Professor John L. Esposito, a renowned expert on Islam and Muslim societies has come out with an excellent piece on Huffington Post, rebutting a horrendously inaccurate article from long time New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman that has gotten a lot of circulation in the media.
John L. Esposito: Tom Friedman on Muslims and Terrorism: Getting it Wrong Again
Thomas Friedman, in his Dec. 15 column “www.jihad.com” repeats and reinforces the same tired, totally incorrect, but commonly-made generalization preached in his July 9, 2005 column, “If it’s a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution,” that “no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.” In his most recent column, Friedman continues to assert, despite readily available information to the contrary, that ” a “violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most ‘legitimacy’ in the Muslim world today” and that “Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public”…..”How many fatwas — religious edicts — have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda?” Friedman asks and then answers his own question with “Very few.”
The real truth is that Muslim religious leaders have indeed spoken out strongly and often to condemn terrorism and violence, but mainstream media like the NY Times and columnists like Friedman have chosen to ignore them. For example, Muslim scholars’ and organizations’ condemnations (including fatwas) of the 9/11 attacks, given from Saudi Arabia to Malaysia to the US, can be seen here. As reported by the BBC, already on September 14, 2001, statements condemning terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular were made by a significant, influential and diverse group of religious leaders, ranging from Shaykh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar University in Cairo (viewed by many as one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam) to Ayatollah Kashani in Iran. In addition, the North America Fiqh Council joined with other internationally prominent Islamic scholars in issuing a formal fatwa on 27 September 2001 condemning bin Laden’s actions of 9/11 and also sanctioning Muslim participation in the United States’ military response in Afghanistan. For a more comprehensive list of statements made by individual leaders and organizations pre and post- 9/11, attacks in Europe and elsewhere, click here.
It is inconceivable that a knowledgeable reporter could be so unaware of major polls on Muslim attitudes towards religious extremism and terrorism and the many statements made by important Islamic leaders and organizations around the world denouncing acts of terrorism. Given Friedman’s knowledge of the area and best selling book on the Middle East, we are dismayed by what can only be willful ignorance. The Gallup World Poll and the recent PEW Center poll of American Muslims provide hard evidence that refutes Friedman’s views of the Muslim majority. Gallup data from 35 Muslim countries from North Africa to Southeast Asia, (see Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think) found that Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified. The PEW study American Muslim attitudes concluded:
“Recent events such as the Fort Hood shootings and the arrest of five Muslim American students in Pakistan have raised questions about the threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States. However, the Pew Research Center’s comprehensive portrait of the Muslim American population suggests it is less likely to be a fertile breeding ground for terrorism than Muslim minority communities in other countries. Violent jihad is discordant with the values, outlook and attitudes of the vast majority of Muslim Americans, most of whom reject extremism.”
Friedman says “a corrosive mind-set” has developed that “says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world.” If he is so concerned about encouraging Arab and Muslim responsibility and building more resistance against the terrorists, then a positive response from him and the New York Times would be to promulgate and support rather than ignore or deny statements from Muslim leaders and the mainstream majority of Muslims who are speaking out against terrorism in the name of Islam. For Friedman and the Times not to recognize this is more than simply irresponsible journalism; it borders on a polemical advocacy that alienates our most valuable partners, mainstream Muslims, and US-Muslim world relations. This post was co-written by John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, both from the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Who can forget Friedman’s infamous “Suck. On. This.” quote to describe the Iraq War in a Charlie Rose interview? It’s tough to take Friedman seriously. He’s been a cheerleader for every war against Arabs and Muslims. He’s still clinging to the false notion that the only language the Arabs understand is the language of force. However it’s not surprising that he still has this world viewpoint considering his main source on the middle east is Daniel Pipes’ MEMRI.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Add: Glenn Greenwald, as usual, gets it right.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/17/freidman/index.html
“Friedman thinks it’s wrong to “infantalize” Muslims. That’s why he spends so much of his time lecturing them on what they should do and/or urging that new wars be waged on and among them.”
December 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Is Esposito a Mooslim?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
you said it all here: “The real truth is that Muslim religious leaders have indeed spoken out strongly and often to condemn terrorism and violence”
December 21st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
You ought to remember that Friedman’s daughters are born in Israel, and he was hoping that an Arab led peace initiatve would recognise Israel, that has not happened yet. I wonder how much of that colours his vision.
Good on Esposito he is right.
I do want to mention that the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan will rouse anger and resentment. I think that America made a big mistake in being too pally with the Saudi Royals and other dicatators in the region.
Really it should be Saudi Arabia The US should have bombed not Afghanistan. Why? Because the Al Saud’s expelled Bin Ladin and his men who took advantage of a poor country. They did this to appease america for support to propup their corrupt regime, at the same time senior saudi royals and saudi citizens sent funds to Afghanistan.
Before al Qaeda started bombing campaigns in Saudi Arabia, the people there were blaming 9/11 on Zionists. While zionists are comitting atrocities, they are not responsible for the corrupt Arab regimes who turn let extremists run loose until they threaten them. This is what the Saudi’s did. Only after the riyadh bombings, did they take action. Before then they and a lot of Saudi’s were blaming the Zionists for 9/11 while at the same time working secretly with Israel.
America not only props up a corrupt regime, but will be wasting time and money and men in Pakistan, making more people resentful, killing more and not acheiving anything.
I dont agree with Thomas Friedman’s analysis, because he is too kind to the corrupt Arab regimes. It is not fatwa’s we need, we need to get rid of corrupt monarchies.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 am
No Pam(not Geller), Esposito isn’t “Mooslim.” He is actually a Catholic, though I don’t know if he is a practicing Catholic, I also think I heard him once say that he wanted to be a priest at one point in his life but I might be mistaken.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 am
Thomas Friedman’s big fallacy is that he thinks all Arabs and all Muslims adhere to the Fatwa’s and religious rulings that the Sheikh’s make.
They do not. A lot are secular, and ignore religous rulings. Case in point is the Egyptian regime. Why doens’t he criticise the anti-semitism which is state sponsered emanating from the media? Egyptian media has a lot of influence in the Arab world, and it is anti-semitic, it also riducules some Islamic customs like polygamy.
Thomas friedman should question why the Arab states sponser anti-semitism and anti-americanism. It isn’t the Sheikh’s he should be slagging off.
Why isn’t Friendman questioning the Egyptian ambassador in the USA why his country has a campaign of anti-semitism? Egypt can fight Zionist occupation without resorting to anti-semitism. Egypt also has a lot of influence in the Arab world. That is where a lot of the poison is coming from, not from Islamic sheiksh. It’s the secular Muslim society that is not following Islam that is the problem.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
At Al JAzeera English, John Esposito has written this today,
Muslims part of US social fabric
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/2009121784234277996.html
By John L Esposito
Similarly, a 2009 Gallup report found that 70 per cent of American Muslims have a job compared with a national average of 64 per cent. Muslim men have one of the highest employment rates of religious groups; Muslim women are as likely as Catholic women to say that they work.
After Jews, Muslims are the most educated religious community in the US. Muslim women (unlike their Jewish counterparts) are as likely as their male counterparts to have a college degree or higher. Forty per cent of American Muslim women have a college degree as compared to 29 per cent of Americans overall.
American Muslims are as concerned about extremism and terrorism as other citizens. Their families and friends in “the old country” have been the primary victims of terrorist attacks. Like other Americans, Muslims were also victims; they too lost loved ones and friends in the 9/11 attacks.