Manzullo Apologizes ... Or Does He?
In an interview with Rockford's WREX earlier this week about the
possible transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the Thomson
Correctional Center, Rep. Don Manzullo unleashed what seemed like an unhinged attack
on the religion of Islam. "These are really, really mean ...
In an interview with Rockford's WREX earlier this week about the
possible transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the Thomson
Correctional Center, Rep. Don Manzullo unleashed what seemed like an unhinged attack
on the religion of Islam. "These are really, really mean people," he
told the television reporter, "whose job it is to kill people, driven
by some savage religion."
After his office apparently received numerous complaints about the remark, Manzullo released a statement of apology last night, emphasizing that he really meant terrorists practice a "violent, anti-modernity version of Wahhabism." The Tribune printed more from the Rockford Republican:
He said Islam is a "religion of peace" and that the vast majority of its adherents are "men and women of good will."
He added: "Nevertheless, I apologize for any misunderstanding of my comments and I will endeavor in the future to clarify my remarks to make it absolutely clear that America is not opposed to Islam, but that we are fighting terrorists who believe in a savage, perverted, and violent form of Islam."
But check out the AP's more detailed account. Here, Manzullo sounds a lot more defensive, blaming those offended for making a "false assumption."
In a statement Tuesday, Manzullo confirmed those were his words during the Sunday interview, but he said they have been misinterpreted.
Most prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba come from Muslim countries or have Muslim surnames.
<!-- AdSys ad not found for ap-state-il:bigads -->
Manzullo said he never specified Islam and apologized for any misunderstanding stemming from his comments.
"The religion of these terrorists is indeed savage _ it is not the religion of Islam," he said. "I never once said that Islam is a savage religion. It is a false conclusion or assumption. These terrorists have perverted the peaceful nature of Islam for their own demented purposes."
Manzullo shouldn't blame the reader for misinterpreting his comment. Instead, he should blame himself for using such a bombastic generalization about an extremely sensitive issue. Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, gave the AP this rejoinder:
"It is outrageous and very sad that a representative of the people would partake in an attack against a global faith," said Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "He could have said, 'a savage ideology' or 'a savage interpretation' or any type of nuance that a politician like himself knows how to do."
Image courtesty of Flickr user donmanzullo.
Comments
What a monumentally insensitive and knucklehead stupid thing to say. It proves that Shimkus behavior is really contagious within the GOP!!
Best medicine: vote him and the rest out of office.
ALISON, MPA
Philosophe Forum
Paraphrasing Barry Rubin of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal:
How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was inspired by the core tenets of Islam? Because Nidal Hassan told us so. You may have seen the long list of things he did and said to verify this.
But what’s most amazing is this:
Hassan is the first Islamic terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. The audience was reportedly shocked by his lecture. He was scheduled to speak on some medical topic, but instead spoke about “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” His 50 Power Point slides tell us everything we need to know.
He was logical and presented his evidence well. Clearly not the ravings of a mad man or a fool, he was still apparently working out what to do in his own mind and trying to figure out if he has a way out other than deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.
In a sense, Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die. In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics
Can you please provide those power point slides? I've often heard claims of items being rooted in Islamic texts, only to be little more than amature ramblings.
It's one thing to present an academic lecture on trying to assess the motivations of miltants, it's quite another to suggest Mr. Hassan was advocating it; unless he experinced something first-hand during his tenure with the Army that made something in the miltant agenda appear to ring true to him. Perhaps that's an angle that needs more research...
I doubt his joining the army was some grand plan...certainly he was in a position to do more harm than him going "postal"...
@Philosophe Forum....I noticed that you cannot refute what he said, and only run on feelings.
Islam 101: The Religion of War
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/10/islam-101-religion-of-war_05...
Islam is one of the most anti-war religions on the planet. It is about love of the Creator, life, nature. It is about seeing the Creator in everything.
http://www.islamicgarden.com/simplemeaning.html
http://www.bmf.org/iswp/true-islam.html
Islam teaches that we must recognize and praise the essence of God as it exists in each and every life. Consider this explanation of the truth that is in the Qur'an: If you take a tiny atom and split it into ten million particles and take one of these particles and examine it with that true wisdom found within Islam, you will see within that tiny particle ninety-nine particles revolving around one another without touching. (The ninety-nine are those qualities of God's grace that are known as the names, or powers, of God.) If you take one of those ninety-nine particles and split it into five million particles and examine one of those pieces with that wisdom, again you will see ninety-nine-ninety-nine revolving around one another without touching. And if you take any one of those particles and split it into one million pieces and examine one piece, again you will see the ninety-nine particles revolving around one another. If you take one of those and split it into five hundred thousand pieces and take one of those particles and split it into two hundred and fifty thousand pieces and take one of those and split it into one hundred thousand pieces and then one of those into ten thousand pieces and one of those into another thousand pieces and if you take one of those infinitesimal particles and look within it with that wisdom, you will see ninety-nine: His ninety-nine divine powers.
What everyone here is talking about is political Islam (i.e., Islamism). TWO different things. Also, this country's views regarding political Islam is false.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/ayoob.htm
Three, often unstated, assumptions have inspired much of the discussion in the West regarding political Islam over the last decade and a half—especially since 9/11. These are: one, that political Islam, like Islam itself, is monolithic; two, that political Islam is inherently violent; and, three, that the intermingling of religion and politics is unique to Islam. These assumptions are false.
[. . .] It is the Muslims’ collective memory of subjugation and the current perception of weakness in relation to the West that provides the common denominator among the many divergent manifestations of political Islam. This is the shared ingredient that I referred to at the beginning of this essay that may be responsible for nurturing a misleadingly monolithic image of Islam in the West. It is partly as a result of their search for an explanation for past humiliations and a remedy for the present plight of Muslims that Islamists, from Morocco to Indonesia, advocate a return to the imagined pristine purity of early Islam and cling to a romanticized notion of a golden age. Most Islamists believe that if Muslims could return to the model of the imagined golden age of the early years of Islam they would be able to transform their relationship with the West into one of equality rather than subordination. The common denominator among Islamists, therefore, is the quest for dignity, a variable often ignored by contemporary political analysts in the West.
This Islamist emphasis on the restoration of dignity strikes a sympathetic chord even among the large majority of Muslims who cannot be characterized as Islamists. It resonates with Muslims of all social and economic strata because of the injustices that they continue to suffer at the hands of the West or its surrogates. Since the United States is the leader of the West, the Muslim sense of outrage usually takes the form of anti-Americanism. For most Muslims, this antipathy toward America is not based on opposition to American values but is grounded in opposition to aspects of American foreign policy, especially with respect to the Middle East.
I can digress and draw comparisons quite easily to Native Americans. Instead, I will recommend three things:
1. Get a reliable resource.
2. Get a grip.
3. Get a life.
ALISON, MPA
Philosophe Forum
Post new comment