Hard-line Islamists isolated from mainstream Muslims.
The Christian Science Monitor, in an article called Can Islam's leaders reach its radicals? says the influential Muslim leaders have little influence among the tiny sliver of Muslims who are now prosecuting what they see as a global jihad.While Islamic preachers speaking out against terrorism play a useful role in efforts to stem the spread of the global jihad, the rejectionist, or takfiri, beliefs of those already committed to extreme violence lead them to tune out any and all criticism of their methods. ...As much as I would like to believe that there is some sort of communication the West could have with hard-line Islamists, I don't. If anything positive is going to happen to stop this sort of terrorism, I think it's totally up to moderate Muslins to figure how to do it.
And I wish them luck.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 11:09 AM
3 Comments:
Well, the only difference is that we don't have branches of Christianity in the US performing mass murders. My guess is that the Islamic problem is wider than theological diversity.
Of course, if that's true, than no amount of talking on a theological level will do any good.
Paul, I agree with you on one level, but on another I see a high level of acceptance for the results of our own violent acts. Apparently, it's okay to many "Christians" if you use the right words and justifications, or call it things like collateral damage or friendly fire. Part of the psychology underlying the acceptance of our current and historical interventions in other countries is the unstated racism and religionism that allows us to downplay and ignore the results of violence in third world countries. Few Americans would so easily accept such collateral casualties, deaths or torture among a white, Christian population. And one of the more frightening things is that the acceptance of our violence seems to be easier for some who strangely claim to be the most genuine followers of our God of Love and Prince of Peace. Does this result from the same kind of powerful tribal/fascist psychological forces that drive Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist acts?
There are those who say that religion of any sort is the cause of most of the violence in the world. People of strong religious beliefs, of course, condemn this attitude.
If not the cause of violence, I think it's most certainly used way too frequently in the defense of violence.
Wikipedia says that the second Ku Klux Klan, for example, promoted White Protestantism over other religious groups.
Many would say that it's a very small minority of people who use religion as a reason or as a defense. Perhaps; but that small minority certainly cause a lot of death and destruction.
Post a Comment
<< Home