It's become a pattern now. Every time September comes around, our society pulls the bandages off our collective wounds and insists on poking sticks in it. The self-torture has come to the point where some news outlets are broadcasting their original footage from that fateful morning, uncut, in order to ensure that everyone relives the horror at the same time. Surveys of all kinds show that each year, hope for a normal life diminishes, and anger at "the other" continues to grow. Far from being healed, the wound is infected, and threatens to spread to areas previously healthy.

Some of us want to forget the nightmare and move on. Others indulge themselves, wanting to recharge the batteries of anger in order to prepare for another year of war, whether virtual, verbal, or very much real. As Muslims, we've been caught in the middle for five years now - unable to escape responsibility for actions of people far away who claim to share our faith, and incapable of stemming a tide of increasing hatred being directed at our community. When I look into the eyes of my non-Muslim friends, I see honest people trying very hard to separate what they see and read about from the person standing before them. I can only wonder what goes through the mind of those who don't have the benefit of having a Muslim friend to create some restraint against the natural impulse to blame a collective enemy.

I'm naturally an optimistic person. Each year, I think to myself that I've seen the worst of it. And each year, I recall events from the past 12 months that tell me otherwise. Muslim extremists emerge from the shadows, poking around our defenses for an unreinforced soft spot. Anti-Muslim extremists, fresh from mining our religion and history for any piece of information that can be used to defame and incite, grow bolder in their calls for the removal of Muslims from their midst. This year, I saw a first: a call for an all-out war on Islam and Muslims, even if millions of innocents die in the process. I'm reminded of the history of European Jews and Rwandan Tutsis, of how entire populations were desensitized in advance of genocide using similar campaigns. Could it happen again?

Five years later, jihad-minded Muslims such as al-Qaida still have the nerve to think of themselves as some sort of vanguard of defense for Muslims. In fact, their actions have done more to bring curses upon the Prophet and hatred toward our faith than anything in the history of the religion. It is a powerful form of anti-dawah, something for which I pray they will be held accountable for in this life and the next. The central problem for Muslims is that some of the disaffected among us are unable to express dissent in a constructive, nonviolent, and lawful manner. As small a group as they might be, they have caused, and continue to cause, incalculable damage.

Still I hear the refrains: "Where are the moderate Muslims? Where is the condemnation of terrorism?" I and many other Muslims involved in public service feel like we've been screaming in the middle of the ocean. How are we expected to compete with 24-hour TV news and a blogosphere that gives Muslim malcontents a magnitude of PR that money can't buy? How are we supposed to respond when a community of 25 million Muslims in the West is served by institutions that have a relative handful of full-time advocates, most still trying to learn how to defend themselves against a media onslaught? One example of our inability to properly respond to the trauma inflicted upon the American psyche was the way the "Islam is a religion of peace" refrain, so common among Muslim spokespeople in the days after 9/11, was chewed up and spit back in our faces. We needed to address very real fears of Islam, but could only offer up only simplistic platitudes.

None of this is to say that the decline is irreversible. There is still hope that we can stem this decline. Recent surveys suggest that even though hostility towards Muslims has increased since the days of 9/11, those numbers drop significantly for those Americans who count Muslims among their friends. Rather than funding multi-million dollar public relations campaigns, a grassroots effort, it seems, is in order. If everyone in America had a Muslim friend, the poll numbers and attitudes towards Islam would be very different than they are now. And we need friends now, more than ever.

The recent involvement of Muslims in the West in directly stopping planned terror attacks should be an example for those who continue to think that mainstream Muslims do not care about our collective safety. We should be emboldened by this. We can be self-critical and vigilant about extremism without falling into the trap of apologetics or being ashamed of who we are. I believe that non-Muslims are very interested in seeing that we are acknowledging and working on our problems, which counters the impression that we are thoughtless automatons following orders from beyond. Perhaps in traditional Muslim countries, airing of internal issues and problems is seen as a sign of weakness. In the West, it is seen as a strength. Muslims living here should take note of that.

Next year, we will might find ourselves again wringing our hands about the escalation of tensions between the West and the Muslim world. It's also possible that we may finally decide to leave the bandage on the wound so that the real healing can begin. Our actions between now and then will determine that outcome.

Well-said, peace4all.

I know Bosnians. Many of them. They by no means love the Serbs, but they tolerate and live amongst them. Of a few I know, they also put up more patriotic acts for 9/11 this year than any American I've seen.

Peace4all misses a few other Christian aggressive maneuvers. Just in my hometown, a bomb was thrown into the window of a Mosque, and not too much further a man destroyed a Qur'an with an illegal pedestrian firearm and threw it on the stoop of a Da'wah building. Beyond the Christendom, which killed Jews and Muslims alike, there was the Inquisition, the American Shah on Iranian land, the 18th century British imperialism followed by an immense Christianizing mission, and the intense proselyting going on in destroyed Kabul and Iraq.

I blame Western countries for starting a lot of problems, but not all. I blame Eastern countries for perpetuting all of those problems. Everyone gets their due blame.

America is a Democracy, but it is Christian in nature. It is not as religiously exclusive as Israel (which, for being so exclusive, is still called a democracy), but the very argumentation of laws proves outright that America is dictated by many Christian laws. If it were solely secular and entirely about freedom, Abortion, Gay Rights, "The Blue Laws", and much else wouldn't be in existance. I believe there is no country that has separated church from state, and if it has, their church has reformed more towards the state. Therefore, I believe Muslims can worship the Qur'an and still uphold the Bill of Rights, but Muslims cannot both worship the Qur'an and abide only by Christian-based laws. Luckily, many Muslim and Christian morals are the same, and as such the laws are also similar. However, when Bush proposes early release from jail for converting to Christianity, such suggestions are preposterous to a Muslim and will not be tolerated as such. and by not tolerated, I mean a voicing of opinion, not the filth disguised as martyrdom that baisedly tie to only one fiath.

p4a

there is a saying, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you."

i am perfectly ready to believe the US is the bad guy in this scenario for any number of reasons but i do not doubt for a minute that islamic militants would kill me, you and a bunch of other people in the name of God.

this is not a zero sum game.

Malaki: I can only speak for myself in addressing your questions....

But can I count on them to look out for me when I am threatened by someone who claims they are attacking me in the name of Islam?

I would stand by your side if a so-called Muslim came to attack you. Absolutely.

Are you patriotic about your country?

My understanding is that the vast majority of scholars agree that Muslims are to respect the laws of the land that they reside it, and if they feel they cannot for whatever reason, they should leave it. As a born American, I know no other land, and I have no intention of leaving. I owe no allegiance to any other country. I will also defend this country from anyone who wishes to harm it.

Those Muslims who are naturalized had to take an oath of solidarity with this country, and as Muslims we are to live up to our oaths. Those who do not are violating a promise that they made to God.

I see no difference between people like al-qaeda, and the butchers in the military who join up so they can go kill some A-rabs. Neither has any respect for human life. If I lived in the middle east, I would be as scared of the American/Israeli military as you are of Al-qaeda.

p4a,

the difference is that the butcher in the military are tied to civilian governments that must pay the price when lines are crossed.

both sides have tendency to excess. true. but what is the contervaling force that acts on al-queda? what representative can i write to to tell how pissed off i am at them what they have done. what election can i vote them out on? what court martial can they be tried at?

it is not enough to say the otherside is bad too. you have to be honest with yourself about what is going on.

p4a, out of the million or so Americans in uniform, how many do you kmow/think are psychopaths who joined to commit crimes like Spc Green?? I think you ask non-Muslims not to paint all Muslims with a broad brush by assuming all are terrorists like al-Qaeda, but then you seem to do the same to servicemembers? People bring up arguments about how many each side has killed, but miss the point that, of course, an industrialized military has the capacity to kill tens of thousands (millions with nukes), while terrorists do not. Nevetheless, the terrorists have *the will* to kill until thier goals are met just like any civilian-controlled military has politicians who are willing to keep sending us into the meat grinder until thier (someone's, the nations??) goals are met.

Its a difference of capacity and not intention. I have no doubt that whenever politcal Islamist groups have the capacity, whether with million-man armies or WMDs, they will kill tens of thousands as well.

Thanks shahed for your reply. If only more people could read or hear your reponse this country might lighten up a bit.

That's because Shahed answered directly and in public. I think many Muslims say similar things in private. However, much of the religious establishment rarely says in public that they would defend non-Muslims from other Muslims. They might condemn it, but rarely ever declare that would actively go against other Muslims. Its a kind of group think, and the condemnations from the religious establishment are sometimes sincere, but seem often to me to serve the sole purpose of protecting them and thier agendas from the US public. Unfortunately, its this religious establishment that speaks for us (or doesn't speak; which is worse?!) to the public and the media except when its among personal freinds and acquaintences as Shahed suggests.

>I see no difference between people like al-qaeda, and the butchers in the military who join up so they can go kill some A-rabs.<

Preach on brother. I agree 100%.

>Neither has any respect for human life.<

Absolutely, difference is one group is correctly called terrorists, the other is portrayed as heroes, while they torture andrape 14 year old girls, and even about it. "Anti-Social" personality disorder indeed.

>I have no doubt that whenever politcal Islamist groups have the capacity<

What is an Islamist, little neocon?

We need to really sort this Islamist thing out. What is an Islamist? We all use the word with meanings implied .. mostly picked up from media jargon and personal definitions. What is an Islamist? Is an Islamist like a zionist or a nationalist or a fascist or or a pacifist or a racialist or .... what?

Ghulam,

what do you think an islamist is?

Omar- I am sure the number of psycho military members by percentage may be no more than the percentage of psycho muslims that distort their faith to suit their purpose. The difference, as someone else noted, is that we are told to blindly support these armies. I have a close family member who was career military, he took early retirement because he was so sickened by the things he saw in the "gitmo" prisons. He also was disturbed by what he saw as brainwashing of young soldiers to make sure they were able to perform on task in the Middle East. While I don't know any Muslims who would defend bin Laden, I have heard plenty of other Americans defending the crimes of Abu-Ghraib, and even more disgusting, those of the soldiers involved in the rape and murders of the Iraqi girl in her family. I can't imagine the untold numbers of stories of atrocities that we haven't heard. As I have said before, I don't believe that Allah will give a pass to those who commit heinous acts just because some military superior ordered them to do it. The definition of terrorist fits a lot more people/groups than it has been applied to. Somehow the U.S./Israeli media has tried to coin this term to apply only to Muslims (and many Americans have been stupid enough to buy this). Just like the term "Islamist", they want to make sure that they tie our faith to terrorism, I really believe that there are those who are more afraid of moderate Islam which has a much broader appeal, so they seek to ultimately tie our faith with everything negative.
P.S. I am a sister:)

>I am sure the number of psycho military members by percentage may be no more than the percentage of psycho muslims that distort their faith to suit their purpose.<

I disagree, the number of psychopaths in the US military is high. The presence of Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad is a small indicator of this. Many neo-nazis look at it as a chance to hone their skills for what they believe is the upcoming "race war." Another fact is the culture of impunity in the military where the code of silence keep things on the down low. Every atrocity exposed came from either leaked torture photos("fraternity pranks" according to drug addict Limabugh) or some body who couldnt keep silent. Look at the video of a marine singing "Haji girl," a song about shooting an Iraqi girl, much to the delight and cheer of his comrades. Does anybody get disciplined for this? Nope. Who knows how many other girls like ended up like 14 year old Abeer Hamza, and the last time a US soldier was given the death penalty for rape was in the 1960s, so dont hold your breath. Those interested should also look up the most popular book on Arabs in the military called "The Arab mind" written by a racist Hungarian zionist filth Raphel Patai. None of this is by accident, but by design.

I forgot to mention one more thing, The military is claims that Spc Green suffers from "Anti-social personality disorder." This is BS. If that were the case Green would have had a detailed history including "conduct disorder" before his 15th birthday which is DSM diagnostic criteria. Unless ofcourse they let him in anyway...psych evaluation notwithstanding.
Lets assume he has ASPD, what about the other rapists who particpated in this dispicable act? Are they suffering from the same condition? As far as I know ASPD has never been able to get a criminal off in any court of law. Which makes me wonder if the US military is full of dysfunctional psychopaths.....reminds me of the Serbs who used to rape Bosnian woman and then toss a grenade in the room after they were done. Didnt go over too well at the Hague as I recall.
In my student days I was assigned to a patient who was in for psych eval for brutally beating his wife. He was fully cognizant of what he had done but was pretending to be insane claiming "oh I have 5 different personalities." I retorted "Well pick one of them because somebodys ass is going to jail." Sure enough he ended up in prison.
I'm still waiting for the definition of the elusive "Islamist" by Colonel Sanders.

Assuming the number of psychopaths in the US military is high, can not one also assume that the number of psychopaths within the ranks of the jihadis is also quite high?

can one not also infer that pychopaths are drawn to the military for the same reasons they are drawn to the fundamentalism? that the military as well as fundamentalist islam is nothing more than a repository for the social deviants to act violently in ways that have been deemed acceptable?

>Assuming the number of psychopaths in the US military is high, can not one also assume that the number of psychopaths within the ranks of the jihadis is also quite high?<

You make a lot of assumptions dont you? Terrorist groups like Al-Queda dont have anywhere near the level of support which the military has. The death toll in itself speaks volumes.
What is the deifinition of "fundamentalist Islam" and "jihadi"?
I notice that those who use this sort of terminology tend to be neocons and other anti-muslim bigots. Which one are you "abu al-amriki"?

are we to assume that anyone who uses the term jihadi or fundamentalist islam is a neocon or anti-muslim bigot?

>are we to assume that anyone who uses the term jihadi or fundamentalist islam is a neocon or anti-muslim bigot?<

When they dont define words that they use, sure. The fact is that this misleading vernacular is part and parcel of the neocon worldview, one which is respnsible for deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, woman and children in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.
So what was an Islamist again, "abu al-amriki"?

"So what was an Islamist, again"? i was unaware you were asking me the first time.

What do you think an islamist is?

>What do you think an islamist is?<

Dont answer a question with a question. You people use these terms so define them for the rest of us. Hows Gomer doing BTW?