The Christian Science Monitor, which ran a series last week on the hijab and is generally considered to be a neutral secular alternative source of news, has run an editorial about the upcoming trials of 11 men for their roles in mass casualty attacks on the US. The author says it will be a “moment of truth” for the Muslim world about Islamic theology.
I’m uncertain how to respond to this editorial. I can’t determine if its intent is to reinforce anti-Muslim fearmongering, or if it is a genuine attempt to describe reality.
If it had been written by someone like Daniel Piper or Robert Spencer then it would be fairly simple, but the author, Walter Rogers, doesn’t appear to be another neocon smearcasting flunkie. Rogers has been the object of hasbara attacks for his criticism of Israel, and advocates that the US should withdraw from Afghanistan.
Rogers writes, “Political correctness aside, the jury is still out in the court of American public opinion” on whether Islam is a religion of peace.
He says the trials will also raise the question of dual or divided loyalty, a question that has been raised about many American minorities.
And then he cites the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson about their dealings with the sultan of Tripoli to assert the perspective that Islam has a long history of belligerence.
Walters concludes with this: “As with all faiths, virtue lies in the effect it has on its adherents. So it is not unfair to ask: “Which Islam is the religion of peace, and how do we tell the difference?” Only Muslims can answer that.”
Agenda-driven fearmongering or attempt to describe reality…not sure.
