Just Because They Quote It, Does It Make It True?
The author of the very easily misunderstood JihadWatch.org has been invited by the FBI's Indianapolis office to talk to its anti-terrorism task force. The decision to bring in author Robert Spencer offended some area Muslims:
Louay Safi, director of leadership development with the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North America, said bringing Spencer in to talk of Islam is akin to bringing an anti-Semite to talk about Jews or a Ku Klux Klan member to talk about race."Many people in our community will not be happy with it," Safi said.
Spencer is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion." He is also a director of Jihad Watch, a Web site that calls attention to the activity of Islamic jihadists.
"When they bring in someone like that, it makes it difficult even for us to explain to the Muslim community that (the FBI) is neutral and is not listening to extremists who really hate Muslims," Safi said.
(Of course, Mr. Safi's statement implies that Mr. Safi is assuming that the FBI is neutral, but that's beside the point.) Mr. Spencer denies being Islamophobic, saying he realizes that the majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful. And that's commendable and I'm sure he doesn't see himself as Islamophobic.
However, explaining his statements, Mr. Spencer said:
Spencer said he is not an "Islamophobe," and that he understands a majority of Muslims are peaceful. But he said there is no mistaking that modern-day jihadists from Osama bin Laden to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi cite the teachings of Islam in rationalizing their attacks.Here's the problem with this reasoning, and what infuriates me every time it gets brought up.
Imagine a religious Jew is sitting in an all-pork restaurant on the Sabbath and in front of him sits a plate of half-eaten sausage, bacon and ham. Someone comes up and asks him, "Don't you know that what you're doing is completely forbidden and wrong?" If he replied, "Well, the book of Isaiah says 'you shall call the Sabbath a delight', and I think that this bacon here is delightful, so therefore G-d wants me to eat this bacon" would that mean somehow that Judaism had changed? Would it make bacon allowed? Would it make pork eating a central tenet of Judaism?
Imagine he were a rabbi. Would it change anything? Would it make him any more than a sinner, using Scripture to justify his actions?
So too here. We see it -- lo aleinu -- done with our Torah. Christians see it done with their scriptures.
There is no end of twisting that a wicked mind can do to a holy text.
Why is this -- that the murder, extortion, kidnapping, maiming, and bombing we are witnessing is no more than the warped expression of a wicked mind -- not even a possibility? Why must there be proclamations going out against an ideology and people in the media denouncing Islam?
Are people being killed, maimed and injured by little walking Qur'ans with suicide belts? No. Islam -- even the most ultra- of ultra-Wahhabi sects -- has never killed or hurt anyone. People have. People are ordering people to kill people with guns made by people. People will use whatever excuses they can get their hands on, and justifying one's actions with the word of G-d cuts down on the guilt. Until that is realized, to the exclusion of all else, people will continue to point fingers at a 1400 year old religion for what 14 year olds are doing today.
Let them "cite" whatever they want to justify their actions. Usage and veracity are two different things.
Comments
Y-Love, I really like your thorough analysis there..
I remember that man who killed 5 young girls recently.. In the media, he was merely mentioned as a "murderer", no more no less.. then came a (muslim) student who ran down some of his fellow students in anger.. and boooom.. he was a terrorist..
I totally see your points in regards to these biggots/"experts" being used here and there.. just sad
Shalom
Posted by: Some-dude | March 19, 2007 03:47 AM
I agree that it's true, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I know you were just making an analogy with that pork on Shabbat thing, and it got the point across, but there might be a more accurate analogy. For example, when that Jew killed Yitzchak Rabin in '95 (on my birthday), that was an ideologically-based act that COULD have (not by me) been explained away as being in perfect alignment with the Torah, depending on if your understanding of it was sick enough. I mean, he could have defended himself by saying that he was trying to save a ton of Jewish lives by killing a diplomat whom was intent on giving over tons of land to land-hungry terrorists that don't want any peace with Jews and would demand more land. He could have said that he was doing something extreme to save tons of Jewish people, like Pinchas. Catchy, isn't it? But it's flawed and immoral. Why? Because his act was premeditated murder. He could have tried to use the Torah to back him up, but at the end of the day, it is a sin to claim that you're tapped into G-d's Will well enough to know what He wants you to do as a justification for killing a person. The man was not prophetic. He truly was no different than any suicide bomber and I pray G-d forgives him. A religious Jew, a protector of Torah, did a public chilul Hashem (desecration of G-d's Name) in trying to stop one. The point is, if it was a trend for religious Jews to kill politicians with whom they severely disagreed, it would be very easy and tempting (and to a degree, justifiable) to pass a judgment on Judaism that it creates terrorism.
Posted by: Yaniv | March 19, 2007 09:35 PM