Here's a very interesting article over at Christian Science Monitor on 10 terms not to use with Muslims. It includes common buzz words like secular, jihadi, and reformation.
I was going to write down my thoughts but Dunner beat me to it. Do check out his post. For example, here's JD's take on the term Moderate:
"Moderate" - "Moderate Muslim" isn't necessarily a bad term per se, but the real problem is that for most non-Muslims, a "moderate Muslim" really means a "secular Muslim." The way non-Muslims talk about Muslims, there's little to no difference between an observant Muslim (one who prays, fasts, etc.) and the al-Qaida types. That's what makes "moderate Muslim" such an offensive term. It doesn't help matters when governments promote this type of thinking, such as in the recently leaked British documents that "define" who is an extremist Muslim. (According to the British criteria, I qualify as an "extremist," an idea I find patently absurd.)
My one additional comment is on the term 'clash of civilizations'. Here is the excerpt from the CSM article:
'1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.'
The author starts off by dismissing the entire good vs evil paradigm that was popularized by W Bush. Good start.
But then he props it right back up when he creates his own two sides of civilization - one that's made up of murderers of innocent civilians and the other consisting of institutions that protect minorities while upholding the rule of law.
Interesting, but what about the institutions who maintain their selective 'rule of law' while murdering innocent civilians?
It's extremely naive of him to suggest that the institutions he refers to are 'for civilization' while the evidence clearly indicates that those very institutions have a bloody track record of murdering civilians.
The clash of civilizations does exist. But its less ideological (Islam vs West) and more economical (North vs South). It's between the haves and the have-nots, most of whom just happen to inhabit the Muslim world. As long as the powerful continue to loot the lands and rape the resources of the powerless while maintaining control with despotic, proxy rulers, there will always be a clash.
Let's not kid ourselves.
Just don’t call it genocide
1 week ago
7 comments:
You read that Christian Science monitor crap?
*rhetorical question*
-The Muslim Kid-
I agree the clash of civilization is purely economical for the West will support Islam if it is in their interest; remeber Afghanistan in the 1980's and Saudia Arabia now. When we talk about institutions and civilizations, look who has killed, raped, looted, oppressed the most in the 20th century, it is the West. Even most recently, you had ethnic clensing and genocide in Bosnia all supported by the Serbian Church. The truly exists and will likely get worse if the West persists in its oppression.
@ TMK: You're showing your youth and inexperience here. The Christian Science Monitor has a long and distinguished history, and has been highly regarded as a newspaper for many decades. It's truly a shame that their print edition is going under, like many other newspapers are; insha'allah, their online edition will continue to be a quality product.
You know what, I hate violence in all its forms, especially when uneducated, uncivilized and mad sects of Islam perpetuate against our democratic and civilization. I am surprised to find, there are certain enlightened Muslims called Sufis who are against these mad killers. Apparently our CIA is carrying out a concerted effort to neutralize the JIHADI groups in Pakistan. The US RAND Corporation is running an experiment to utilize some SUFI SECTS to fight the puritanical and hard-headed WAHABI JIHADI groups. Let us hope this succeeds. Really, thinking of it, I see a beauty in young Muslims engaged in smoking and uninhabited sex, shit if we do not encourage this hedonism they will kill us all. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7896943.stm
Assalamu alaikum,
Br. Naeem I completely agree with you about what "clash of civilizations" really means. I would go even further and state that it's not just economic, but also political, military, social, and cultural domination that they are striving for. In the long term they don't want any potential competitors to emerge in the world (look at how they treat China and Russia). One such competitor could emerge from the Muslim world and so they are trying their best to prevent this first by finding excuses to invade and occupy different parts of the Muslim world(allowing Yugoslavia to break up so as to occupy Bosnia and Kosovo, not apprehending Al-Qaida back in the 90's so that when it attacked they could invade Afghanistan, and of course claiming that Iraq possessed WMD's and whatnot).
Since the invasion and occupation they next tried to threaten Muslims with detentions, interrogations, and torture. Along with that they ramped up the defamation of Islam through their news and entertainment media.
Now that they're facing too many difficulties in their invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they're trying the new tactic illustrated by the CSM article where they no longer want to offend the Muslims and they're trying hard to show that they're all for reconstruction and development of the countries they're occupying (which is really just eaten up by all the corruption and waste). As Muslims we shouldn't be fooled by these tactics but instead we should first pray to Allah for His Help and Mercy and start relying on ourselves for our own political, social, and economic development using the Prophet's model of running a state in the Madinan period. Blindly relying on others and later becoming codependent on them leads to the terrible conditions we're facing today.
Sensitivity training for Christians?
AA-
@Anon1, If I've correctly deciphered your comment, you seem to be taking offense to the usage of Sufism to counter the jihadi mentality. Correct?
While I too find it problematic how the RAND approach is basically seeking to use one group of Muslims against another group, I must admit that I find a great bit of sense in the approach of reforming the hearts before we can reform our governments. Sorry dude, but purification of the soul (which is the basic gist of tasawwuf) isn't all about free drugs and even more free sex.
@Anon2, "I would go even further and state that it's not just economic, but also political, military, social, and cultural domination that they are striving for."
Good point, its all about power. And power is primarily derived from economic strength. Imperialism has always been about colonizing for financial gains by subjugating the local resources (natural or human).
Nothing has changed.
Post a Comment