Terrorists in haystacks

“Terrorists do not wear a special uniform.. They are like other people, like other youths. They are not easy to recognize. Sometimes, finding a terrorist in the 14 million population of Tehran is like finding a needle — not in a haystack, but in 10 haystacks.”
Mahmoud Alavi, Iranian intelligence minister
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/world/middleeast/iran-kurds-terrorist-attacks.html

The Shia and Sunni differences have are similar to the Protestant/Catholic differences of Northern Ireland.  However, some Iranians take a more tolerant view of extremists.  For example, Jalal Jalalisadeh, a former member of the Iranian from Kurdistan takes a stance that many around the world could emulate.  Salafis are an ultra-conservative group in parts of Iran. “They were peaceful. As long as the Salafi groups are not taking arms, they must be tolerated,” ibid.

"A child killed in a bombing while eating ice cream in Baghdad is the same as child killed in a bombing while attending a pop concert in Manchester.”
Shasta Aziz, Globe and Mail, 2017-06-05
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/countering-extremism-requires-political-honesty-from-theresa-may/article35204868

Do not call terrorists Muslim or Islamic.  They are no more "Muslim" than the Ku Klux Klan is “Christian”

Cherry-picking religious texts to validate hate

Wisconsin Public Radio’s To the Best of Our Knowledge (TTBOOK) recently replayed an episode about building a new mosque in the Chicago area (http://www.ttbook.org/book/building-mosque-america).

One of the anti-mosque people quoted the Q’ran about killing idolators.  Knowing that Mohammed and his followers were constantly harassed by idol worshipers (who made a lot of money selling statures of idols, I knew there was a larger context.  Rather than offer my own explanation, I suggest you read “Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?” by Kabir Helminski, Huffington Post, 2010-09-24, updated 2011-05-25.

One could cherry-pick the Bible and show that Judaism is a religion of hate: “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” King James Bible, Deuteronomy 20:16.

History is filled with “Christians” who tortured and killed those they even suspected of not being Christian enough: Torquemada and the Spanish inquisition, burnings at the stake, and more.  Even in our recent history many who call themselves Christians feel no remorse in lynching or burning churches.

Buddhism is supposed to be a religion of peace, but “Buddhists” are killing Muslims in Burma and Sri Lanka.  Do you really think the Buddha would approve of such hateful actions?

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?  If we go by Donald Trump’s logic, if someone from a particular group commits a crime, terrorism or otherwise, then all members of that group are guilty of the same crime.

Timothy McVeigh was one of the bombers of the Oklahoma City Federal Building; an attack that killed over 160 people.  He grew up as a Catholic.  Does that mean all Catholics could commit similar crimes?

Maybe we should expel all Southern Baptists.  After all, most of the Ku Klux Klan were upstanding members of their community and church by day, but when night came, they donned white sheets and hoods and terrorized black people for crimes real and imagined.

But how many Southern Baptists didn’t like the Ku Klux Klan and thought they were unchristian and dangerous?  Why didn’t they speak out?  Because they were afraid of retribution by the Klan?

Critics of Islam say that all Muslims should speak out against terrorism committed in the name of Islam.  I think many of these critics aren’t really listening to those who speak out.

How many of us speak out against all the injustices we know that exist around us?  Very few of us.  We have jobs and any number of activities that we would rather do than speak out.

“Don’t complain about the speck in your brother’s eye when you can’t see the beam in your own."

There really are only two religions

What? You think there are dozens of major religions and thousands of sects within them.  That may be true when you consider that many people believe in a long list of do’s and don’ts that are peculiar to their particular “religion”.  But if you look beyond the creeds and admonitions, you will find that are only two basic belief systems: generosity to others and narrow systems of “we are right and you are wrong”.  And all the major religions have many generous believers and far too many hateful believers.

In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ.  Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor.   Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.

These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.

We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims.  He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”.  John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books.  His crime: denying the Holy Trinity.  The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.

On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity.  The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement.  Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War.  Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India.  Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.

Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity.  Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir.  If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad.  There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.

Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries.  Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades.  We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence.  Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques.  Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence.  Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state).  Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.

An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge.  This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.

I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace.  Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m.  One of these words is “salaam” for peace.  Hm,  close to the Hebrew “shalom”.

Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam.  The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.

One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross.  I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.

Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 

Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school.  Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.

Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.  The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor.  These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.

We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists.  “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings.  Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing.  Think of the “King of Siam”.  The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims.  Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon.  The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century.  In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king.  Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps.  There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.

Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama.  A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace.  He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.

If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry.  But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”.  I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future.  With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.

Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions

Are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?

One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms.  The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”.  Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.

What’s this Daesh?  It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS).  Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead.  One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow.  Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.

Look at this another way.  Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity.  By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.

Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh.  See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day).  The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark.  It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.

Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?  Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam.  The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians.  As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.

But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?

In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire.  It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender.  Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace.  In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle.  That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier.  Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army.  Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.

Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country.  That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.

These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.

First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country.  The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe.  The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons.  Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner.  Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”

The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power.  It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.

Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government.  The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe.  That fight still goes on.

Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding.  However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country.  The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.

Out of this chaos has come Daesh.  Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region?  A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”

Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East.  Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh?  These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh.  They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees.  But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh

The myths of fighting terrorism

President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism.  But these actions only foment more terrorism.  In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.

Just what is terrorism?  Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people.  Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda.  Torture by any government is terrorism.  Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism.  Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism.  People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists.  Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.

Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning.  During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.

Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction.  If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.

The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants.  The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial.  Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses.  The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.

The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by  a more just civil society.

Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution.  Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons.  Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”.  For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves.  Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.

Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples.  The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children.  The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma.  Many did not survive the trip.

I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions.  But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.

Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.

The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government.  Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers.  The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance.  One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile.  The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds.  The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left.  But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.

Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait.  As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country.  A big mistake to make.  Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army.  One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places.  George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries.  Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria.  ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.

The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”?  On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks.  Can the jets occupy Tikrit?  I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.

What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq.  Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.

And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.

Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”

Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.

Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?

A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out.  He stated this over and over again.

Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination?  In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.

Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families.  Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed.  Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.

Are not many Muslims in similar situations?  Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition?  Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?

Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out.  The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”.  This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech.  The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.

Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer.  Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.

Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.

Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.

Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times.  You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html.  See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.

He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty.  Here are two notable quotes from his book.

“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252

“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254

My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought.  I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.

After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought.  They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people.  Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.

A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.”  Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other.  Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.

“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.”  The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.

Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.

Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia.  Poor choice!  The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose.  This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces.  These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

A second invasion was of oil men.  Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control.  This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.

But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians.  Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it.  They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.

Insecure believers and non-believers

"Insecure believers sometimes cling to a rigid and simplistic faith."
- David Brooks, "The Subtle Sensations of Faith", New York Times, 2014-12-23

The insecure believers make the headlines or the history books.  Think of all the "Islamists" who want to kill anyone who does not believe as they do.  Think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Protestants and Catholic gunmen of Northern Ireland, the Communists of North Korea, and many more "true believers".

We also have so-called non-believers who have to attack those who claim to believe.

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite here because I have questioned the texts that many base their beliefs on.  However, it is only the texts I question, not the belief in something greater than oneself.  But I have no problem with people who believe in something I don't believe in.  My problem is with those who want to "prove" that they are right because of something somebody long ago wrote as "fact".

For example, did Adam and Eve really exist?  Or are they metaphor for our hubris that we "know better than God"?

What we really should consider is "moral truth" over "mythical truth".  For example, was God really tempted by Satan to severely test Job, or is the Book of Job an exploration of why bad things happen to good people?

Is ISIS Islam's Ku Klux Klan?

The Ku Klux Klan has a corrupt version of Christianity.  If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely.  ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has a corrupt version of Islam. If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely. 

The Klan wore white hoods to hide their identity.  ISIS wears black hoods to hide their identity. 
The Klan is still alive and well in the U.S., maybe not as deadly as before, but just as hateful towards those they don’t like.  See “At Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members”, Al Baker, New York Times, 2014-08-29.  The Klan’s targets are immigrants.

The Klan bombed black churches.  ISIS bombs Shiite mosques.

Christian leaders outside the South condemned the Ku Klux Klan.  Those Christian leaders in the South who spoke out against the Klan would be intimidated overtly or covertly.  An illustration of how much courage it took to stand up for the rights of Negros is “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.

Muslim leaders outside the areas controlled by ISIS have spoken out against ISIS.  One is Othman Atta, Executive Director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.  Some British imams have issued a fatwa calling ISIS “heretical” and stating that it is “prohibited to support or join” ISIS.  A Muslim cleric in India declared ISIS is “not just anti-Islamic but are enemies of humanity as well.”  I can’t verify it with multiple sources, but supposedly ISIS executed 12 clerics in Mosul because they would not swear fidelity to ISIS.

For more see “How Islamic State resembles the Ku Klux Klan”, Brian Denson, The Oregonian, 2014-08-24, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/how_islamic_state_isis_resembl.html

Some are calling on President Obama to do something about ISIS and do it yesterday.  But what can the United States do other than make matters worse?  It is an outside power that really doesn’t understand all the dynamics of other countries and cultures.  Look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They were in turn caused by one man, Osama bin Laden, a former ally, who didn’t like the U.S. putting troops into his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia.  Bin Laden decided to strike back at the U.S. and did so several times.  Will ISIS strike back in similar ways?

Consider that fighting ISIS may be fighting two enemies with different agendas.  ISIS are a set of fanatical jihadists who want everyone to follow their way or die.  They are allied with Sunnis who resent the Iraqi government, dominated by Shias, exercising too much control over the Sunni dominated areas.

Wouldn’t you think that Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be under a bigger threat from ISIS than the U.S. would?  All of these have bigger armies than ISIS.  It seems only Iran is making any known effort to contain ISIS, and even that is trying to be done with a low profile.

The United States gave over one billion dollars in military assistance to Egypt in 2012.  Egypt can easily spend that as it sees fit.  It has an estimated annual military budget over seven billion dollars.  ISIS supposedly has stolen over two billion dollars, but who will be selling it arms and how much of that money can it actually access and use, like gold bullion?

Saudi Arabia is a big customer of military suppliers.  It has 233,500 active military personnel, over a thousand tanks, and over 200 attack aircraft.  Should not that force be sufficient to overwhelm ISIS with firepower and personnel?  ISIS has more than ten thousand fighters as of July 2014 and estimates keep climbing.  Even if ISIS has 100,000 fighters, would they be a match for Saudi Arabia with all of its aircraft?

King Abdul of Saudi Arabia said recently, “Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.”

Turkey has been fighting ISIS at its border with some success, but groups like ISIS will keep coming back.

It seems this is another case of “Let’s you and him fight.”  Let the U.S. come in and settle other people’s problem (or think it had) and let the U.S. take the blame if things go wrong.  When it comes to war, Murphy’s law definitely applies.

So I have two big questions.  Why haven’t Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran taken a much larger and forceful role in combatting ISIS?  ISIS is a much greater existential threat to them than to the U.S.  Is President Obama pushing on these countries to do more?

So, your Majesty, why not be the leader of the Islamic world and take on ISIS?  Don’t you have the advantage of force, reason and speed?  You don’t have to get your parliament’s permission, tacit or otherwise.  And you don’t have to get the backing of your people.

Mel keeps wondering who elected the President of the United States as “leader of the free world.”

Published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/09/04/4020_is_isis_islams_ku_klux_klan, 2014-09-04.

The blog version includes corrections to the published version.

Muslims do speak out

Some people, I hope they are few, complain that Muslims don't speak out about terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam.  Did we have a lot of Christians in the South who spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan?  How many southerners were as strong defending the rights of blacks as Atticus Finch of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird"  How many of us speak out against anybody who unfairly speaks ill of another person or group?

Like any very large group, Muslims have a diverse set of views.  Too often, like in other groups, the rigid dominate any discourse.  Iran under the Shah was a rigid dictatorship that allowed quite a range of freedom in non-political behavior.  Iran under the Ayatollahs is a rigid sort-of democracy that constricts freedoms in many non-political behaviors.  Unfortunately, it has become even more rigid and even less democratic since the election fraud of 2009.

As seen in the riots in Egypt, Muslims have a wide range of opinions of what government should be about, not all think that Shari'a law is a legitimate source of government.  Remember also that more people showed up to mourn the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi than took part in the attack or justified it.

See also "Exploiting the Prophet", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2012-09-22

One group of Muslims has set out to be a more open religious group that allows for more diversity and less gender or other sexual divisions.  It is Muslims for Progressive Values.  Among other practices prayer meetings are not segregated by gender and women do lead prayers.  They were supposedly changing their website on January 25th, but as of this posting it hasn't happened.  If the "Keep It Halal" video is not on the site when you visit, you might find it on YouTube at http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=44UsNBJE2ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D44UsNBJE2ho.

Ku Klux Klan = Al Qaeda?

Too many people think Islam is a violent religion because of the actions of a few.  But one could think the same of Christianity.  Does the Ku Klux Klan or Torquemada represent Christianity?

The Ku Klux Klan terrorized "uppity niggers" for a long list of imagined crimes and terrorized whites from opposing the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan used the cross as its symbol and even corrupted it by burning crosses in the yards of those who opposed them.  They purported to be defending Christianity, but it wasn't the religion of Jesus.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorize all those who don't agree with them for a long list of imagined crimes.  They have used the Koran as their symbol, but ignore all those parts that don't fit their rigid view.

The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured many people on real or imagined threats to Catholicism.  Jews, Muslims, and Protestants were tortured to get them to confess to not following the "true belief".  Torquemada worked with the blessing of King Phillip of Spain; religious orthodoxy was a means to quell dissent with his policies.

The Iranian government tortures many on real or imagined threats to Islam or its national security.  But isn't it behaving like King Phillip?  Religious orthodoxy is a means to quell dissent with its policies.

There are far too many historical cases of "bad apples" of any major religion; it makes it very easy to argue that any religion is violent.

What doesn't make the news is the multitude of people of all religious faiths who follow the example of the Good Samaritan, offering help to those in need regardless of differences.  On the one hand we have Afghans offering tea to American soldiers who broke down their doors; on the other hand we have Americans sending money to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for Pakistani flood victims.