25% of US Young Muslim Males say

Parent Cafe
21

<p>So my father was part of a division that hit the beaches at Normandy - I think he used call it “the suicide 86th”. As he used to tell it, which was rarely, 277 men went in, and, officially, 3 came out alive (he was a fourth, but was wounded and remained in France for a year). They knew it was suicide going in - the idea was to buy 5 minutes for gunners to set up. It was thought that there was no way to advance without it. He carried a gun, but never got to use it, and that wasn’t the purpose of the tactic. The idea was simply to provide a forward target for the Germans to shoot at.</p>

<p>The three suicide survivors were recognized as great heroes, greeted with parades, feted at dinners. As I remember his telling, none of them were Protestants, or did what they did on behalf of their religion. They simply were doing what they were told.</p>

22

<p>To frrph –</p>

<p>“some to struggle against what is perceived as a violent and aggressive occupation as in the relatively secular Palestine”</p>

<p>Aww, that’s so sweet. When the “struggle” comes onto the streets of Tel Aviv in front of the Sbarro pizza parlor, and somebody detonates his body in order to kill 30+ people, we do not call this a “struggle” or a “suicide bombing.” Nor is it “self-defense.” </p>

<p>It’s a “homicide bombing.” Please begin to call it that. Language defines thought.</p>

<p>Your equally sweet wording, several paragraphs down, says “no civilians” should be killed in a jihad, but that is because you do not accord the status of “innocents civilian” to any Israeli citizen, woman or child. To your line of thinking, all are soldiers. All Israelis are equal in this “struggle” as if they were all soldiers. All are up for grabs as death-objects to the “struggling” “suicide bomber.” All are seen as combatants, and rather than seek political or economic solution after 50 years, the Arab world prefers to let the refugees
fester in camps throughout the Middle East (see Lebanon, yesterday, for example) rather than absorb them into their civilization or Muslim Brotherhood.</p>

<p>It is terrible, and your wording doesn’t fool anybody educated. You may have fertile field with those who do not know the history of the Middle East, but not with me. </p>

<p>Educated peaceful Islamists have the MOST to be upset about with the fundamentalists. See the movie, “Relentless, the Struggle For Peace in Israel” for further exploration of this necessary, but absent, dynamic. When it was shown on a handful of campuses in America, Muslim students at two schools were eager to close down the screenings, fearing reprisals or discrimination if the story be told. In fact peaceful Muslim students should, if truly peaceable, turn their own energy against Muslim terrorism. Instead, you try to smear us here with your syrup-y propaganda.</p>

<p>I’m not buying any of it.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>That explains why Islam is more readily misused than religions like Buddism and Christianity. I used to go to Christian churches and have read the entire Bible at least once (most of the New Testament many times) and I don’t recall the Bible has any treatment on, let alone emphasis on, “defending” the faith. I just don’t recall any passage that explains to you “how” and “under what circumstance” you should/can “defend” your faith. As far as the churches that I went go, they talked a lot about “spreading” the gospel, not “depending” the gospel.</p>

<p>As for Buddism, the original form is actually more a philosophy than religion.</p>

24

<p>paying3tuitions, thank you so much for making off-target inferences on where I personally stand with suicide bombings. I do not think they are right or defensible - morally, theologically, politically. I do however think this is how they are seen and used by the Palestinians that carry them out. Had you actually taken the time to read my post, you would’ve noticed the one sentence you use to grossly misrepresent my stance went:

</p>

<p>But please do offer us yet another knee-jerk personal attack, I hear it is very constructive.</p>

<p>Sam Lee, you are right, and this is one of the fundamental differences between Christianity (as it can be interpreted within the most progressive groups) and Islam (as it can be interpreted within the most progressive groups). Islam is not a pacifist religion even by the most modern counts. A history of empire-building, then colonialism by the West and subsequent marginalization, does not help the situation, instead creating fertile soil for religion to be utilized as a rallying mechanism.</p>

25

<p>Mini - I have deep and abiding respect, admiration and appreciation for your father and all those who were there with him. Off-topic, but true.</p>

26

<p>Of course, I read your post-- several times, carefully – before responding. I’ve read posts like these for years, now, and I’m savvy to the various wordings people use to cloak political discussion with religious texts. You posted in the Parent Cafe, and I’m not a clueless freshman on a campus.</p>

<p>In my post, I carefully included your quotation in full, to make sure I was fairly representing you. So you tossed it back to me with the word “perception” in boldface…??</p>

<p>You wonder if I understand it is a “Perception.” Yes, it is a perception, a deadly perception that has been fanned for 50 years by wealthier Arab nations who’d prefer the continuation of Palestinean refugee camps throughout the Middle East, rather than to absorb Palestineans into their own societies. Funded by other wealthy Arab nations, these perceptions are perpetuated as young as grade school (math book problem: If you kill one Jew and then two more, how many Jews have you killed?"), and in training camps for young Palestinians, as demonstrated in the film “Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel.” </p>

<p>Inside of Israel, based on “perceptions” incubated for decades, when militants act now, they act with deadly consequence. They blow themselves up on the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Eilat…in order to kill as many as possible. Their bomb-vests are filled with nails, to kill as many as possible in close proximity. They want much more than suicide, in other words. Their intention is to kill, as many as possible, in the moment they die. </p>

<p>Where in the religious texts does it say that it as acceptable to equate perceptions with reality? Is it an “aggressive and violent occupation” to take territory in order not to be shelled at from that territory? Did you live through the years when the Golan Heights, held by Syria, were used to shoot down upon Israelis living in kibbutzim in the valley below? So when people get sick of being shot at, and they “occupy” the heights, who was “aggressive and violent”–the Arab gunman on the heights shooting down at Israeli farm families, or the Israeli soldiers who fought back and “occupied” the heights? You tell me who is “violent and aggressive” in that occupation.</p>

<p>In 1948, the Palestinians expected to live in refugee-tent camps in Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan, West Bank, for a matter of weeks. They were reassured five Arab nations surrounding the newly declared State of Israel that they’d “drive Israel into the sea” in a matter of weeks. This didn’t happen; Israel won the l948 war against 5 other nations. I’m sorry but we won that war. Palestinians were pointed to the West Bank, and some went there to live. Others adamantly refused and stayed in the refugee camps. It is now 50 years later, and these deciders are now grandparents. There continues a refusal of Arab nations to settle refugees, their co-religionists, within their own borders to this day. From further away came funding (Saudi Arabia, Iran) to keep the refugees in squalor, as pawns and despised second-class aliens. Arafat and the PLO fanned the mythology of “Return” to Israel and Iran funded this propaganda machine for decades. These are facts, not perceptions.</p>

<p>So, isn’t the real violence what has been done to these Muslims by fellow Muslims? Their propaganda has deprived them of 50 years of healthy living.
Instead, now, as Al-Queda realizes, there are cells of discontented Palestinians living in squalor. They hid among them, armed to the teeth, as an example in Lebanon…but there are many more such refugee camps all over the Middle East, unchanged for 50 years. That is a violent, aggressive occupation.</p>

27

<p>I think moderate Muslim leaders could be doing more to counter the extremists among them, but I also think it’s hard to tell what those responding to the survey really think. The questions are poorly designed, so the answers are ambiguous. </p>

<p>You might believe that the Sep. 11 hijackers weren’t Muslims while still agreeing that they PROFESSED to be Muslims. But the survey didn’t ask that.</p>

<p>Believing that suicide tactics are “rarely” acceptable to defend the faith might mean that you think it is OK to murder Israeli civilians under certain circumstances. But it also might mean that you wholly reject attacks on civilian bystanders, and you said that because you think that it was OK for Muslims in Mao’s China to defend the mosque against the Red Guards with their lives. There’s a whole lot of space between those two answers, and the survey doesn’t distinguish between them.</p>

28

<p>Why don’t you report the statistics in the report? And why do you say males? The report doesn’t have anything to do with males…did you even read it?</p>

<p>Young 18-29:
Net - Ever justified: 26%
Often/sometimes: 15%
Rareley: 11%
Never: 69%
DK/Refused: 5%</p>

<p>US Muslims Overall:
Net - Ever justified: 13%
Often/sometimes: 8%
Rareley: 5%
Never: 78%
DK/Refused: 9%</p>

<p>Also, why didn’t you report the statistics of US Muslims vs. those in other countries?</p>

<p>Net - Ever justified, 18-29
GB: 35%
France: 42%
Germany: 22%
Spain: 29%</p>

<p>You also failed to point out that for the 30+ crowd, the US is the lowest for the Net figure vs. the above mentioned countries.</p>

29

<p>Here’s a short version of my long post above: </p>

<p>How do “perceptions” justify terrorism on the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Eilat…?</p>

30

<p>paying3:</p>

<p>I respect you a great deal, and I know what you are saying comes from the heart. But I think you are doing something wrong here.</p>

<p>Frrrph wrote some very measured, respectful posts which provided a perspective we do not hear much here, and provided it very articulately. You have been attacking him/her for things he or she never said, and positions he or she never took. </p>

<p>If it is not permissible to say that Muslims throughout the world perceive the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as violent and aggressive, then it is not possible to have any kind of discussion about these topics at all. That is a simple statement of fact; I don’t think reasonable people could differ on it. What’s more, I don’t think it’s subject to question that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is violent, and even aggressive sometimes, notwithstanding Israeli policies to limit the violence it uses. Where the debate starts is whether that is justified, or necessary for the survival of Israel, or a reasonable response to anti-Israel terrorism.</p>

<p>Furthermore, your discussion about the refugee camps is years and years out of date, and beside the point. What Syria did 60 years ago has tangential relevance to how Israel has administered its occupied territories for the past 35, but it is hardly the most relevant thing.</p>

31

<p>JHS, I hear you. Occupations of territory are always aggressive. I am not sure where violence fits in there; the checkpoints?
So, I’ll try to speak in the present day ony: which territories can we safely return and rest easy that we will be allowed to live in peace?
Following Israel’s most recent withdrawal from Gaza, the Palestineans dug tunnels and bunkers underneath, kidnapped 3 soldiers still unreturned, sent rocket fire into Northern Lebanon (and from the West Bank) last summer.
As for my “old” history of 50 years ago, when journalists get sucked into the phrase, “the root cause of violence in the Middle East” I understand it is code for “the presence of Israel in the Middle East.” To me, it’s hard to figure out the present mess without some reference to the past. But it gets tedious, so I’ll stop that.
Leave it just at this: what more territory should Israel return to guarantee peace or stop the jihad? If we follow the OP’s reasoning, that Palestinian jihad can be rationalized worldwide by Muslims as legitimate due to Israel’s “violent and aggressive occupation,” how – other than occupation – to assure Israel’s future safety at the level of civilians living in mainland communities?<br>
I find this a genuine concern. What more land is safe to give back? Gaza wasn’t enough; now the West Bank? I have trouble with that. For radical Palestineans and those Muslims who support them from around the globe, if Israel were as small as a postage stamp in the Middle East, that would be too big.</p>

32

<p>paying3tuitions, contrary to what you apparently think, I feel great sympathy to the plight of civilian Israelis as well. The Israel/Palestine debate is one I’d be glad to have, but this is not the thread to have it in - you are reacting far too defensively and disrespectingly to a position I laid out as neutrally as I could. I am not sure what your last post aims to say or defend other than your knowledge of the conflict, which nobody ever questioned to begin with.</p>

<p>Back on topic: in the Chronicle today, as one skimmed further into the story on the survey, 1 in 4 Muslims defending suicide bombing suddenly became less and less until, what do you know, 5 paragraphs in it turns out only 1% of American Muslims overall find it justified. </p>

<p>This in addition to the extremely poor phrasing of the question, and fallacy of equating “% of Muslims believe Arabs did not perpetrate 9/11” to a belief directly correlated with religious background without considering whether, and to what degree, this statistic would overlap with Americans in GENERAL believing this (i.e. the OP is assuming any response a Muslim gives is solely due to being a Muslim, and denies the idea Muslim American responses would be as much typically American as they are typically Muslim) – all of this makes the selective wording of the opening post extremely dubious. </p>

<p>There is no alarm in these numbers beyond the one the OP is trying to instill; American Muslims are far more liberal than their global counterparts, and if we assume the survey is even relevant given its ambiguous setup, only 1% of the domestic Muslim population harbor disturbing views. </p>

<p>Frankly, I’d put my energy more into worrying about the fundamentalist Christian right – seeing as how they have a far bigger impact on U.S. policy, which I personally consider absolutely counter-productive to fighting global terrorism.</p>

33

<p>If we’re down to 1% percent of American Muslims harboring disturbing views, how many people is that? Probably a small number, so that should reassure us. But if most are more liberal than their co-religionists around the globe, then why are they not taking a leadership role to stop the violence? If they were to speak out in this way, from the safety of a free press in a free land, they’d only gain the support and confidence of other Americans. Perhaps their fear of discrimination is so inhibiting, and that is sad given the country we live in together. </p>

<p>On a global scale, I’ve heard it said that only 10% of Muslims worldwide support radical tactics including homicide bombings. But how many people is that? I could be way off, but I think that l0% of all Muslims worldwide is roughly equivalent to the population of the U.S. </p>

<p>I’d like to be reassured on these points. I am trying to hear your point of view.</p>

34

<p>"According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, one in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances. "</p>

<p>Note the “to defend their religion” and “in some circumstances”.</p>

<p>I would guess that I could defend certain extreme actions if presented with such vague, yet all-encompassing statements. </p>

<p>Probably you could get 25% of teen boys/young men in the US to say that suicide bombings would be acceptable to defend their right to play video games or drink beer.</p>

35

<p>“Last time I looked, most Christians believed in both dying for their faith, and killing for it (even if the latter is explicitly and universally condemned – even in self-defense, even in defense of women and children – by those closest to the religion’s founder in the first 300 years of its history.)”</p>

<p>Did I miss something in my religious education? I don’t believe you can find a word in scripture attriuted to Jesus that condemns self-defense or which encourages one to stand by while innocent life is threatened. In fact Jesus was not a strict pacifist himself judging from his treatment of the money changers in the Temple. He may have rendered some encouragement to those who would risk death to spread the good news but he certainly didn’t suggest his followers march lemming like off the cliff.</p>

<p>I believe the clearest statement of his views on civil affairs was “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” That suggests at least to my reading that he found no necessary fundamental conflict between church and state. Since the state only exists to forcefully impose someone’s will on the otherwise unwilling it would seem He had not fundamental beef with state power.</p>

<p>Jesus clearest statement on self-defense issues would seem to be his warning to Peter that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword. Possibly not a ringing endorsement of the martial arts but hardly a strict abjuration of self-defense particularly in the totality of the context.</p>

36

<p>“Probably you could get 25% of teen boys/young men in the US to say that suicide bombings would be acceptable to defend their right to play video games or drink beer.”</p>

<p>That is absolute rubbish and makes light of a real and present danger. How many suicide bombings have there been in the US in history outside of the Civil War period where there may have been a few? Perhaps a handful and none by radical Christians or video players.</p>

37

<p>Islamophobia is not a “huge problem.” Americans have a valid reason of having hate towards Muslims. I am fully aware that not all Muslims are terrorists, but a significant amount are. They claim that they practice peace and tolerate others, but these are the people that are sending off bombs in supermarkets and driving planes into huge buildings. I find it very difficult for and American in the year 2007 to not have some form of prejudice against Muslims. And, by the way, I found it majorly disturbing that less than half of American Muslims believe their people were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This is nearly as despicable as all the Holocaust deniers.</p>

38

<p>ncody,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Islamophobia since 9/11 has killed 8 people so far, and led to unprovoked assault of hundreds of others (can’t find the source right now, please research it for yourself if you don’t believe me). I’d say that is a problem.</p>

<p>“These are the people”? Palestinians, Pakistani fundamentalists, Al-Qaeda may all have utilized suicide bombings - these three groups, causes, goals and situations do not constitute all of the Muslim “people”, who span all continents, 1.1 BILLION followers, and are arguably far more liberal in the US than anywhere else (although let’s hope that’s not about to change due to suspicion, harassment and subsequent marginalization).</p>

39

<p>I’d say just 8 people shows remarkable restraint considering.</p>

40

<p>Maybe it’s just me, but having tens of thousands (maybe more) wanting to go poof (and taking out a whole lot of other folks when going poof) just because they think that they’ve been dissed seems a bit much - but that’s probably just me.</p>

<p>Apparently we’ve got too many following the tenets of a certain religion who don’t respect multiculturalism and diversity.</p>

<p>The liberals must be up in arms - or maybe not.</p>