Though it is always important to minimize generalizations in discourse, it is especially important to avoid them during heated times. Such an environment fosters harmful stereotypes, a degradation of complex ideas which have rational explanations, and pain beyond words. By looking at Evan Carp’s Wespeak, “Question Islamic Radicals,” we can examine the consequences of generalizations in the continuing aftermath of the Muslim response to the controversial Danish cartoons. Not only was his piece chock full of them, he also threw in some blatant lies and stereotypes without once explaining specifically who “these Muslims,” in fact, are.
With more than 1.6 billion Muslims around the world, such sloppy labeling places the blame on hundreds of millions of innocent people. For example, let’s say that a million Muslims protested violently in response to the cartoons (a gross overestimate to say the least). Come on Wes, we all took math: That’s about 0.0625%, less than a fifteenth of a percent of the “Muslim World” that Carp finds is so “wrong.”
This violence was indeed an isolated incident when considered in context of the entire Muslim World.
After listing the infamous violent acts associated with the Muslim world, Carp failed to blame the actual small minority of violent extremists responsible for them.
These tiny factions represent an insignificantly small percent of the Muslim population, but take up a majority of the media exposure of Muslims (giving some simple minded folk the idea that all/most Muslims act in such a manner).
Because of such exposure, it might be hard for Carp to grasp the fact that Muslims aren’t “primitive savages,” and have indeed felt pain; not only from the cartoons, but from the violent Muslim responses as well. It is true that the most sacred Muslim prophet was disparaged by the cartoons, but he was disparaged even more by the embarrassing violent Muslim responses that ensued. The moderate mainstream Muslim majority has been painfully misrepresented by infamous cartoons, tiny violent factions, and countless portrayals of violence in the media. Carp’s statement that “it seems most people who behave this way are Muslim” probably stems from the complete lack of moderate Muslims represented in the media: if all he saw was Muslim violence, his impression is not surprising. But when a great number of moderate Muslims are vocal on issues of misrepresentation, they’re ignored by the same media that, in order to sell papers, headlines only reports of violence associated with Muslims.
Take for examples, the peaceful protests in the UK, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the United States, Indonesia, Switzerland, and more, that I hadn’t even heard of until I looked them up. In fact, most of the protests in the Muslim world were peaceful groups protesting. But, in many of these protests, a few dissenters to the larger peaceful group made unwanted attacks on local police, which caused violent responses, leading to the whole event being labeled as a violent protest. Let’s not forget that Muslim leaders denounced the violent responses to the cartoons. Atrociously misbalanced representation in the media generalizes all groups, and Muslims are often prime targets.
It also seems that Carp completely missed the purpose of the cartoon teach-in here at Wesleyan, which was not to defend the violence, but to explain the roots of the anger to students who may not have the knowledge to place them in a wider geo-political context. No one was defending the actions of the rioters. It is strange that he wasn’t able to figure out why there was such a violent reaction from the Muslim world, as it was the main topic of at least Professor Masters’ introduction.
To portray Muslims as violent savages overreacting to the free expressions of “quiet, blonde-haired, mild mannered Scandinavians” calls to mind horrible Aryan race symbolism, the effects of which we know all too well. It’s also incorrect to state that the Jewish people do not combat anti-Semitism; they have the Anti-Defamation League to make sure that the freedom of speech isn’t used to bully minorities and create environments where events like the Holocaust can take place.
Furthermore, a need to “question the hell out of Islam” because no people “of other religions respond to insults the way these Muslims have” is not necessary: one needs to question the hell out of the perpetrators of violence, whoever they may be, and nobody else. Over a billion-and-a-half Muslims should not bear the punishment of a few. The article, after all, was titled “Question Islamic radicals,” not “Question Islam”. There is, however, a very strong urge in the article to question Islam because infamous acts of terrorism and violence were done in its name. Our Muslim chaplain, Mahan Mirza, sent me an article by Robert Pape, professor at the University of Chicago and author of Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Terrorism, that clarifies that politics are at the root of suicide bombings, not religion. You can check it out at http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/18/18/opinion/edpape.php.
The Muslim Students Association of Wesleyan does not believe that belligerents have the right to carry out their misconduct in the name of Islam. We do not believe the violent responses to the cartoons were at all appropriate, and we denounce them. We do not believe in oppressive violence and acts of terrorism. We do not believe in making hateful accusations when rational explanations are readily available to those willing to listen. As an active community, we strive to promote understanding and dissipate the harmful and irresponsible stereotypes that block common sense.
Leave a Reply