Showing posts with label western ideals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label western ideals. Show all posts

Saturday, July 23, 2011

EXTREMISM HAS NO RELIGION - What The Oslo Terrorist Attacks Teach Us About the World We Are Living in Today


I am not going to provide a summary for what happened in Oslo because it was all over the news.  I would like to call attention to some of the comments that were made by media in wake of these terrorist attacks:

This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. [...] Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”


“…in jihadist eyes, [Norway] will always remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy, and every other freedom that defines the West. For being true to those ideals, Norwegians have now been asked to pay a terrible price.

           
“Norway also drew the ire of al Qaeda for publishing the controversial political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper and sparked outrage in the militant Islamic community.”


 “I think the betting is on terrorism. We don't know for sure, yet. But you've only got to look at the sort of blast that occurred. You've only got to look at the target - prime minister's office, the headquarters of the major newspaper group next door.
Why would that be relevant? Because the Norwegian newspapers republished the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad that caused such offense in the Muslim world. When that happened, the Norwegian telecoms offices in Pakistan were attacked and ransacked. The Norwegian embassy in Damascus was attacked. That is an issue that still rankles amongst Islamist militants the world over. So, that fact that Norwegian newspapers did that makes them a target.”




According to the article by Gharib and Waldron for ThinkProgress (found here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/23/277310/wapos-jen-rubin-wsj-right-wing-pundits-jumped-to-blame-muslims-and-jihadists-for-norway-attacks/) the second comment was initially in the Wall Street Journal but was promptly re-written when news of the real attacker was discovered.


As everybody is aware now, the terrorist is actually one that no one would have thought –
32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who is apparently a right-wing extremist and not anti-Western but anti-Muslim.

Since the world has learned of this, there has been little usage of the words “terrorist”, “fundamentalism”, or “extremism”.  Why not? He committed acts of terrorism; he was an extremist, and a fundamentalist.  But no; instead of calling his attacks what they were, we seem to have a special group of people for whom these labels are reserved for – regardless of if they have done anything or not.

The point of this article is to say that violence, extremism, hatred, and fundamentalism come in all forms.  They are not inherently Muslim; the fact that the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that these acts must have been committed by Muslim terrorists is saddening and offensive to the vast majority of Muslims who are against these violent acts. 

The world hates them.  The world likes to pin every fear, every violent act, every problem on them.  After all, it is because of Muslims we are in Iraq or we are in Afghanistan.  It is because of Muslims that there are problems at the Gaza Strip.  It is because of Muslims that airport and border security has to be more strict. 

But the reverse is actually true.  It is because of stereotypes that they are blamed for every problem.  It is because of these viewpoints that innocent people are being killed and their homelands are destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places.  It is because of these wars that Muslims are treated as less than people.  It is because of these viewpoints that the prevailing viewpoint is that Palestinians are in the wrong, even though they are denied property, and healthcare, and the actions of a few destitute citizens result in disproportionate violent retaliations from Israel and others.  It is because of these widely-held beliefs of Muslims that when they are completely innocent, they are still nervous to cross the boarder or pass through airport security.  It is because of these viewpoints that time and time again, innocent people are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay.  Muslims are victimized, searched, questioned, humiliated, and hated. It is because of these viewpoints that regular citizens are afraid of their own government.  They are afraid to say they are Muslim.

President Obama was often “accused” of being Muslim, as if being a Muslim, had he been one, was one of the most offensive things you could say to him.  He even venehemently denied it, because he saw it as such as well.

Many places in the United States have opposed mosques being built (with the ever-famous and incorrectly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”) which was clearly a “slap in the face” for Americans since they were “fighting Islam”; I must have been under the incorrect impression that they were fighting extremism – not the very religion.

And in doing  just that, the West is itself guilty of extremism in the name of Islamaophobia.  Muslims can no longer feel free to say and act how they want. They cannot openly express their religious beliefs through manner, speech, or dress, because they will be victimized and frowned upon. Having just a Muslim name or so-called “Muslim features” (“looking” South Asian or Middle Eastern) immediately labels them as extremists.  Simply attending a mosque becomes evidence against an innocent citizen.

The media consistently discusses the race and religion of suspects in “terrorist acts”; meanwhile, I have yet to hear a news anchor discussing the religion or race of a Christian white man who is committing similarly terroristic acts.

It is interesting that with such new ideas that people so quickly forget that there are Muslims who are citizens of our country. They contribute to the economy. They work hard just like anyone else. They pay their taxes. Muslims are signed up in the army. They also work as police officers, fire fighters, and other “patriotic” occupations.  They have families. They raise their children.  They want a good life.  There are Muslim teachers, professors, scholars,…the list goes on. They were affected by events like 9/11 just like “we” were; many Muslims lost their lives in those attacks as well, and in fact had to deal with a repercussion that most of us are not familiar with.  Following the attacks they were victimized and sought out; many were killed by angry citizens forgetting that the people they were targeting were citizens as well.

It seems that Islamaphobia has spiraled out of control so much that nobody thinks to question it.  Islam is simply bad and we do not want “those people” to express their “crazy” or “backwards” or “violent” religion.  We will do anything to keep them under control and hate them for being in “our” country.

But when I watch the news that tells me another school has been blown up in Afghanistan, or another cab driver was killed for being Muslim, or another person is tortured in Guantanamo, given no trial, or disclosure as to why he is a suspect, before being set free and found to be innocent, I ask myself yet again, “Who are the real terrorists?”


-Nancy L.

Sources           
 

Women Who Choose to Cover Themselves Are NOT Backwards

My name is Nancy and I am a liberal woman from a conservative place.



I recently saw an old friend post this picture up onto their Facebook, and this is what sparked the idea to write this post – about Muslim women, and then any other women for that matter, who would rather not show off their bodies.

(Obviously I am not talking about people who are actually are forced to hide their bodies beyond their will. I am talking about the women that choose to do so.)

The Western conception that anybody who does not like to wear (sometimes overly-) revealing clothes  (e.g. short skirts, “booty” shorts, halter tops, tank tops, low necklines, crop tops, leggings, etc.) means that they do not like their body, are ashamed of how they look, are ashamed even, to have the female form, is ridiculous. 

We live in the West assuming we are more forward-thinking than every other culture and country yet we still do not really understand the conception of liberty in so many ways. 

Telling women, or even merely judging them when they cover themselves up is backwards.  Why are we trying to enforce “liberty” on others? Does the phrase itself not sound oxymoronic?

While I agree that women’s faces should be shown for photo identification cards (e.g. faces should be showing, hair is not necessary) I do not see why women have to face both outward scrutiny and informal stigma of those surrounding them in society. I thought living in Western countries meant we were FREE to do as we chose as long as we did not harm others (thank you Mill); judging these women and unfairly calling attention to them in settings such as schools, the workplace, and then in broader ways through the media and in society in general is what causes harm to others.

A woman who chooses to dress modestly has as much right to do so as a woman who chooses to show herself; in fact, the former is not ashamed of herself, rather, this is the look she prefers and there is nothing wrong with that. So to simply assume that such women are “backwards”, “confused”, “too traditional”, “ashamed” and importantly, “forced” to do so, is ignorance. Some women prefer to be this way and some women do not. We cannot tell women how to dress and if that involves allowing them to show their bodies without assuming they are “sluts” then it also means allowing them to cover themselves without assuming they are “old fashioned”.

Yours sincerely,
Nancy.