This is what Bill O'Reilly said, and I quote;"Muslims killed us on 9/11", which he later corrected by saying; "Radical/Extremist Muslims killed us on 9/11". The latter statement was more accurate, but the first one was not that far off. I mean, I'm not one to paint a whole group of people with one broad brush, but the facts are the facts, and the Muslim religion did have A LOT to do with the rationale behind 9/11. Most liberals always try to make that distinction between Muslims extremists and moderates, they wanna sound "politically correct", but is there really any distinction between those two groups?
I'm forced to say, OF COURSE THERE IS, and the distinction is the key to understanding why we are having this communication problem. The distinction between moderate Muslims and extremists lies, not on the religion, but on their level of education and their ability to think rationally. Moderate Muslims read all the horrible verses in the Qu'ran, verses that directly command them to go and kill "infidels" in order to take over the world, and they understand that THERE'S NO WAY a good and loving God would ever write those words. So, what do they do? they give up their religion? NO! They go in circles around these verses trying to justify it while keeping their precious religion. But in order to come to that conclusion, they need a level of education to develop an ability to think RATIONALLY. In Muslim countries, where the information is pretty controlled by the Muslim governments, and the center of education is the religion itself, extremists are more likely to emerge from these conditions where rational and critical thinking is, not only hindered, but also punished! In Western Civilizations and 21st century societies, where the government has little or no control of the information, the education encourages developing and using rational and critical thinking, moderate Muslims are more likely to emerge.
The main difference is the environment in which the Muslim grows up in. But let's stop using the word "Muslim", and use the word Christian, for example, is the exact same issue. I was a fundamentalist Christian for many years myself, but as soon as I started thinking rationally and critically, I became more and more moderate until I gave the religion up. We are ALL vulnerable to be an extremist of some religion or ideology under these extreme conditions, whether you're Muslim or Christian or Mormon, etc... The main difference is, most Christians grow up in 21st century societies, and they are less likely to follow every letter and every word of their book. Most Muslims, on the other hand, grow in societies that are still stuck in the Dark Ages, so they are more likely to follow their book and their religious leader without question.This is the real difference between a moderate Muslim and an extremist, and it's THE SAME difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a moderate Christian.
When I say Bill O'Reilly is right what I mean is, the verses that inspired the 9/11 hijackers to do what they did ARE in the Qu'ran, and they ARE tenants of their religion. If it were the case that moderate Muslims were the ones who follow their book to the letter, and extremists the ones making excuses and using verses to justify their deeds, I would call O'Reilly a bigot and disagree with him, just like most of the time, but SADLY that's NOT the case. Moderate Muslims are, basically, the same as Christians Apologists. They lie to themselves and to others in order to keep their religion despite the obvious fact that their book INCITES violence against non-Muslims. It might not be that "Muslims" killed us on 9/11, BUT Islam did! just like Christianity killed innocent women accused of being witches, motivates and justifies hatred and violence towards homosexuals and exploded that abortion clinic.
Another thing I see is causing this miscommunication is that the word "Muslim" has become synonymous with "Arab". I think when we fail to make that distinction, the conversation is derailed from criticism of beliefs and ideology of a group of people and the influence it has on their actions, to the color of their skin and the clothes they wear. I think that, when you're talking to the American public, a public that is generally ignorant to other cultures, this distinction MUST BE made in order to keep the debate on the right track. When I criticized Islam, I'm not criticizing Arabs, and I'm not saying they are all terrorists, I'm saying that the beliefs Muslims hold have a tendency to incite VIOLENCE and HATRED, which is the same I would say for Christianity and pretty much every religion. When we make this distinction clear, we are free to keep race out of the equation, and have an honest and rational discussion about IDEAS and whether they are good or bad for us.
This is the reason I think Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off the stage. I would have done the same if O'Reilly had said; "Arabs killed us on 9/11", but that's not what he said, he said; "MUSLIMS killed us on 9/11", is NOT about RACE, is about BELIEFS and IDEAS. Is like what Martin Luther King said; "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", and beliefs (SPECIALLY religious beliefs) has a remarkable influence on who we are and how we choose to act in certain situations. It is an understatement that not ALL Muslims believe the same things, or act the same way, or agree on the interpretations of certain verses, but they do share some core beliefs. How strongly they believe it, and to what extend they let these beliefs influence their actions, are the key distinctions here, which are mostly determined by their ability to think rationally and critically and the environment they grew up in.
As always, this is just my opinion. I wish I was able to express it as clearly as possible. I just wish that, someday, we all share the belief that we are ALL HUMANS, despite our differences, and therefore recognize we all deserve the same rights and the same respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment