Former Democratic Party head Howard Dean has caused a controversy with his remarks on Wednesday criticizing people who call the murderers in Paris “Muslim terrorists.” Dean certainly makes a strong point when he says “They’re about as Muslim as I am,” he said. “I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says.” It is easy to forget that most Muslims are as appalled and outraged as non-Muslims by these horrific crimes. However, I do not agree that we have to adopt another verboten term. The fact is the “Muslim extremist” or “Muslim terrorist” refer to the motivation and self-identity of the killers not their adherence to the proper reading of Islam. I have used it in publication as the most accurate descriptive term for those committing these atrocities.
While Dean is getting a lot of heat over this, I think that this is a fair point to raise, even if you reject the suggestion.
Here is the exchange:
HOWARD DEAN: You know, this is a chronic problem. I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. Europe has an enormous radical problem. I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.
BRZEZINSKI: Interesting, yeah. Hmm.
DEAN: And I think you got to deal with these people. The interesting thing here, is we talked about guns the last time in regarding the United States, regarding how guns get in the hands of the kind of people that kill the two police officers here two weeks ago.
France has tremendous gun control laws, and yet these people are able to get Kalashnikovs. So, this is really complicated stuff, and I think you have to treat these people as basically mass murderers. But I do not think we should accord them any particular religious respect, because I don’t think, whatever they’re claiming their motivation is, is clearly a twisted, cultish mind.
Obviously, these murderers were motivated by their view of Islam, even yelling “Allahu akbar” as they fired and screaming that they have “avenged” Mohammed for being put into cartoons. Obviously, some Muslims agree with such violent action given the murder of dozens of non-Muslims after the Danish cartoon controversy in 2006.
The fact is that we would refer to Hindu or Christian terrorists if a crime were committed in the name of their faiths. Referring, as Dean suggests, to all such terrorists as “mass murderers” denies specificity in reporting and commentary on these particular criminals. The use of “Muslim” in stories like those coming out of Paris is meant to add specificity and distinction in the description of these terrorists from other terrorists. Unfortunately, we live in a world filled with such individuals of various faiths including stories on “Hindu terrorists” and other faith-based attacks. After all, shouldn’t Guy Fawkes be referred to as a “Catholic terrorist” for his role in the Gunpowder Plot (meant to to blow up the House of Lords over the persecution of Catholics)? Fawkes was motivated by his religion even though most Catholics are appalled at the notion of destroying Parliament.
Dean’s point is still worthy of discussion. There is a danger that these extremists will be taken for representatives of their faith. After all, it was a Muslim police officer who was gunned down begging for his life on the street.
However, that point can be made clear in the context of coverage. Indeed, I often refer to such individuals as “Muslim extremists” to convey not just their motivation but their position on the fringe of their faith. The concern is to add yet another prohibited term added to what seems an ever-lengthening list.
Dean’s comments however do serve to force a legitimate debate over whether it is far to refer to such extremists by their faith. I would be more convinced if the murderers were not expressly acting in the name of their faith and simply happened to be Muslim. It would then be inappropriate in my view to call murderers who acted for other purposes (like personal or economic crimes) by their faith. Yet, here you have extremists who acted clearly in adherence to their own warped view of religion. Notably, the New York Times, USA Today, NPR, and other major publications continue to use the terms “Muslim terrorists” or “Muslim extremists.”
What do you think?
po, If you can get off your soapbox and have an honest and practical discussion, here is the most likely scenario that is going to play out. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s most likely. I give this prediction w/o posturing. I am a former high school history teacher and a PI, a professional observer of human behavior. Unless folks like yourself rise up against the Muslim terrorists you will be seen as giving your tacit approval of what they are doing. And, because of that, you will be lumped w/ the terrorists when democracies hit terrorists w/ both barrels. The western world has been quite restrained in their reaction to these attacks. I am fairly certain the gloves will be coming off soon. I can predict your reply and that truly saddens me. You don’t get it. I fear there will be blood and some of it will be good people like you shedding it. It’s gut check time, po. No time to wax philosophical or parse words.
(Is anyone else having trouble leaving a comment. It keeps asking me to sign in and when I do thru the wordpress icon I get a page saying the security certificate is not valid.)
@leejcarol: I have had the same problem as well. Hopefully the site administrator will be able to address it.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/11/arsonists-attack-german-paper-that-published-french-cartoons/21127937/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing11%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D596653
Arsonists attack German paper that published French cartoons
I am not sure why this is so threatening to these Muslims who feel that G-d calls on them to destroy not build. Po said she wants to bring more people to Islam which is fine, no different then Jehovah’s witnesses, other religions, denominations that have conversion as a mission but why don’t these muslim terrorists, for that’s what they are, they terrorize in the name of Allah, understand you don’t get people to your side by killing, maiming, terrorizing but by decency and sane behavior. This I will never understand
leejcaroll – here is an article on the German Molotov cocktail incident that might be to your liking. Personally, I think the authors sound like budding Neonazis
http://news.yahoo.com/arson-attack-hamburg-newspaper-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-073519453.html
Po said …
That is all I am saying. If the issue is with terrorism, let’s make it about terrorism, let’s find a common outlook on it and address it with standards and fairness, otherwise, we alienate more than we solve, and who will lose between one who cares little to die and one who cares to live?
I’d agree with that, but that is hardly “all you are saying.” My criticism: Your persistent use of moral equivalences, from your perspective, from the past, none actually on topic, detracts from your stance. I grow very weary of such arguments about the bad things done by others in the past, or even many of the good things. You are free to make them but they do not serve the purpose of expanding dialog….in today’s world as it is in fact. Just my opinion, but one based upon personal and federal experience. Good ideas are frequently de-railed by that usage.
As a former solider and then a military “Fed” I noted that every time, literally every time, a senior policy maker/rule maker wants to re-organize they merely wish to copy another agency, who has no better a record, even worse at times. Very little creativity, or new vision, and thus very little effect, except to increase their own ranks. I really don’t think you mean to do it, but you do it none the less.
When I seek my neighbors’ opinions I will not be referring to past moral equivalences, on either side, because I know, first hand, how that derails discussion of the here and now. I am quite sure that incident where I laid down my rifle and played baseball with some local national kids was among my most effective gestures…and as I said, the result was warnings of impending attacks. Kids are generally more open and less fearful of doing what they think is the right thing. Someone who has taken the time to join them without threat will earn a certain loyalty that adults seldom can muster in far away places.
PS: That said, the freaking weather here these days, like 5 degree F with 10 mph wind makes it harder to reach those neighbors I don’t know well up front…because for people who are semi-strangers here usually first gather on front porches where you are always welcome to step up and join a conversation, providing your listening skills are honed a bit. It will be some before I feel I have a wide collections of opinions.
happypappies:
“Karen, you are supposed to act like you are sitting and having a cup of coffee together and when it gets too weird to knock it off. I have got so I don’t even comment on the religious barrages on here any more cause you just get sucked into the maelstrom. No one is going to change anyone’s mind anyway anyhow.”
No way. I’m too sensitive to caffeine. If I acted like I was sipping coffee, I would just write in continuous run-on sentences.
How are the Papillons? Got that championship title yet? I’ve seen Pappies do agility, and they are sooooooooo cute bounding around the field. They always look like they’re smiling. Funny how my favorite dogs are on opposite sides of the spectrum – GSD and Papillons, plus my Cling-on ACD.
Thanks Mike Pouraryan, they profess it, the religion of love, and they live it, the sufis.
BFM
That is all I am saying. If the issue is with terrorism, let’s make it about terrorism, let’s find a common outlook on it and address it with standards and fairness, otherwise, we alienate more than we solve, and who will lose between one who cares little to die and one who cares to live?
Muslims have no need to support islamic extremism, 95% of its victims are muslim. The surest way to make them retreat in their shell is to try to force them to renounce someones they have no control over, or to make them feel as if they are responsible for it somehow.
I am now seeing a backlash on twitter from normal, regular, “moderate, for whatever it means” muslims who resent having to apologize for the deeds of people they know not and have nothing in common but their claim to follow the same belief system. What Chris Rock says “Oh God don’t let it be a black man, don’t let it be a black man” is the same thing Muslims here and everywhere says every time they hear about a bomb going off anywhere “oh God, don’t let it be a Muslim.”
Anyone who is contributing to this insane rhetoric of them and us, of clash of civilizations is putting logs into a fire that once ignited, will be extremely hard to extinguish. No demonization of a people goes on wholesale without the whole of the world paying for it.
I do appreciate that you, and Ari among others asked the right questions and offered the right attitude of not speaking out of turn…when one can listen and hear, what they speak is more often than not of much value.
The WAPO has a front page article reporting Prime Minister Manuel Valls declares war on radical Islam.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-remains-anxious-police-kill-charlie-hebdo-terror-suspects-and-ally/2015/01/10/6138e226-9825-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html?hpid=z1
From the article: ” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at “war” with radical Islam after three days of bloody attacks around Paris that sparked fears of a tide of violence by militants living in Europe.”
It is not clear to what extent this is rhetoric and what if any difference this will make in the policies and tactics the French use against terrorists.
I am going to guess this is a clear indication the French will take whatever steps they feel necessary to protect themselves from violence by terrorists.
@BigFatMike: I saw his comments “live” as he spoke on it on BBC –He also said that France does not have a problem with Islam–but France does need to understand that the 5 Million+ Members of the Muslim Community have to insure that they are included….as they need to insure that the French Jews do not feel threatened..because he also said that there is no France with the French Jews…..
15 attacks on Muslims in France since the Charlie Hebdo attack, none called terrorist so far. There my issue!
I will leave you all with this from Ibn Arabia @Tyger Gilbert, @Karen S & @Po & All the others who have taken the time to share their thoughts..
O Marvel,
a garden among the flames!
My heart can take on
any form:
a meadow for gazelles,
a cloister for monks,
For the idols, sacred ground,
Ka’ba for the circling pilgrim,
the tables of the Torah,
the scrolls of the Qur’án.
I profess the religion of love;
wherever its caravan turns along the way,
that is the belief,
the faith I keep.
Po:
I think you have raised an important issue. For those of us who want to make a difference the challenge is to keep the focus on real terrorists and to support those who are not. Those who are not terrorists are our natural allies in what could become a much more difficult situation.
..and that is why we have to avoid “blanket” comments and misconceptions which do not have any basis in fact…and the plea of the brother of the fallen Muslim Police Officer–a Hero who gave his life for what is right and just– reminded us all of this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30762153
No disagreement with you, Mike.
karen, am not sure what you said, just skimmed over it, and it doesn’t seem like you have answered my questions.
If that’s the case, let’s just agree to disagree until next time.
Until then, I’ll direct any and all questions anyone has about Islam and shariah law to you, since you seem to know a great deal more about it than I do.
You know, I think I’m getting used to this. I was quite shocked when I joined that people who disagreed with me would call me names and a liar. People act very differently when they type in a screen instead of face to face. For example, a while ago when I revealed I was a fiscal conservative, I was told I wanted poor kids to die. It’s interesting that when I said that I support moderate Islam, and condemn extremist Islam, I was called a liar. You’d think that would be the rational position, differentiating between violent and non-violent Islam. But apparently it’s highly offensive to some to condemn violent extremism.
People who claim they are the most tolerant seem shockingly intolerant of other views. It seems to be a trend. It’s a good exercise in remaining assertive while trying not to sling mud myself.
Karen, you are supposed to act like you are sitting and having a cup of coffee together and when it gets too weird to knock it off. I have got so I don’t even comment on the religious barrages on here any more cause you just get sucked into the maelstrom. No one is going to change anyone’s mind anyway anyhow 😉
Karen, when you try to have an honest intellectual discussion with someone who is incapable of it, you are only going to annoy the pig and get mud all over yourself, the same as trying to teach a hog to dance. Several different tactics have been used here that only obfuscate the discussion, with the intent to make the arguer appear right, such as “the straw man”, and “misdirection”, but it wouldn’t be worth the time to list them all. To have any real value, a debate like this needs to be about WHAT is right, not WHO is right, and be without name calling and labeling. That doesn’t appear it’s going to happen on this topic.
Po:
You may have slight differences, such as the number of lashes meted out in Sharia Law punishments among countries. The similarity is that, among other things, apostasy and homosexuality are capital offenses. No one is allowed to criticize Islam or the clerics under Sharia Law. Who cares if one country gives out 35 lashes and another gives out 46?
Sharia Law abuses human rights in every single country where it is practiced as criminal code.
On the one hand you claim that you don’t know any Muslims who want Sharia Law. On the other hand, you have vigorously defended Sharia Law here, and on other threads. Once again, you complain when I criticize Sharia Law, as per usual. If the other Muslims you know don’t want Sharia Law, do you complain to them, as well?
I have never said there is a universal push for Sharia Law here. Once again you are attributing false statements to me. I have said that Sharia Law is condemned on this blog and elsewhere, and that we do not want it here. It has encroached in the UK, and elsewhere in the West, so it is wise to prevent its spread. Who said every Muslim wants it here? I have specifically said the Muslims I have known do not, to support the fact that it abuses human rights.
“If you want me to accept that you are only against extremism, not islam, condemn extremism, not islam. Stop ranting against shariah law and especially, stop putting words in other people’s mouths just so you can attack them on that which they are not saying, seems dishonest and deceitful.”
Once again you have made a false accusation. I have never lied to or about you. Again, your repeatedly calling me dishonest on this and other threads does not make it so. I have many flaws, but dishonesty is not one of them, as any casual review of the blog will verify.
I have condemned extremist Islam, and supported peaceful Islam. You choose not to believe me, and declare I am an “Islamophobe.” If you say that to everyone who opposes violent extremism, then you are wrong. If you question the intelligence and honesty of everyone who criticizes violent extremism, then you are wrong. And if you don’t like criticizing Sharia Law, I suggest you take it up with Professor Turley. He regularly addresses the abuses of human rights under Sharia Law, such as the blogger who just received his first set of 50 lashes in Saudi Arabia. Why can you not tolerate my agreeing with him?
This is the US. When Muslim terrorists kill people for drawing a cartoon, and attack a Kosher grocery store in Paris, it’s news. And we all get to call it savage behavior, and condemn violent extremism in general. Get used to it. You are free to be unreasonable, and lash out with names to your heart’s content. It will change nothing. People will have the same opinions the next time it happens, and your calling them Islamophobes will not make what the terrorists did any more acceptable.
Maybe you should blame the Muslim terrorists instead of those who condemn what they do in the name of Islam.
In response to the deliberations, I will only ask that the family of the Fallen **Muslim** Martyr Policeman’s plea be heard by all…please visit: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30762153 & I hope all of you (whatever your differences are) to add your name to Avaaz’ call to join the people of Paris tomorrow in solidarity @ https://secure.avaaz.org/en/march_with_paris_loc/?pv=62&rc=fb
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Hillary Clinton on anti-blasphemy laws.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphemy-20111210
Inga, I know han?
Again, those calling for the banning of sharah law are either scared out of their senses by others, or just scaring others out of their senses themselves.
Fear is like rabies, the bitten bite and before we know it, everyone is bat crazy.
Paul, I take back my comment re Aisha, I take your words at face value and accept that I saw deceit where there was none.
Karen
Once more, I’d say this, I have yet to meet any muslim in this country who advocates for shariah law, not one single one!
And I am offering this stat again, in Egypt, 75% of the polled advocated for the establishment of shariah law, 85% disagree on what it means.
You,karen, obviously are an expert in shariah law, just wished you’d answer my questions above rather than doubling down on the rabies.
So Karen, one step at a time. Now that we on shariah law, here are my questions again. Once you answer them, we’ll move to the rest of the issues.
1-what is shariah law?
2- Is it universal?
3- Is Shariah law used and applied similarly everywhere?
4-Who wrote shariah law?
5- Who determines its application and extent?
If you want me to accept that you are only against extremism, not islam, condemn extremism, not islam. Stop ranting against shariah law and especially, stop putting words in other people’s mouths just so you can attack them on that which they are not saying, seems dishonest and deceitful.
Clinton has never been for blasphemy laws
.” Countries are expected “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”
For the U.S. and other mostly Western democracies, a crucial aspect of the resolution is a clause “[r]affirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”
This from the right bias CNS http://cnsnews.com/news/article/religious-tolerance-resolution-backed-obama-administration-aligns-islamic-bloc-s
U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Resolution 16/18 was purportedly a compromise between advocates of a resolution condemning “defamation of religions” and those who were concerned that such a resolution would threaten freedoms of expression and religion. The Council adopted Resolution 16/18 in March 2011. http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/04/un-resolution-16-18
What is another example of moderate, peaceful Islam? The moving images of Hasidic Jews and Muslims helping each other escape the city after 9/11.
THAT is what we can, and do, achieve on a daily basis. Muslims are friends with people of all faiths, and are productive members of society all around the US. Conservative Muslims share many aspects with Conservative Christians in opposing the shallow, self-absorbed hedonism of the most vulgar of reality TV shows. They don’t blow up a TV station. They raise their kids to have better values. You know. Normal people.
Violent extremists fight against that peaceful coexistence and try to harm those they disagree with, or threaten harm to get what they want.
Po:
“AS usual, Karen, you go out of your way to frame the subject being discussed in the worse light possible, while claiming that you are not doing that. I wonder how your many, many muslims friends feel about you? Or perhaps they do not know this side of you.”
“And I forgot to mention how odd is it that you mention shariah law and your muslim friends not wanting shariah law here in the US when NO ONE mentioned bringing it here!”
You indicate that my Muslim friends might not like me if they knew how I felt. Well, I oppose violent extremism and support peaceful Islam. I oppose Sharia Law as it violates human rights. So . . . since the Muslims I hung out with also shared that view (especially since extremists murdered one woman’s entire family), then no problem. I brought up that they would not want Sharia Law here because that was one of my points.
“Once again, you have no right or standing to determine who is moderate and who isn’t.”
Yes, I do have “standing.” It’s known as “free speech” and “the law.” Here in the US, we have the right to believe anything we want and say anything we want, outside of inciting a riot or shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theatre when there is none. Violent extremism, by definition of being “violent” is against the law. Moderate, peaceful Islam, by definition, follows the law. Hence, the distinction. It is legal to BE extremist, anti-semitic, or have any other prejudices, and I will consider that wrong, but legal. But if someone commits violence, he or she is a “violent” extremist, and that is against the law.
I would have said, no way would we ever see blasphemy laws in the US. And then along came Hillary Clinton . . .
There is condemnation of Sharia Law on this blog, and elsewhere, simply because it violates human rights abuses. When gays and rape victims are murdered under Sharia Law, that’s news.
There is concern about Sharia Law spreading to the West because the UK already allows Sharia Law to operate in family courts. It would be unwise to ignore this encroaching trend in our Western allies. And there are often calls to allow aspects of Sharia Law in the US. For example, Hillary Clinton champions an international blasphemy law. No one depicts The Prophet because it defies a tenet of Islam and some maniac extremist will kill you. The President and Hillary condemned the maker of that video, wrongfully blaming him for Benghazi, instead of steadfastly supporting his freedom of speech. So, yes, our freedoms are getting chipped away as well-meaning people make concessions to try to make violent extremists happy, which is impossible.
There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious: Sharia Law abuses human rights everywhere it is practiced as criminal code, and we don’t want it here in the US.
Po:
“There you go, Karen, with your “some of my friends are muslim” bit.
I have said it before, you break up the entirety of muslims into 2 groups, those you know and everyone else.”
This is ridiculous. First you insinuate that I don’t really know any Muslims, with your remarks that I seem to know an awful lot of Muslims. Then you keep saying that I take the view that my Muslim friends are good, but the rest of Muslims are bad.
Would you feel better if I had never had any Muslim friends? Would that fit into your “Islamophobe” scenario better?
I keep telling you this is an utter falsehood, and your continue to make false statements does not make them true.
I have been utterly consistent that violent Muslim extremism = bad and peaceful Islam = good. I even defended the right of the Indian official to rejoice in the murders of Paris as what should be protected free speech, even though it’s abhorrent.
Every single time anyone condemns violent Islam, or human rights abuses under Sharia Law, you complain bitterly that we’re all Islamophobes. It’s a common tactic used to defend extremism.
You do not libel garbage when you say it stinks.
Violent extremism is wrong, and a crime in the US and in Europe. Saying violent Islam is wrong casts no aspersions on Muslims living peacefully here and elsewhere. That’s like saying condemning the Catholic pedophilia scandal is condemning all Catholics, and no criticism should be allowed.
Here in America, people have the right to peacefully follow any faith, or lack thereof, they choose. That’s America, and I love those freedoms.
You can tell me all day long what you wish I thought, but you’ll be as wrong in a thousand years as you are today.
Inga – I would have never thought that same sex marriage would be approved in my lifetime, but it has been in many states.