Message to Muslims: I'm sorry

[MarrickG]

Many Americans believe Muslims are violence-prone but humans are too diverse to lump into groups that way
by Nicholas Kristof
05:55 AM Sep 20, 2010
Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance and apologise for sins committed by their brethren.

That's reasonable advice and, as a moderate myself, I'm going to take it.

I hereby apologise to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologise for the slurs.

I'm inspired by another journalistic apology. The Portland Press Herald in Maine published an innocuous front-page article and photo a week ago about 3,000 local Muslims praying together to mark the end of Ramadan. Readers were upset, because publication coincided with the ninth anniversary of 911 and they deluged the paper with protests.

So, the newspaper published a grovelling front-page apology for being too respectful of Muslims.

"We sincerely apologise," wrote the editor and publisher, Mr Richard Connor, and he added: "We erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page." As a blog paraphrased it: "Sorry for Portraying Muslims as Human."

I called Mr Connor, and he seems like a nice guy. Surely his front page isn't reserved for stories about Bad Muslims, with articles about Good Muslims going inside. Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be "balanced" by a discussion of Muslim terrorists? Ah, balance - who can be against that? But should reporting of Pope Benedict's trip to Britain be "balanced" by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland? And what about journalism itself?

I interrupt this discussion of peaceful journalism to provide some "balance." Journalists can also be terrorists, murderers and rapists. For example, radio journalists in Rwanda promoted genocide.

I apologise to Muslims for another reason. This isn't about them, but about us. I want to defend Muslims from intolerance, but I also want to defend America against extremists engineering a spasm of religious hatred.

Granted, the reason for the nastiness isn't hard to understand. Extremist Muslims have led to fear and repugnance toward Islam as a whole. And then there's 911. When I recently compared today's prejudice toward Muslims to the historical bigotry toward Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Asian-Americans, many readers protested that it was a false parallel. As one put it on my blog: "Catholics and Jews did not come here and kill thousands of people."

That's true, but the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbour and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did. Consumed by our fears, we lumped together anyone of Japanese ancestry and rounded them up in internment camps. The threat was real, but so were the hysteria and the overreaction.

Radicals tend to empower radicals, creating a gulf of mutual misunderstanding and anger. Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden is representative of Muslims, and many Afghans believe that the Terry Jones (who talked about burning Qurans) is representative of Christians.

Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We've mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it's still okay to make sweeping statements about "Muslims" as an undifferentiated mass.

In my travels, I've seen some of the worst of Islam: Theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God's bidding.

But I've also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Quran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.

I'm sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Al Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologise.

THE NEW YORK TIMES



The writer is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner.

http://www.todayonline.com/Commentary/EDC100920-0000058/Message-to-Muslims--Im-sorry

 

[Equalisation]

eeerrrr...... I am so sorry ...that you are a muslim ....:o

 

[cheekenpie]

Sounds like he si going for the peace prize

 

[huahero]

The good and the bad are all Americans.

曾欲烧古兰经的美国牧师拒付警方18万安保费
中新网9月21日电 据台湾“联合新闻网”21日报道，美国曾发起焚烧《古兰经》计划的牧师特里.琼斯被当局要求支付18万美元的账单，以弥补警方维持治安的费用，但琼斯拒绝支付这笔款项。

　　美国佛罗里达州一间小教会的主理牧师琼斯曾扬言在“9.11”恐怖袭击事件纪念日当天焚烧伊斯兰教圣典《古兰经》，引发多方愤怒情绪，迫使美国警方出动大量警力进行安保工作。

　　据报道，琼斯所在的佛罗里达州警方发言人表示，当地警局9月11日当天部署超过200名警察，加强安保，其中包括数目众多的特警。这些人员主要集中在琼斯所在的教堂附近，防止该地被愤怒的伊斯兰教居民围攻。

　　当地警局于19日将“9.11”当天维护安全所花费的18万美元账单寄给琼斯。一名警官表示，警察因琼斯的行为而对他所在的教堂提供了“直接的服务”，因此这笔高达18万美元的维安费用，理应由琼斯埋单。

不过，报道称，琼斯在接到账单后，坚决表示不会付这笔钱。他说，“如果我知道事情会发展成这样，就不会安排任何安保了。”据报道，琼斯所在的这座教堂规模不大，固定成员不到40人。如果支付18万美元的巨额账单，足以让这个小教堂破产。

 

[GuChiaChwee™]

That's true, but the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbour and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did.

The Japanese went for the military facilities first, they did not attack soft targets and the Japanese Americans remained loyal to America, even fighting on its side in WW2. The same can't be said for the many Muslims who plotted to attack their own country.

Islam is largest group collectively that has subgroups conducting acts of terrorism against civilians. All other attacks were done by smaller groups. It doesn't matter if there are many moderate Muslims, the attacks were conducted in the name of Islam. The Muslims need to understand that their religion is not under attack from the rest of the world, it is under attack by their own extremist brethren who claim to act in their interests. Not only do the moderate Muslims need to speak up against the terror acts, they must be seen to be actively persecuting those extremist elements in their midst because they are proclaiming to be acting on their behalf. Unfortunately, time and time again, they only speak up to ask for understanding from the rest of the world which only shows them up as being sympathetic to the extremists. There is a world of difference between being sympathetic to the Muslim cause and being sympathetic to the extremists who are dragging the rest of the world into their struggles. If they themselves can't clearly define the difference, how can the rest of the world draw a distinction?

It is like the family members of a mass murderer, who killed innocent passers-by because he lost his job that day, asking for understanding from the public. We can understand the anguish that comes from losing his job but how can we understand why there is a need to kill innocent people?