Subscribe Here!
I came across a stunning explanation for why there has been so much violence in the Muslim world over the Pope’s remarks, from a CAIR spokesman.
A midstate Muslim leader, responding to what he called “extremely distressful” remarks by Pope Benedict XVI about Islam, called yesterday for more dialogue between Muslims and Roman Catholics.
“That is our approach,” said Abul Hasan, a Penn State York professor who is spokesman for the local chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations.
Hasan said the violent reaction of some Muslims elsewhere to Benedict’s speech was “the emotional outbursts of people who cannot control their emotions. … You cannot defend it in any way.”
Swell. They cannot control their emotions. They just can’t help themselves. The rage just takes hold of them and they rampage. And before they cool off there are churches burned and nuns are shot in the back.
Hey Abul, by saying they cannot help themselves you are defending it. But I guess that is your job as a CAIR spokesman.
In a civilized country, we lock up violent people who cannot control their ‘emotional outbursts’. But to do so, we have a civil code that criminalizes that conduct, regardless of who it is directed towards. In the Muslim countries, these thugs could never be prosecuted, because violence in the defense of Islam is fully acceptable. Attempts to even bring them to trial would only cause more violence on the streets, and condemnation from the powerful clerics.
It’s going to be tough going until the Muslim world can handle criticism with reason, instead of the sword. And all of the CAIR press releases they can pump out are not going to change that fact.
You may be missing the point here. The part of that statement that strikes me is that a CAIR representative is acknowledging that the behavior of rampaging Muslims elsewhere “cannot be defended.”
The AIR part of CAIR stands for American-Islamic Relations. For once, CAIR is not lecturing the American part of that equation about our inadequacies, but is pointing out that at least part of the Islamic side needs to change its behavior.
This is the first time I’ve seen any sign that CAIR might be able to help bridge the gap between Americans (including Muslim Americans) and majority-Muslim countries elsewhere.
Only a small sign, but a good one.
Yes it is going to be tough going until the Muslim world can handle criticism with reason, but when CAIR does get it right, let’s not bash them for it.
“Yes it is going to be tough going until the Muslim world can handle criticism with reason, but when CAIR does get it right, let’s not bash them for it.”
Baloney. The fact that CAIR–known for its ties to terror groups, and its history of fraud–gets quoted as a credible source for anything should be baffling to an even moderately skeptical person. It’s time more policy makers and news organizations recognize CAIR for what it is, a Terrorist Front Group. Stop defending CAIR.
From wikipedia:
“at least four CAIR officials have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. CAIR has also been accused by the FBI of raising money for terrorist groups through fraudulent means. Officials of CAIR have been reported advocating for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy to replace the current United States government, and praising controversial groups such as Hamas.
CAIR has also been accused of doctoring photographs and reporting fraudulent statistics about the Muslim population of the United States in support of its own private agenda. Finally, another source of criticism is that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerance through accusations of racism and anti-Muslim bias.”
Michael,
If Hitler said eating vegetables is good for you, I would have to agree with him.
If CAIR says the behavior of Muslims in response to the Pope’s statement is indefensible, why would you object?
I’m reasonably sure CAIR is a terrorist front group, but I doubt that everyone in CAIR or supportive of CAIR knows that. I remember the some of the internal politics of pro-communist front groups visible from the outside, during the Vietnam War. Nothing drove them over the edge like trying to keep ideological purity within the ranks. Every bit of ideological non-conformism should be encouraged.
I’m not defending CAIR; I’m defending an instance of rationality in one of its spokespeople.
Anne’s example suggests a CAIR spokesperson asserted a bit of healthy “ideological non-conformism”, and broke ranks to make this uncharacteristically rational statement, and while this may not merit special credit, it’s at least worthy of recognition. And further, that it’s a small sign of self-awareness that could lead to better things.
It’s a novel point. I respectfully disagree. It wasn’t as though some rogue official CAIR spoke candidly, allowing an accidental impurity to escape out of an otherwise united front. CAIR has no intention of bridging the gap.
It’s normal for CAIR to offer moderate, sympathetic, credible-sounding diplomatic statements. It’s not inconsistent with their primary mission: promoting and nurturing the myth of Islamic victimhood.
CAIR conceded that Muslim behavior (in response to the Pope’s statement) is “indefensible” because it actually IS indefensible. If CAIR representatives could have found a credible way to defend it, or spin it, they would have.
In liberal democratic societies religions routinely endure criticism, scrutiny, and disrespect. No ideology is so fragile or special it can appeal to be protected from public debate. Islam occupies no unique place that warrants it should be treated differently. Yet this is what CAIR insists it requires.
Public figures routinely cave in, fearing upsetting representatives of the international Muslim community. It’s anti-democratic, and CAIR knows it.
If CAIR were to embrace the liberal democratic institutions that provide its platform, and withdraw its infantile demands for apologies, THAT would be worthy of recognition.
Michael,
It seems to me that in promoting the myth of victimhood CAIR is doing no more than engaging in a time-honored (at least for the last 40 years or so) American tradition. Name me a group today that doesn’t try to promote its status as victim. Sandra Day O’Connor just had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today trying to portray judges as victims of unbridled criticism. Let’s just say I didn’t run out of Kleenex crying over that one.
I don’t care how much CAIR whines that “it don’t get no respect” as long as it abjures violence or the threat of violence as a means of attaining that respect. Christian groups whined about Serrano’s Piss Christ (although with better reason, since it was financially supported by taxpayers), but they didn’t decapitate anyone or put a bounty on Serrano’s head. Whining, boycotting, blathering, foaming at the mouth - it’s all as American as apple pie. Waving signs is too, unless they say stuff like “Decapitate those who insult Islam.”
Public figures who cave in rather than risk “upsetting” a particular community are just garden-variety craven pols and that is not anti-democratic, it’s just one of the less attractive side-effects of democracy.
On the other hand, public figures who cave in and censor themselves out of fear of sparking murderous outbreaks of violence resulting in the deaths of dozens or hundreds of innocent people are, unfortunately, acting rationally. It takes extraordinary courage to stand up against that kind of pressure.
CAIR and Falwell and Jesse Jackson and gay rights groups and whoever feels insulted by “macaca” and all the other victimologists are entitled to demand apologies from anyone they think will give them one, for any insult real or imagined.
It’s the chopping off of heads and burning of buildings I’ve got a problem with, and if CAIR has a problem with that too, that’s good. Even if CAIR doesn’t really have a problem with it, but feels forced to keep lying about it, that’s good.
CAIR is, for better or worse (and mostly worse, I suspect) the generally acknowledged representative of American Muslims. That means peaceable or potentially peaceable Muslims, of whom I assume there are fair numbers, will look to that organization for some guidance. Maybe Muslims abroad will also look to it to see what being American does to a Muslim.
I still believe that for CAIR to acknowledge the behavior of Muslims abroad in reaction to the Pope’s remarks as “indefensible” is an unqualified good. Consider that just saying that, being seen to take the side of a blaspheming infidel against the Ummah, is enough to get a fatwa issued against you in some circles.
As for their infantile demands for apologies, well, as far as I can tell, being infantile is pretty much accepted by now a constitutionally protected right. Maybe I’ve succumbed to the bigotry of low expectations but I’ve pretty much come to accept and even expect “infantile.” In any case, I’m not going to hold Muslims to a higher standard than anyone else - much as I wish they would all quit their whining and grow up.
When I read about Yusuf al-Qaradawi quoting some historical Imam that “whoever is angered and does not rage is a jackass” and insisting that Muslims “are not a nation of jack-asses but of lions that roar” it struck me that “jack-ass” was not what first springs to my mind when I read about goings-on in the majority-Muslim world. I wondered whether he had ever spent any time around a two-year old. Or maybe American two-year olds are different.