July 25, 2005


Homegrown Risk Worries U.S. Muslims (Larry B. Stammer, July 25, 2005, LA Times)

In the wake of London bombings that point to homegrown terrorists, American Muslim leaders are increasing their efforts to determine why some Muslim youths are drawn to violence and how to divert them from radical influences. [...]

U.S. Muslim organizations and leaders have long disavowed terrorism and the killing of innocents as alien to mainstream Islam. Just this month, for example, the Council on American Islamic Relations announced yet another public relations campaign to denounce terrorism, this one with the theme, "Not in the Name of Islam." But that message is chiefly directed at the U.S. public.

Since the July 7 London bombings that killed 56 — including four British Muslims presumed to be suicide bombers — and Thursday's similar but less damaging attacks, Muslim leaders said they would focus directly on their own young people and why a small minority may be attracted to a virulent interpretation of their faith that has abetted terrorism.

Muslim leaders are also examining other reasons why youths may be disaffected. On Saturday, for example, an estimated 120 Muslims listened intently at a forum at Cal State Northridge that grappled with a major dilemma faced by many second-generation Muslim youths — "American or Muslim." Chantal Carnes, a 30-year-old American convert to the faith, spoke of a generation gap between many Muslim youths in the U.S. and their parents that makes it difficult for young Muslims to fully integrate into American life.

"Some parents need to recognize their kids are part of this society," she said. "They need to pass on their Muslim identity but recognize the American identity is there also," she said in an interview.

Muslim youths, she told the audience, do not sit on the boards of most mosques or other Muslim organizations. Most of the 1,800 full-time Islamic parochial schools in the U.S. do not require their students to be involved in community service projects, such as volunteering at soup kitchens, as do many public schools and parochial schools of other faiths.

"Our presence in the world is to be an active, positive presence," she told the group.

Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. In Virginia, the Muslim American Society said it would intensify its work with youths and expand youth training programs to encourage volunteerism, community service and overall civic engagement.

The Muslim Students Assn. said last week that it had begun to forge closer ties with other mainstream Islamic groups, including the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles, and the Islamic Society of North America. At the urging of the Los Angeles group, the student association issued a statement pledging to be "steadfast in combating this ideology of hatred" among its own constituency.

America really is nothing like Europe.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2005 8:42 AM

Lots of for-public-consumption hooey - no sincere content or conviction. You can't read a CAIR statement on anything without encountering the word BUT within the first three sentences...

Posted by: M. Murcek at July 25, 2005 10:35 AM

Younger American Muslims seem to have been indoctrinated to some degree by wahabist craziness. Saudi cash has been financing mosques for the last twenty years or so at an alarming rate and it is bound to have had an influence on younger muslims. The new Saudi ambassador to the US is an interesting choice. Wahabism is a death cult and the Saudi state religion. Until the ideology of wahabism is adressed and condemned by American muslims, any comfort gained by accepting the PR quoted above is probably very foolish and short sighted.

Posted by: at July 25, 2005 12:13 PM

I'll tell you what: when CAIR officials stop getting charged and convicted on terrorism charges, I'll start being willing to consider their denunciations of terrorism.

And before the canard of "an organization can't police all its members", note that these were officials and in some cases founders of CAIR.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 25, 2005 1:27 PM

Actually, guy, an organization can police its members.

Orrin says so all the time, about Roman Catholics.

Which raises the question: If there really is a difference between Islamists and Islamicists, and if the Islamists are such a huge majority, why do they not suppress the Islamicists?

Because they are incapable?

Or because they are indifferent?

America is different from Europe, but Muslims are Muslims everywhere.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2005 4:21 PM


They have. Islamicists are a separate organization, as al Qaeda always makes clear. It's not like they have decoder rings you can take away.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 4:35 PM

Hmmm. Apparently the "Muslim American Society" is really an front for the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the root organizations of Islamic based terror. And it turns out that the Muslim Student Association is not exactly supportive of "moderate" Islam.

So of the three primary Islamic groups in the story, two are directly tied to terrorism and the third is at best a supporter of it. I don't think this story illustrates what you think it does.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 25, 2005 6:36 PM

Guy says it better than me, but they are not two different groups. We now know that the Islamicists recruited openly, even had their own bookstore, in Leeds, which vitually every Muslim over the age of 10 must have known about.

Tony Blair thinks so. My paper reported today that he "pleaded" with British Muslims to come forward with information. So he thinks they have it.

They ought to have been beating down the doors of 10 Downing St., he shouldn't have to plead.

I was talking to my physics adviser today. The London and especially the Egyptian attacks have switched him to my side, though he had, up until now, been taking the moderate approach.

He told me a story I hadn't heard before, about his years of working closely with a Munchener, a lifelong resident, who was, he says, "a strong Lutheran."

How, my friend wondered, could you not know what Hitler was up to?

And the Munchener said, over many nights and many beers, that "we sort of knew, but it was easier to imagine that the warmongers were exaggerating, and we were not absolutely sure and besides, if it was true, there was nothing we could do about it. So we told ourselves we didn't know."

Delete the beers, and you've got Orrin.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2005 8:59 PM


Whoever has it will be Muslim--that's a truism.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 9:09 PM

Whoever has it will be Muslim, obviously.

Thus reinforcing Harry's point.

Knowledge + inaction = culpability.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 26, 2005 3:40 AM


No, Harry's point is that all Muslims know. Did you turn in Eric Rudolph?

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 9:08 AM

But what of my point? Are there any mainstream Islamic organizations that aren't involved in terror, juden-hass, and suppression of dissent by any means? If not, what are the broader implications? And why should we believe any statements about "combating hatred" from organizations with that kind of history?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 26, 2005 11:22 AM

The Muslim Brotherhood is suppressed, not the suppressor and has been pushing for democratization in Egypt for some time. Just because a few folks at CAIR have dubious ties doesn't discredit the entire organization any more than the treasonous activity of someone at AIPAC has discredited it. Heck, you can't find an Irish organization in America that didn't indirectly or directly help murder Brits by aiding the IRA.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 11:39 AM

"A few folks at CAIR" – uh, no, they were officers and founders (see, I knew this would be offered as a defense). And it wasn't indirect, either. I've always had nothing but contempt for Sien Fein for exactly this reason. When President Bush snubbed Gerry Adams, I applauded. When is President Bush going to apply the same standards to CAIR and its ilk? If you really believe in moderate Islam, isn't recognition and support for terrorist sympathizers as leaders of the Islamic community just about the worst thing you could do? It's like promoting the interests of the black community by sucking up to Al Sharpton.

P.S. The Muslim Brotherhood hasn't been pushing for democratization any more than the Sandinistas did. Their goal is the overthrow of the current government. It's exactly the same technique. But at least now you know how Daniel Ortega's supporters could have been so deluded themselves.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 26, 2005 12:04 PM


Ortega lost a fair election. If he could have won they'd have been a legitimate government. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Brotherhood, etc. will be important political forces as their nations liberalize and will be moderated in turn by democratic pressures.

W dissed Adams when it became easy to do so. In the '90s he'd have met with him too.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 12:21 PM

I do not say that all Muslims know but that Muslims who do know do not turn in the killers.

That's not arguable, even by appeasers like Orrin.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 26, 2005 2:52 PM

again, that's a mere truism. Whites knew about the OK City bombing and didn't turn in fellow whites. Darwinists knew about the Holocaust. What does that tell us about whites or Darwinists?

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 3:11 PM

which "white" community was dancing in the streets and handing out candy, after the ok bombing ?

Posted by: cjm at July 26, 2005 10:29 PM


The notion that it was brought on by Waco was prevelant on the Right, just like Iraq "causing" 7/07.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 11:54 PM

Orrin is so easily manipulable. Not only Muslims can do it, too.

Watch me. I will now make him say nice things about Cynthia McKinney.

Today I had a break from politics over lunch and the library was just across the street, so I dropped in to see what American Muslim (journal of the American Muslim Society) has to say this month.

Same old same old. They reject assimilation, reject an identity of 'Abrahamic' religions and call McKinney a 'voice of moderation.'

They promise, as usual, to bring Orrin out of the error of his irreligion and convert him to their 'genuine rendition of monotheism.'

You're going to have to give up your extry gods, Orrin. InShallah.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2005 1:28 AM


They usually do succeed in converting many folks and they're welcome to try here. It's all the same God.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 1:34 AM


Since OJ does believe that it is acceptable under Christian doctrine to murder people for religious reasons, then I guess for him the Christian and the Muslim god are the same.

It's all a matter of understanding how to speak OJ.

Posted by: bart at July 27, 2005 7:35 AM

And the Jewish.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 8:20 AM

I understand what Orrin believes.

I also understand that Muslims do not believe the same.

It's Big Tent Republicanism evolved into the Blob of Religion.

But despite his assertions, Muslims are not Jews; and although Orrin seems to be picking out the Muslim American Society for commendations, the MAS wants to exterminate Israel.

You'll notice, though, that Orrin cannot bring himself to say anything negative about McK.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2005 1:01 PM

Cynthia Mckinney? She's a Jew-hating idiot. She's not a Muslim that I'm aware of.

Mohammed and Christ said Muslims and Christians believe in the same God as Abraham, that trumps splinter groups.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 1:06 PM

The self-proclaimed voice of moderate Islam in America thinks she is a 'voice of moderation,' which suggests that 'Jew-hating idiot' is the default definition of 'Muslim moderate.'

And while Muslims are welcome to try converting people here, Christians are not welcome to try converting Muslims there, are they?

In fact, if a Christian missionary stuck up his head in any Muslim country, the peace-lovers would chop it off, wouldn't they?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2005 4:02 PM

To the contrary, Christians are having some predictable success converting Muslims.

McKinney is a voice of moderation as far as they're concerned on issues like the war on terror and Israel, just as you're an extremist on those issues. There's no reason Arabs shouldn't hate Jews just as Jews hate Arabs.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 5:26 PM

That was TOO easy.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2005 8:30 PM


I don't get why you think your Islamophobia/Judeophobia/Christophobia is any different?

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 10:22 PM

islam won't exist in

Posted by: cjm at July 27, 2005 10:26 PM

I'm not blowing up trains.

At least, not until they blow up mine first.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 28, 2005 3:09 PM

Neither are most Muslims. But you do preach hatred.

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 3:32 PM