veiled4allah: Silent? I don't think so

While looking for something else entirely, I happened across an excellent post at a blog called Soundbitten about whether and how much Muslims should be expected to denounce terrorism.

Here is an excerpt:

And what would it actually take to pass a Citizen Goldberg sincerity test? Goldberg doesn't offer any guidelines - and my guess is that it's ultimately a test without any right answers. If peaceful Muslims aren't heartfelt enough, they're insincere. And if they're too heartfelt, well, wouldn't it be just like a sneaky terrorist to emphatically profess his allegiance to our cause while secretly plotting our demise?

But let's say some peaceful Muslims did manage to strike the right note of convincing compliance - how often would they be required to sing it? Currently, the religion of peace and the religion of peace-keeping [he links here to the NRA] are in similar binds: millions of responsible gun owners insist that firearms are legitimate tools that help make society better, but at the same time, a very tiny minority of rogue gun owners have consistently murdered around 10,000 or more people a year in the U.S. alone for the last 25 years.

So does Goldberg, or anyone else besides, say, Handgun Control Inc. or Michael Moore, think that gun owners, or even prominent figures of gun organizations like the NRA, should explicitly condemn every gun murder, or even just every incidence of gun-related mass murder, that occurs? Of course not - we simply assume that their condemnation is implicit, and that they prove the sincerity of their beliefs by not going out and murdering people too.

Is there a reason this same standard shouldn't apply to peaceful Muslims too? And especially to peaceful American Muslims? Just as there's nothing in the Second Amendment requiring gun owners to reassure non-gun-owners that their beliefs are just and responsible, there's nothing in the First Amendment that requires Muslims (or anyone else) to attach similar disclaimers to the practice of religion.

As nebulous a crime as thought-crime is, Goldberg is ultimately accusing peaceful Muslims of something even more nebulous than that: namely, the perception of potential thought-crime. They're not denouncing killer Muslims enough, so maybe that means they approve of their actions. These are scary, ambiguous times, of course, and it's easy to lose sight of things like freedom and the Bill of Rights. But as we battle greater evils like Al Qaeda and theological imperialism, that doesn't mean we should encourage lesser evils like loyalty oaths, witch-hunts, and compulsory concurrence with armchair inquisitors.

G. Beato makes a good point here. As a quick browse of Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks will show, every major Muslim group in every English-speaking country (since I don't speak other languages, my collection is limited in this regard) has issued statements condemning terrorism. All the major scholars and schools of thought in Islam have issued statements condemning terrorism. Political and community leaders from across the Muslim world have issued statements condemning terrorism. Many ordinary Muslims have written articles condemning terrorism or posted condemnations to their websites. What more do the critics want? A sworn affadavit from each of 1.2 billion Muslims?

Oh, and for those who say you haven't heard any condemnations: go to Google and type in muslims condemn terrorism for your search terms. You'll find all the links you could want. Muslims have spoken up on this issue loud and clear. It's time for the critics to start listening.