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?
Nick, I missed you too 🙂
Oops, abused the italics!
Tyler, when you say Islam and Muslim what/who do you picture? Your using such words as culture and appearance suggests that you are conflating different ideas.
Yelling “Allah Akbar” is a crowded building is now worse than yelling fire.
po is amazed it still doesn’t. But, he will keep on.
po wrote the playbook on shooting from the hip w/ “Islamaphobia” It is really a boilerplate from the playbooks for RAAAACIST” or “Sexist.” Stifle any criticism by screaming it loudly and often. Same old, same old. It used to work here.
Po:
PS – thanks for the cites.
There is an interesting oped in the WAPO regarding the debate over the nature of Islam:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?hpid=z4
In it the author claims there is a move within Islam to silence critics and discussion of Islamic radicals with the accusation of Islamophobia.
I think her article gets right in the center of our discussion about the nature of Islam and whether is makes sense to ask Muslims to speak out about radical Islam.
As I have said before I believe we have both a right to raise questions about the nature of Islam and also the obligation to pose those questions to religious and community leaders of Muslims.
I think we have a right to pose the question because we are under attack from some Muslims who claim they are acting in accordance with the true and highest standards of the religion. I think we have an obligation to ask Muslim leaders because they are the only ones who can speak with authority on this subject.
I also think Muslims themselves have every interest to discuss this subject. In the first place if radicals are the only Muslims speaking in the public sphere then why should we doubt their statements? Further, If radical are the only ones speaking then why shouldn’t Muslims on the cusp of decision agree with the radicals?
When Muslim and non-Muslim communities discuss the issues of radicalism we can do much to still unwarranted resentment toward the Muslim community and provide support to Muslims who are still evaluating the arguments of radicals.
Mike, I read the op-ed you linked, and I am a bit disturbed by what she is saying. She is guilty of the same fallacy i chastise islamophobes for, namely the lack of discernment between Islam, the Quran, Islam the sunnah, Islam the Arabic culture and Islam the Muslims themselves.
She speaks as if Islam in that monolithic entity that gathers and define almost 2 billion people worldwide, yet most of the issues she mention are specific to Arabic Islam, which is a minor part of the whole.
There are almost 10 times as many muslims in Indonesia as there are in SAudi Arabia, yet the form of Islam practiced in Indonesia is a very tolerant form that knows none of the issues she mentions.
Furthermore, some of the groups she lists, like Loon watch are groups that are valuable groups that unveil Islamophobia and denounce it. I don’t claim that they do it properly all the time, but in the whole, they have value, just like I guess Al Sharpton has some value to the black community.
Finally, regarding that matter, she seems to position herself as the lone voice in our community against patriarchy, when I can list at least 10 women who have been working for decades in order to change many of these issues she mentions, including the permission to pray with men, and including one woman, Amina Wadud, who interprets the Quran from a feminist perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Wadud).
But, regarding your statement As I have said before I believe we have both a right to raise questions about the nature of Islam and also the obligation to pose those questions to religious and community leaders of Muslims.
I think we have a right to pose the question because we are under attack from some Muslims who claim they are acting in accordance with the true and highest standards of the religion. I think we have an obligation to ask Muslim leaders because they are the only ones who can speak with authority on this subject. ”
Yes, we have the right and duty to raise those questions. However, those questions are being asked for decades, and have been answered for decades. Every Muslim asks himself/herself those questions daily. There are, literally, million of youtube videos dealing with these questions, and I have read at least 5 different sermons by US based imams who addressed those issues and condemn the charlie hebdo attacks.
So for every instance of one scholar justifying an act of terrorism, I can provide links for 10 who publicly and clearly condemn them.
To quote Reza Aslan ” “First of all, let’s be clear. Every single major Muslim organization throughout the world and in the United States, every prominent individual — be it political or religious leaders — everyone has condemned not just this attack, but every attack that occurs in the name of Islam,” Aslan said. “And anyone who keeps saying that ‘We need to hear the moderate voice of Islam. Why aren’t Muslims denouncing these violent attacks?’ doesn’t own Google.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/reza-aslan-terrorism-anyone-who-thinks-muslims-arent-condemning_n_6457220.html
The issue, I think is that too often the muslim community is asked to keep explaining itself over and over again, which makes it feel like it is not being heard, and also that it is responsible for the actions of those with whom it disagrees fundamentally. It almost feels like if one was asked to stand in court for the crime of one’s brother.
Po:
Thank you for you thoughtful remarks.
If it needs to be said then let me say it clearly, no one is responsible for the acts of terrorists except the terrorists themselves.
And I do recognize that bigotry toward Muslims, Islamophobia, is a real problem.
Yet I think that for so long as there are those who claim that violence is an acceptable expression of Islam, we need Muslim leaders to speak out to provide another view.
So I think one of the many problems we face is how to request that help from the Muslim community without making it sound like an accusation.
As you have told us before, many Muslims, regardless of their view, feel singled out and unjustly identified with the violence of a few. That is clearly a problem. I don’t have an answer for that except to continue talking in a search for a common view and approach.
I consider any group that resorts to violence, especially violence against civilian populations, a problem. I consider those who oppose violence, at the very lease, a potential ally.
History suggest that the problem of terrorism will not be solved solely by military action and body counts. It is for us to understand the sources of radicalism and to make a better arguments for tolerance and our social institutions to those who would be swayed by the appeal of radicals.
” Yet I think that for so long as there are those who claim that violence is an acceptable expression of Islam, we need Muslim leaders to speak out to provide another view.
So I think one of the many problems we face is how to request that help from the Muslim community without making it sound like an accusation.
No doubt, Mike. I was having that discussion with my brother, where I said that every black person has to act with the stereotypes of black people in mind, that is to say that though unfair to have to disprove the ill views held against me, only I could, by behaving opposite the stereotype, disprove them.
So, Muslims do have a duty to vocalize their disapproval of Islamist terrorism, which they are doing more and more.
But as they say, if a tree falls in the forest… When Fox is obviously partial with calls of “kills them all, kills them all…”, and CNN does this to Reza Aslan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw, there is no forum where this important debate should take place.
I acknowledge however that it does not help the cause when these riots happen in these muslim countries in reaction to the publication of the prophet cartoons.
I see all who play the “blame game”–and I see some who say that there needs to be “muslim leaders” who have to speak out. I hope the notations I have made over the course of the week underscores it. I also remind all, again, to take your queue from the Brother of the Hero MUSLIM police officer when he said: These are PRETEND Muslims. Let’s make sure we foster dialogue–and as Gandhi Ji reminded us all, be the change we want to see in the World.
Mike, this further addresses some of the important questions you have raised.
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60501678
If someone were to label me an “Islamophobe”, I would accept it as a badge of rationality and sanity. The Islamic religion IS scary from everything I’ve personally read and seen. The Muslims dancing in the streets after 9-11, and all the bombings and killings proclaimed to be in the name of Mohammad since then, has been proof of that to me. I know many Muslims are talking about how Islam is a religion of peace, but actions speak louder than words. Anyone who has an ounce of common sense at least should be skeptical of Islamic cultures and wary of any Muslims they encounter. I try not to judge any individual by their appearance and to react to them according to how they treat me, but I certainly understand how many non-Muslim people worldwide could be openly afraid of them from what they see going on. It’s like not walking at night in a part of town known for rapes and robberies and other violent crimes, no matter how many people live there and say it’s a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood.
Err …. make “pre-BC” just “BC”
Paul C. … Given your description, I’d have to lean toward calling Los Pepes terrorists, or at least vigilantes who use terrorist tactics. They seem focused upon the cartel people and those who support them, but terror is part of their repertoire none the mess. Makes me re-think what Bigfatmiike has said. He does have a point. I need to adjust my thinking on the subject.
Full disclosure: I confess to having a knee-jerk reaction to any equivalence made between terrorist tactics and freedom fighting (or any other legitimate cause). That said, even though I have seen terror in the eyes of people up close and personal, fear of everyone more or less (the trapped animal look), I have to admit that terror can be a tactic used for otherwise good purpose. I still doubt it has an enduring effect on behavior, based upon my own experience with it….half a world away and right here. One reason I was so moved (haunted … should be obvious from the number of times I’ve cited it)) by the sobbing greeting I received from a neighbor woman on 9/11/2001 is because I saw fear in her eyes, at that of her husband standing next to her, and part of it was potentially of the Army guy living next door. I did the best I could to assure them that I held no neighbor responsible, that the attack was one against all of us, not just me and people like me. Years later I ran across this woman and she asked if I remembered her. I responded that I could never forget her, or her children and their very typical American family. .
PS: This is one of the many reasons, as an Army guy, I favored USMC Lt. Gen. Victor Krulak’s approach to embedding small unit regular Marines with local populations in a shared existence scenario…it eliminates the “fear of everyone factor” as much as is humanly possible. Special Forces originally did the same things in a more formalized fashion…and I am sure they still do under SOCOM. We today have soldiers, seals, & marines in about 150 countries. Krulak’s concepts were and are utilized in the middle eastern wars today, even if the command structure in his day dismissed it. The hardest part to conquer is the fact that all local civilian & militia populations know we will be leaving sooner than later (made worse by official political pronouncements from the administration du jour) …which augments the retained “fear” because like it or not, our armed forces from clerks to medics/corpsmen to ordnance to infantry are the best in the world. Contemplation of the departure of our personnel is a daunting concept to local nationals…who may have struggled under hundreds of years of strife.True in Vietnam (from 1066 at least) and true in the middle east since millenniums pre-BC.
Paul C. …. Interesting. Big question is does Los Pepes first concentrate on terrorizing local civilians uninvolved with the cartel(s)? If not, then I’d call them vigilantes, not terrorists.
Aridog – Los Pepes concentrated on members of the cartel, their family members and people who supported them. After killing them in rather gruesome ways they would put a big Los Pepes sign around their neck.
The above comment is not to say the we Americans have not used terrorism in our history, including the part I played in Asia, but Bigfatmike’s comment:
… the fact that terrorism is not just legally and morally wrong but frequently counter productive to the cause as well.
…covers that aspect quite well. When used it was not terribly productive…if at all. In my experience when we did so we wound more or less hated by the entire population, and feared equally with their own terrorists.
Aridog – I was just watching a documentary on the rise of Los Pepes (a terrorist) group to fight the Medellin cartel. It was extremely effective.
Bigfatmike said …
If terror is a tactic, then why couldn’t a freedom fighter choose to use terror as a weapon. For example weren’t fighters in Algeria and French Indochina truly opposing colonialism? Wasn’t the IRA genuinely fighting against the British? Yet didn’t they, from time to time, use terror as a tactic? I think so.
Terror as a tactic is used to instill fear first in their own population,…frequently by slaughtering them single or wholesale. I’d argue that “freedom fighting” would consolidate a significant portion of their population, by virtue of common interest, without the need for internal terror. Terror as a “tactic” is solely about domination and control of territory, not “freedom” in any generally accepted sense of that word, and the people on it. At least in my experience when I’ve witnessed it in play.
The Viet Minh fought against colonialism, but they also virtually wiped out all political opposition to themselves within the Indo-Chinese populations. First they had to conquer their own people before fighting colonialism…however they managed to do both near simultaneously toward the end in the 70’s. Those “boat people” were running from something and it was not new found “freedom.” A portion of them were ethnic Chinese, so there was an ethnic angle as well. Same applies to the Irish IRA, who terrorized their own people as much as anyone. If the IRA had won everything, they’d have ethnically cleansed Ireland of Scots-Irish protestants and any Catholics who didn’t tow their line.
With that epistle I’ve more or less said I value the Internet connectivity to people I’d not likely meet otherwise. It may be “virtual” but none the less, it is real except for those who only have axes to grind.
Po….as I’ve said earlier, it would be interesting to meet face to face over a long good meal, or more, of any kind you’d choose. Any thing (almost) is available here (Detroit & Dearborn) from fine Asian food (the best places have dual or triple menus in Mandarin, Hangul, as well as some in Thai, Vietnamese, and English emphasizing authentic foods), to Arabic menus from various nations, to soul food that really reflects deep southern cooking, and of course classic French and American diet places. I tend to avoid the “fusion” joints, but otherwise enjoy all the others. I can’t travel much for the next few months at lest, other than an obligatory quick trip to Atlanta to visit an ailing lifetime friend who has been a steadfast friend since my teen years. If you find yourself in Detroit or environs, do email me (it is in my profile) and we could eat good food and argue to a[our hearts content. Of course I’d extend that to anyone here as well…with very few exceptions.
As for our views of what “power” is as a motivator, mine is focused on control of territory and inhabitants while yourw seems to focus on religion, economics, and politics per se as drivers. I don’t think based upon the whole of what you’ve written here over time makes us that far apart. I’d suggest territorial expansion (power) is the key, with the others added as adjunct motivations, if not out right “excuses” for the territorial. I suspect we could reach agreement on the parsing over time time. An example of my view is the expansion of Native American tribes in history. I do so to eliminate the typical western or middle eastern format. The Sioux did not migrate from Minnesota to the Big Horn area of Montana for religion, economics (other than territorial resource expansion & inhabitant control), not politics….they sought power. Same for the Comanches who migrated from northern caves, once the feral horse was tamed, to hold large areas of the south & near west, again for territorial reasons…and effectively prevented outsiders from entering or crossing. Comancheria was a “nation” of sorts, with five tribal enclaves that cooperated more or less.
In short, we’d have a common element in the “economics” part because territory is part of resource acquisition. In other words, power may be directly driven by resource acquisition. We might differ strongly on my core thought that territory should be retained by those who make the most productive use of it, for the betterment of everyone else. I am aware, from meeting Native Americans, that they don’t agree much on that,…but that they also became relatively entrepreneurial over time … such as some Cherokee and Comanche leaders.
My initial impulse to resolve dispute is to find common elements to build upon. On the international stage, it works, so long as the participants honor their commitments and follow through with them. It breaks down when groups revert to violence to attain power, in fact, destroying, if they can, productive use of resources…which makes no sense to me. No meme irritates me more than when some call Americans “imperialists.” That is not to say Americans haven’t let control over resources impact their motivations…but could be resolved if done carefully.
Myself, I am not much for what is called “politics” (just to much of my time was in the belly of that beast) however, when I needed real help, I have dealt with politicians who I believed would act upon my concerns, and the best one was John Conyers Jr. of all people considering my race & background and city. I voted for him in every election until his District was changed, because he truly “represented” a constituent, even one who wasn’t otherwise his cup of tea so to speak… while voting Republican for most others for the past decade+.
At any rate, I don’t think we’re really all that far apart. Semantics being what it is, confusion can reign at times.
By the way, this democracy now episode features a great interview that relates to what this discussion was about, once!
I think BFM and Aridog would find it especially insightful.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/13/glenn_greenwald_on_how_to_be
Thanks for the cite. I always find Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald interesting even if I don’t always agree with them. I think they have both made major contributions.
There is a lot in this article and I could only scan it.
First I think they are absolutely correct that the field of ‘terrorism expert’ is a growth field with little to assure the so called experts are telling us any more than their own bias. When it comes to terrorism experts the listener must beware.
The other point they make is that the concept of terror is used politically to claim that the adversary is bad and that allies are good. I have to agree we see that on a regular basis.
There are at least to responses to that abuse of the concept to terror. Their approach is to claim that the concept of terror and terrorism is meaningless – the ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ approach.
As a result they twist themselves into conceptual pretzels like ‘you can’t be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time’. I argue that is flatly wrong. If terror is a tactic, then why couldn’t a freedom fighter choose to use terror as a weapon. For example weren’t fighters in Algeria and French Indochina truly opposing colonialism? Wasn’t the IRA genuinely fighting against the British? Yet didn’t they, from time to time, use terror as a tactic? I think so.
I think the only possible conclusion is that some freedom fighter use terrorism and some freedom fighter choose not to use the tactic of terrorism.
I might have deep reservations about supporting a freedom fighter who uses terror as a tactic. I might decide to oppose a freedom fighter who uses terror. But I see nothing that prevents a genuine freedom fighter from choosing to use terror – except the fact that terrorism is not just legally and morally wrong but frequently counter productive to the cause as well.
I argue that terrorism is a very useful concept. When we hear politicians and MSM abusing the concept we must point out that terrorism has a specific meaning and explain how they have misapplied the concept.
Speaking in broad terms I think terrorism is the used of violence or the threat of violence against civilian populations to achieve political or social goals.
There may be situations that are more subtle, but I think that sweeps in most of what I consider terrorism. To me that is a very useful and important concept – well worth fighting for (in the debate sense).
In conclusion I think the Democracy Now program makes several important points about terrorism experts and the abuse of the concept of terror and demonstrates how advocates can sometimes loose themselves in conceptual nonsense.
I am sure there applications to our current discussion of how those of us who oppose violence can address the problem of radicalism. But that is far more difficult question that requires more time for consideration than I have right now. But that does not prevent the many thoughtful people here at this site from working through the implications.
In any case I missed that article and appreciate your bringing it to my attention.
mikepouraryan
@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.
That was not my comment but Po’s He was commenting about how Islam has a direct relationship with God. He later went on to say that he was talkting about the Pope in order to clarify. If you go up the thread, you will see it. I would not ever say I knew this about Islam. I first read Suras 31-34 day before yesterday. Sorry I took so long to get back as I didn’t see your comment. 🙂
Karen – sorry so late getting back – did not see your comment – 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.
Haven’t had a majot yet and yes-they are smiling and laying all over me. They are like potato chips. You can’t have just one.
Aridog
Po said…
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.
Cited in defense of my comments earlier on this thread….and specifically yours related to them.
—————————————————–
And here is my last reply to you, Ari. So far there seems to be some consistency still on my part…ain’t it so?
“————I realize reading this, Ari, that we were discussing different expressions of power. You were talking about “individual”, nihilistic power, while I was talking about structural, systematic power, hence my examples of democrats and republicans.
I partially agree with you in that regard. Outside of a structure, a system, power is gained through mere force and violence, it is taking it. Humanity returns to its most basic tendencies of taking.
Within a system however, the seeking of power must be wrapped around a vehicle, and that vehicle is a message (or propaganda) that frames the debate as a us vs them, where us either give you what you need/want, or prevent them from imposing upon what you do not need/want.
In Sudan, power is taken, in the US power is gained. One uses hard, direct violence, the other soft, indirect violence. In each case however, the power sought is not en end to itself, the total control it affords is.————”
So yes, they care only about power, which is immediate, but control is the long term expression of power, as you said earlier here “Power over people is first and foremost about domination and elimination of options, frequently at the point of a gun”.
happypappies
Po
I think Nihilism refers to someone who is existential in their beliefs. That is to say, they believe in nothing but the ego. That is not considered powerful in my opinion. I can’t speak for Aridog. I can’t stand Egotical people who think they are God Almighty. 😉
_______________________
Nihilism, Happy, denotes also the wanton destruction caused by the holding of nothing sacred, as defined below by the http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
“A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.”
Po – an anarchist if you are going to speak politically would be a an individualistic nihilist – Nihilism is a belief which rejects all political and religious authority and current ideas in favour of the individual.
Po said…
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.
Cited in defense of my comments earlier on this thread….and specifically yours related to them.