Should all Muslims be singled out for the actions of a few? (COMMENTARY)

Print More
Washington DC and other transit systems are now refusing all issue ads to avoid being forced to use inflammatory ads from  Pamela Geller's anti-Muslim group  American Freedom Defense Initiative. Photo by Mike Stone, courtesy of Reuters.

Washington DC and other transit systems are now refusing all issue ads to avoid being forced to use inflammatory ads from Pamela Geller's anti-Muslim group American Freedom Defense Initiative. Photo by Mike Stone, courtesy of Reuters.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) Muslim organizations have tirelessly condemned terrorist acts committed by individual Muslims in the post-9/11 era. Nevertheless, the mainstream media have not budged in their dubious claims that Muslims need to "do more."

  • The Great God Pan

    “[Anjem Choudary] .has little credibility in the Muslim community in England or abroad ”

    Not as much as you, right?

  • Diogenes

    The obvious answer to the question proffered is, NO.

  • Ben in oakland

    “it should nonetheless be considered morally outrageous for one community to condemn the actions of those over which it has no influence.”

    “but betrays the largely agreed principle among philosophers and international law scholars that no one group should be held accountable for the actions of a few.”

    Regularly, on these very pages, anti gay commenters claim that all gay people should be held accountable to for the actions of a few, usually I identified but allegedly gay, people. Anonymous sends a packet of white powder to a church, gay people are vicious. Someone sues a vendor or protests and anti-gay statement, and all gay people are suddenly vicious fascists intent on destroying Christianity.

    And not one so called good Christian calls them out on it.

    Amazing how it all depends on whose ox is getting Gored.

  • Re: “The former [i.e. Anjem Choudary] has little credibility in the Muslim community in England or abroad and was once described by journalist Mehdi Hasan as a ‘blowhard.'”

    Yet, despite this lack of credibility, he still has his mosque and still teaches … well, whatever it is that he teaches. Why is this the case? Why has he not been shut down, deprived of whatever preaching credentials he may have, whatever? Is it enough just to sit back and decide that he has no “credibility,” therefore he can just keep his mosque and continue blathering on however he wants to? When does someone decide that enough is enough with him?

    (Yes, I do, and have, asked the same question of creepazoid Christian preachers like Marion ‘Pat’ Robertson, who’s dallied with tyrannical African dictators and other assorted questionable creatures. I have no idea how or why he’s still on the air, either. But he isn’t at issue here.)

  • Re: “Someone sues a vendor or protests and anti-gay statement, and all gay people are suddenly vicious fascists intent on destroying Christianity.

    And not one so called good Christian calls them out on it.”

    It’s called “never admitting any possibility of any flaw, ever, with anyone else who’s on the same ‘team’.” Because then one runs the risk of admitting one’s religion might not be as flawless and perfect as one claims it is … and that’s simply impermissible. All religions do it, to one extent or another, because of the insecurity they feel, which is a product of their indemonstrable metaphysics.

  • Pingback: Foiled! (StoryADay Post) | Stories in 5 Minutes()