Got this from the American Islamic Congress the other day. Not what you think - see their "no buts" program re: terrorism, and they have been consistent supporters of both greater freedom in the Muslim world, and greater protection of its non-Muslim minorities. Anyway, here's what it said:
"I write to you in a time of reflection - in the wake of the tragedy in Mumbai and during the holiday of Eid al-Adha (the “festival of the sacrifice”). Both events relate directly to our work here at the American Islamic Congress.
What happened in India was not simply a horrendous attack the population of a bustling financial center, but an attack on the global Muslim community. I am compelled to reiterate one of AIC’s core campaigns - "No Buts" - an unequivocal denunciation of terrorism. There is no excuse to justify the terrorists’ rampage against civilians of all faiths (including singling out a Jewish center). I was encouraged to hear that the local Muslim cemetery in Mumbai refused to bury the terrorists.
Eid al-Adha, which Muslims around the world are now celebrating, is a holiday that underscores the preciousness of human life. Eid al-Adha commemorates Abraham's near-sacrifice of Ismael, whom God initially demands as a sacrifice. Bound to the altar, Ismael is spared at the last second, as Abraham's knife falls on a lamb instead. This climax offers a clear denunciation of human sacrifice, even when it appears divinely sanctioned. As Muslim families gathered this week for the traditional holiday meal, we celebrated the rescue of Ismael and the sanctity of human life. [JK note: the predecessor Old Testament has Ismael's half-brother Issac in this role, but the message is the same]
We are reminded of the need to bring together people here in the US and on the ground in the Muslim world, promoting responsible civic leadership and supporting individual liberty. Here are a few examples of how AIC continues to advance this mission:
Long may they do so.
The terrorists are no friends to most ordinary people, whether Muslim, Hindu, or anything else. What the terrorists want is War. What they fear and fight is Peace, and an environment in which the people support the Rule of Law.
The attack on Mumbai was designed to incite revenge attacks on Pakistan. Those would ignite a spiral leading most likely to war between India and Pakistan, with all the opportunities such a war provides for the terrorists.
Pakistani Muslim extremists perform violent acts that incite hatred in India, and gain recruits for Indian Hindu extremists. Indian Hindu extremists then return the favor for the Pakistani Muslim extremists. In this sense, they are allies, trying to convert new extremists from among the ordinary people, who just want to get along.
The true conflict is between the extremists (when Muslim or Hindu or whatever), and the ordinary people (of all kinds) who just want to get on with their lives in reasonable security.
Recognizing that this is the true conflict clarifies these events enormously. Certainly there are political, religious, and cultural differences between, say, Pakistan and India, but the true conflict is between the extremists and the pluralists.
Gotta throw in the last 1,000 or so years of history, too. Hindu experiences at Muslim hands didn't exactly build up a deep reservoir of goodwill.
Ultimately, part of the effort to strengthen the center against the extremists is going to have to be some level of historical honesty and reconciliation.
The American Islamic Congress is smart enough to recognize that; hopefully, the recognition will spread over time.
Hopefully, they'll have that time. Pakistan is at something of a crossroads right now, and if it tips the wrong way then war is indeed in their future.
Look at the former Yugoslavia. The large majority of the population had no problem with living together. But Milosevic et al saw their path to power by inflaming hatred among the various groups, due to horrible atrocities that had taken place 800 or 1200 years before. They were fortunate to have equally inflammatory people on the opposite side, so they drummed up support for each other, until everyone is killing the neighbors they used to get along with.
If you want to convert a peace-loving person into an extremist, there is nothing like blowing up their family to do the trick. Do this back and forth for a few generations, and you get a pathological society that will take generations to heal.
"Look at the former Yugoslavia. The large majority of the population had no problem with living together. But Milosevic et al saw their path to power by inflaming hatred among the various groups, due to horrible atrocities that had taken place 800 or 1200 years before."
Ah, another example of the Gell-Mann effect. I know nothing about most of the things Beard has to say about the WoT, Bush Administration, Iraq, etc, etc. But my parents are refugees from WW-II and had direct life experience with Yugoslavia.
"800 or 1200 years before" -- I had no idea WW-II was that long ago.
Paul,
I'm sure there were atrocities in the WW-II era as well, but to the best of my (imperfect) knowledge, some of the rallying cries to foment ethnic warfare were references to ancient (800- to 1200-year old) events.
The point of my argument is not that everything was peaceful and wonderful since then (since obviously it wasn't) but that ethnic pathologies arise through multigenerational histories of mutual atrocity. Each side has genuinely suffered from truly horrible violence from the other, for which they feel compelled to take truly horrible revenge. This is a stable equilibrium, perpetuating a pattern of violence over the centuries.
I would appreciate any insights your family history provides on this topic.
do you have the full text of the statement from AIC? it looks like it got truncated after the "Here are a few examples of how AIC continues to advance this mission:"
better yet, is it online somewhere?