Arshad Chowdhury is an American born Muslim of Bangladeshi heritage and he's the author of an op-ed in today's WAPO that inadvertently sheds quite a bit of light on the real issue of Islam in America today.
He claims that American Muslims were the real victim of Osama bin-Laden and 9/11 because of the 'Islamophobia' it generated and cites his own experience of being put on a terrorist watch list as an example of how horrible it is to be Muslim in America.
Of course, he he was able to get free legal help from the ACLU to successfully take this to court, something unknown to the few non-Muslims living in Muslim countries, but that doesn't stop the boo-hooing:
Islamophobia in America seemed to hit a fever pitch in recent months with the controversy over the mosque in Lower Manhattan and congressional hearings on whether American Muslims were becoming "radicalized". Yet, neither terrorism nor Islamophobia will end with bin Laden’s demise. In the short run, prejudice may get worse. The press’s and the public’s fascination with the gory details of his killing — and the demand for more details and images — reflect a nation collectively fantasizing about killing bin Laden and, by extension, Muslims. This past week, a Portland mosque was vandalized with messages such as “Osama today, Islam tomorow [sic],” “Long live the West” and “Go Home.”
I find it fascinating that Mr. Chowdhury is willing to tar the majority of Americans as bigots because of one mosque being defaced by a few individuals, but wants a pass for Muslims even though a significant number of them continue to justify and support Islamist terrorism, even here in America.For that matter, in 2009 according to the FBI's hate crime statistics, 71.9% of the 1,575 victims of religious hate-crimes were Jews. No statistics are available, but I wonder how many of those hate crimes against Jews were committed by Muslims?
Just yesterday, two Coptic Christian churches in Egypt were burned to the ground by some of the Egyptian 'freedom fighters' Mr. Chowdhury extols in his article in the suburbs of Cairo, with ten people killed and hundreds injured. And he actually wants to talk about 'Islamophobia'? Really?
And as far as the Ground Zero Mosque goes, the reaction of non-Muslim Americans to the insensitivity of building a mega-mosque on a location where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered in the name of Islam is hardly an argument for 'Islamophobia'. I wonder how Mr. Chowdhury and his fellow Muslims would react to Christians insisting on building a huge Cathedral in Mecca?
To summarize,Mr. Chowdhury states that American Muslims and Islam are 'burdened by association with one angry man.' He couldn't be more wrong.
What Islam is burdened by is that a significant number of its adherents think that al-Qaeda, Hezbollah. Hamas, Lashkar-e-taiba, and a whole host of groups that commit terrorist atrocities world-wide in the name of Islam are doing Allah's work.
What Islam is burdened by is its oppression of women, and the religiously sanctioned honor killings, beatings and clitorectomies that occur even here in the US.
What Islam is burdened by is its almost ritual anti-semitism, and its hatred and violence towards Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians.
What Islam is burdened by is the inherent religiously sanctioned rage, death fatwas and violence that would murder innocent people over a cartoon, a film, a beauty contest, or the burning by one person of a book.
And what American Muslims are especially burdened by is that far too many of them continue to finance, support and attempt to justify these things, even if that justification is done by silence.
Mr. Chowdhury, being of Bangladeshi heritage should be particularly aware of this. Back in the 1970's genocide and mass rape were committed in Bangladesh by Pakistan's Army in the name of Islam, even though the Bangladeshis were Muslims. All it took to justify it was for the Pakistani imams to declare the Banglasdeshis kuffars, infidels.
I'm very much aware that some major terrorism plots here in America were only foiled because American Muslims made a call to the authorities to tip them off, and more Americans should be. But these were clandestine efforts.
The way for American Muslims to fully free themselves from the burden Mr. Chowdhury talks about is for the silent majority to unequivocally and publicly denounce the terrorism, violence and intolerance committed in Islam's name and stop justifying it, to declare that they are Americans first and members of the Muslim umma second, and that they reject sharia in favor of our Constitution's freedoms for all Americans.
So far, that hasn't happened. But if it ever does, it will be a great day for America's Muslims and an end to the burden Mr. Chowdhury quite correctly resents.
You can't conspicuously stand outside a group and support its enemies and then be angry and resentful because other members of the group are a little leery of you and question your loyalty.
1 comment:
The alleged "go home" statement is rather interesting. This seems like a variation on the "yankee go home" statement often heard. There is one key difference though. When someone from another country says or writes "yankee go home" the person who wrote it or said it is viewed favorably by the news media and is lauded as a "Patriot" of their country, being "courageous" and many other good and noble things. Now when an American says to a foreigner "go home" the American is considered a racist by the media for having such thoughts. Why the different standard for Americans than those from other countries. If the foreigner wishes to have his culture free from an influence that he or she views as undesriable is a "patriot" and is "courageous" shouldn't the American who wishes the same thing for his or her country also be a "patriot"?
Why the different standards? If the American is a racist for such things shouldn't the person from the other country also be a racist for holding the same views or if the person from the other country is courageous for this shouldn't the American also be courageous? The different standards for different people and countries is puzzling.
I think the media and the world as a whole view America, its citizens, and the life of its people as less important than the lives of those of othr nations. This problem is compounded by the fact that generally America's leaders whether they have an R or a D after their name have generally not stood up for Ameridca or its people.
Post a Comment