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?
I am confident that I am reasonably well versed in the English Language.
You know what invariably happens when someone posts a statement like this? The commenter makes a grammatical error. I’ve done it, and so have you.
The word is “cue”, not “queue”.
Your comments fall completely into the “no true Scotsman” category. If you actually understood the comment of mine you claim to understand so well, you’d be able to see why your point is irrelevant to mine.
Also, why don’t you answer my simple questions? I’d really like to hear what you have to say on that subject.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/11/3610381/the-unsung-muslim-heroes-of-the-paris-terrorist-attacks/
The Muslim Heroes Who Resisted The Paris Terrorists
Po wrote: Lee, I never said I wanted more people to come to Islam. I do not care actually.
However you write on 1/8 at :!.8 11:41 (so you can find it): Actually, my time, I hope, is better spent trying to help islamophobes like you find the light and convert to Islam than to risk getting killed by people who are already too far gone.
Chip, should we then all hail the Muslim hero who saved the people at the kosher market?
Um…obviously yes?
Your reliance on straw men has become pathetic.
Nick Spinelli
po, Your answer says it all. You have a chip on your shoulder. NO, NO, NO you should not have to answer for what Muslim terrorists are doing. But you and alleged good Muslims need to spend your time DENOUNCING what they are doing and less time dancing the freakin’ jig.
——————————
Nick, you damn right i have a chip of my shoulder,and it gets bigger the more people keep telling me how I should spend my time.
I have other things to do than spend it denouncing over and over shit I have no control over. Thanks for the advice.
Considering how quickly we tremble in our shoes here whenever a bomb goes off, I wouldn’t be so sure that we can win a full blown conflagration. The best thing you can do for yourself and the world is to focus on reigning your government as it rains bombs across the globe.
We killed 841 people, many women and children while trying to kill 50 people, who are still unharmed, we have decided not to count collateral damage as we bomb ISIS across Syria. For every one it kills, 10 more stand up and side with the terrorists. Don’t wonder when the next bomb goes off here and claim they hate us for our freedom, wonder what we do to them. Short of that, you are being a sheep, led to the slaughter by your refusal to see facts as they are.
Chip, should we then all hail the Muslim hero who saved the people at the kosher market? If Islam caused the crime shouldn’t Islam cause the rescue?
No? Ah yeah, forgot, doesn’t fit your narrative. Keep trying brother,one fallacy may stick after a while.
I give you this though, based on this alone, you have every right to hate Muslims.
I’m sorry, mike, but I don’t think you understood my last comment at all. So let me make the same point in a different way:
What do you see as the operational point of saying that these people are simply “killers”? Are you opposed to monitoring what’s being advocated by radical imams? Are you opposed to devoting special police attention to the activities of r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ false Muslims? Do you think that France, Germany, Britain, the US, and other open societies should simply learn to live with occasional slaughters rather than speak plainly about the self-professed motives of the killers?
What am I supposed to do if I grant you your point, other than feel morally superior to less enlightened people? I’m asking sincerely.
@ Chip S: I am confident that I am reasonably well versed in the English Language. I view you as having misunderstood my comments ,,,again underscore the need to respectfully urge you (and all others) to listen to the clip from Mehdi Hassan said…I will also take my queue from what the Brother of the Martyred MUSLIM officer said….and I hope you and others who do so embrace that view…we owe the fallen that much..don’t we?
Po led this thread into preoccupation with an irrelevance (“not all Muslims”) and a logical fallacy (“no true Muslim”) long ago. Whether that was intentional diversion or an unintended consequence of defensiveness doesn’t matter to me.
The simple statistical fact is that there is a non-ignorable number of people being incited to violence through their association with those who preach that the Koran calls for violence. This means that efforts to prevent massacres as at Charlie Hebdo or hostage-takings as at the Jewish market or kidnappings as by Boko Haram or beheadings as by ISIL must treat radical Islam as a predictive factor.
It would be ideal if Muslim communities around the world were willing and able to take care of this problem themselves. That has not happened, so it would be foolish to the point of suicidal to rely on it.
Preventive policing is the next line of defense. This means the sorts of surveillance activities that are commonly denounced as “profiling” or “otherizing”. They’re neither; they’re simple applications of basic probability theory to matters of life and death.
Military action is a last resort. It exacts a huge death toll on the soldiers called upon to fight against murderous gangs, or even regimes, as well as on the innocent bystanders who are inevitable casualties of war.
Pretending that open societies are not under attack by sociopaths inspired by their common interpretation of their professed religion is a very costly indulgence.
@Chip S: Hope you have a chance to read up on my comments earlier….and at least listen to this clip which should at least make you (and all the other sceptics) get a different sense of what is out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjRI2AsF3h0 (I released it earlier)…..I would only say this to you and all others: The Essence of Faith is being human …The Lord’s Prayer reminds us of it every day..and All faiths underscore this. I again say to you that just because these loser lowlifes called themselves Muslims does not make them Muslim…They are killers. It is also worth noting to those who say “Satire” was the issue by quoting Nihad Awad of CAIR (which some have frowned upon in disdain in comments earlier: “….If your #Faith is shaken by a cartoon, then you have no faith. …” .I hope you and all the others take your queue from the Brother of the Slain Martyred MUSLIM Police Officer on this question & I shared notations on it earlier in one of the channels of #outsiders: http://avisionofthepossible.blogspot.com/2015/01/notations-for-week-end-on-co-existence.html
I hope we extend respect to those who have paid the ultimate price…I was blessed as I was witness to the live coverage of the march in Paris..and I hope we can all come together–I added my name to the campaign by AVAAZ for the Virtual March (and I hope a few of you did as well)…..We have to come together, learn from each other and avoid attacking each other–and YES debate and disagree without being disagreeable. I would humbly suggest to you all that if the tragedy in Paris has taught all 7 Billion of us is this…especially as we have to deal with the cancer of Boko Haram…AND the cancer of the Al Shahab…..& We Shall Overcome……
Less theology and philosophy and more common sense is what is called for right now, po. Just telling it like it is!!
po, Your answer says it all. You have a chip on your shoulder. NO, NO, NO you should not have to answer for what Muslim terrorists are doing. But you and alleged good Muslims need to spend your time DENOUNCING what they are doing and less time dancing the freakin’ jig. As I said, you DON’T GET IT. What I’m saying is unfortunately you will, w/ both barrels, if you don’t get that chip off your shoulder. We are much better @ killing people than those ham n’ egger jihadists. Remember what happened to Japanese citizens. They too did nothing wrong. We are real SOB’s when it comes to people taking shots @ us. And remember as well, that was a liberal Dem who locked up the Japanese. “Those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.” If random acts, or a big act occur here, you might want to start packing your bags. AND THAT WOULD BE A DAMN SHAME. I’m just trying to tell you what’s coming. That chip is blocking your ears. The Good Lord gave us 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason.
Ari
This is the issue with Islam…it is not like Catholicism or other faiths that have a head. The Muslim has a direct relation to God, using the QUran, the hadith and the intellectual works of the predecessors.
Islam demands one exercises his duty to engage in 2 things, the seeking of knowledge and the exercising of the intellect. One of the tenets of Islam is actually that when any news come to you, ascertain it the best you can before you act on it. Unfortunately, too many of us, and this across all religions (not a moral equivalency, I tend to speak generally) have abdicated our duties to learn and to think. Anyone who opens the quran and reads half of the verse that says to attack the disbelievers wherever you find them will claim legality in applying it…but he is obviously deceitful because the full verse says only in self-defense, and never civilians… All of the main sunni and shia scholars have spoken forcefully against terrorism, about the abuse of the quran to justify terror, but one hears only what one wants to hear.
In the time of the Prophet, his general, Khalid, massacred a town when their reply to him was misconstrued to mean something else. When the Prophet heard of it, he looked up, raised his hands in grief and exclaimed:
” O Allah, you are my witness that I had nothing to do with this, nothing to do with this!”
Isis has used the first part of this hadith, the massacring of the town to justify its own massacring, but conveniently slept on the latter part, the disapproval of the people and the anger and grief of the Prophet.
So they know what they are doing, they know that they are torturing the texts in order to justify their acts…and they do it primarily by quoting them out of context.
So how does Nick imagine I check Isis and the related groups?
95% of the victims of islamic terror are muslims, how…where…why are we assumed to have any power to speak to those groups?
i do not know a terrorist. I have never heard one claim to commit an act of terror. I have spoken about islamic terror as have most of the Muslims I know…but I am getting sick and tired of it, of being the only from any group that has this burden thrust upon them.
Some used the moral equivalency of when the child sexual abuses by the priesthood came to life, that they spoke up against it. SO their reaction was individual, they had the option to speak out individually, or not. Where were the calls to have Catholics speak out communally?
Why weren’t Catholics held communally responsible for those crimes?
That is my point all along. One can hold Muslims to that standard IF and only IF we hold everyone else to that standard. Otherwise it is unfair, and we all know that unfairness is that which will undermine a society effectively.
Additionally, it is also a slippery slope. Al Qadea held all Americans responsible for the actions of their government…Al Qadea in Yemen and affiliated groups hold all Americans responsible for the drone attacks that kill their civilians…just like the Taliban held Pakistani army responsible for the killing of their civilians and retaliated by attacking the school and killing over 100 students.
One can see this as moral equivalence if they want, but once one hold the group responsible for the actions of the few, it goes downhill from there.
Po
You don’t have a Direct Relationship with God unless you go Directly to the Heavenly Father. All Religion Aside. Say in a Prayer, Our Heavenly Father, Or Almighty God and there is your direct connection – Please re read what you just said here
Ari
This is the issue with Islam…it is not like Catholicism or other faiths that have a head. The Muslim has a direct relation to God, using the QUran, the hadith and the intellectual works of the predecessors.
Islam demands one exercises his duty to engage in 2 things, the seeking of knowledge and the exercising of the intellect.
Po The Intellect is the Head and if you have to be dutiful and seek knowledge there is no Grace with these things. You cannot earn grace. My understanding is that the Prophet taught people how to live their daily lives with rules. Great. As far back as the Book of Jeremiah and I don’t know what Sura that lines up with. I could not find it on the internet not from lack of trying on searches, but as far back as 700 BC there was prophecy that God had a New Covenant for his People which is Jeremiah 31:34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
That is the only promise we need to know and to repent our sins. I don’t believe I was born in sin. Or that I am depraved. I don’t care what is taught.
God gave me free will but I am also in his will and what I hear on this Blog right now makes me ashamed. Probably because I always was picked at. But it’s wrong.
@happypappies: Curious to see in respone to Ari about your latest comments on Islam. Can you cite a reference on it or is it based on supposition? TIA.
Paul, Pogo needs not use moral equivalencies, he is the attacker, the prosecutor, the finger pointer. Moral equivalencies, by their very nature are the tool of the defense, the accused, the finger-pointed. It say… that is unfair because you yourself… someone else… in relation to… mine is not what you said it is….
Po…no you are not personally responsible, but it still might be similar to the society that disarms its own police. It doesn’t cause bloodshed, but neither does it prevent any of it. It is a delusional concept … and no I am not saying you are delusional, nor Nick or Pogo or Paul C. Wishful thinking isn’t concrete planning. In a nation (s) where there are already “official” no go zones, it is even more absurd. We had those unofficially in my town in the 70’s and early 80’s and the strife was not subdued in those areas until they were obliterated….not by gunfire, but by bulldozers. Others’ opinions likely vary from mine. That’s not moral equivalence, just a statement of current facts about Detroit.
Aridog
Po…I don’t think Nick was saying you, personally would be shedding the blood, but that by your reticence to face reality while comparing it to past malfeasance elsewhere, that you enable it. He is as entitled to his opinion as you are yours. Mine might be more debatable.
—————————-
Ari, Nick ‘s comment too answers itself.
I am not responsible for what terrorists do. There.
Paul C. Schulte
po – Pogo only listed the Islamic crimes during a short time span. There was no moral equivalency going on, he was making a point.
——————————————
Paul, you answered you better than I could.
Po…I don’t think Nick was saying you, personally would be shedding the blood, but that by your reticence to face reality while comparing it to past malfeasance elsewhere, that you enable it. He is as entitled to his opinion as you are yours. Mine might be more debatable.
Po…I don’t think you get my intent at all. Again you cite others who do the same things rather than just think about your own style. It’s only my opinion, but I gloss over most anyone’s posts who rely on past moral equivalences for support. I paid more attention to you because I do read your comments and take them seriously, that and you do seem to use more atypical moral relevancies…but admit eyes glazing over with all the faintly relevant equivalences.
I can assure you that in my time half a world away in a war, I spent no time thinking about how the Tonkinese and Khmers actually began the “power” conflict per se in 1066…about the time William was ravaging England. Minor relevance, vis a vis conquest and power…at that early stage over Cochin China in the Far East. What we faced in the 50’s and 60′ had far different roots and causes….but was still all about power, with raggedy excuse making for political/economic excuses. In that latter case, the Communists used terror of the same (exact) kind we are experiencing today,(albeit from different terrorists) first against their own people, then the French and subsequently us…that is what was on my mind. I’ve said that France should never have been given re-entry to their far east colonies, where we once had allies. However, had they not been sponsored to return to Indo-China, the battles would still have been the same…about power and power alone, because the Communist terrorist first demolished any internal political opposition, and finally subjugated even the Annamese and Cochin Chinese (Saigon and surrounding area, as well as the Delta). In the name of “liberation” they opted for “subjugation” …and among the worst of course, was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, whom the unified but subjugated Vietnamese even felt the need to step on…rightly fully so…none the less, it was about power, and hegemony, not brotherly love. They demonstrated their delusions by presuming (pretending) they “defeated” the Chinese who at one point stepped in to slap their wrists. If China chose to do so, there would not be a Vietnam as we know it today … it would be just gone, over run en mass. Communists crushed by Communists…e.g., all about power not economics or political differences.
Nick Spinelli
po, 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.
————————————————
Nick, I do not know how to answer this. It is ridiculous beyond belief.
perhaps Ari will answer you for me :), would save me the moral equivalencies.
“I fear there will be blood and some of it will be good people like you shedding it.”
My God!
Lee, I never said I wanted more people to come to Islam. I do not care actually. I have said it here a great many times, that Christianity, Islam and Judaism come from the same source, God, and that therefore, they are all valid religions to my eyes, and to most Muslims’ eyes.
I have posted verses here showing that the Quran allows Muslims to eat the food of the people of the book (Christians and Jews) and to marry their women…I have mentioned that Prophet Muhamad had a coptic wife.
I have a great many Christians and Jewish friends in whose homes I have prayed, and in whose houses of prayers I have been in.
Do you think that people who are killing and maiming care to attract others to Islam? No, it is all about power, and that’s all they care about. Islam is merely the vehicle by which they do it.
The Quran specifically says to attract people to Islam through gentle and patient discussion, and by example, as exemplified by the Prophet, not by violence.
Karen S. said…
If I acted like I was sipping coffee, I would just write in continuous run-on sentences.
Which would make you just like me, eh 🙁
I know I use ellipses too often and just jabber on. I may even hold the record for run-on sentences. 🙂
Ari
If you reread every single one of my posts here, you’d see that my moral equivalencies do not come out of nowhere. Sure, I can ride above the riff raff and ignore anything that isn’t on point with the topic discussed…sure, I could… but then I would be better than I am right now, and I am just as good as I am, no more.
Do you hold me to higher standard?
If so, thank you.
If not, I’d suggest you, perhaps, be a bit fairer yourself on how you react to me.
I do feel that your focus on furthering the discussion is rather selective. When Pogo lists the crimes of Islam, where is your urging to him?
When Trooper accuses me of vile antisemite, prompting my reply to him, you took his side against me based on common affinities!
I am the attacked party here. I am the party from whom denunciation is expected…whose holy book is demonized relentlessly here…whose faith is also demonized relentlessly here…who is told to go back elsewhere… I am the only one here whose posts are responded to with “…vile antisemite” and the like…and yet I am the one also who expected to not respond in kind?
Go back and reread my posts, and tell me whether I was contributing or taking away from the discussion.
And then ask yourself whether you are being fair.
Discussion being a two way street, it requires both parties to agree to play the game. There are many here with whom I have had decent conversations with…there are others however with whom I am certainly at odds…that is the nature of this business.
Moral equivalencies are necessary to any discussion that pits one side against another! Democrats vs, Republicans, Israel vs Hamas, Islam vs Christianity… when a member of any group attacks you for something that his group has been guilty off, pointing out the hypocrisy is necessary.
That also is the nature of this business.
po – Pogo only listed the Islamic crimes during a short time span. There was no moral equivalency going on, he was making a point.
Po wroteL holy book is demonized relentlessly here…whose faith is also demonized relentlessly here…who is told to go back elsewhere… I am the only one here whose posts are responded to with “…vile antisemite” and the like…and yet I am the one also who expected to not respond in kind?
I have been sparingly commebting but Po unless by here you mean elsewhere then this blog you will see that what you wrote is not true, people have discriminated between the muslim terrorists and their behaviors vs most Muslims, have said that Islam is not in and of itself a murdering hateful religion, as opposed to the way the terrosists portray it via their behavior, I have not seen the Koran (Quaran) demonized here, in fact I and I believe others have responded that the Bible also has parts that are vile and murderous. You pick and choose and seem to want to be a victim but honest I do not see it here. You need to pick your battles and for the most part, it is not with the folks here.
you aoso write:Where were the calls to have Catholics speak out communally? re spedoplhian priests. There were calls to do so and loud condemnation that the Church did not do so but instead continued to dance and protest, and hide the pedophile priests.
(sry keyboard problems)