[Grovenet] Will the Problem Muslim Please Stand UP?? (WAS: 100-year Anniversary of 9/11)

[Eric Canon]

--- Ron D'Eau Claire <rondec at easystreet.com>
wrote:

> You make good points, but I think many Muslims
> would object to the idea of
> this "group", nor does it help us understand
> the challenges ahead. 

I, too, am uncomfortable with "this group" and I
agree with you. I am also uncomfortable with the
premise of my post, that we have something to
gain with divide and conquer. I think we have far
more to gain by strengthening others rather than
tearing them down. 

I suppose I was writing primarily to those who
might think Bush's tactics are benefiting us.
They absolutely are not. So much so that a very
diverse "group" of people as defined by their
religion of choice seem to think our country is
singling them out. When you're singled out, you
join forces with "your group" to resist the
attack.

Bush says he is not attacking Muslims, but then
he calls Muslims terrorists. If there is no
distinction, and Americans are in your country,
and things are unbearable, how do you resist, or
even survive? I'm an American, even though I do
not support this president. I wouldn't really
expect an Iraqi to make a distinction between me
and W. I have a higher standard for our
president. He needs to be able to make a clear
distinction, and he fails us there.

> I have heard Persians object; they say they
> have nothing in common with the
> Arabic peoples except Islam. And, of course,
> Islam is an evangelical
> religion, like some Christian sects. 

I am not expert, but I believe this is not the
case. Certainly they like to see others embrace
the belief structure they take for their own -
who wouldn't? That's to be human. But I was
listening to a Muslim man just last week and he
was saying that, unlike Christians, some of whom
take the charge "make disciples" very seriously,
Muslims do no such thing. He said the idea that
one goes out to recruit is not their way. We
might look at the well chronicled recruiting of
suicide bombers as Muslim "recruiting". But that
is not evangelism as we know it. That's
recruiting from within the pool of believers. 

> That is,
> their goal is for the whole
> world to practice Islam and the more extreme
> among them consider those who
> refuse to convert to Islam as less than truly
> Human - perhaps better off
> dead. But the corollary is not necessarily
> true: all Muslims are not
> "brothers". 

Like Christianity, there are all kinds of
Muslims, and you make the point well. We have, by
our attack of Iraq, and by our insensitive
bullying, empowered the very lowest and most
violent of Muslims in many places. Hezbollah and
Hamas come to mind. We, as a nation, are
currently lead by the very lowest, and most
violent of Christians. Don't lump me in with
them, and let's not lump all Muslims in with the
Taliban, and Bin Laden, and the current leader of
Iran. That they are all seen as cutting edge
Muslim leaders by their respective populations is
the result of George W Bush and his approach to
foreign policy. This does not benefit us. Neither
does it make us safer.

This week, the former sectarian leader of Iran
visited our country. He lost his stature and thus
his office due to the threatening words of George
W Bush, who sees the world in black and white
with no gray and no color. The people of Iran
listened to Bush and his inflammatory rhetoric
and selected, in the current president of Iran, a
man who could talk tough, too. They decided he
better responded to Bush's tough talk. Out went
moderation! Why do we expect the Muslim world to
be in discussion with us when we won't talk with
them? This is an asinine foreign policy that does
not benefit our country or the world.