Ruby Hamad, in her article Confronting Our Anti Islam Backlash Asserts that there is a backlash against Islam as a result of the Martin Place siege. She laments that:
Muslims are often represented as a marauding horde, a grotesque collective that acts on nothing other than primitive, religious ideology.
the fact he was also Muslim means that, to many western audiences, his actions reflected on Islam and all Muslims
If true, I entirely agree with her, that is a repulsive way to treat individuals.
So why does she do exactly that?
But let’s back up for just one moment. Yes, it was a Muslim man who held those hostages, causing the death of two. What this should tell us is that our global society has a problem with violence. More specifically, we have a problem with widespread male violence (emphasis mine) and an unwillingness to even recognise, let alone confront it.
When she says that the actions of the muslim who took people hostage in Martin Place, resulting in the death of two innocents should not be laid at the feet of any other muslim, I agree. What I don’t understand is why she feels it is necessary to lay the violence of any man at the feet of any other man. If Ms Hamad does not see the Martin Place gunman’s violence reflected in other muslims, why does she see that same violence reflected in other men? What did any random man do to Ms Hamad that she hates them so? Does she not recognize that many muslims are also men? What did any random muslim man do to Ms Hamad that she wants to see the Martin Place gunman’s violence reflected in him?