About the Rush to Conclusions

The Globe and Mail has an article entitled "In Norway, a trigger for discourse" by a writer from Pakistan, Adnan Khan. Khan says:

"Extremists can’t hijack the discourse. Muslims will have to play their part: It’s incumbent on them to reach out to Europe’s moderate majority, share in their suffering, and confront the violent fringe with a united front."

Unfortunately, it's not clear whether the "violent fringe" refers to the Norwegian nutcase who killed so many of his fellow Norweigians or the fanatics within his own faith or both. Some of the comments in response to the article will test Mr. Khan's commitment to "share their suffering" but are eminently logical. For example, take the one by a reader calling himself "Blart":

"It is interesting that Muslims are angered at the West for immediately looking at Islamic extremists for any bombing attacks. Considering that just about every single week there is a suicide bomber, a car bomb, a truck bomb, somewhere being detonated by Islamic fundametalists, is it not logical then to consider Islamic extremists as the first culprit?

Just today the Mayor of Khandahar was killed by a suicide bomber. Should we then be considering a Colombian for the attack?

I fully agree that dialogue is necessary to difuse the situation.

Even more importantly, Islam and Muslims must find a way to live in peace with other cultures and beliefs. It is time for the moderate Muslims to take back their faith from the suicide bombers and terrorists who want to create a world wide caliphate. If only a small minorty of Muslims are responsible for such atrocities, then moderate Muslims should be able to convince them to put aside violence for dialogue.

But then from my experience, the moderate Muslims fear their radical brothers, moslty because of the extreme violence the radical elements employ. Torture, beheadings, killing of family members, children, women is routine.

There was a time when Christianity was brutal, violent and vicious. Over the centuries it has reformed. It is time for Islam to do the same."

Or the one by Jack Krak:

"Yeah - why does everyone jump to the conclusion that Muslims are responsible when we first leanr about something like what happened in Norway??? It's so not fair!

I mean, sure, there were things like 9/11, the bombings of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the bombing in Bali, the bombing in Bombay, the slaughter of Russian schoolchildren, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the bombing of the USS Cole, the fatwah death sentence against Salman Rushdie, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the bombs in the Moscow subway, the 7/7 attack in London, the Madrid bombing, the plot to behead the Canadian PM, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the murder of 62 tourists in Egypt in 1997, sending women strapped with explosives into crowded markets in Iraq, murdering Afghani police recruits, the shooting of 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, the assasination of the Afghan president's brother, "honour killings" in Kingston Mills (all this is off the top of my head, a easy look on the net could make it 100 times longer....).

But apart from THAT, I mean, really, why do people keep associating Muslims with awful tragedies? I just don't get it......."

I find it surprising that the Globe and Mail actually allows such discourse. Wow!! Perhaps this is a turning point.