The U.S. should respond strongly and sternly to the unprovoked attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo and to the deaths of our ambassador to Libya and several of his aides. But we must also react smartly and not succumb to the rage of the moment into thinking that Sam Bacile, the amateur filmmaker whose anti-Mohammad video was initially blamed for these assaults, is right when he says, “Islam is a cancer.”
Not only is that hate speech, it is also wrong on its face because it assumes that the kind of people who carried out these outrages are typical Muslims—that somehow Islam by its very nature drives its adherents to intolerance and violence. That is not the case—Islam, like other religions, is complex and multifaceted. It has meant many things to many people over the ages. Most of its followers, like the followers of other religions, are peaceful and law-abiding and not interested in attacking anyone. The radicals are hardly representative of the mainstream, but even small numbers of extremists can sully the image of an entire country or religion by skillful attacks and manipulation of the news media.
Indeed, evidence is emerging of the planning that went into both assaults, with USA Today reporting: “The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.”
Meanwhile the New York Times is reporting: “The Obama administration suspects that the fiery attack in Libya that killed the American ambassador and three other diplomats may have been planned rather than a spontaneous mob getting out of control…” The Times article further notes: “About 24 hours before the consulate attack… Al Qaeda posted to militant forums on the Web a video in which its leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, acknowledged the death in an American drone strike in June of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and called on Libyans to avenge the death.”
This conforms squarely with recent experience in Afghanistan, where seemingly spontaneous riots and attacks in response to Koran-burnings were actually carried out with considerable planning and complicity from the insurgency. There is no doubt that there is religious passion in the Muslim world that extremists can exploit, but these outrages are the work of calculating extremists and do not represent the actions of the average man-on-the-street—certainly the anti-American protests have attracted far fewer followers than the protests that were being held not so long ago in both Egypt and Libya to protest the previous rulers of those countries. Rather than succumb to extremism ourselves in the face of Islamist extremists, we must make critical distinctions and understand that the radicals do not speak for their whole of their countries nor for the whole of a religion with more than a billion adherents.
Nice try Max, but few people in their right minds are going to subscribe to the "Islam is the religon of peace" theory.
Yes, when are we going to see some articles in Commentary that avoid the dash for political correctness and openly confront the anti-democratic, misogynist, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic nature of Islam, even among its "relatively moderate" adherents – a mostly fictional group whose diminutive size Max really likes to exaggerate.
Very well said!
I second that.
and i give it my humble blessing too!
Of course there are radical elements in various religions, that's true. But it would help cool tensions if Americans heard Islamic leaders and politicians come out and apologize for what Muslims are doing in the name of Islam. n nHow many Islamic countries not only remain silent themselves on these murders and actions but remain silent when their people celebrate the murder of non-Muslims? They could at least condemn the actions, and then work to see that their citizens are taught that such violence is wrong. n nFurther, it would be helpful if American Islamic leaders and imams would condemn these attacks and then go on to say how they support freedom of speech and freedom of religion for all people (men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim, alike). n nYes Max, you're right. But it's a tough sell when those who commit these crimes are lauded by members of their faith.
how can he be right if "those who commit these crimes are lauded by members of their faith"!?
I can't agree with this. Taking note of reality is not "hate speech." Unless leading Muslims across the spectrum loudly denounce what's going on, radical Islamism represents Islam by default. Historically, Islam may be "complex and multifaceted," but right now it looks to me as though the radicals are in the driver's seat and that they are supported to some degree by a large number of non-radical Muslims. The situation may bear some similarity to Nazi Germany. Most Germans were not Nazis and often their support for the NSDAP was highly qualified, but their acquiescence enabled Hitler & Co. to carry out their murderous program.
Max had his head up his ass. He will be working for state with Hillary soon.Ask Andrew McCarthy if Islam is a cancer,
Oh come on, yes they do.
Whet Timothy McVeigh was found to have bombed a government building he was condemned by virtually all Americans … because he didn't represent any one's belief system. n nWhen Moslem make brutal attacks they aren't condemned by other Moslems because they do represent their belief system as well as cultural mores.
That may be true. But they represent the PEOPLE in those countries.
Sorry, Max. I no longer believe that these people are extremists only representing a tiny portion of the Muslim population. In Muslim countries, these people are mainstream
As a long time student of Islam and Middle East politics, I must say those who we call the "extremists" are probably the majority and the tolerant, friendly Muslims are actually the non-devout minority.
At some point it doesn't matter whether the extremists represent all Muslims or a significant percentage of them. There is no evidence that Hitler was ever wildly popular in Germany – there were plenty of anti-Nazi Germans from 1933 on. Unfortunately, the cancer of Nazism took over their country and millions of Germans paid the ultimate price. If Islam's dysfunction stayed in their living room, we could shake our heads sadly and regret our inability to help with their domestic problems. Sadly, their dysfunction affects pretty much every corner of the globe now. It is well past time for the non-extremists we keep hearing about to clean house. I know it isn't easy, but if they don't, at some point the mess will be cleaned up by someone else – just like the Third Reich was.
Max, is this a joke column? do I win something if I'm the first person to point that out? n nI can't quite believe I'm reading that tired old "most Muslims are peace-loving, moderate people" cr*p on commentary, of all places. where pray tell are these moderate Muslims? we've been looking for them since 9/12/01. haven't found them yet. where's the statement of outrage from CAIR?
Well Max, the lions and tigers in the big cats house don't represent the elephants, the llamas, or the quietly slumbering hippopotamus, but, you know, if you go in and open the doors to all the cages and let everybody out, it really doesn't matter at that point does it? So, let's make this distinction, there are places we need to be and then there are places like, Syria. You know, if someone proposed that America was going to go into a country and make the male population between 18 and 35 ready to compete at pro basketball at NBL level, they'd be laughed out of the room, but somehow we are expected to send in 10, 20, 100, or 300 thousand soldiers and transform a nation with deeply entrenched tribal and shame cultures into some kind of Norman Rockwell Franklin Roosevelt Four Freedoms showcase many in this post-everything culture don't take seriously themselves. n nIf only.
Mr. Boot's entire premise is fundamentally flawed. n nNo one cares if the barbarians who attacked the U.S. in Cairo and Benghazi "represented Muslims" or not. It is an ideology we are at war against, not whether *all* Muslims are bad or crazy or terrorists. The only thing that anyone need say about these attacks is that they were carried out by Islamists– i.e., those motivated by an ideology that seeks to impose strict Islamic beliefs upon everyone else through any and every means possible. Does everyone who calls themselves a "muslim" also an Islamist? No. But it is more than fair to demand that every self-described muslim make it clear whether they subscribe to the poisonous and hateful Islamist creed. The real tragedy is that the West cannot and will not vilify Islamism in the same way that it vilifies Nazism. Instead we are, like Max Boot, too worried that "innocent" muslims will be tarred and feathered when, in fact, no one even dares to criticize Islamists much less condemn.
They represent the culture, the law and the religion. In these countries the culture is Islam because Islam and politics and the law are all rolled into one. To say that Islam is not responsible is to ignore realty. Sorry Max.