
It seems that such a move would alienate him from those that believe a tough stance on terrorism is needed, don't you think?
Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just breed more terrorism?
Amy,
"Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just breed more terrorism?"
Does a tough stance on crime breed more crime? I think the underlying causes to the problem are lot more complex than the mis-steps taken by Bush/Blair. Clearly, their goof-ups didn't help, but let us also not oversimplify our analysis of the problem.
Post a Comment