26 Temmuz 2018 Perşembe

“aggressive Muslim”

Hatred against Jews and hatred against Muslims have a lot in common. One thing in particular is that throughout history Jews and Muslims have been accused of being prone to criminality, rape and violence. The Nazis in the 30’s did so and many antisemites still today spread the lie. The exact same kind of lies are spread about Muslims.

You have all heard the Myth about the aggressive Muslim: the “terrorist”, the “criminal”, the “rapist”, the person that “inherently is prone to violence” just because he is Muslim.

This myth has its origin in classical antisemitism. I wrote about one part of the myth earlier this year: “are Muslims Rapists“. The slander about “aggressive” and “criminal” Muslims has the same origin.

Nicolai Sennells, a Danish psychologist, is often referred to as the main “expert” on this alleged “Muslim aggressivity”. In Jihadwatch some years ago he claimed:

In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is in itself an argument and a way of gaining respect. But we should not be impressed when we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down, shouting like animals and shooting in the air. We should take it for what it is: the local madhouse passing by…

In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature. In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw…

In general, Westerners are taught to be kind, self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant, while Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant.

When the racists reports about “Muslim violence” they all do the same. They take reports about things that one Muslim or a small group of Muslims have done, or allegedly have done, and extrapolate it on all Muslims. Islam and “Muslim culture” were “responsible” for the individual crime, it is claimed. The Muslim is demonized and people are tricked to be afraid of him or her.

Thus: to be a Muslim is an accessory to murder, violence, rape and criminality.

Antisemitism

“To be a Jew is an accessory to murder, violence, rape and criminality”. That is what the Nazis in the 1930s claimed and what antisemites of all times have claimed. The nazis did the same as the islamophobes today: all Jews and Jewish culture were blamed for the things a few had done or was claimed to have done.

By now you might ask whether a Muslim or a Jew has ever raped a woman, or if there are no aggressive or criminal Muslims or Jews? Of course there are individual Muslim rapists, thiefs, thugs and murderers, as well as there are such among Trump supporters, among farmers, Americans, Christians, Russians, carpenters, farmers and stamp collectors. But if you claim that Muslims, Jews, Trump supporters or Christians or farmers are rapists or aggressive thugs you are spreading a dangerous lie.

According to Breitbart there is a “Muslim Rape Culture” and that Muslims are “violent” The Nazis spread the same lies about Jews in the 30’s, as Breitbart and others does today in respect to Muslims, and claimed that there was such a thing as “Jewish Rape Culture” and that Jews were “violent”. The German magazine Der Sturmer was especially famous for spreading these kinds of slanders and its editors were put on trial after World War 2, at Nuremberg.

The Jew was demonized and people were tricked to be afraid of him or her.

In the picture below, from Der Sturmer, you can see the satanic Jewish “snake” that is seen raping a woman, and in the background you can see the Talmud. The headline deals with legacy-hunters, also implying that Jews try to “take over” Germany. The text on the bottom of the page says: “the Jews are our unluck”.

SOURCE :

The Myth about the "aggressive Muslim" | Loonwatch.com

modernity and democracy

This depends on both what is meant by “modernity” and the varied interpretations by Muslims on this subject. If by modernity one means science, the scientific method and technological advances, then we know that scientific exploration and technological innovation flourished in the Islamic cultures of the Middle Ages, commonly known as the Golden Age of Islam. And today, millions of Muslims are involved, often in leading positions, in the fields of science, mathematics, medicine, engineering and other scientific fields.

If by modernity one means democracy and individual rights such as freedom of thought, expression religion, and conscience, then Muslim attitudes vary.

While some Muslims view these rights as secondary to religious principles conveyed by Islam, others, including, as we explain in the introduction to these questions, consider these rights to be fundamental principles of Islam; a Pew poll of Muslims worldwide taken in 2013 showed substantial majorities in favor of democracy and religious freedom. Some Muslims cite the tradition of ijtihad (independent thinking) as an essential aspect of Islamic scholarly tradition that fosters reform, reinterpretation, and the exploration and advocacy of new ideas.

However many Muslims, like members of other religious groups, are concerned about the devastating effects that modernity and its accompanying technological advances, when influenced only by factors relating to economic profit and short-term gain, have had upon our environment and the world.

On this as on other questions, there is no monolithic Muslim position. Pew polls in 2011 and 2013 have shown that a substantial majority of Muslims worldwide favor democracy. And as we have witnessed during the 2011 Arab Spring and beyond, people throughout the Arab world in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and Syria have risked their lives, and in some places are still risking them, in their struggle for freedom and democratic change in their countries.

Additionally the Islamic principle of shura, or “mutual consensus,” is eminently compatible with democracy.

It depends on whom you are talking to and what rights you’re talking about. Muslims differ on this as they do on other questions, and are in more agreement about some rights than others, such as the right to life, or freedom from persecution and oppression.

There is precedent for such affirmation of individual rights in Islamic tradition. The principle of individual rights was established in one of Islam’s earliest documents, the Medina Constitution, which was drafted by the Prophet Muhammad when he migrated with his followers to Medina. The agreement laid out certain rights and responsibilities between the Muslims and the major tribes in Medina and guaranteed the security and religious freedom of the diverse religious and tribal groups who made up the new community. In the context of its time, it embodied a remarkably strong affirmation of human rights.

Some rights s such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion which some Muslims view as fundamental Islamic principles, have been challenged in recent times by other Muslims or groups who see limits to these rights. The question of how to deal with material that offends religious sensibilities is a particularly contentious issue, not only for Muslims but for many others also.

A Pew poll taken in 2013 showed a substantial majority of Muslims worldwide in favor of democracy and of freedom of religion. While the poll did not ask questions specifically about freedom of expression, it is likely, in view of their answers to the aforementioned questions, that a substantial majority would favor these rights as well.

There is, nonetheless, a minority among Muslims that does not embrace, or does not embrace fully, the affirmation of individual rights that we consider basic to Islam.

fundamentalism

The word “fundamentalism” was actually first used in reference to an American Protestant movement that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism. If we accept this term at face value, however, Islamic fundamentalism was to a great extent a reaction to the modernization and Westernization policies in many Muslim-populated countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries that viewed Islam as backwards, outdated, and a barrier to progress. In the name of modernity, governments in places like Turkey, Iran, and Egypt outlawed or discouraged Islamic schooling, dress, and traditions. In Turkey, the Arabic alphabet was replaced with the Latin alphabet, in the belief that the only way to modernize was to adopt Western culture and tradition. Traditional values and practices were replaced with Western modes of dress, culture, economics, and even language, often without the accompanying benefits of such Western values as democracy and civil liberties.

In response to these trends, some 20th-century Muslim groups espoused a return to the original practices of Islam as they understood them to have been practiced during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad and his immediate successors. The movement generally ignored the traditions and ideological developments, including that of the four schools of Islamic thought, over the previous thirteen centuries. As a result, they promoted an often narrow, unrealistic, and sometimes puritanical vision of Islam. This movement has often taken on political overtones or issued calls for an “Islamic state” and sometimes, but not always, involves a strict or literal interpretation of Islam, or extreme positions, as is often the case with reactionary or “restorationist” movements.

Wahhabism began as an 18th-century reform movement in the Arabian Peninsula and focused on what its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab perceived as the deviation of Muslims from what he believed to be “pure Islam.” Wahhabism then evolved into an ultra-conservative and puritanical form of Islam which is practiced mainly in Saudi Arabia but has spread through other Muslim-populated countries through well-funded literature and educational campaigns. Today, the majority of Muslims worldwide, including American Muslims, reject this strict and intolerant version of Islam and those who attempt to impose it upon other Muslims.

The Taliban arose from the mujahideen who fought the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan in the 80’s and 90’s. The backdrop for their rise is multi-faceted and includes both the conflict and aftermath of decades of war as well as intervention by various regional players. Most Taliban are members of the Pathan ethnic group that resides in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Actions by the some members of the Taliban have shown a clear rejection and violation of several of the principles we identify as fundamental to Islam, including respect for life, for human dignity, for freedom of religion and conscience, and for freedom of thought and expression. The Taliban’s interpretation and practice of Islam reflects a very narrow and inflexible interpretation that has been informed by external and internal influences that have come into play during decades of warfare, including among them tribal culture that is extremely patriarchal. This cultural context impacts their attitudes in many areas, especially their views and interpretations relating to women. They have been widely criticized by other Muslims for their treatment of women—specifically for their ban on women’s education and work—their strict dress requirements for both genders, and their harsh punishments for violations of their laws.

They have also interpreted Sharia to ban a wide variety of activities, including education and sports for women, kite flying, beard trimming, recreation, entertainment, and other matters where they have a much more rigid and extreme interpretation than most Muslims. Additionally, some members of the Taliban have engaged in actions viewed by the great majority of Muslims as prohibited by Islamic teachings, such as violence against civilians

Islam is a religion which focuses primarily on cultivating good character and drawing close to God. Like people of other faiths, American Muslims participate in American political life by voting in elections and getting involved in community organizing around issues or candidates.

sunni and shia

The majority of both Sunnis and Shi’as share the core beliefs of Islam—the oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad—and adhere to the Five Pillars.

The main differences between them today are their sources of knowledge and religious leadership. In addition to the Qur’an and hadith, the Shias and the many sects that comprise them rely on the rulings of their Imams and resulting variations in beliefs and practices.

Historically, the difference originated from the question of succession after the death of the Prophet Muhammad and is related to differing views about appropriate leadership for the Muslim community. Shi’as believe that succession to the spiritual and political rule of the Muslim community lies only with the family and certain descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believe that the Muslim community was free to choose the most qualified person as ruler. Shi’as believe that God chose Muhammad’s cousin Ali, who was married to his daughter Fatima, to be the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, and that Muhammad formally announced this before his death. Shi’as also view Ali as the first in a line of Imams, or preeminent religious leaders, whom they regard as the spiritual and political successors to Muhammad. In contrast, Sunnis believe that Muhammad did not appoint any particular person as his spiritual or political successor

Sunni and Shi’a Muslims give differing accounts for the origin of their division. Shi’a Muslims trace the division to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, when Abu Bakr was chosen as caliph rather than Ali. In the Shi’a view, Ali and his followers had a religious basis for their position that the caliph, or successor, must come from the Prophet’s family. Sunni Muslims trace the division to the killing of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, along with his family in Karbala, Iraq, by one of the Umayyad Caliph Yazid’s generals, fifty years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The people of Iraq regretted their failure to support Hussein that resulted in his death.

Subsequently they began a political movement to overthrow the Umayyads, who were not only responsible for his death but had also become corrupt and dynastic rulers. Attempts to overthrow the Umayyads were unsuccessful until the Abbasid revolution in 750 C.E. After the Abbasids came to power, however, the people who supported rule by the descendants of Hussein were increasingly suppressed. Sunnis believe that this political dispute then took on a more theological nature, with the supporters of Ali’s line as the legitimate leaders of the Muslim community becoming the precursors of the Shi’as.

Much of the conflict between Sunnis and Shi’as is more political than religious. For instance, in Iraq before the Second Gulf War, Sunnis dominated the government. After the war, rule was shifted to Shi’as, and this has produced tensions that have often been exploited by extremists on both sides.

In three Arab Spring countries (Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain), the sectarian divide has also been among the many factors playing a role in the conflicts, but the conflicts began for the same political and social reasons that they erupted in other Arab Spring nations. In Syria, the long-time ruler and his father Bashar and Hafez Assad belong to a minority Shi’a sect that has ruled for decades over a majority Sunni population. Assad’s allies are Shi’a – Iran and Hizbollah – who want to keep the status quo, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey—Sunnis–support the opposition. So while the two sides appear to be divided along sectarian lines, the conflict there is more a fight between an oppressive dictator and his historic allies than a specifically religious conflict. In Yemen, the Shi’a-Sunni divide has also played a role, with Saudi Arabia and Iran also supporting opposing sides in the ongoing war there. In Bahrain the Shi’a minority has protested the Sunni government, often suffering repression as a result.

Shia-Sunni conflict in Pakistan has its roots in the ruling party’s political exploitation of sectarianism to win the favor of Sunni religious authorities at the expense of the Shia minority.

While these conflicts are of concern to American Muslims who have family in the countries involved, the sectarian conflict has not impacted the larger American Muslim community, in part because Sunni and Shi’a leaders in this country have made concerted efforts to demonstrate unity and prevent discord