MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT ISLAM

James A. Bill (professor of government and director of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia) writes - 'By the turn of the century, for the first time in history, the number of Muslims (those who practice Islam) will have surpassed the number of Christians in the world.


Islam is a monotheistic religion, civilization and way of life now practiced by 1.1 billion (i.e. 1,100,000,000.00) people. Easily the world's fastest growing religion, Islam is not confined to the Middle East. It is a truly universal force. More Muslims live in America today than all the Presbyterians and Episcopalians put together.


There are more than 1,200 mosques in the United States and 1000 mosques in England, where the Muslim community has established its own national parliament. There are more Muslims in Indonesia than in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia put together. More live in Malaysia than in Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait combined. Nearly 20 million Muslims live in China.


Wherever one looks, Islam is on the move. As the people of many societies find themselves rootless, disconnected and alienated, they increasingly seek help in a comforting Islamic ideological refuge. In a world of incoherent violence, widening inequities, political corruption and shattered families, many are massing behind the green flag of Islam. This is essentially a populist movement, a bubbling up from below, a march of the distressed, the dispossessed and the oppressed. ....


… Although the great bulk of Muslims seek to improve their status through quiet, moderate and pacific means, violent methods have been adopted by fringe groups—elements also present in Christianity and Judaism. Oblivious to their own profound ignorance and often harboring crude political motivations, many Western opinion leaders consistently label all Muslims with words such as 'aggressive', 'militant' and 'uncivilized'. Islam is the 'religion of the sword'; Muslim activists are 'terrorists,' and Muslims countries that challenge Western policies are 'outlaw states'.


Muslims themselves maintain quite a different worldview. It is in the deepest interest of the United States to attempt to understand this perspective. In brief, Muslims see themselves as the afflicted, not the afflictors; they feel themselves desperately on the defensive, not on the offensive; they consider themselves the objects of violence, not the initiators of violence. In sum, Muslims across the world consider themselves victims. In support of their position, Muslims will take their Christian and Jewish neighbors on a quick tour of the world. They inevitably begin with Bosnia, where nearly 200,000 Muslims have been slaughtered by Serbian Christians. Muslims are horrified and sickened by the fact that 22,000 Muslim women, aged 9 to 82, have been raped by Christian troopers. Muslims wonder privately about the weak and very late Western response.


In Kashmir, Indian occupying forces violently oppress Muslims, killing thousands of Kashmiris. Elsewhere in India in December 1992 and January 1993, violent Hindu mobs went on a rampage in Bombay, killing over 800 Muslims, destroying 5000 Muslim homes and forcing 200,000 Muslims to flee the city. Mosques were firebombed and mothers watched as their sons were pulled from their homes and slain or burned alive. In Tajikstan and other places in Central Asia, the Communists have made a comeback and, with the help of Russian troops, have attacked and killed more than 20,000 Muslims. Another 350,000 have been forced to flee. Even in China, Muslims find themselves under heavy military pressure. Chinese troops oppress Muslims in the western province of Xinjiang.


Even in many of the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East, Muslims find themselves under attack where the leadership is essentially secular. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein continues his war of genocide against the Shi'ites in the south.


In Algeria, when the Islamists scored a surprise victory in the December 1991 elections, the regime declared the election null and void. Since then, Algeria has been the scene of a bloody civil war. The government blames Islamic fundamentalists of striking terror in the very same areas where they had received majority of votes from. The governments explanation of fundamentalists unleashing waves of terror in their own strongholds, sounds very plausible indeed and casts shadows of dound over the credentials of the secular government instead.


In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's regime, facing widespread disaffection of its people, pursues a policy of torture and execution of members of the Muslim opposition. In March 1993, his troops fired upon 500 unarmed Muslims at prayer in the Rahman Mosque in Aswan, killing nine and injuring 50. In the West Bank, another more widely publicized mosque massacre occurred a year later in Hebron when a Jewish settler killed 30 in a group of praying Muslims before the survivors could beat him to death. This litany of anti-Islamic violence is recognized and recited by Muslims everywhere. The situation is exacerbated when Muslims incredulously find themselves labeled as terrorists and when Western governments encourage their secular Middle Eastern allies to confront Muslim populist movements with brute force. One result of these Western perceptions and policies, of course, is that they begin to radicalize the huge mass of moderate Muslim believers. Meanwhile, the extremists on the fringes become more active and militant.


A vicious cycle of misunderstanding, misguided policy and increasing violence has been set in motion. Before this vicious cycle begins to spin wildly out of control, it is essential that non-Muslims make a major effort to slow it down. Such an effort will, as the very first step, require that stereotypes be discarded.


Second, recent history shows that the application of force is not always an effective way of countering a system of deeply held ideas and beliefs. The steady flame of resurgent Islam will not be extinguished by the breeze of bullets or the blast of missiles. A recently published report in Washington Post, confirms Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the United States despite hostile government policies and negative media stereotyping, only goes on to prove the truth of this statement. It is time for everyone to take a crash course on Islam. More recently, CNN too published a report, first of US kind ever done in this part of the World, titled as: Islam in US - Growing and maturing.'

This article is good at representing a particular world view, but doesn't really face the realities of the situation. I found it very disingenious that the article mentioned a terrorist act committed by a Jewish settler, but not the opposite side of the coin. Muslims aren't the only "victims" in the world and have in fact created as many victims as they have produced, IMO. Of course many Muslims are being victimized globally, just as many Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and athiests are being victimized. This article devotes one sentence to the violent acts of Muslims, referring to them as "fringe groups". While I don't have a problem with that assumption, I think the article is a little less than honest about the complexity of the situation overall.

I agree with Keltoi, I also believe the article highlights the differences and needlessly heightens tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims and Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries.

Like I said before, lets focus on our similarities rather than our differences.

Is one of the “one sided views”.
Muslim terrorists groups have killed thousands of Hindus.

No problem can be solved if you only present one side and ignore the other.

Terroists are terrorists. They're neither Hindus nor Muslims. They're terroists. However, there's a difference between terrorism and fight for freedom. When a larger country with greater military force occupies another country or state with military force, then the fight back is not terrorism. Kashmir issue is a political issue. India sent its military into it. When Kashmiri and Pakistani forces fought back and India felt the defeat, then it went to UNO to get a ceasefire on the promise to solve the issue politically throgh plebicite. It kept delaying the political dialogue untill it refused to talk on this issue by claiming Kashmir to be an integral part of India. This created anger in Kashmiris as well as in Paks. Kashmiris started their freedom struggle against India. Indian army is killing thousands of Kashmiris every year in Kashmir. Kashmiris have not given to the military power of India. They attack the Indian army as well as the soft civilian targets to counter the pressure on Indian army which always attacks the civilians in Kashmir. Hindus in India want their army to continue the occupation of Kashmir. They're not the victims, they're actually the victimisers who are involved in the forced occupation of Kashmir.

You're right that no problem can be solved if you only one side and ignore the other. The problem of Kashmir is not solved because Inidans always ignored the other side thinking that other party is much weaker. Kashmirs and Paks have always invited India to sit down on the table and discuss the problem so that a solution could be found. It's India which has always refused to disccuss this issue on table with Paks and Kashmiris.

As I said:
What do I get for an answer:
I think you have made my point quite clear.

^^Theres actually a video on the Indian forces abusing the civilians there...but thats a totally different topic.

I think it fits in quite well. I'm sure there are videos. I don't doubt that there are thousands of cases.

But that is not the only side of the story.

Yea, but for "me" I wont believe it 100% till I see it. Whatever it may be.

I find that a sad state of denial. There are always 2 sides to a story.

Its not sad. If I see pictures or if i see it on tv or videos, then i believe it. Not everything thats written on paper automatically makes it true. Of course itll be there, but people have the tendency to exaggerate. So no its not sad.

Of course there's other side side of the story. But to make the long story short, why not to put the two side of the same story on one table and end this ordeal. Innocent people from both sides are getting killed by refusing to reolve the issue politically. If Indians think that the story with which their leadership has convinced them, then they could ask their leadership to convince the opposite party. And if they think other party is not ready to listen to the facts, then they could make some third party (some international body) as a judge. Paks and Kashmiris have given them all kind of choices, but Indian leadership feels comfortable telling their side of story only to its own people. Why?

iqbal_soofi
I like that. The Indians need to look at the problem so they can see that it is all there fault. What an open mind you have.

Where did I say that Hindus should see it as only their fault. If they think that fault is with the other side, then why do they hesitate to come to the table? The only reason to avoid a political dialogue is that they already know it's their fault. They know that they'd loose their case on the first hearing if they accept any third party as a judge. Muslim leadership won Pakistan from them not through terrorism. It won Pakistan on the table even when the judge (British viceroy) was with India. Only favor that judge could do (in return for the seat of governor general of India) that it gave some of the muslim majority districts (adjoining Kashmir) to India.