There is a lot of talk about Islamic extremism that takes it
as a given that if the reasonable Muslims would just be more forceful and
staunch in their condemnation, it would help a great deal to calm all this
down.
What if it really wouldn’t help much?
It may be fair to say that the experiment has not been run –
that condemnation too quickly turns to hand-wringing worrying about possible
backlash…that surveys show an uncomfortable amount (10-20%) of passive support
for terrorists…that powerful figures in the Muslim world have not taken their
responsibility seriously. I agree with
all three. But really, do we think that if the mostly reasonable multitude of
shopkeepers, students, salesmen, and housewives collectively decided they weren’t going to
take it anymore, the murders would respond by saying “Oh, sorry then. We’ll stop.
We thought you approved?.” More likely, they’d kill the shopkeeper first
for saying it before moving on to infidels.
I’ve known lots of Italians over the years, none of whom had a
kind word for the Mafia. They might kid
about having a cousin or classmate who could be called on to break someone’s
knees or take them for a ride, but when the discussion got serious they could
be deeply resentful about the stereotype and as condemning of organized crime
as one might like. (I’ve worked with
Boston Irish who sorta defended it, but not Italians.) Maybe they could have
done more, earlier, over a longer time. But the reality is that they did
disapprove, but the criminals didn’t much care.
A lot of the terrorists seem to be semi-converts who don’t
have a lot of actual Islamic study under their belts: westerners of middle-eastern descent who take
it into their heads to be take seriously a religion their parents are trying to
shed or hold superficially. The trained-from-birth fanatic also exists, but
he’s not the only strain.
I’d like to see the moderates courageously take the
lead. It would likely help some, and
could hardly make things worse. But the idea that creating that change would
solve the problem may be one more magic pony.
Evil doesn’t not go away easily, and defining it as someone else’s
problem isn’t likely to work.
4 comments:
Quite true. Merely having a framework for condemning doesn't mean the average guy with a family to take care of is going to stick his neck out and condemn. To take that kind of risk requires that he be threatened already. As long as Daesh is after Shi'ites and infidels--no skin off his nose.
I wonder if the claim is true that revolutions generally come from middle class and upper-class-on-the-outs rather than the lower class. If so, perhaps it's because they are prominent enough to be targets, while the poor aren't.
And why should they? Obama doesn't, our media, for the greatest part, doesn't. They know they're closer to the bad guys with guns and knives and a willingness to kill.
If there's a time when speaking up boldly can help, it's got to be early on. By the time you're in Kristallnacht territory, it's just a good way to get killed, so if you're that motivated you might as well pick up a gun.
"... But really, do we think that if the mostly reasonable multitude of shopkeepers, students, salesmen, and housewives collectively decided they weren’t going to take it anymore, the murders would respond by saying “Oh, sorry then. We’ll stop."
No. But what it might do is embolden their governments to consider taking action against the strongholds of the terrorists without worrying about losing support among their own people.
Post a Comment