Muslims Chastising Muslims

     As promised here is a post dedicated to showing that there are Muslims who condemn terrorism and who have spoken out on terrorist acts as contrary to the teachings of Islam.

     At the Religious Tolerance website you can read an answer to the question Why are there no condemnations from Muslim sources against terrorists?  Their answer is that there have been such condemnations, but they are not widely publicized.  Both MPAC and CAIR issue condemnations of terrorist acts regularly.  At least 700,000 Muslim people have signed a petition that condemns acts of terror done in the name of Islam.

     At the Star Tribune blog, Rabbi Amy Eilberg mentions two other organizations who have condemned terrorism:  the Islamic Society of North America and Muslims for Progressive Values.

     In her post Eilberb mentions “prayers for the healing of the madness in our world that gives rise to violence.”  That phrase sends off a yellow light in my mind.  It certainly could be interpreted as anti-American or anti-West.  I do not believe that madness, or anything else, gives rise to violence.  I believe that people choose to commit acts of violence.  If it is proper to say that we are not fighting Islam, then it is also proper to say that we are not fighting madness either.  We who want peace are fighting people who disrupt peace. 

     These condemnations are good, and it is a start.  However, what I would like to see is some evidence that these Muslims are directly confronting the groups and individuals involved in terrorism, not just issuing public statements.  I would like to see evidence that they are actively working to shut down schools and mosques that promote and plan terrorist acts.  I would like to see evidence that they are cooperating with intelligence agencies and police forces to the point of atually turning people in whenever possible.

     It’s easy to say that one is appalled at terrorism.  Any decent person would say so.  Now it is time to put some action to the words.  At the very least, peace-loving Muslims should disseminate their message throughout the Muslim world, so that young people growing up in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries realize that their imams are wrong about Islam and realize that no rewards from Allah await them for killing innocent people.

———-

Thanks to Language Lover for the links.

Putting It All Together

     When we read about terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims, we tend to see each one in isolation.  In fact, the media seem to work overtime to remind us that each act was an isolated act–the work of an off-balance individual.

     In a blog post today, Victor Davis Hanson catalogues attacks and plotted attacks by Muslims since September 11, and the list is staggering.  When you put them all together, it is clear that it is a pattern.  It is clear that none of these is an “isolated incident.”  Rather they are part of a larger plan by a network of radical Muslims.

     Says Hanson, “In other words, the attack on Fort Hood happened on schedule. It was the rule, not the exception. And something like it will occur again – soon.”

     I wish that it were not so.  But we cannot make something go away by wishing.  Worse yet, the people who keep telling us that these are “isolated” incidents had better snap back to reality.  How many “isolated incidents” do they need before they recognize that this is a systemic problem?

Dead People Matter More Than Word Choice

     At the FOX News website they are conducting an opinion poll.  The question is wheher the shooting at Fort Hood was an “act of terror” or a “horrific cime.”

     Wasn’t it both?

     It’s just like the term “hate crime.”  What crime isn’t a hate crime?   There aren’t love crimes are there?

     Meanwhile, some of the victims are dead and others are recovering from wounds.  I would say that they were sufficiently terrified to justify calling the incident an act of terror.  I would also say that I am sufficiently horrified by it to justify calling it a horrific crime.

     How about you?  Do you see some substantial difference between terror and horror?  Do you see an important difference between an act of terror and a crime? 

     What they meant, I suppose, is whether the perpetrator committed the crime as a way to uphold his religious beliefs and to support his co-religionists or whether he was simply an individual killing people fo his own idiosyncratic reasons.  Why can’t they just say it that way?  Well, not exactly that way, but they could say, “Did he do it to uphold his religious beliefs or for some other reason?”

     How would anyone know the answer to that question anyway?  We still have insufficient information to make such a determination, although the reported facts do seem to suggest that he was just on more devout Muslim bent on fighting against the “infidels.”  Shame on FOX for sensationalizing a very sad event.

     Meanwhile, the murdered people are dead.  What we call the incident does not change that fact.  Their families are suffering incredible pain.  Who cares if you call it terror or horror?  Who cares if the man was a jihadist or just a nut?  It doesn’t make his victims either more dead or less dead.

How Did I Know?

     When the news started coming out about the shooting at Fort Hood I was a bit frustrated.  There were so many false reports at first–from established media.  I think that they really do everyone a disservice when they give out unconfirmed information.  They misreported how many shooters there were, how many victims there were, and the status of the shooter.  First he was on the loose, then he was dead, then he was alive and in the hospital.  At least I think that is how it went.

     One thing that I was sure of was that he was a Muslim.  How did I know?  It wasn’t because I think all crazed gunmen are Muslim; it’s because the media were working overtime NOT to report his name or his religion.  Even after his affiliation with Islam was known, many media outlets were falling all over themselves to come up with other reasons for his rampage–he had been harrassed, he had gotten a poor evaluation, he had been depolyed too many times (he never has been, actually), etc., etc.  The fact that they did not come out and reveal that he was a devout Muslim who did not agree with out actions in Afghanistan and Iraq was the one thing that many news sources could simply not accept or report–right away.

     Come on, people.  We don’t want to jump to conclusions, I agree.  We don’t want to be prejudiced and think badly of all Muslims.  However, when a Muslim is actually involved in a violent crime, it is unhelpful and dishonest to avoid reporting it.  As much as somebody might hope that another violent act was not perpetrated by a Muslim, you can’t change reality by avoiding it.

     I know, I know, I’m a bigot.  If you think so, you did not read carefully.  For all I knew, the shooter might have been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Protestant.  The reason I guessed, correctly, that he wasn’t, was that the media would have just said so.  They might even have called him a right-wing religious fanatic.  Am I wrong?

Fort Hood Massacre

     I don’t want to write much today. I just want to suggest that we pray for the families of the dead at Fort Hood. Let’s also pray for the wounded to recover.

Another Zero-Tolerance Travesty

     I have been following the story of Matthew Whalen of New York State.  He is another student (see post below this one) caught in the trap of zero-tolerance policies.  A lawyer now has come to his aid.

     The facts of the case appear to be that Matthew kept a survival kit in his car that included a small utility knife.  The kit, including the knife, was a present from his grandfather, who is a police officer.  Some reports have indicated that such a small knife is not classed as a weapon in the state of New York.  The principal was somehow tipped off that the knife was in the car, and he asked Matthew to show it to him.  Matthew, apparently being a kid who respects authority, complied.

     The principal gave Matthew a 5-day suspension, but the superintendent later added 15 more days.  Matthew has said in an interview that he could understand the 5 days, but not the 15 extra days.

     Frankly, I think that any punishment is unwarranted.  The knife has been reported to be 2 inches long.  There are far dangerous items all over any school building, manyof which are accessible to students continually.  The knife was in a box inside a locked car.  Matthew was obviously not using it to hurt anybody.  Matthew has a good reputation, according to news reports, with no other incidents on his school record.  He is an Eagle Scout who, ironically, has taught knife safety to younger boys.  And, as mentioned above, the knife was given to him by his grandfather, a police officer,  to keep in his car at all times in case he was stranded somewhere and needed it.

     Assuming that Matthew did break a school rule by having the knife in his car, it seems that a warning is all that was warranted.  Unless he had made threats against somebody, or was caught carrying the knife through the school building, or had a past history of violence, there seems to be no need for anyone to fear this young man or react so outrageously to the little knife in his car.

     Every day you encounter people with knives in their pockets.  Does that make you scared?  I have been known to carry a knife around myself, although I usually have one when I don’t need it and fail to have one with me when I do need it!  So far I have not slit anyone’s throat or started a rumble.

Update on Zachary Christie

     Zachary Christie, the little boy who brought the camping tool to school, has had his sentenced reduced.  Instead of 45 days in the alternative school, he will get a suspension of a few days.

     Some questions that this whole case brings to my mind:

     Is a tool consisting of a knife, fork, and spoon a weapon.

     If so are the cafeteria workers, not to mention the students, using weapons every day to cook and eat lunch?

     Is it violent conduct to possess such a tool, as the schools handbook indicates?

     Since when do we punish objects instead of people?

     When did we become scared of dangerous objects instead of being scared of dangerous people?

     Since when do we punish people doing something passive rather than something active?

     Since when do we punish people for what they could do instead of what they do do?

     If seven school board members realize that the punishment was excessive, why couldn’t the teacher, principal, superintendent, or whomever?

     If the people who were going to send him to reform school for 1 1/2 months were so stupid, then how can we expect the children to be well educated?

     If those people were so stupid, should they keep their jobs, or should they at least be censured somehow?

     Is schools are so unreasonable, won’t that tend to prompt violent behavior rather than reduce it?

Zero Tolerance Means Zero Sense

     I completely agree with this editorial in the New York TImes.  A policy designed to keep wacko high school students from committing murder and mayhem should not be used to send a six-year-old to the school’s equivalent of jail for 45 days.  Especially when that six-year-old, Zachary Christie, brought an eating utensil designed for camp-outs (pictured here).

     Rules are a useful tool for preserving order and safety at schools.  I’m all for them, although I keep my classroom rules to a minimum when I am teaching.  Rules make it clear what the expectations are, and they authorize people in charge to take action whenever particular problems arise.  However, the people in charge make the final call about how rules are implemented and enforced.

     I would not say that rules are made to be broken, but they are certainly made to be bent.  People are not allowed to enter a restaurant without shoes, but if a barefoot woman is being chased by a man with a gun, nobody is going to fine her for breaking the rule by running into a restaurant for safety.  At least I hope not.

     That’s why even criminal law is flexible.  Penalties are often enacted in a range from less severe to more severe.  Mitigating circumstances are considered in court.  Judges can prescribe probation for some offenses. 

     Generally, we do not want kids to bring weapons to school, but sometimes circumstances, as in this case, might suggest a more lenient approach to an infraction.  The tool should have been confiscated and returned to his parents in person with a warning.  That’s what I have done in similar circumstances.

—–

     This case prompts me to discuss the broader issue.  Parents are willing to accept “zero-tolerance” rules about “weapons” because they want a sense of security.  It is understandable that they are concerned, but it is a false sense of security that they have settled for.  As I think about my classroom right now, I can think of at least five items that could seriously injure somebody if a person wanted to use them in that way.

     If we are going to be scared of dangerous objects, then we had better become agoraphobic hermits.  What we should do instead is use good sense about dangerous and potentially dangerous people.  We should be cautious without getting paranoid.  It’s how most people live their lives most of the time, anyway. 

     I mean, when you go to a friend’s house for a visit, do you worry about the butcher knife in the kitchen drawer?  Do you worry about the heavy glass vase on the mantle?  How about the pull cord on the draperies?  No, you trust your friend.  You do not even spend one second thinking that she might use one of these dangerous objects to hurt you (although it could happen).

     People have talked about the death of common sense in America.  It might not be dead, but it is seriously ill, I think.

Who Are the Gun People?

     I have a friend named Matt.  He is a gun owner and a Second Amendment advocate.  I do not know if he is representative of all such people, but he is typical of most other gun owners that I know. 

     Matt loves to fish and hunt.  He stands actually in both the modern world and in the past, since he is a computer systems designer during the week and a rugged outdoorsman on certain weekends.  Although he is rugged, he is one of the gentlest people I know.  Hurting an innocent person, let alone killing one, is the farthest thing from his mind.

     When Matt goes hunting or fishing, he has a license and he stays within legal guidelines.  Like most of the hunters I know he is a staunch conservationist.  More than most people he appreciates the beauty of wildlife and our natural environment.  Eliminating all the deer or cutting down all the woods would be ineffably horrible to Matt.

     He and his family consume what he kills.  He does not enjoy the killing itself, but he does enjoy the challenge of tracking the deer, the sense of accomplishment, and the meat that he brings home.

     Like most gun owners I know, he is appalled at the number of crimes involving guns that occur in the United States.  Like most gun owners I know, he has no intention of killing anyone with his gun, and would love to see the evil people who murder others stopped.  He knows that the problem is evil people, not inanimate objects.

     When he and his friends go out hunting together, he does not fear that one of them will shoot him.  He realizes, I’m sure, that if any of them wanted to shoot him, they could do so anytime they wanted.  Just as he could shoot one of them at any time if he chose to.  I think he would advise the people who are scared of guns that they should stop and think for a minute about how many guns there are all around them all the time.  Since they are still alive to protest guns, the guns must not be as dangerous as they are contending.

     Matt is very patriotic.  He served the United States as a Marine, and I believe that I have seen a tear in his eye on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day.  You can criticize the United States around him, but I don’t advise you to show any disrespect to the country, the flag, or our military personnel.  As I said, he won’t hurt you, but you probably will not like what he will say to you.

     Matt is also a very loving family man.  I have seen few men as devoted to his wife and children as Matt.  He not only gives them the popular “quality time,” but he gives them quantity time.  Not only does he spend time with his immediate family, but he remains close to his parents and siblings and has become very caring toward his wife’s family.  He did everything he could to help his father-in-law as he suffered from terminal cancer that did take his life.

     Matt pays his taxes.  He is friendly to his neighbors.  Beyond friendly, he is always ready to help a neighbor in need.  He visits older members of the church who cannot go out much and either takes them places or runs errands for them.  He has helped fix up houses for people who could not afford to hire somebody to do it for them.

     In short, Matt is one of the best men that I know.  My admiration for him is practically boundless.  It pains me to hear people disparage people like him.  He is not a nut.  He is not a radical.  As I tried to write in an earlier post, he is the kind of man that our ancestors–my ancestors, anyway–would have admired greatly.  “Salt of the earth” they would have called him.   They would not have been afraid of him because he has guns.  For one thing, they did too.  For another thing, they would have seen it as very responsible of him to provide for his family and to protect his family by using his firearms wisely.

     As far as I am concerned, you are free to disagree with Matt for his views on gun ownership.  But please don’t call him, or people like him, names.  Don’t treat them as aberrant or weird or scary.

     To people in a small circle of leftwing friends, my friend Matt probably does seem like an anomaly.  But from what I know he is a very common type of man in America.  There are millions of people in America like Matt, or who wish they were like Matt.  They may not be the only Americans, but don’t discount them or hold them in contempt.  America would not even be here without people like him.

Reading Comprehension Deficit

     I certainly got some reactions with this comment:  “People have become so sissified (and that was a carefully chosen word) in our modern world.”

     Although it might be a bit pedantic or technical, I want to point out that I did not call anyone a sissy.  I did not say that any particular individual or group is a sissy.  Having been called that name many times in my life, I was very careful and deliberate in deciding to write it.  I don’t like the term or its implication, but it fits certain people in America.  The people I refer to are no necessarily “sissies,” but they are certainly not as tough as their forebears.

     As I made clear from the rest of what I wrote, I was not talking about people who are concerned about crimes involving guns.  That problem should concern all of us, just as it concerned people in the past.  People really should learn to read things in context.  I’m tough on crime–much tougher than many of the folks who wet their pants when they see a peace-loving, law-abiding citizen carrying a gun.  I would love to see our police force empowered to clean up cities of the gangs that terrorize them.  I would be happy to see convicted murderers executed within six months of sentencing (once their appeal was settled).  To accuse me of not caring about crime is ludicrous.

     In my post I was talking about people who get overly upset about the mere existence or presence of guns.  My ancestors in rural New England would have had a difficult time surviving without their guns, although I suppose that they could have.  Most of them were Quakers, which means that they would not so much as strike a person, let alone shoot them with a gun.  Nevertheless, they owned guns in order to defend themselves against wild animals and in order to get meat to feed themsleves.  Had they been afraid of the guns themselves, they would not have lasted long, and I might not be here writing about modern society’s becoming sissified.

     Imagine what they would have thought of people panicking because they happened to see a rifle or a pistol in somebody’s hand!  Really, try to imagine it.  One of my great-great-great-grandmothers got a surprise visit from a bear while her husband was out hunting (not with a bow and arrow, I’m pretty sure).  She got up into the loft of the cabin with her two children and scared the bear away by shooting at it with a rifle.  I think she would be perplexed and amused by people who are terrified of guns instead of seeing them as useful tools.

     Elsewhere in old New England people had guns for another reason.  They remembered a time when a tyrannical power needed to be overthrown.  Had there not been plenty of armed farmers to form militias, they would not have been able to beat those tyrants and found a free republic.  The issue of gun rights was not an abstract idea for them.  Do you think that they liked crimes involving guns?  Of course not.  But were they afraid of the guns themselves?  Obviously not, since they considered them necessary to defend their liberty and to help <i>prevent</i> other people from committing crimes.

     To the person who said that I called the Secret Service sissies, please improve your reading and thinking skills.  Since they carry firearms, they are obviously not afraid of the things; therefore, they do not fall into the category of “people who have become sissified,” as I defined that category.  I want the Secret Service to defend the president, but to be very frank, I would not want them to be the only ones with fire power in the United States of America.  In regimes where only the president’s guards have guns, innocent people usually become their targets.  Under such governments nobody has the right to criticize the president, because to do so could mean death.  I do not want to live under such rule.

     Ultimately it is not the permitting or banning of guns that I am concerned about.  I am much more concerned that people in America have lost a certain toughness that our ancestors generally had.  This weakening of both our thinking skills and our attitudes is a bad thing, in my opinion.  It is sadder than whether people have guns at town hall meetings or not.