Taking Islam Seriously.

Frank Rich's latest attempt at profundity, as usual, falls in on itself, ending with the same strident yet oddly meager defense of media infallibility and the same ancient, tired indictment of total knavery on the part of the Bush Administration. Reading Rich has become an almost painful exercise, not because of want of talent, he is certainly an able writer, but for his growing and embarrassing lack of rational criticism of the current government.

Rational criticism is what we, the vast faceless mass of news consumers not privy to the machinations of media cognoscenti and administration barkers deserve, yet rarely demand. Instead, we either buy the plaintive sniping of the New York Times editorial page (to which Mr. Rich has returned from the curious environs of the Arts & Leisure section) as legitimate dogma, or blindly accept administration spin as what must be so, solely for the reason that it has said it is so.

Sadly, the confusion on the administration is mirrored by the malaise on the country's editorial pages, leaving those of us without the predisposition to accept or distrust either to wade through a growing sediment of manufactured news, recycled stories and outright obfuscation. It doesn't matter that both the media and the Bush Administration habitually hide facts that are harmful to their argument and seize upon missteps as evidence of the other side's utter depravity. What matters now is that both the media, here represented by Mr. Rich, and the government, in the presence of Scott McClellan, are singing a discordant harmony on the matter of what to do about Islam.

Rich records Mr. McClellan's recent protestations that the US Military, for what reason we are not told, "go[es] out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care," as if "Koran abuse" is limited only to those who add water, while the more heinous "abuse" is perpetrated by those who use the holy narrative as justification for a resumè of some of the world's most horrific crimes. Here Rich has it correct. The president would do well to instruct his acolytes to quit the mush-mouthed talk of respect for Islam and instead make the unequivocal statement that the United States will honor Islam the very second Muslims do. What was missing from Secretary of State Rice's recent comments was not that Koran desecration was against policy, but that even if it was, Muslims had better get with the 21st Century program and cease the pagan-like worship of an inanimate object.

In today's Dubai, home to cutting-edge resort design and prestigious golf and tennis tournaments (in which, we presume, women sometimes wear shorts or tennis skirts) it is still unlawful to be allowed entry into the country if one's passport is stamped by Israeli Customs. Will keeping the pages of an odd Koran or two dry really change the rancid philosophy that holds 1.5 billion people in a death grip of shame, perversion and hatred?

Yet Mr. Rich can't let himself go that far, because that would actually serve to put him to the right of this administration even as it would install him directly in the center of American public opinion. Those complaining about Koran abuse see the latest yawning episode as either a shameful display of America's arrogance and disrespect for the world's second largest religion or one more foul-up by a government and its military that only serves to make the fight harder.

Nonsense. The other two Abrahamic religions have come to terms with the fact that modern life has ample accommodation for religious practice but will not tolerate discrimination based on one's spiritual proclivities. Of course, both Christianity and Judaism have their radicals; it would be virtually impossible for that not to be so. But only Islam has institutionalized hate and slaughter to the point that massacres and bombings by radicalized Muslims hardly surprise anymore. What is so sensational and troubling about abuses in American-run military prisons is that Americans thought that we all were past the era when deviants were given the keys to jail cells.

What demonstrates the country's collective values are not that these crimes occurred. In our most bucolic and seemingly pristine communities there still, and likely always will, resides an element of human darkness and turpitude. What presents America's striving to fairness and protection for those who would fight to abolish it, is illustrated by Mr. Rich's own words. He says:

Even with all that evidence off the table, there is still an overwhelming record, much of it in government documents, that American interrogators have abused Muslim detainees with methods specifically chosen to hit their religious hot buttons. A Defense Department memo of October 2002 (published in full in Mark Danner's book "Torture and Truth") authorized such Muslim-baiting practices as depriving prisoners of "published religious items or materials" and forcing the removal of beards and clothing. A cable signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez called for interrogators to "exploit Arab fear of dogs." (Muslims view them as unclean.) Even a weak-kneed government investigation of prison abuses (and deaths) in Iraq and Afghanistan issued in March by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III of the Navy authenticated two cases in which female interrogators "touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees' religious beliefs."

Emphasis mine. These incidents, and others including Abu Ghraib, came about not because of intrepid Rather Peabody winning reporting, but of internal military probes. Indeed, the Times' big story about Afghan prison abuses this past week is from an investigation on crimes that were committed two-and-a-half years ago. It also may be instructive that with all the evidence now in the press of actual deaths due to torture, no matter how few, Mr. Rich chooses to list as most reprehensible the withholding of "religious items" or the shocking crime of requiring a shave or the, granted, odd use of sexually suggestive manner. One assumes that the withheld religious items may have included a Koran, which it has been noted, becomes defiled the very instance an infidel, that's you and me, touches it. This begs the question that since the book has already been abused by the touch of an unclean hand, what's the difference if it turned up in a latrine? Are there degrees of defilement in Islam? I don't know and am not inclined to find out.

What bugs Mr. Rich is that interrogators used inmate's religious nuttery as a way of breaking them down. Given that radicalized Muslims have been characterized by mainstream adherents as having perverted Islam's tenets and practices, wouldn't poking that particular sore spot be a useful and legitimate questioning tactic?

But so what? says Mr. Rich. Newsweek may have botched a story, but Colin Powell lied to the UN (which if true would be a delicious irony) about Iraqi WMDs even though figures from Bill Clinton to Vladimir Putin agreed with Powell at the time. Rich hasn't yet gone out on the limb to publish how many other news organizations have agreed with Newsweek and Michael Isikoff, but the combatants are still gathering for this particular fight.

For the administration's part, it could come up with better responses to debauched newsweeklies than the same sinister "people should watch what they say" routine from stiffs in the cabinet. If crimes have been committed, and if Geneva Conventions have been violated, the government has no option but to prosecute unless it has decided to abrogate the treaty. It is of no value to state that the US alone takes the treaty seriously only to not take it seriously when we get into hot water. However, it is a sign of military accountability and honor that prisoner abuse has been, is and will be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

There have always been criminals in all militaries since armies began assembling to kill the sovereigns' enemies. Presumably, there is no more or less a percentage present than in the populace at large. So it would stand to reason that the armed forces has an element that will inevitably land in the stockade or brig or whichever prison that particular service employs. There indeed have been military cover-ups in the past, but again no more so than in the civilian government. Mr. Rich shamefully utilizes that yippie rhetoric that the military is bad, man, and all that he needs is to utter it for it to be so.

But all this is only a means to confuse the real and pressing issue facing the media, government and military. This issue is not who is most honest and who has what agenda, but what is to be done about Islam. No one from any institution of American life has as yet enunciated the dangers of failing to demand that Muslims the world over take control of their religion and either reform or eliminate those that would destroy a centuries-old spiritual path that boasts peaceful adherents in every country on earth, a tradition of scientific and cultural innovation and at least, a history of tolerance and peaceful respect of other religious practices.

When the president tosses yet another off-handed "Islam is Peace" remark he does no service to the thousands who have been slaughtered and oppressed so "peacefully." When the media refuses to use certain words (e.g. "terrorist") for fear of insulting Muslims and seeming to be on the side of the US government, thus inciting yet another Islamist riot, it hardly demonstrates an understanding of the stakes in this fight. Neither the government nor the media wish to call out the foe, no matter that that very same foe yells in our face each and every day what its intentions are.

We may be winning or losing this war; it's getting harder each day to tell. But if we lose, it will not be because the enemy is superior in strength, morality or guile. It will be because we have failed to take the threat with the seriousness and dead calm that an existential crisis demands. We have failed to identify the enemy and in doing so have turned the fight in on ourselves. The current spat between the government and the media would make for lively entertainment in another time. As we grow towards what is likely to be a showdown with thousands, maybe millions, of radicalized religious fanatics it might be a good idea for us to come to some agreement on whom we fight before it is too late.

The majority of tolerant, moderate Muslims must do the same. It is incumbent on both the media and government that they explain that the enemy we face is their enemy also. And it is of the greatest import that Muslims finally decide that they will indeed take their religion, and the internal threat to its very survival, seriously. An army of free Muslims mobilized alongside that of the West would be an overwhelming force in the fight against Islamofascism. It has yet to be enlisted or even contemplated. We must demonstrate to our Muslim allies that we take the threat to their religion and culture as serious as we take the same threat to ours, and that we expect them to do the same. Until Muslims show respect for their own ways, the West will be impotent to force a surrender.

We can no longer act as mercenaries in service to the Caliphate. Governments of the West have no choice but to press Islam's faithful to make a choice between the welcome of the community of nations, or the disintegration of mankind's hold on the planet. We must be honest, fierce and fair in deadly fashion.

Likewise, our media has a similar choice. America will again take the press seriously when it takes itself seriously. That would mean publishing only vetted and well-sourced stories, refraining from employing the smokescreen of false impartiality and at last acknowledging that there in fact is an enemy to fight and it is not George Bush's administration.

But the media must also stop treating Muslims as if they were curiously exotic pets instead of the full flesh-and-blood humans that they are, replete with the same dignity and frailty of all of humanity and not a subject of a simple, Disney-fied travelogue.

Islam has suffered from those who wish to pervert its teachings and traditions into a death cult bent on the forceful conversion of all to its rancid philosophy. Will Islam finally respond? On what side will it fight? And will we know before it is too late?

Comments

[Tom Fuller]

Mr. Berczik,

Words don't fail. You found them and used them. I've been catching hell since 2001 for being disgusted with both media and government. You nailed it.

Many thanks

[cali white bear]

Wow. this is a worthy screed. truth as a blunt trauma weapon. keep it up.

[ShrinkWrapped]

You are absolutely correct that we face the potential of millions of fanatic Muslim Jihadists if things spin out of control. I do think there are people in our government/military concerned about this and how best to minimize the chances of the worst case scenario coming to pass. OTOH, I do not see any evidence that the MSM gives any thought to the danger of fanning the flames of Islamic fascism and fanaticism. Much of the Muslim world is kept in ignorance; they are told by the likes of al Jazeera and the Iranian Mullahs that the Americans, the Great Satan of thier nightmares, is waging war on all of Islam. If, perhaps when, it becomes "us or them", we will be faced with the potentail of a billion enemies. When Bush or Rice go out of thier way to pay homage to the RoP, it is with a mind of avoiding further polarization. I do not know if their apporach will work. I very much doubt that, at the moment, calling on the Islamic world to join us in a moderate front against Jihad/Islamic Fascism, whatever we call it, would succeed. The MSM is making the job of avoiding world wide Jihad more difficult when they lend their authority to the constant cries of abuse and discrimination from the Jihadists. To the average, poorly educated Muslim in Indonesia, al Jazeera's constant cries of abuse can begin to lose their sting after a while, but when Newsweek says it, well then it must be true!

[dougf]

Not exactly On-Topic but is it true that the NYT is converting their on-line editorial content to a user pay format?
If so, that probably solves the Frank Rich,Maureen Dowd,Paul Krugman,Bob Herbert problem with intellectual coherence,not to mention emotional stability.Oh they will still be as annoying as ever,but they will be preaching completely to the converted,and once you achieve a certain degree of loonacy,assimilating more becomes rather redundant.

If I never have to hear of any of them again,I feel my existence can only be improved.

[Tim]

I don't disagree per se, but I think the Administration views this sort of confrontation as provocative and, if forced to choose sides, leading moderate Muslims to very possibly(if not probably) side with the Islamo-fascists rather than the West. Even if they should be wrong on this asssessment, if it is their assumption, then their fidelity to the "Islam is a religion of peace" pablum is at least consistent with their view of the battlefield. Better to win the war now and lead moderate Muslims to accept the "new reality" than to provoke a showdown that might force us to fight much larger numbers than we are now. Of course, if this strategy is wrong and we begin to lose, our trump card is nukes over Medina and Mecca, which I daresay the U.S.A.F. will not fear the hand of "Allah" in fulfilling it's mission. Blinkered though many may be, Muslims will understand the meaning of Allah's impotency in defending his holiest sites. Let's hope we win before it comes to that.

[brb]

A little more focus and clarity would have been nice. I susptect I agree with you somewhat, but I couldn't finish it. The blog is well named.

[Allan]

In Dubai women don't just wear shorts in the tennis courts
they wear them in the streets.
People would be surprised.
Dubai is not Saudi Arabia.

[Cosmo]

Well said.

We've all known a family member or friend for whom life's problems and missed opportunities (often self-inflicted) are always someone else's fault. No one relishes speaking the truth to someone wallowing in self-pity or lost in delusional over-appraisal of their importance. We'd rather avoid confrontation or make excuses for them as they lurch from crisis to crisis, demanding time, money and emotional energy from all around, and often growing to despise or abuse those who help the most.

But at some point, the sympathy runs out -- and what's left is contempt.

[Vavoom]

To claim that Muslims need to "get with the 21st century" and stop worshiping "inanimate objects" is utter nonsense. Your usage of sterotypes is appalling. The vast majority of Muslims are good people. I am an American Muslim. I have chosen to stand with my country. However, I am often intrigued by the lack of interest by Americans to learn more about my religion. Just as much as moderates, such as myself need to fight for our religion, intelligent Americans, such as yourself, should error on the side of caution -- making stereotypical statements such as those contained in this post are exactly what is *not* needed. You'll only end up alienating moderate Muslims -- we are your greatest ally.

I like your blog. It's actually a well versed look into the political world. This post has many good points, however it is inherently flawed. I do not mean to be offensive, but you really need to consider more carefully the religion and culture of the people you are dealing with. Taking a heavy handed approach and labeling Muslims is the quickest way to lose this battle.

Again, this is a great blog. I hope I haven't offended you.

[Steve]

D-This is your best post yet!

"Given that radicalized Muslims have been characterized by mainstream adherents as having perverted Islam's tenets and practices, wouldn't poking that particular sore spot be a useful and legitimate questioning tactic?"

Whoa! Way to cut through the mud with a scapel!

And Vavoom, your accusation of alienation is misplaced. Your religion is being hijacked by nutjobs and this is what really alienates you, right? If I may, it is your job to get off your couch and act to save your moderate Islam.

Daniel's post should serve as a catalyst to your action. Get busy. We'll help.
-Steve

[Vavoom]

Steve: How would you help? I mean, really? Tell me what you would do to help me? C'mon, what is anybody doing to help moderate Muslims? Would you really rally around a moderate American Muslim? In how many communities have moderate Muslims been elected to office in this country? We are absolutely voiceless. The only people getting any attention are nutjob terrorists and American flag waving nationalists (read: Ann Coulter types). There are two alienating forces here. Nutjobs abroad and the prejudiced at home. Y'all aren't making it easy by stereotyping Muslims, I'll tell you that much.
I ask you this: What precisely should a moderate American Muslim do to help? Give me specifics. I want to hear them. What would you do if you lived in a country where the majority of your own citizens are denigrating your religion and way of life? Looking abroad, sick people of your own faith are denigrating your religion and way of life. What would you do? Orphaned are we moderate Muslims. Claiming that you'll help is meaningless if you're simultaneously supporting stereotypical rhetoric. Again, step up and tell me what you would do to help and what I can do to likewise.

[CCM]

"You'll only end up alienating moderate Muslims -- we are your greatest ally."

No you're not; not if you are so easily alienated by straight talk.

[mrsizer]

"Again, step up and tell me what you would do to help and what I can do to likewise."

Be visible. Join (or found) Muslims Against Terror.

Pro-Life Catholics picket Planned Parenthood. GLBT organizations picket Catholic Churches. Regardless of one's point of view, both have the courage of their convictions.

Get out there. Make your voice heard. Don't complain about stereotypes: Get out there and prove them wrong.

[mrsizer]

Post Script: "Tell me what you would do to help me?"

Absolutely nothing. Why should I? I don't care a whit about Islam. Help yourself.

[Steve]

Vavoom,
I read the emotion in your response. Your words convey a sense of abandonment by your religion, and now your country, that really challenged me.

Moderate muslims are too silent. I should hear you screaming loudly from the mountain top about the fallacies of Wahabism and Bin Ladenism. Before I get to how I can help, here are two suggestions that I offer respectfully to you and other moderate muslims: 1. Creat a mouthpiece for the advocacy of moderation. In America we are free to associate, form political parties and to publish. I suggest you create a blog, an association, or a paper publication. And write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers. 2. Rally the moderate muslim community to fom a cohesive and relevant political force. Start in your mosque, family and home-town. Organize your brothers and sisters who love the freedoms of this country unequivocally into a group that demonstrates its commitment to the maintenance of the freedoms we enjoy here. Then invest words, monies and actions into the ongoing democratization of the Arab world, and the liberalization of Muslim nations from Malaysia to Nigeria.

What can I do? Three things: 1. I recount to whoever will listen my joyful experiences with muslims around the world. When I lived in Iran my best friend was a boy named Barus. His family was muslim, and their hospitality and friendship was crucial to making my family feel comfortable in a strange land. When I lived in Saudia Arabia, my friend Abdullah showed me the communities of Al Khobar and Dammam where the heart of the Arabian people showed loud and clear, without the cloying dressing of government BS. 2. I support verbally and financially the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ensuing tide of reform now sweeping the Middle East. All American taxpayers are doing their part to eradicate radical islam by filing their taxes with the IRS. 3. I and others can help by evangelizing publications and organizations of moderate muslims like yourself. By buying your journals and convincing others to as well, we can help you grow your moderate advocacy through subscription fees and advertising revenues. Lastly, this isn't my blog, but, when you get your blog up and running, I'll encourage Daniel and others like him to add it to his blogroll and link often to increase exposure for your moderate views.

As a U.S. citizen, you are part of the most incredible human creation on the planet in all time. Understand that American's are a multi-ethic, multi-religious people with an almost endless gift of patience and tolerance. But once our nation is threatened, we will climb any mountain to defend our familes and livelihoods. This is the lesson the Taliban and Baathists have had to learn the hard way.
-Steve

[Vavoom]

CCM: Please. "Straight talk" is a matter of perspective. Are you unwilling to look at the issue from another perspective? If not, I'm afraid that you *are* alienating others.
mrsizer: The fact that you don't care about Islam is part of the problem. The fact that you don't care to support moderate Muslims is a part of the problem. You expect things to magically improve, but are unwilling to support those willing to help the situation. That's very sad. Very sad.
Steve: Thank you for your well thought out response. I have a blog. I will make greater attempts to champion the cause of moderate Muslims and Americans alike. I'm concerned that you advocate violence as a means to win this war. It'll never work. Trust me, terrorism is a grassroots effort. Engaging them in this fashion will only destroy this country.
All: If my responses appear rude or inappropriate, take no offense. Again, I'm just trying to engage, not insult.

[Brian Macker]

Vavoom,

One option is for you to reject your religion. I've been looking at it's tenets and it's a pretty vile religion in the first place, with an awful history of violence. You'd be better off without it. It is ancient intolerant superstition of the worst sort. It's you who do not understand your religion not the terrorists. How many of these warning signs of a cult apply to Islam.

[Vavoom]

Brian: What are the signs of a cult? I'd like to hear *your* opinion. Having actually studied such things extensively while in college, I'd like to hear your vast "expertise." The list you put forth could be applied to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism whatever, if utilized by the naive. Cults are not defined by beliefs. They are defined by tactics utilized. Get a good book on the subject. I recommend the work by Margaret Singer. Your ignorance about Islam abounds. Have you ever read anything about the religion, other than some webpage? You took a five second look over a couple of websites and now you're an expert. That's laughable.

Should all Christians abandon their faith because it has a violent history? All Abrahamic religions have a violent history, largely as a result of intolerance and ignorance. I'm surprised, I looked over your blog and it's quite good. Why would you insult somebody trying to advocate moderate religious practices?

[NewsGnome]

Since Islamic extremes have co-opted the religion and turned it into a murder machine, so-called moderate Muslims have conspicuously remained silent. The failure of terrorists to maintain attacks against America has caused them to begin attacks on fellow Muslims while at the same time justifying attacks with a "friend of my enemy" rationalization. But the fact remains that they are killing their own at an amazing daily rate.

An American woman who spoke fluent Arabic was invited to a "convention"(in Florida I believe) ostensibly held to explain the concepts of Islam. While investigators of the religion were fed a plethora of platitudes in the public sessions of the convention, behind closed door sessions , the woman who was able to understand every word, reported vituperative venom right here in America spewed by not radical Muslim, but those who define themselves as "Moderate Muslims." Even apparently moderate Muslims are publically moderate but privately radical.

I do not believe that we have much time to get this message across and I don't find the "bend over backwards" approach is working. Muslims take America's efforts at evenhandedness for weakness. The sooner we learn that, the better chance we'll have to stop the attacks on our values and safety.

[Brian Macker]

Vavoom,

Since you are not around and I am a busy fellow I will not be replying immediately to any great extent. I want you to know however that I was serious. That was not supposed to be an "insult". So I don't waste my time please tell me exactly what you thought was an insult. I thought it was good advice. I read that last post on your blog before I wrote that. You are the one complaining about the vicious behavior of your fellow Muslims. Did it ever cross your mind that it might have something to do with the Koran, which I linked to in my post?

You did misunderstand me. I was not claiming Islam as practiced by all Muslims is a cult. I fact I made very few claims at all in my comment. I think however you can understand that most of the attributes of a cult are in Islam. It only requires a few very small changes to get back to the kind of violent cult that Muhammad led. That is exactly why these brainwashed cult members are flying planes into buildings. This is surely the sign of a cult. One needs only stick to the Koran and introduce a strong leadership and presto-chango you have a cult.

Surely you understand that your reply was mostly bluster. You have no idea what I do and do not know. I might just know much more than you suspect. I also agree with much of your reply. I am neither a Christian nor Jew, and they do have a violent past. However the Xtians and Jews don't have the kinds of problems the Muslims have in the present. Muslims have the additional burden of a religion that has retained many of those violent Abrahamic tendencies. The reasons are intimately tied to the comments made about Islam getting with the 21st century. The problem with Muslims is they take their religion seriously.

Rejecting your religion is a valid option. One you should consider. I have made the same suggestion to Christians and Jews, merely on the grounds of the falsehood of their religion. It's a step I took with on grounds that were not nearly as strong as those to be found against Islam.

My views are actually much more complex than that but I don't plan on writing a book. This is my "I don't have time" reply.

So what exactly did you find offensive? I am also wondering why you were so apologetic to the blog master in your first post saying, "I hope I haven't offended you". What's with all this worry about insulting people? Why should discussing the truth cause insult and if it did so what? You claim to be an American and you don't understand that? We are not discussing this in your Mosque. You came here.

You in fact admitted that your religion is violent but then pointed the finger at other religions as if to say, "I stole a cookie but so did Ali and Muhammad". How does the violence in the distant past of Christianity and even more distant past of Jews redeem Islam?

Note that when I use the word history for Islam it runs much closer to the present. Violence as close as yesterday counts as history. Islam’s entire history has been one long string of violence, injustice, and intolerance. I don't think keeping Jews and Christians as third class citizens and tax slaves counts as being tolerant towards them. That however is justice in the eyes of the Koran. Muslims use this type of history as evidence of their tolerance.

How is the violent nature of the Islamic religion an insult to you? Are you violent too? That was not my assumption. If I had believed that then I would say join true Muslims in Iraq to your doom. If not then you're not a good muslim , you should take pride in that, not insult.

I can appreciate the accomplishments of my heritage without the Christian baggage. Can you do the same for your heritage? Did the breeding of Arabian horses require Islam? Did the invention of the Damascus sword? I don’t think so. If so then why is all the best technology now being invented by infidels? In fact Islam is an obstacle.

Lose the religion. You will be better off. That is unless your friends and family are intolerant. Could they take that?