Debunking the "All Muslims Are Jihadists" Myth

Even with hindsight being 20/20, the President and his administration will be hard-pressed to conclude that the U.S. military didn't fall down on the job protecting our soldiers from Nidal Hassan. What is much murkier, though, is whether the military failed to keep Hassan from going jihadist, from going postal, or from going postal jihadist.

How Americans resolve this dilemma has weighty ramifications for the estimated 5.2 million Muslim-Americans.

Let me start by noting that a recurring theme in conservative blogs is that Muslims should be deported, expelled from the military, or "watched" because they are dangerous. We are told "they" are dangerous because Islam is a violent faith. Islam has also been parodied as archaic patriarchy.

These notions intrigue me because when I attended the Muslim Alliance of Indiana's annual conference a few weeks ago, Congressman Andre Carson expressed outrage over lack of a more pronounced public outcry when a renowned Muslim leader allegedly decapitated his wife. I'm paraphrasing here, but the Congressman bellowed, "If we do not speak out (on cases like this), nobody will give a damn what Muslims have to say about anything else." The crowd erupted in the most sustained applause of the conference.

I envisioned someone not as familiar with Muslims asking, "If Islam is led by violent patriarchs, how come none of them are at this statewide gathering of Muslim leaders?"

The better question for those not in attendance is, "Might your stereotype be off?" Is it really fair to brand an entire faith as violent based on the acts of a handful of extremists? People who proffer the notion of inherent Muslim violence usually make one of two claims: (1) most Muslims behave violently; or (2) Islam mandates violence against "the infidel."

The global estimate for Muslims ranges between 700 million and 1.2 billion. The global estimate for all acts of terrorism (including those by every separatist or "liberation" group in the world) is less than 10,000 annually. Even if you use the low estimate and attribute all 10,000 acts of terror to Islamic jihadists, that means that only .0014% of Muslims ever engage in violence. And this is what will make some condemn all Muslims?

We are able to see heterogeneity in our own faith, but not in others. As a result, when a Muslim named Hassan kills U.S. soldiers, it's an indictment not of an individual or even that individual's interpretation of his faith, but rather, of the faith itself. But when a Christian kills an abortion doctor, or when a Christian group thinks its Biblical duty is to shout "God hates fags!" during funerals of U.S. military members, it's an anomaly.

Americans, for some reason, also fixate on their perception of what Islam requires of its adherents more than on the overall morality of those adherents. I can point to serial killers and mothers who've drowned their own kids to purge their demons. They claim Christianity as their faith, as do a staggering number of violent felons and thieves in America. Even adjusted per capita, I'm less likely to die at the hands of a self-identified Muslim than I am at the hands of a self-identified Christian.

Oh, I hear people saying, "Actually, anybody who would be violent isn't really a Christian, so they take the title falsely." But somehow anybody who is violent as a Muslim is always really a Muslim? And what if the violent Christians say they killed because they thought that's what their faith required? Can only Christians be mistaken in their interpretations of holy texts?

People looking for justification for their anti-Muslim sentiments will invariably say, "Yes, Chris, but the Koran calls for jihad against the infidel."

Indeed, but isn't the proper question not what the ancient texts of a religion say, but rather, what the adherents of the faith actually do in response to those texts? The Old Testament calls for stoning a wayward child, but you can't find a Jew alive who does it. Until recently, the Catholic Church said birth control was a sin. How many Catholics absolutely ignored that edict? And how in the world can we have so many different sects of Christianity, and yet still look at Islam as a monolithic faith?

In truth, Islam is at war between competing ideologies, just as Christianity is now and had been over slavery. Tell a Christian that Christianity was used to justify slavery and it serves as the current core belief for the Ku Klux Klan, and he or she will redirect you to the fact Christianity lead to the abolition of slavery. And I would tell you that both of these things are true.

Yes, wrap your mind around this. You can have it both ways because NO RELIGION IS A MONOLITH.

Is there a sect of Islam that is radical, violent, and hellbent on destroying America? I'd say yes. But the significance of this sect is overexaggerated by an American media that lives by "if it bleeds, it leads." Ninety-nine percent of Muslims do not engage in religious-based violence. Yet, as with any "civil war" between peaceful and confrontational ideologies, the surest way to create new adherents to radicalism is to ostracize the peaceful by failing to differentiate between the camps.

In short, you can have a Nidal Hassan who just went nuts (not likely, given his communications and comments). You can have a Nidal Hassan who was a "homegrown terrorist" who always knew his mission (not likely, given he was in the military long enough to become a major but never acted violently before - ya gotta admit, that's some seriously long-range planning). Or you can have a guy who sorta thought he had a duty, but his desire to act would not have ever kicked in until he blew a gasket. (As an aside, how many Klansmen talk about harming minorities but never do? Why hasn't anybody every recommended deporting them? When the Christians kill abortion doctors, why don't we harass the larger Christian community for failing to keep it from happening?)

Your lesson is this. America must take its Muslims one at a time, just like its Christians. Monitor radical statements, undoubtedly, but do not leave it at Muslims. Before 9/11, the greatest violence against America was perpetrated by a member of the U.S. Army, Timothy McVeigh. Why didn't anybody foresee his violence?

Debunking the "All Muslims Are Jihadists" Myth

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!

To some in my political circle, he's the man we love to hate. In the past month, I blasted him for pushing forward with privatization of public benefits in Indiana even though the same experiment failed miserably in Texas.

But my view of our Governor, Mitch Daniels, changed radically with a simple act last Friday.

I was standing in the hall at a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program for the Julian Center and Heartland Pro Bono Council when my colleague, Shariq Siddiqui, got a phone call on his cell phone.

"Hello."

(Voice on other ends says something....)

"Oh, hello, Governor...." Ears perk up and open widely!

It's a brief conversation, and when it ends, I have to ask. "I'm sorry, but did you just talk to Governor Daniels?" Shariq knows a cross-examination is coming, as I'm always looking for a story, so he fesses up.

Shariq informs me that, yes, it was the Governor, and he called because he had read the press release issued by the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) decrying the actions of the shooter at Ford Hood, Texas. The Governor tells Shariq he's proud of MAI. Unlike some other Muslim organizations nationally, MAI does not focus solely on Muslim soldiers and the microscope they are undoubtedly going to face now. MAI's statement (and its ensuing editorial) is an unequivocal denunciation of the inexcusable act, and it calls on all Muslims to extend their prayers and generosity to military families.

Based on the tone of both comments on the Indianapolis Star and other papers throughout the country and the blog postings of the conservatorati, the Governor doesn't do himself any favors openly embracing MAI. And yet, he does it anyway, because he knows MAI has supported him, and he has supported it by hosting an annual Iftar at the Statehouse.

The Governor knows the scrutiny (and possible violence) coming next for Muslims in America, and he has the decency and intellectual honesty to not put every Muslim in a radical, jihadist camp (more on this in a separate posting).

Being painfully objective means giving credit where it's due, even to my political adversaries, and I tip my hat to the Governor for being, not just a leader, but a moral leader on this issue. I daresay that there will be segments of my own party that will not be this bold.

Then the next day, the Governor hit another one out of the park when he signals to casinos that there aren't going to be any special tax treats just because Ohio has passed land-based casino gambling. (As an aside, certainly the people who invested in the Indiana licenses contemplated new entries into the market? If not, sorry, but they're crappy business people).

The Governor states that, if "bailouts" were to occur, they certainly wouldn't go first to an industry that is profitable. However, the Governor agrees to scrap some costly and ridiculous regulations, such as requiring an engine and sea captain on a boat that never goes anywhere.

The Governor correctly ridicules what I have long called "the morality carwash" - the notion that somehow the sin of gambling washes off if it occurs in a large body of water.

You're batting two for two this week, Governor. I wouldn't be painfully objective if I didn't say so.

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!

Justice Frank Sullivan Lays Down the Law (Politically Speaking!)

On Thursday of last week, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan delivered an excellent keynote address at the Muslim Alliance of Indiana's "Access to Justice" luncheon, which promoted MAI's modest means legal clinic. But Sullivan's remarks raised eyebrows.

Sullivan advocated a merit selection system for all judges, which was a gutsy move for a guy in a room full of elected Marion County judges.

If I put aside personal affection for many members of the local judiciary, what Justice Sullivan said makes terrific sense. We need a judiciary more insulated from political pressure than one mindful of getting slated by a handful of politically-active Democrats and Republicans, which is how Marion County picks its judges.

Two quick exhibits on that score.

I am absolutely certain that Democrat Judge Annie Christ-Garcia got it right when she found Democrat City-County Councilor Doris Minton McNeil not guilty. (I never believed the State would be able to establish an intentional touching of the officer required by the battery statute, as opposed to an intoxicated "falling into"). But would anybody believe that Judge Christ-Garcia never thought, even in passing, about the political repercussions of convicting versus not convicting? How could you not do so if you are human, in particular when you are part of a system that makes you play politics.

Doesn't every judge say, "Crap!" when a politically sensistive case hits the docket? And, because of judicial elections, won't some people assume an extremely capable and fair-minded Democrat judge put it in the tank for a Democrat city-county councilor because of fear of political retribution, regardless of what really happened?

I was not present for the Hamilton Avenue trial, and based on how strongly Judge Robert Altice (R) was recommended by the Indianapolis Bar Association (96% favorable), we should assume he also ruled correctly on the evidence. But can anybody say with certainty that Altice, a former prosecutor, never thought, even for an instant, about the political ramifications of entering a not guilty finding in Indianapolis' biggest murder case ever? That it never occurred to him that he could potentially doom his own electoral chances, but in addition, hand Democrats a shovel with which to bludgeon Carl Brizzi politically?

Are we supposed to also believe that Brizzi never envisioned Judge Altice thinking about the ramifications when he gave away the death penalty for nothing more than having a bench trial before Altice? Seriously, who does not believe Brizzi played handicapper and reached the conclusion that the political damage of foregoing the death penalty would be minor compared to the outcry if he didn't get a conviction. If Brizzi wasn't pretty confident that Judge Altice would convict, would he have made the deal? I've heard some say that Brizzi's stronger concern was that a CSI-obsessed jury would never convict without any physical evidence. That's a fair point. But what if Brizzi had been in, say, Democrat Grant Hawkins' court? Would he have still made the deal?

Even if Judge Christ-Garica, Judge Altice, and Prosecutor Brizzi could all prove politics never crossed their minds, and maybe they can, isn't there intrinsic harm from a system that has even lawyers wondering to what degree these kind of considerations might influence decision-making, even if only subconsciously, in close cases? And can't we objectively see how public skepticism about judicial decisions in political cases would be engendered by a slating system?

There is a reason federal judges have lifetime appointments. The Federalists knew it would be necessary to insulate judges from political pressure to ensure that they make accurate but politically unpopular decisions.

Some may correctly point out that even lifetime judicial appointees can play politics on the highest level, a la Bush v. Gore, but any step toward more judicial independence is still a positive step. If we switched to merit selection and retention elections every four years (instead of every six like with the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court), we would improve faith in our judicial decisions while giving the electorate a modicum of ability to bounce a judge for particularly egregious conduct.

Would this hurt the political parties by taking something valuable away from precinct committeepersons? Yes. They would have fewer offices to slate. But a merit-based system would take away equally, so there is no competitive disadvantage suffered by either party by support of this idea.

Lest someone in my own party suggest iPOPA is on a quest to oust sitting judges, I would respectfully submit that the only ones who should be nervous are the ones who know they wouldn't keep their offices if judged on their merits. In other words, you'll learn a lot listening to who is complaining about this post.

Justice Frank Sullivan Lays Down the Law (Politically Speaking!)