Take a close look at this picture, courtesy Daily Telegraph, UK please click on it:
See the two icons of Suspect No.6 and No.7 at the top right? Both are aged 28, identified as junior doctors of Middle Eastern descent, and arrested at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in connection with the ongoing investigation of the failed terror attacks in the UK. I'd like you to pick a name and a religion for each of the two suspects, that you think most informed and reasonable people will agree with:
|Suspect No. 6||Suspect No. 7||Religion|
|Shiv Kumar||Shakthi Kumar||Hinduism|
|Joe Smith||Jane Smith||Christianity|
|Fu Chang||Mei Chang||Communism|
|Akbar Ali||Farah Ali||Islam|
|Izzaac Goldman||Ruth Goldman||Judaism|
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's problem is similar to the one defined above, except that his task is to prevent the future occurrence of such terrorist acts in the nation that he has vowed to protect. A solution proposed by him is to tigthen the security checks on foreign workers outside the EU, before granting them work visas. Instead of focusing on a relatively smaller group of potential Muslim immigrants from a handful of countries, Mr. Brown would rather subject millions of men, women, and children to unnecessarily lengthy and intrusive scrutiny. Is this an extension of the liberals' idea of social justice? Rob Mohamed's guilt to blame Mary? As CNN puts it, this is pussyfooting around terrorism, and worse. I quote from the CNN:
As the London Daily Express reports, Brown has instructed his ministers, including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, to avoid using the word "Muslims" in connection with the current crisis. And indeed, in a BBC-TV interview last Sunday Brown did not refer to Muslims or Islam once -- not even to say, as is often said here in the U.S., that a great religion of peace had been hijacked once again.
Why is it fairer to identify these terrorists as doctors, but not as Muslims? Of course, all Muslims are not terrorists, but it is even more far-fetched that all doctors or all South Asians are terrorists, is it not? The reason for focusing on the Muslims is not cultural, political or social, but technical. It is disingenuous to suggest, as the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India does, that the Muslim community will feel alienated because the terrorists are identified as Muslims, when they indeed are. By not calling a spade a spade, we will only become accomplices by helping the terrorists hide among a vastly extended sea of humanity. As CNN concludes in its report,
If Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are as likely as anyone else to be victims, then they need to decide whether it's worse to be offended or dead, and oppose -- as well as expose -- those among them who support murder and terror. We should be free to look for them, even in a mosque.
Let me put it as plainly as I can. I don't recognize rights for any collective Buddhists, doctors, tennis players, poor, women, labor, or investors. Rights exist for individuals and so are responsibilities. Muslims are not collectively responsible for the acts of terrorism committed by a few among them. Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, Velupillai Prabhakaran, Nathuram Godse, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin are individually responsible for the countless lives that they had sacrificed in their respective altars of dead men and narrow minds. I am a fool, but not as much of a fool to blame my neighbor, Khaleel Ahmed, for the brutal killing of Daniel Pearl. I refuse to accept that I am bigoted, though, because I started to look for the mastermind behind this heinous murder, in a Muslim neighborhood in Old Delhi, and not in a Jewish ghetto in Los Angeles.