MUSLIM CLERICS CONDEMN BIN LADEN

It's become a widely-accepted criticism in the United States that Muslims, including Islamic clerics and theologians, have not sufficiently condemned Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks.

This "fact" has been used by certain talk show hosts to imply that something must be fundamentally wrong with the religion of Islam.

I've wondered since the beginning of the War on Terrorism if there were really so few condemnations, or, if there actually have been plenty of condemnations, but they just haven't been reported.

My first inkling that the mass media was inadequately covering the issue occurred when I saw representatives of Muslim student groups on the Bill Maher talk show "Politically Incorrect."  After Maher asked them why they weren't out in the streets condemning bin Laden, they replied that they had been doing just that.  But a large rally they had held to express just such a viewpoint was ignored by the mass media.

I wasn't surprised, therefore, when the New York Times finally did just run a piece detailing the widespread condemnations of bin Laden among Muslims, including by even the otherwise most militant, anti-Western Islamic clerics.

For example, one theologian in Qatar with a long history of anti-American militancy has used language similar to that of Mr. Bush and other American politicians.

"Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack on innocent human beings a grave sin" he said.

"Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is engaged in face-to-face confrontation with them."

"Killing hundreds of helpless civilians," he added, "is a heinous crime in Islam."

Even the spiritual leader of Hezbollah "has been relentless in his condemnation of the attacks in America."

Funny that it's only now, over four months after 9/11, that these condemnations are getting substantial coverage.

Is the mass media's long delay in providing the American public with this information just laziness on their part?  Could be.

Or maybe the delay is deliberate.  The purpose would be to first allow a certain impression to gel in the public mind -- the lack of widespread condemnation of the 9/11 attacks by Muslims and their religious leaders.  After this belief takes hold, the media knows that later reports of condemnations taking place will not do much to alter public opinion on the issue.

What would be purpose of fostering such an impression?  How about to make it easier to demonize Muslims in the public mind, easier for the public to not be concerned about Muslim civilian casualties in our bombing campaigns.

In other words, at the same time Bush and government officials publicly stress "we're not at war with the Muslim peoples of the world," the lack of reporting of Muslim condemnations of bin Laden, and the talk show harping on this fact, allow an acceptance of just such a war to develop in people's hearts and minds.

In comments to this site, certain writers have actually expressed a total lack of concern for any Muslim civilians we kill for just such a reason, because these civilians didn't care about, or even supported, the September 11 attacks.