Where are they?
Of all the things I don't understand about Islamist violence, one thing really bothers me: where are all of the pacifist Muslims who are supposed to be out there?
When news erupted late Tuesday evening that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was assassinated in Benghazi, Libya, I waited for them. I waited for the moderate Muslims to walk across the world's political stage and condemn the killing of a man who appears to have been the best friend Libya could have hoped for in the United States diplomatic corps.
Apparently, a group of local Benghazi residents tried to get medical care for Stevens, and upon his death, widespread grief washed over the country. But where is the moderate Islamic voice condemning Stevens' death, and those who perpetrated it?
Why was a non-Muslim white guy from California even considered to be America's best advocate for beleaguered Libya? How many Muslim ambassadors does the United States have, anyway? M. Osman Siddique served the backwater outposts of Fiji and Tonga for several years ending in 2001. President Ronald Reagan appointed Robert Crane ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. Apparently, these two men are the only Muslim ambassadors we've ever had. Considering the disproportionate amount of sociopolitical violence and upheaval our planet experiences because of Islamic regimes, don't you think American Muslims would be anxious to help be part of the solution?
By their obvious reticence to get involved, aren't they being part of the problem instead?
We have physicians, professors, engineers, and scientists who are Muslim, so it's not like our pool of qualified candidates for the rigors of international diplomacy is inherently limited by any educational or intellectual defects within our Muslim citizenry. Is it the money? Medical doctors and computer programmers obviously earn more than diplomats, but if Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, shouldn't Muslims be anxious to set aside financial concerns to focus on the greater good advocating for peaceful resolutions to conflicts can achieve?
Frankly, the chances of any type of lasting peace between militant Muslims and the rest of the world will be nil because of ancient historical factors that are Biblical in their proportions and practically codified in the DNA of Islam's radical adherents. But how much of the violence in our world could be mitigated or diffused if adherents to the purportedly peaceful side of Islam took public stands against the aggressors within their own religion?
Wouldn't it at least be better than having people like Mitt Romney, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton - all prominent non-Muslims (yes, even Obama) - tripping over each other in exasperation? Technically, aren't all of us who aren't Muslims infidels? And how smart has it been for both Democratic and Republican presidents to appoint non-Muslim women as three of the last four Secretaries of State (Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton)? It's no secret that across the world, women are second-class citizens in the Islamic mindset.
Is there some rule in the Koran against trying to broker good will between people groups? Is the fact that America can't seem to find enough Muslims willing to serve both their religion and their country through diplomacy an indication of something sinister, or does our State Department have some secret program in which they refuse to hire Muslims?
Why should it be a complicated question, asking why the people who say theirs is a religion of peace don't step up to the plate?
And if it's not the question, but the answer, that is complicated, and requires knowledge of Islamic culture that would commonly be found in a highly educated Muslim, then... doesn't it prove the point of my question?