In his interview with CNN’s Soledad O'Brien, Imam Rauf said: “If we move (Park 51) from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.” Like a lot of other people I wondered whether that second sentence was a threat or an observation. It seems like that is not a simple question and may depend on who says it, what their interest is in the outcome, whether and how they are connected with the “Muslim world”.
Here are several things in this category. I would say that 1 is an observation and 6 is a threat but where in between it shifts is not clear to me.
Please note that I am not saying that all of these things have occurred or will occur.
1. If someone burns a Quran.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
2. If someone publishes a bombhead cartoon of Muhammad.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
3. If someone recommends the publishing of drawings of Muhammad.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
4. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
5. If we are not allowed to obtain funds for Park 51 from Iran.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
6. If some American government will not pay for Park 51.
The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From a Risk Analysis point of view the concern would be - what will the Muslim world do if they think they are under attack? They could simply be miffed or they could decide to wage Jihad. I will let the reader make their own determination.
ReplyDeleteThe 6 items (actions) enumerated above are things that cause “the bad thing” to occur and, at least in the list provided, they all have the same result. We can mitigate against “the bad thing” by addressing the causes of the “the bad thing”. For example by not burning Qurans.
Here it the bottom line. If you decide that “the bad thing” is an unacceptable risk then you should mitigate against all causes of “the bad thing”.
Still I have not addressed the question of when (in items 1-6) it becomes a threat. If we perceive someone else’s actions (or reaction) as a threat then we somehow feel justified in reacting in a different way. Perhaps more violently that we would otherwise. It is human nature and culturally acceptable. Still, and again from a Risk Analysis point of view, the concept of “threat” would seem to be moot in this instance. If all six items can cause “the bad thing” then I need to address all six.