|
Contributors
Cliff Kincaid- Contributor
Cliff Kincaid, serves as editor of the Accuracy
in Media (AIM)
Report. A veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff has
appeared on the Fox News programs Hannity & Colmes and
The O'Reilly Factor, where he debated O'Reilly on global
warming, the death penalty,
and the homosexual agenda. He was a guest co-host on CNN's Crossfire
(filling in for Pat Buchanan) in the 1980s, where he confronted
the then-Libyan Ambassador to the U.N. with evidence of Libyan
involvement in international terrorism. Through his America's
Survival, Inc., organization (www.usasurvival.org), he has been
an advocate on behalf of the families of victims of terrorism
and has published reports and held conferences critical of the
United Nations. His articles have appeared in the Washington
Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events, Insight, and
other publications. He served on the staff of Human Events for
several years and was an editorial writer and newsletter editor
for former National Security Council staffer Oliver North at
his Freedom Alliance educational foundation. He has written or
co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign
policy issues. Cliff is married and has three sons.[go to
Kincaid index]
 It’s
Not A “War On Terror”
The
enemy's name is not terror...
[Cliff Kincaid] 8/4/04
Describing
itself as a “prominent national Islamic civil rights
and advocacy group,” the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) has issued a statement condemning bombings
at five Christian churches in Iraq that left at least 11 people
dead and 50 wounded. But these are mere words that carry no
particular weight or authority in global Islam.
CAIR said
that, “Religiously and historically, Islam mandated the
protection of churches and synagogues. The Prophet Muhammad
and his successors sought to protect houses of worship and
the communities they serve.” If this is the case, however,
then why do followers of Islam carry out the bombings?
If the answer
is that “militant Islam” is responsible, that at
least is a modest start toward identifying the real enemy.
A former chief assistant U.S. attorney says in the current
issue of The American Spectator that the media
and policymakers have gotten it all wrong in saying the U.S.
is waging a war on “terror.” Andrew C. McCarthy,
who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel
Rahman in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing,
says, “You can’t win a war without identifying
who the enemy is, and I think we’ve bent over backwards
to avoid labeling all of Islam as the enemy. That is fair enough.
But I think we’ve gone overboard in saying that our enemy
is terrorism. Terrorism is a method, not a person or a faction
or an enemy.”
In his article, “The
Great War on Militant Islam,” he points out that Islam
began in violence and that Muhammad himself was a violent warrior.
McCarthy writes that, of all the global religions in the modern
world today, “only Islam sports an unbridled faction
that systematically inculcates hatred, systematically dehumanizes
non-adherents, and systematically kills massively and indiscriminately.” He
says Islam also has a rich tradition of education and a rich
culture. But the violent faction of Islam has come to the fore
and “the moderate elements have failed to condemn it
in a persuasive way,” he argues.
The other
problem in separating militant from moderate Islam lies in
the nature of the religion. Islam, he argues, is a religion
that goes far beyond providing a spiritual purpose to life. “It’s
actually a self-complete social and political and in some ways
economic system” that operates from the bottom up rather
than the top down, he notes. That is, Islam has no hierarchy
that condemns certain behavior or interpretations of the religion.
In the World
Trade Center case he prosecuted, McCarthy said Sheik Rahman
taught that the only legitimate Jihad was war using the sword,
bomb, and the missile. “There was no authoritative body
in Islam that is empowered to step in and say that’s
wrong,” he pointed out.
Practically
speaking, therefore, how does one define who belongs to “militant” rather
than “moderate” Islam? If there is a Mosque down
the street, how do we know if the Muslims who go there are
a threat unless and until they start killing us and then it’s
too late?
That is why,
McCarthy says, that it is absolutely urgent to move beyond
saying we are waging a war on “terror.” But McCarthy
says that Islam has become a “sacred cow” in the
national debate and that the religion and its adherents are
not coming under the proper scrutiny. One elementary way to
separate militants from moderates is by their behavior and
by their willingness to take a stand against violence and terrorism.
He says one question we should pose to followers of Islam is
whether they believe in democratic government or rule by Islamic
theocrats. Also, do they believe Jihad is a compulsion to do
violence or can it be interpreted as an internal struggle to
be a better person? This assumes, of course, that the answers
will be truthful. How many Muslims would admit to being committed
to violent Jihad against the “infidels?”
Abdurahman
Alamoudi, president of the American Muslim Council, was considered
a respected moderate. He has pleaded guilty to participating
in an assassination plot and money laundering for terrorists.
One of his former associates got an intelligence job with the
Department of Homeland Security, the government agency now
warning that terrorists in America may be preparing to strike.
Is it too
late to begin the national debate over Islam that is so urgently
required? The media can help provide an answer to that.CRO
copyright
2004 Accuracy in Media
CRO
copyright
2004 Accuracy in Media
§
|
