“What should citizens do if they are ruled by a dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, fire, prisons, torture, and death, when a foreigner comes and removes that dictator for them… should the citizens stand with the dictator and fight the foreigner, or should they welcome the foreigner who rid them of the despot?”
Yousif Qardawi’s answer: “Their duty is to fight the foreigner and be patient with rule of the dictator as that is the lesser of the two evils”
The question and answer was in Monday’s Al-Jazeera program “The Shari’ah and Life” [arabic, link broken] which is a live on-air program. There is no doubt in my mind that this question has been prepared and discussed prior to going on air.
One might ask the question: What has this question got to do with such a religious program in the first place? Isn’t this question more of a political one? What has a self-professed religious scholar has to do with politics here? And as Saeed Al-Hamad asks in this morning’s Al-Ayam Newspaper: how would the simpletons who watch these religious programs get out of it other than they are listening to the gospel truth, considering that the words come from one of the “leaders” of Islamic thought? Would they be able to question the distinction between Islam the religion, and Islam the politics?
Hardly.
What they would understand from these wise words however is that they’ve got to pack their bag and hitch a ride to Iraq to wreak even more havoc in that turbulent country. Thus, shedding their blood as well as goodness knows how many other hapless souls.
I am at a loss in trying to reconcile his effective edict, for a very renowned scholar, a supposedly learned person, how can things be so black and white in his mind? Even more important how can he simply stand with someone like Saddam Hussain simply because that dictator has always professed his Islam as a means and an excuse to stay in power? How can Qardawi forgive Saddam’s (and his ilk, of which we have many in these environs) atrocious sins against man and beast?
Is Islam that simple that it requires oppressed people to stand with their oppressor simply because he professes Islam? And resolutely refuse any helping hand when extended simply because it belongs to a non-muslim?
To me taking such a stance is simply outrageous. And this principle espoused by someone who owns the ears of millions of muslims is not only troubling, but outright criminal.
The only way to avert more brainfarts like Qardawis, is for our governments – if they are serious about fighting terrorism – is to ban any and all such “religious” programs, especially if they call for direct, instant and unthought of edicts being aired, live, to unsuspecting and believing ears.
Comments
The lesser of two evils
Kooks like this shouldn’t be prevented from airing their repugnant opinions on TV. But they [i]should[/i] be forced to sit across the table from someone who will oppose them, with a reasoned counter argument that will expose them to the ridicule they deserve.
The lesser of two evils
Mahmood,
Dont even try to see eye to eye with this nut-job. All I have to say is: GILLETTE! THE BEST A MAN CAN GET!
The lesser of two evils
The prosecution rests.
Steve
The lesser of two evils
While Qaradawi’s urging the Muslim world to fight the foreigner, his daughter’s living in London studying medicine. How much must he be paying to the UK to have her educated and presumably living in the high standards she’s accustomed to? Some of this money’s got to be going to the British treasury in taxes – thus buying British soldiers more bullets to shoot the jihadis he’s sending out through his Al Jazeera sermons. Ignorant f–khead.
How is it that these moron clerics get away with this hypocrisy? Another example is the now defunct Hamas head Sheikh Yassin sending out suicide bombers: never sent out any members of his own family to blow themselves up – always turned out they were from some else’s.
The lesser of two evils
Mahmood – of course it’s better to have a Muslim leader, even if he (Allah forbid she) is a bad leader.
It’s is a contravention of the will of Allah for Infidels to rule over Muslims.
Put together the threads from Koran 2:193 with 4:76 9:111-13
In these verses, among others, there are clear threads to physically fight unbelievers.
Therefore, even if the unbelievers are ‘nice
The lesser of two evils
Plenty of Sunni Muslims here in the UK argue that Islam is religion, politics and State all rolled into one package. Qaradawi is very popular with them. And the whole lot of these types make Hitler look like a moderate kind of guy.
The lesser of two evils
YAQ’s analysis is based on popular sentiment that internal problems ought to be handled internally. And we all know how often that happens.
It’s like when a man refuses to ask for directions or to check the instruction manual on his new VCR. YAQ would rather have fire prison torture and death than the humilation of having to ask for help.
I don’t agree with Mahmood that government censorship (which is effectively what you call for with a ban) is the answer. Remember, anyone you give a mic to will get away with what s/he thinks he can get away with. Put them on TV, radio or even a newspaper column or a blog and they will say what they think will give them the most sway.
If you want to take away their power, it has to be through educating the public and giving people an impetus to think CRITICALLY for themselves. And discussions have to be open. Was there any response to YAQ’a statement? Any rebuttal? Stupid people cannot tolerate complex arguments and when they become less stupid and more willing to question a turban, the turban won’t be spouting off any crap he damn well pleases.
Re: The lesser of two evils
There has been a response to his diatribe, the reference I put for Saeed Al-Hamad is the article that was discussing and lambasting Qardawi for uttering such nonsense, albiet done in a veyr politically correct way. One cannot be too adventurous writing for a national newspaper.
I agree with you regarding the ban, I should have engaged the grey-matter before asking for that. You’re right in that allowing them to spout their hatred only weakens their status and argument, but only if others are allowed to counter their arguments without fear of persecution.
Re: The lesser of two evils
Welcome back! Hope you had a good holiday.
Yes these people are the living proof of double standards, yet I cannot fathom WHY they are forgiven these “transgressions”, it seems people would always believe the best of a turbaned one. This somehow reminds me of Marmoulak, which incidentally was banned in Bahrain “as it was ridiculing the clergy.” Thanks Mr. Government for keeping an open mind and allowing people to decide for themselves.
Is it then a wonder that a guy like Qardawi is ranting unopposed?
Re: The lesser of two evils
I’m not seeing eye-to-eye with him at all, nor am I attempting to. I am simply flabergasted that “a person of his stature” who people willingly elevate to the position of scholar can actually BELIEVE this crap.
What makes a bad muslim better than a good christian?
Put religion aside for a moment, even with EVERYTHING that the US has purportedly done bad in Iraq, urging Iraqis to shut up and “be patient” with a tyrant because he’s a muslim is so out of logic that it physically makes me sick.
And you wonder why we are such a backward race? This must be one of the reasons, people like Qardawi urging us to just keep the status quo regadless of wrongs and promising that hey, it’s gotta be better in the afterlife and heaven.
Give me a break…
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
That was my comment by the way.
What I meant to say was that there ought to have been a rebuttal on the show itself which Al Jazeera has been capable of. Perhaps YAQ is one they would rather not press opposing viewpoints on
The lesser of two evils
RELIGION IS IN YOUR HEART, AND ITS BETWEEN YOU AND GOD, YOU CAN RUN YOUR HOUSE WITH THE RULES AND LAWS OF ISLAM, BUT YOU CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY WITH THESE RULES BECAUSE THEY DONT APPLY TO EVERY ONE. YOU SHOULD SHOW WHAT “ISLAM” MEANS TO THE FOREIGNERS, SHOW WHAT IT’S ABOUT AND HOW FORGIVING IT IS. YOU WILL BE RECOGNISED MORE BY GOD, YOU MIGHT EVEN CONVERT 1 OR 2 OF THEM. IN GOD’S EYES THIS IS BETTER THAN KILLING ANY ONE (FOREIGN, MUSLIM, NON MUSLIM, ANY ONE).
WHY FIGHT WITH THE SWORD IF YOU CAN WIN WITHOUT IT
MOHAMED JAMAL
The lesser of two evils
Well said Mohamed…Everybody has their own take on Islam. We all twist and bend the ”rules’ of the holy script to make fit our lifestyle and our ways of life. It is therefor unwise to use a religion to base a country’s policies and laws on. There is no clear devide in bahrain with what should or shouldnt be regarded as a religious or polital issue.
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
[quote]So what you’re saying is that if you had two sisters and one was raped by a christian and the other was raped by a muslim, you’d kill the christian first and slap the wrist of the muslim? [/quote]
According to Shari’a, yes, this would be the case. The non-believer’s blood would be legal to spill, and the Muslim would likely be exiled, or let off. (and likely both my sisters would be stoned for adultery)
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
Marmoulak was even shown in Iran, the grounds that it was banned in Bahrain are silly.
The clerics aren’t infallable and should be put under scrutiny. They should spend all of their time actually being clerics not indulging in politics.
The lesser of two evils
I think the issue is can we modify sharia.
If one were to read parts of the old testament, there are some horrific codes in there too of how to deal with adultery and homosexuality. however, most ‘christian’ countries today do not adopt criminal/civil codes as defined in the old/new testament.
so – yeah – the koran is as backward on some things are the bibe and the torah – but – the answer does not lie in the text, the moslems need to get their act together and do some ‘ijitihad’ and create a new basis for civil law that is not based word for word on sharia.
it aint islam that has made a mess of the moslems. its the bl**dy moslems who are making a mess out of islam. and we dont need any help in that department – we have shown ourselves to be perfectly capable of screwing things up on our own. we cant even get a personal effects law going here without fears of ‘religious treason’. ever wonder why some people found creative ways to legalize islamic banking- but stay relatively pigheaded about legalizing personal effects?
religion should get out of the individual relationship between man and state ..
jasra jedi
Re: The lesser of two evils
Well said, Jasra. A country’s laws should not be based on a particular religion, though it may inform those laws. Laws should be based on the natural rights of an individual, to wit: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is far superior to forcing individuals to be virtuous as measured against a particular religion’s peculiar set of values.
Steve
Re: The lesser of two evils
[quote]it aint islam that has made a mess of the moslems. its the bl**dy moslems who are making a mess out of islam.[/quote]
That presupposes that Islam is blameless.
I disagree. If you take the Koran and Hadith as literally the word of God, unchangable and for all time and places, then then you will fall into the kind of fundamentalism that I espouse.
Look at the verses literally. There is no direct context, no historical context in the main text of the Koran. The Koran is interpreted throught he Hadith, which paints a stark picture of the formation of the book.
If God told Mohammed to tell everyone kill the unbelievers, fight for Allah, even if they don’t want to, who am I to question God? Who am I to even use itjihad if my ‘reason’ contradicts God? God is all powerful. If there was a better verse, it would have been placed into the Koran rather than the verses there by God. Therefore the Koran is perfect and everything it says is true, and real, and by Allah, I must fight and kill to cleanse the Earth of those who don’t believe the words of Mohammed are the final possible revelation of God, because certainly all of the other revelations are corrupt, ’cause God told me so. And Mohammed told me that God told him so, and it’s in the book, so how can you argue with the book? It’s there. It’s truth. The book says it’s truth. Therefore you can’t question the book. You can use itjihad to apply the book to new situations, but you can’t contradict the book. If you contradict the book then you have to repent, because you are not following the strictures of the law. Kill the infidels. They face a burning doom anyway, so it is lawful to spill their blood if they fight you. But they will fight you and question you because God makes them sin. Fight evil, they are evil. Don’t question the book. Jesus didn’t die, ’cause if he did die then this book wouldn’t be true because Jesus would be the last prophet and I’m the last prophet because the book tells you that I am the last prophet and God told me to write the book. Theirs will be a pianful doom, and you shouldn’t be kind to them, because they are going to hell, and if you are nice to them then you are going to hell too, where hot water gets poured in your eyes. Allah is merciful! Jews are apes and pigs and corrupted their works too because they don’t believe that I’m the last prophet and I went to heaven from Jerusalem, Doom to the infidels, but they disbelieved so on the last day they will all be killed by the rocks and the trees and God told me to tell you this because I am the prophet. Infidels will burn in hell. Screw you Abu Lahab. I hope you and your wife burn in hell.
Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there. Stream of consciousness writing that comes about from too much religious study.
I believe that there are moderate Muslims, I’m on the site of one now. But I do not believe that Islam is moderate, because Islam -hates- me, and my family, and wishes me and my family to die in horrible ways and offers us a painful doom because Allah has hardened our heart to the truth.
The fact that Muslims are human only makes it worse. Being imperfect, humans naturally corrupt everything they touch over time to fit their own needs, from holy books to history to science.
[Modified by: Ethan (Steelangel) on February 11, 2005 01:37 PM]
[Modified by: Ethan (Steelangel) on February 11, 2005 01:39 PM]
Re: The lesser of two evils
Using large caps means that you are SCREAMING!!!
Re: The lesser of two evils
Mr. Ethan Fundamentalist,
So what you’re saying is that if you had two sisters and one was raped by a christian and the other was raped by a muslim, you’d kill the christian first and slap the wrist of the muslim?
As a muslim, I don’t have the racist view that you hold when it comes to “non-believers”. I have many christian friends and I do believe that none of them are going to hell because they were born into a religion, regardless of what the quran says. With your logic, if Saddam Hussein was to kill himself in the name of Allah today, all his atrocities and bad deeds would be wiped out and he’d be sent straight to heaven and bathe in the river of wine and fuck the numerous virgins and watch dvds and play video games and eat cotton candy and invade kuwait over and over again and win every game of poker. You truly are a dumbass.
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
I think most muslims, like most christians and jews will have a difficult time agreeing with the concept that Islam/Christianity/Judaism can be to blame for the ills perpetrated in their names.
Judaism’s self-sufficiency and hostility to neighboring -ites seem like distant memories as do the papal crusades. you can argue scope and era all you want, but at the end of the day religious sanction for violence goes around the room. “Let those among you without blame cast the first stone”
Fundamentalist arguments fall along 1/0 thinking; if it is any good, it has to be ALL good. Ergo since Christianity has brought us such wonderful advances as popular literacy and saed western civilization, then we MUST excuse all the excesses of a radical minority. Then when the excuses don’t cut it any more, it’s time to chop own the entire beanstalk.
Ethan, as you say, religion has been corrupted and anyone who claims that they can present an uncorrupted version of the same, is either in foolish denial or twice as corrupt as the the worst corruption we have seen yet.
Just remember that a lot of this is a backlash to secularization (both from Islam and in Christianity and seen also in Hinduism and Judaism with respective scale) and post-modern philosophies that attempt to replace the violence and authority-figure that comes part and parcel of theistic faith. A lot of this world isn’t ready to become Scandanavia.
yes this is a gross oversimplification, but Idon’t quite have the space and time to launch a dissertative study on the matter
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
Cheers Mahmood – yeah, not showing the Marmoulak’s another example of the government opting for the line of least resistance. When are they going to learn that this doesn’t work – it just emboldens the extremists, encouraging them think they’ve got a cultural veto.
Egypt’s the prime example of where this approach ends up – Mubarak’s done a de facto deal with the Muslim Brotherhood: you don’t challenge my control over the state and and I’ll let you have the final say over civil society. End result – a leaden, dead from the neck up society which can’t even begin to grapple with the poverty, demographic explosion and ecological catastrophe facing Egypt today.
Re(2): The lesser of two evils
[quote]Fundamentalist arguments fall along 1/0 thinking; if it is any good, it has to be ALL good.[/quote]
And by the same token, if it’s a bit bad, it has to be -all- bad. This kind of black/white simplification is found not just among fundamentalists, but in certain atheist or secular thought as well.
The prime success of Christianity in the west is not the religion itself. It is the belief that virtue cannot be enforced, it must come from within. The freedom to ‘sin
Re(3): The lesser of two evils
Argh. This post was mine, and after that whole spiel about how others should log in too. 😛
Re(2): The lesser of two evils
[quote]Ethan, as you say, religion has been corrupted and anyone who claims that they can present an uncorrupted version of the same, is either in foolish denial or twice as corrupt as the the worst corruption we have seen yet. [/quote]
What makes you assume that there was ever some “uncorrupted” religion preceding the “corrupted” versions? From my point of view, all religions are the creations of men and bear the same flaws, prejudices, hopes and fears as their creators. Trying to address the 21st Century using the doctrines of the 1st or 7th Centuries, with all their very human failings, is a doomed exercise – as is all too evident in many parts of the world today.
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
[quote]With your logic, if Saddam Hussein was to kill himself in the name of Allah today, all his atrocities and bad deeds would be wiped out and he’d be sent straight to heaven and bathe in the river of wine and fuck the numerous virgins and watch dvds and play video games and eat cotton candy and invade kuwait over and over again and win every game of poker.[/quote]
It’s not Ethan’s logic. It’s (Sunni?) Islam’s logic. Ethan was just outlining it for you.
Re(3): The lesser of two evils
A perfectly uncorrupted religion is one that exists before someone opens their big mouth and converts someone to it.
Re(3): The lesser of two evils
[quote]Where is the outrage of the Muslim world about the terror done in its name? Nowhere, pal. Nowhere.[/quote]
Untrue. There is the ‘Free Muslim Coalition Against Terror’ in the USA. I’m usure of the web address.
HOWEVER – I will agree that condemnation is wierd. We don’t hear them saying ‘We condemn the killing of innocent civilians because it is a crime to kill innocent civilians, and we pray for their families, may they find peace’.
We do hear: ‘We condemn the killing of innocent civilians because it makes Islam look bad’.
As if people care what Islam looks like. It makes ‘Islam’ look worse when there is no actual condemnation, or no empathy for the murdered, or when the first responders are those who cheer it, and the condemnation comes only after public pressure.
[quote]Where is the equivalent of the Laughing Bomber of Bali in any other religion?[/quote]
Not a good analogy.
Better analogy: Where is the equivalent of Yusuf Al-Quadhari in any other religion? Where is Christianity’s Abu Hamza? Where is Buddhism’s Omar Bakri? Where is the Jewish equivalent of Ayman Al-Zwahiri? Which Shinto priest writes like Osama bin Laden?
The common thread in a great number of terrorists today is Islam – YET – Muslims are practically a ‘protected class’ in every Western nation. (See Britain!) Therefore it is not the Muslims themselves, but the ideology.
[quote]They didn’t want their parishioners undermining their authority by directly accessing their own copies of the Bible and coming up with their own interpretations of it.[/quote]
THE KORAN (bible) MUST ONLY BE IN ARABIC (latin) OTHERWISE IT ISN’T THE WORD OF ALLAH (god).
Parallels? I say so!
If there is a God, his language transcends any pathetic human attempt to render the concepts of the words of God into any human language – especially semitic languages. The lack of marked vocalization (at least in premodern scripts) is a major design flaw.
The lesser of two evils
I think, considering all these chrisitan-moslem problems – lets all go get converted and follow the Bahai faith!
Do i see your hand up Scorpio? :D, any other takers?
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
Ethan.
Nice, linear, logical. I can’t find fault with it. Now what the h*ll are we going to do about it? Sometimes I think that the direction of the future of Islam will come from the moslems who live in the west …other times i think that they have even more issues than the ones living in the Middle East.
*sigh*
jasra jedi
Re(2): The lesser of two evils
Logical JJ. Only Muslims who are living under no MIND-occupation would be able to lead the way to the “correct” Islam, the non-violent one that we hold so dear in our hearts. Alas, most of those Muslims we hang our hopes on who live in the west seem to be much more fundimentalist than the ones we have here at home!
So I propose a two-pronged attack. We in the “traditional” Mulsim world MUST raise our voices against extremism in all its forms and pressure our governments and religious institutions to unequivocally condemn them, and the Muslims in the west must put pressure on their governments to put pressure in turn on our own governments to ensure that secular Islam comes to the fore. That could be implemented by enforcing human rights and freedoms of expressions to begin with.
And to set the ball rolling, how about mounting a pressure campaign to CRIMINALISE “takfir”?
Re: The lesser of two evils
Yeah I’d be fantastic as a Bahai – it’s on my list of things to do after completing my Asalah membership form.
Re(3): The lesser of two evils
Now, if this would only -happen-.
The only way to stop the extremists is really to discredit their ideology, or stop the money flow that supports it.
Re(4): The lesser of two evils
[quote]A perfectly uncorrupted religion is one that exists before someone opens their big mouth and converts someone to it. [/quote]
haha, good answer!
Re: The lesser of two evils
[quote]Jasra jedi: Ethan .. Islam aint perfect and we do have our issues in ideology and interpretation. however, you do also have to acknowledge that much like commuism was the old enemy, islam is the new one. and it serves the interests of today’s superpower to have an enemy. like it always has in the past. and it always will in the future. [/quote]
Jasra, I couldn’t disagree more. America does not need enemies, although Islam seems to need them desperately. I was perfectly happy after the demise of communism in the ’90s to have no significant enemies in the world. I was perfectly happy to draw down the military and focus on business. We could have gone on like that in peace forever and I’d be perfectly content. We don’t need countries to make war against any more than we need burglars or rapists or murderers. It makes for a nicer neighborhood without them. I very much like having Russians and other Eastern European people come to America for work rather than having them staff missile silos aimed at American cities.
It did not serve the interests of America to be attacked by Muslim headcases on Sep 11. It is literally a dead loss for all involved. There is no upside. Likewise, I’d be happy if we never needed to invade Afghanistan nor Iraq. In the end, we are pouring blood and money into rebuilding countries we could care less about other than to eliminate the threat they presented to us. We are sure to leave these countries better off than we found them and just as sure that their inhabitants will be more ungrateful than the French after we liberated them in WWII. I wish we could pour that money and labor into America where it would do our own people the most good, rather than into the hands of foreign ingrates.
Here in DC, I can see and read about the casualties coming home from Iraq to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These are good guys, the best of us in many cases, who return missing a foot or hand or eyes. At least two of my high school friends have sons in the Marines, one of whom fought in the invasion of Iraq. It makes me sick to think they could be harmed in this war. Do I think Afghanistan or Iraq is worth risking even a hangnail of harm to these boys? Hell, no. We need colonies in Afghanistan and Iraq like we need liver cancer.
The only ways I want to see America’s influence grow in the world is through trade, education, and communication. Those are the best ways to mitigate differences between cultures, discover and broadcast the best practices and ideas, and spread prosperity. That’s the way the world should be right now and hopefully will be someday in the future. The Wahhabi war on the world prevents it from being so. War is a last resort for us. It is the first resort for the Wahhabis.
This is not a war of our making but one forced upon us. The US military had been drawing down for over a decade before Sep 11. We weren’t even sure who had attacked us for days, perhaps weeks after the jets hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. If we needed enemies, we certainly had been lax in looking for them. We were asleep to the reality of the depth of Islamic religious hatred for America and the West, even though they had not been shy in broadcasting their views. We just didn’t pick up on it. It is ludicrous to see how much we ignored the war fever against America the Saudis were whipping up among their population. If we wanted an enemy, Saudi Arabia would have been an easy pick. All the red flags were flying there. Instead, we treated them like an ally.
The Friday before the Tuesday of Sep 11, 2001, I was attending my old flying buddy’s retirement out in Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico where he flew Stealth fighters. It was one hell of a day. I walked through his last flight with him (except for the flight itself, of course) from mass flight briefing to individual flight briefing to suiting up to preflight to takeoff (the airport manager drove me out to the runway) to landing to retirement ceremony. Then to a party at his home that night where all the Stealth pilots and their wives and girlfriends showed up. The guys were joking about getting out to fly for the airlines, which is the strategy of most Air Force pilots. Looking back, it feels something like partying at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Waikiki beach in Oahu the night before Pearl Harbor. We just had no idea that Trouble was coming around the corner in a big way.
My friend had an airline job set up at a Major American Airline. The Thursday after Sep 11, the Major American Airline cancelled his job offer, stopped all pilot hiring and training, and sharply reduced its schedule. He asked to stay in the Air Force until he could figure out what to do and then a stop-loss order kept him in. He eventually got his big bucks job in another airline after a year.
That is a microcosm of what the Islamic terror attacks did to America: It forced us away from making big bucks to making war. We’d rather be making the bucks providing goods and services. We’d rather have the Muslim world as a customer and vendor than as an enemy. War is a waste of our resources. As Sun Tzu wrote, no nation profited from a protracted war. The stupid Islamic jihad against the West and America shows every sign of being such a protracted war because Muslims, led by the evil Wahhabis, have been indoctrinated too deeply and wrongly that non-Muslims, especially America, are The Enemy. There rarely has been a war started for such profoundly stupid and malicious reasons as this one.
Jasra, we don’t think like Muslims. We don’t need to conquer the world. While the Wahhabis and their Muslim followers want to plant the black flag of Islam in every Western capital, the United States has granted all its former colonies independence. The Muslim fundamentalists demand that the whole world adopt its way of life. America, by contrast, makes no such demands. If you don’t want to buy our way of life, then don’t. At worst, we’ll try to make some product or service that will appeal enough to your tastes that you will buy it. America is not forcing you to watch Baywatch. By contrast, your local Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue will beat you with a cane if you aren’t wearing the proper burqa or lagging to prayer.
America is defined by commerce, which is to say, finding markets and fulfilling their needs. Commerce requires peace. War is bad for business. You can’t succeed at cultivating customers and vendors by considering them your enemy. That’s no way to do business. It’s a recipe for failure.
Fundamentalist Islam, by contrast, thrives on enemies to bind the faithful together in a community of hate. Saudi Arabia, the most Muslim country of all, not only considers all non-Muslims to be the enemy but all Muslims who don’t subscribe to its particular flavor of Islam as the enemy. There seem to be an endless supply of dumb Muslims who buy into this hateful nonsense. The more they hate, the further behind they fall.
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on February 12, 2005 02:44 PM]
Re(4): The lesser of two evils
Ethan,
While your solutions dry the swamp where extremists breed, killing them stops them neatly for now.
Steve
Re(3): The lesser of two evils
[quote]So I propose a two-pronged attack. We in the “traditional” Mulsim world MUST raise our voices against extremism in all its forms and pressure our governments and religious institutions to unequivocally condemn them, and the Muslims in the west must put pressure on their governments to put pressure in turn on our own governments to ensure that secular Islam comes to the fore. That could be implemented by enforcing human rights and freedoms of expressions to begin with.
And to set the ball rolling, how about mounting a pressure campaign to CRIMINALISE “takfir”? [/quote]
Well said, Brother Mahmood. We are in violent agreement. Push hard for individual liberties. Make takfir takfir.
Steve
The lesser of two evils
Ethan.
You state ” The common thread in a great number of terrorists today is Islam – YET – Muslims are practically a ‘protected class’ in every Western nation. (See Britain!) Therefore it is not the Muslims themselves, but the ideology.”
I disagree.
First – what do you mean by ‘protected’ class? I see a lot of racisim towards moslems in Britain – specifically if they are Pakistanis. Ditto towards Arabs moslems in France. Ditto towards Turks in Germany. In fact, I dont see the racism directed because of the moslem part of it either – it is because more likely than not, the arab moslems are the have nots who take on most of the menial jobs, and the europeans are the haves. So, where and why is this a religious thing when it is really a class thing? And how on earth do you claim that they are protected?
The ideology in Islam may not be perfect. Like the ideology in Judaism and the ideology in Christianity. And all three, I think, are somewhat incompatible with modern science. I will give you one thing – from a purely marketing standpoint,the persona of Jesus is more appealing to a vast majority of people than the persona of Mohammed – (the weak vs the ‘strong’) – but – in essence – i dont think its the ideology that is to blame. i think it is the narrowmindedness of people that is to blame in their attempt to follow the scriptures to the t.
As for ur statement that the common thread in all terroists is islam? hmmm. the common thread in all terrorists is power. and in todays world of the 21st century, religious power is quite efective. how would you categorize jewish settlers in their full fledged religious beleief that they are merely an extension of the IDF in their unwillingness to budge and in their beleief that they are both a military target and player? isnt that a warped form of terrorism?
Ethan .. Islam aint perfect and we do have our issues in ideology and interpretation. however, you do also have to acknowledge that much like commuism was the old enemy, islam is the new one. and it serves the interests of today’s superpower to have an enemy. like it always has in the past. and it always will in the future.
Jasra jedi
Re(4): The lesser of two evils
Steve, killing people’s not the right way – you can’t bomb people in ballot boxes or in coffee shops – the real place where this war on extremism is going to be settled isn’t in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the streets of Fallujah, but through political debate and the battle of ideas.
There are several ways to win: one is the ‘Iranian option’: allow the extremists control of the state which’ll provide society with a crash course in modernity and secularisation as the population reacts to living under theocratic rule. It’s a real wake up call to the urban working- and middle classes as well as the intelligensia. Unfortunately this usually comes associated with mass killings, state sanctioned violence against women, large scale de industrialisation, and dependence on western food aid to stave off starvation.
The second (preferable) option is that employed against America’s fundamentalist Christians in the 1930s: mockery – literally to jeer the clerics and their supporters out of the political arena and back into their places of worship. After WW1 in the States, the Christian Right was even more powerful than it is today and like the Islamists went round banning things and giving itself a gate keeper role over civil society. But it was pushed onto the defensive when intellectuals and satirists – such as HL Mecken – ruthlessly mocked them, making them look utterly foolish during the Monkey Trial in 1925 over the teaching of evolution in schools, and then later with the backlash against prohibition. As a result the Christian Right didn’t dare show its face again until the 1970s.
The problem with this approach in Bahrain’s case is that the country has too many decadent intellectuals – seduced by romanticism or oppositionalism – who’d rather choose siding with the Islamists than standing up for women’s or minority rights. Take the Left dominated the National Democratic Action or the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights – one’s in a formal alliance with the Islamists while the other’s in a de facto alliance. It’s unbelievable; these groups should be mobilised against the extremists to defend civil society, but instead they want to learn the hard way where this pact gets them.
Re(2): The lesser of two evils
[quote]DIB: I think most muslims, like most christians and jews will have a difficult time agreeing with the concept that Islam/Christianity/Judaism can be to blame for the ills perpetrated in their names. [/quote]
You can hardly be blamed for crimes committed in the name of your religion when you forthrightly reject those crimes and demand justice be dealt to the criminals. I will take a wildly brave stand here to condemn the Christian Crusades for being nothing but bumbling greed, cruelty, and butchery. I just hope the Pope and his cardinals don’t send the Grand Inquisitor to arrest me for blasphemy and punish me with an auto de fe.
More contemporaneously, I can condemn Jim Jones and his freaky suicide cult in Guyana with moral certainty. They were stupid, masochistic, murdering idiots. Had the Reverend Jim Jones survived, he should have been tried, convicted, and executed. Likewise, those fundamentalist Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics or shoot them up or assassinate doctors who work in them are flat out criminals who also should be tried, convicted, and executed. I am happy to condemn any Christian who expresses his faith through crime and violence. I’d be happy to serve on a jury and recommend conviction chased by a death sentence.
Now where is the equivalent Muslim condemnation of the Islamist murderers, the Wahhabi headcutters, the Al Qaeda disembowelers of Fallujah, the proud snuff film makers of Zarqawi? Where is the Muslim call for justice for these religious criminals? Where are the Muslims marching with signs that say “NO TO TERRORISM” or “NOT IN OUR NAME!” Where is the outrage of the Muslim world about the terror done in its name? Nowhere, pal. Nowhere.
I’m not seeing much criticism of Islamic terrorism from the Muslim world. What little there is, is spoken in a whisper. What I do see are lies turned out by the bushelful from the Muslim world to deflect the blame for these heinous crimes. The freaking idiot crown prince of Saudi Arabia said that Zionists were to blame for terrorism in the KSA, for Pete’s sake. I see plenty of Muslims springing to the defense of Islamic terrorists caught red-freaking-handed doing evil or preparing to do evil. I don’t see Muslims publicly denouncing those self-same terrorists. The overall sense I get from the Muslim world is that terrorism in the name of Islam is a little over the top but basically OK. Muslims can do no wrong.
So until the Muslims get their act together and forcefully condemn Islamic terrorism, help catch the terrorists, and take an unyielding position against violence done to propagate Islam, we can indeed hold Islam responsible for the terror perpetrated in its name. The idea that all religions are guilty of terrorism is a fallacious charge of moral equivalence. Muslims are far ahead of any other religion in their resort to the bloodiest violence without provocation nor moral sense. There is not even a close second. The lack of objection to this violence demonstrates a moral defect in Muslims.
[quote]DIB: Judaism’s self-sufficiency and hostility to neighboring -ites seem like distant memories as do the papal crusades. you can argue scope and era all you want, but at the end of the day religious sanction for violence goes around the room. “Let those among you without blame cast the first stone” [/quote]
I’m happy to cast the first stone. I’m absolutely against religious terrorism. I’d be happy to slap any Christian decapitator in the electric chair. That goes for Jewish, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, etc too.
There simply is no contemporaneous equivalent to the enthusiastic call to religious war by Islamic clergy and Muslim fundamentalists. The Pope is not shouting from the Vatican balcony that the Muslims are pigs and monkeys who should be killed and their women taken as sex slaves, but you can read accounts of it from the Great Mosque in Mecca. While I can’t say with certainty, I’m pretty sure that neither the Presbyterians nor the Episopalians nor even the Baptists have made such feverish demands for the blood of unbelievers in their respective faiths. Of all the major religions, only the Muslims sink so low as to gleefully butcher unbelievers. Where is the equivalent of the Laughing Bomber of Bali in any other religion?
[quote]DIB: Fundamentalist arguments fall along 1/0 thinking; if it is any good, it has to be ALL good. Ergo since Christianity has brought us such wonderful advances as popular literacy and saed western civilization, then we MUST excuse all the excesses of a radical minority. Then when the excuses don’t cut it any more, it’s time to chop own the entire beanstalk.[/quote]
Christianity did not bring popular literacy. The clergy was dead set against the people learning to read. They wanted a monopoly on biblical interpretation, reading from their own notes of what they thought the Bible said. They didn’t want their parishioners undermining their authority by directly accessing their own copies of the Bible and coming up with their own interpretations of it. The killer app of the infant bookmaking business was pornography. Porno far outsold the Bible and literature and kept the bookbinders afloat. You can thank dirty pictures and ribald stories for popular literacy.
I wouldn’t say Christianity saved Western Civilization either. It held back the Europeans in many ways, just as Islam holds back Arabs today. The Catholic clergy was dead set against its followers taking baths like the pagan Romans. They were against just about every damned new thing that came along, even forks, which they believed were effete implements of Satan. And they were certainly against the Earth revolving around the Sun. They kept the Europeans poor through laws against lending money out of pure economic idiocy. Christianity was a force against progress, like Islam is now.
Europe did not come into its own until it placed reason above faith. The Muslim will remain last in the parade of civilizations until it does the same.
Steve
Re: The lesser of two evils
[quote]And how on earth do you claim that they are protected? [/quote]
Oh good grief, of course they are protected! Have you missed the addition of “religiously aggravated” to a whole raft of crimes, carrying significantly heavier sentences than the same crime without “religious aggravation”? Beat the crap out of someone because of his religion and you’ll get 5 years in prison; beat the crap out of someone because of the soccer team he supports and you’ll get a community service order. Some victims are more valued than others these days, and this is in order to protect Muslims. Then we have the proposed “incitement to religious hatred” law, so energetically championed by the unelected self-proclaimed “Muslim Council of Britain”, and which will effectively silence any but the most polite discussion of religion (and let’s not kid ourselves that the main religion in question is anything other than Islam). Muslims have more rights and protections in Britain than do the native British.
Re: The lesser of two evils
[quote]So, where and why is this a religious thing when it is really a class thing? And how on earth do you claim that they are protected?[/quote]
In Britain, especially, there are very strong political pressure groups that enforce a political correctness gag order when dealing with extremist groups because they are Muslim. As an example, that ‘incitement to religious violence’ act that is being pushed through. Its supported by Muslim advocacy groups, -yet- the prime source of religious incitement is done by Muslims, such as Omar Bakri and his ilk. Heck, the entire subject of this post, Yusuf Quadhari, is seen as a ‘moderate’ muslim, and is defended by much of the population, even though, if you look at his words, he’s a creepy fellow!
[quote]i think it is the narrowmindedness of people that is to blame in their attempt to follow the scriptures to the t.[/quote]
Any literalist is going to fall into the same trap. However, taken literally, some philosophies are desperately more violent than others. Take for example, Scientology (a sect of stupidity founded by L. Ron Hubbard). It is a holy order for Scientologists to ‘destroy’ anyone who criticises them. Whereas, taken literally, the words of Jesus lead to ultrapacifistic sects like the Amish or the Quakers. Taken too literally, Buddhists are non-entities, and hole themselves up in mountians, and too-literal Muslims go out and kill the infidels.
[quote]how would you categorize jewish settlers in their full fledged religious beleief that they are merely an extension of the IDF in their unwillingness to budge and in their beleief that they are both a military target and player?[/quote]
Jewish settlers I do not see as terrorists; and neither do I count the gunmen that fire at them as terrorists. In that particular case, it’s a Settlers vs. Indians-style battle. Does a conqueror have the right to live on conquered land? (Alexander the Great, the Chinese, The Romans, the Caliphs, the French in Africa, Manifest Destiny, etc..) I cannot see a settler as an ‘innocent civilian’; they’re on the front lines, in enemy territory and usually armed to defend a plot of land. It’s stupid to assume that if you live in a settlement that you’re not going to be shot at.
On the other hand, if I’m sitting in Tel Aviv, I expect not to get blowed up.
Like the term ‘genocide
The lesser of two evils
[quote]We need a battle of ideas here. We need people to star debating what kind of future do they want, not what kind of future do they fear. [/quote]
The age where societies were changed by the ideas of the intelligensia are long gone. What you need is something street leve. You need your youth to throw off the past, get attitude, dye their hair blue and red, yell, play guitar badly in cellar bars, and shock your whole society to the core. You need rebels without any cause other than just to shake off the chains that constrain them. You need an Arab Sex Pistols, an Arab Marilyn Manson, and a million teenage copycats. And it will look horrible and the older generations will disapprove wildly and with good reason, but it will work in ways that no amount of careful debate and considered intellectual analysis ever will. Let the Arab youth get jiggy if you want to be free.
Re(5): The lesser of two evils
[quote]Scorpio: Steve, killing people’s not the right way – you can’t bomb people in ballot boxes or in coffee shops – the real place where this war on extremism is going to be settled isn’t in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the streets of Fallujah, but through political debate and the battle of ideas.[/quote]
Scorpio,
Your soft solutions are good for the medium and long term. In the short term, killing the extremists is the hard solution. By that, I mean targeting those factions intent on doing violence to impose their view, not those who are just talking about the glories of an Islamic state. Specifically, I mean Al Qaeda and its supporters.
We absolutely should bring military and paramilitary power to bear on Al Qaeda and like groups. We should continue to insert special forces and CIA paramilitary teams (and whatever other kind of black team the US has) to hunt Al Qaeda down and kill them. We should hunt them down from the air, bomb their bases and pick them off on the roads. We should intercept them at sea or destroy their watercraft, as opportunities present themselves. We should also assassinate the Saudi financiers of Al Qaeda along with their logistical supporters, seeing as they are untouchable through legal and diplomatic means.
Such measures will preempt further innocent bloodshed in America and intimidate those terrorists who are overlooked or escape.
While we carry out this campaign, we can also conduct the soft campaigns you mention in parallel. They complement each other.
Steve
The lesser of two evils
Let the Arab youth get jiggy-takes to long and gives the beards more fodder. You need a PTA in every school on the island. Women are planners and doers, and a little power goes a long way. They can “network” better than anyone, and their one mission in life is their kid’s future. Won’t be long before reforms are being discussed and pushed all over the place and with strength in numbers, people are going to be speaking out big time. Besides, every husband is going to have to listen to it all day long, and you have won half the battle about changing minds.
The lesser of two evils
Scorpio …
Nice post above about the intelligentsia in Bahrain. I actually think that they are a bunch of hot heads that are united agasint the status quo – but dont really have another alternative except to side with the Islamists.
We need a battle of ideas here. We need people to star debating what kind of future do they want, not what kind of future do they fear. People need to accept responsability for their daily lives and how they choose to live them .. and not hide behind the ‘minbar’… (and minibar!)
we are a long ways away from that, my friend. first, they need to learn how to think .. and think responsibly …
JJ
The lesser of two evils
[quote]Jasra jedi: Ethan .. Islam aint perfect and we do have our issues in ideology and interpretation. however, you do also have to acknowledge that much like commuism was the old enemy, islam is the new one. and it serves the interests of today’s superpower to have an enemy. like it always has in the past. and it always will in the future. [/quote]
I dont know where some of you get your ideas about americans, we really dont give a hoot about Islam one way or the another other than in an intellectual way. Islam isnt the enemy and we’re not interested in hurting Islam just murderers then we can go back to pressing internal issues and our boring lives.
billT
The lesser of two evils
I never hear a word about all the weapons in the middle east. You dont see terrorists running around with M-16s or american antitank weapons, instead you see ak47s and other russian weapons. Russia has done more to screw over the Arab states than America yet we’re the ones that get the blame.
billT
Re: The lesser of two evils
Jasra,
[quote]islam is the new one. and it serves the interests of today’s superpower to have an enemy. like it always has in the past. and it always will in the future. [/quote]
It was Islam that attacked ‘that superpower’ and which has also attacked train stations in Spain, nightclubs in Bali, and movie makers in Holland. It doesn’t interest ‘that superpower’ in the least to always have an enemy. Wars, hot and cold, are expensive, and divert energy and funds that could be put to better use growing the economy.
Re: The lesser of two evils
The cure is almost as bad as the disease.
Steve
Re(6): The lesser of two evils
I know you liberals hate to admit it, but all those Southern segregationists were Democrats. The powers that be in all those Southern towns were Baptists, klansmen, and Democrats. And it’s just crazy talk to say Republicans have picked up Wallace’s segregationism and run with it.
Steve
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
[quote]The cure is almost as bad as the disease.[/quote]
You’re such an old fuddy-duddy, Steve. Don’t you ever just gyrate with joy? Loosen your girdle, man. Give your hair a Beckham-budgie. Get a tattoo. Swim naked in the ocean. Commit an act of random beauty at least once a week. Learn to play a peculiar musical instrument from a country with an unpronounceable name. You’ll be a better man for it.
Re: The lesser of two evils
Who are the unbelievers?
It is rather surprising that it has to be an Italian, and not a Muslim, who can include those Kuran’s passages that you yourself so conveniently forgot to take into consideration:
“The desert ARABS SURPASS OTHERS in UNBELIEF and hipochrisy, and have MORE CAUSE to be IGNORANT of the Laws which GOD has revealed. (…) Some desert ARABS (…) wait for misfortune to befall” [Repentance]
“There are some who DECLARE: We believe in GOD and the Last Day, yet they are not true believers. They seek to deceive GOD and THOSEwho believe in Him: but they deceive none but THEMSELVES, though they may NOT PERCEIVE IT” [The Cow].
Please define “unbelievers”, because the Prophet says that arabs SURPASS others in unbelief.
Maybe as you say that the crime of a believer is better than the good deed of an unbeliever, though the Koran does NOT say it (and it is surprising that a person who advocates the LITERAl reading of the Kuran is then bound to append his own SPECULATIONS to the LETTER): but what happens when the crime is that of an arab who says he is a believer?
Who are the unbelievers that must be fought and exterminated, if the Kuran Itself declares that the BIGGEST unbelievers are ARABS?
And if the Kuran is SPIRIT, and not FLESH, does exterminate the unbelievers mean exterminate their bodies, or does rather it means exterminate them by making them repent with your GOOOD example and deeds rather than with terrorism?
Who dies with the cause of GOD? Those who lead a full life of virtue and then conclude their days in virtue, aren’t they those who die in the cause of GOD?
Or is he and she who dies in the cause of GOD those who kill muslims lined up to express their free vote?
Or is it perhaps the muslim who dies while lining up peacefully to vote, and gets slaughtered, one of those who DIE IN THE CAUSE OF GOD?
Who dies more in the cause of GOD, among these ARABS?
So, Saddam was a believer? And if Saddam was not PRECISELY one of those ARABS who surpass all the others in unbelief, or terrorists are not such arabs, please explain then to us then who is such an arab, for we can’t see any others that could fit that profile analogously better.
The Kuran speaks of them, so they must exist: how do you identify them? by saying that they are all those who are not like yourself perhaps? And you call such a conclusion an example of virtue?
Thus, Mahmood Al-Yousif conclusions are PERFECTLY consistent with the teachings of the Kuran: there are arabs who are less good muslims than many non arabs who believe in the Last Day and would perform better, at the Given Day of Judgement, than many who say that they believe.
Who are the unbelievers?
The lesser of two evils
Who are the unbelievers?
It is rather surprising that it has to be an Italian, and not a Muslim, who can include those Kuran’s passages that you yourself so conveniently forgot to take into consideration:
“The desert ARABS SURPASS OTHERS in UNBELIEF and hipochrisy, and have MORE CAUSE to be IGNORANT of the Laws which GOD has revealed. (…) Some desert ARABS (…) wait for misfortune to befall” [Repentance]
“There are some who DECLARE: We believe in GOD and the Last Day, yet they are not true believers. They seek to deceive GOD and THOSEwho believe in Him: but they deceive none but THEMSELVES, though they may NOT PERCEIVE IT” [The Cow].
Please define “unbelievers”, because the Prophet says that arabs SURPASS others in unbelief.
Maybe as you say that the crime of a believer is better than the good deed of an unbeliever, though the Koran does NOT say it (and it is surprising that a person who advocates the LITERAl reading of the Kuran is then bound to append his own SPECULATIONS to the LETTER): but what happens when the crime is that of an arab who says he is a believer?
Who are the unbelievers that must be fought and exterminated, if the Kuran Itself declares that the BIGGEST unbelievers are ARABS?
And if the Kuran is SPIRIT, and not FLESH, does exterminate the unbelievers mean exterminate their bodies, or does rather it means exterminate them by making them repent with your GOOOD example and deeds rather than with terrorism?
Who dies with the cause of GOD? Those who lead a full life of virtue and then conclude their days in virtue, aren’t they those who die in the cause of GOD?
Or is he and she who dies in the cause of GOD those who kill muslims lined up to express their free vote?
Or is it perhaps the muslim who dies while lining up peacefully to vote, and gets slaughtered, one of those who DIE IN THE CAUSE OF GOD?
Who dies more in the cause of GOD, among these ARABS?
So, Saddam was a believer? And if Saddam was not PRECISELY one of those ARABS who surpass all the others in unbelief, or terrorists are not such arabs, please explain then to us then who is such an arab, for we can’t see any others that could fit that profile analogously better.
The Kuran speaks of them, so they must exist: how do you identify them? by saying that they are all those who are not like yourself perhaps? And you call such a conclusion an example of virtue?
Thus, Mahmood Al-Yousif conclusions are PERFECTLY consistent with the teachings of the Kuran: there are arabs who are less good muslims than many non arabs who believe in the Last Day and would perform better, at the Given Day of Judgement, than many who say that they believe.
Who are the unbelievers?
Re: The lesser of two evils
well said. In Kosovo actually the Nato, and the Usa, fought to save a MUSLIM population from extermination by slavs.
Foirgotten, and moreove rin Kosovo there is no oil or gold or silver, but only dust, yet a war was waged to make it possible that muslims there can live without fear of seeing slav troppos enter their houses and kill whole families who were wielding no weapons, intentionally.
Forgotten. It doesn’t fit the radicalist islamic theory you see.
Re: The lesser of two evils
[quote]You need a PTA in every school on the island. Women are planners and doers, and a little power goes a long way. [/quote]
Not gonna happen with this mindset!!
[b]Some also claimed that women’s participation in the elections goes against the principles of Shari’a. Sheikh Dr. ‘Abdallah Faqih stated: “All the ulema have agreed that the imam must be a man, because the Prophet said ‘A nation ruled by a woman will not succeed,’ and this was related by Muhammad Ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari [in his collections of reliable Hadiths]. [This ban] is because this post is a heavy burden that demands great capabilities – which the woman usually does not possess…
“No texts appear to contradict this Hadith in either the Koran or the Sunna. Furthermore, there are texts that support this ruling, such as the words [of Allah in the Koran], ‘Men are superior to women’ [34:4] and the words, ‘Bring two witnesses from among your men, and if there are not two men, bring a man and two women’ [82:2].
“A woman is prohibited from holding high office, because doing so requires mingling with men, and being alone with them. Also, she must bear a heavy burden, which is not suitable for the character of the woman. [However,] the woman can bear and direct small positions, such as directing a hospital or a school, since Omar ibn Al-Khattab appointed Al-Shifaa bint ‘Abdallah Al-‘Adawiyya superintendent of weights and measures in the Al-Madina marketplace, and this is mentioned by Al-Hafez ibn Hajar in the biography of Al-Shifaa. But this is on condition that there is no prohibited mingling or being alone [with men].”[/b]
Al-Arabiyya TV( UAE), http://www.alarabiya.tv/Articlep.aspx?p=6798
Taken from: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA20605
Re(5): The lesser of two evils
[quote]As a result the Christian Right didn’t dare show its face again until the 1970s. [/quote]
Funny thing is the Christian right neoconservative movement in the 70’s supported George Wallace and his policies of segregation. If you look at the way the Republican party works today they took much of the way he worked and now use it as their own. Course they will never admit it as it doesn’t look good on the resume.
Re(7): The lesser of two evils
Steve
No where did I say Republicans believe in segregation. If you look at the parallels of the two. Both focus on someone to hate, both use an expurgated list of demons — east coast west coast liberals, the ignorant liberal press, federal judges who dont rule the way they want, to feed the frenzy of their followers. Both use a policy of denial. Both are anti-Big-government. Both say the same about crime and welfare. Regan refined it and Bush uses it now. Sure looks to me like Wallace is the grandfather of modern neoconservative politics.
By the way those southern democrats are now southern republicans.
billT
The legitimacy of government
There is too much in the comments for me to assimilate in one go, so I think Ill work through the initial post, from back to front.
Its easier for me to paraphrase: should those with repugnent views be censored? It perhaps helps to recall the Monty Pythons Holy Grail opening scene where Artur, King of the Britons, represses the peseant who lives in a semi-autonomous commune, and ends with the exhortion “Help! Im being repressed! Its the violence inherent in the system!”
Also the bit about “some salty tart sitting in a pond distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”.
The fact is that governments are man-made institutions, and that governments rule with the consent of at least a portion of the population. I shall eludicate. Look, for example, at Iraq. In days past, the delusional paranoia of Saddam Hussein (and the autopilot foreign policy of the United States — but that is a different post) kept most political opponents at bay (in Amman, London, Tehran, or suburban Detroit). Peace ensued, although at quite a cost. But the base in Tikrit was rewarded through infrastructure projects and such. Not only was there little crime (and most prisoners were of the political variety) but there was little debate either. Contrast this to the modern era (used here ironically). Lacking a government with any percieved legitimacy (the government is percieved to be working to further the interests of Halliburton and everyone who contributed to the campaign of George W. Bush, and thats in Pittsburgh! I shudder to think what is thought outside the US) Iraq has been engaged in a low-key civil war, with the US army there for flavouring. Just like Vietnam! But I digress.
One of the advantages of living in the United States is the arch-libertarianistic interpretation of our First Amendment — yeah, it was fun living here when the nut-jobs were out in force saying “you still have freedom of speech, but you have to pay the consequences.” Yeah, great, it works like that in Iraq, too. So, point is that officially punishing someone because they dared to express a view at variance with the government ascribes that person with more power than he actually has. On the other hand, its all about ratings, and a reasoned rebuttal of the statement is more effective (if you can keep people from phazing out) but a loud firebreathing denouncement of the fundamental unislamicity of their intrepretation of islam is good ratings. Better yet, is pairing the “Reverend” Pat Robertson (who gave up the ministry to run for president in 1988) with this guy, but then you have the language barrier. Although i think the middle east pays more attention to our right-wing “religion-is-an-expediency” nutballs than we do. (you mean spongebobsquarepants is GAY!?! I knew he was TOO CHEERFUL! *GASP!* you mean, teaching schoolchildren that beating up gay people is BAD!? I had a friend who was a bouncer in one of the three gay bars in West Virginia, and his main job was to stop the queer-bashing in the alley …)
And then there were the days I was working downtown and had to walk past the abortion protesters in front of the planned parenthood clinic, but abortion is still legal and safe (rather than illegal and conducted with clothes hangers).
I guess in the end it is just as galling to hear the phrase “unislamic” as it is to hear “anti-american”.
The lesser of two evils
addendum: there are worse things in life to be than cynical.
The lesser of two evils
Yousif Qardawi Is a fool and should be shot in the head with a shotgun at point blank range. Of course we should have a Muslim do it so he feels better about it…:-)
Re: The lesser of two evils
Ever shot a m-16? Anyone in their right mind would want an AK-47 over one of those. As a person who knows several Americans who have served over in Iraq, let me tell you m-16s do not hold up well in bad climates. An AK-47, however, can be dropped in a puddle of mud, or a sand dune for that matter, and fire just fine.
Well I’ll be damned…
Looks like the Republican Party DOSEN”T have a monopoly on idiots after all…
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
Then maybe we should ask the russians to dump a few more in the area bound to make every trigger finger happy.
Re: The Desert Is Full Of Voices
Only a sea change can stop this madness.
If they care so little about their own family, how can we expect these people to condone violence against infidels?
This practice makes me sick beyond reason. Part of me wants to hunt that ‘father’ down and perform unspeakable experiments with his innards.
The Desert Is Full Of Voices
An interesting tangent:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/burton022005.html
Steve
Re: The Desert Is Full Of Voices
Sad but true. Yet governments who should severely punish such heinous acts, sit by and do nothing other than condoning these practices. Society too has to have a measure of blame, when killing a daughter/sister/mother/relative in the name of appeasing an archaic notion of honour is not only condoned, but supported.
Re(1): The Desert Is Full Of Voices
That was exactly my thought, Ethan, with respect to families and infidels.
The other thing that struck me was her calling out for her mother. Soldiers gravely wounded in battle commonly call out for their mothers, as probably all people do who are injured seriously enough to preclude them from dealing with it rationally. It’s a primal scream of distress.
Steve
Re(8): The lesser of two evils
That’s quite a distance to go to take a cheap shot at conservatives. I’d say the liberals have a lock on hate right now. I have yet to hear a Republican call a Democratic leader like Kennedy or Kerry a Hitler as the liberals are so fond of calling anyone they hate. I haven’t heard the Republican Party chairman say he hates Democrats and everything they stand for like your hero Dean just said of Republicans. And there was quite a torrent of invective against Republican voters after the last election as troglydytes, unteachable morons, hicks, redneck barbarians, et cetera. Many liberals still believe they won the election and it was somehow stolen from them. Talk about denial. The loony left is still looking in empty coffee cans for lost votes in Ohio. Bill, I’d say you’re living in quite a fragile glass house to be slinging such stones to recklessly.
And by the way, while those Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans the South was desegregated and civil rights reestablished.
Coincidence? Or legislation passed by the majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats.
Steve
Re: The legitimacy of government
[quote]Anonymous re Saddam’s Iraq: Not only was there little crime (and most prisoners were of the political variety) but there was little debate either. Contrast this to the modern era (used here ironically). [/quote]
It’s hardly accurate to describe a country with dozens of mass graves, maybe more, containing hundreds of thousands of people killed on Saddam’s whim as crime-free. When the criminals are in charge of a country that makes it crime-rich, not crime-free. Saddam looted the country six ways from Sunday. His sons and cronies ripped off any Iraqi with a profitable business with brutal shakedowns or outright theft. Uday organized the mass theft of cars from Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. Saddam and Uday had women they fancied kidnapped off the street and delivered to them for rape. Uday killed some when he was done and beat others for sport. Saddam’s cronies sold off the antiquities in the Baghdad museum over the years until it was almost empty. Saddam had rapists on the government payroll, for Pete’s sake. They held the title “Taker of Women’s Virtue.” Those sound like crimes to me.
The entire country of Iraq was made into a vast criminal enterprise by Saddam and his Tikriti mafia. It would difficult to imagine a more thoroughly criminal environment.
Steve
Re(9): The lesser of two evils
I used to think I was a Liberal (big L).
Then I realized that I was, in fact, a staunch Neoconservative/Eco-libertarian Agnostic.
ARGH. Too many words!
I cannot bring myself to be a Liberal. Steve is right – Liberals are all about ‘hate’ toward their political opponents.
-Hate-!!
I can’t fathom that anymore. When I was young and immature I did see that sort of feeling rising in me against political opponents. But as I’ve grown older (and for goodness sake, I’m only 27!) I realized that it’s counterproductive to -hate- political opponents. Reasoned debate, not hate. Hey, that’s a good marching slogan! I’m going to the next loony Leftist rally with that placard. I’ll be the guy next to the pro-aborionists, the Marx-spouting communists, and the burqa-clad ‘artiste’ who wants to show solidarity with people who would kill her for her anarchist poetics.
Hate is only warranted against those whom you cannot debate with. Those who would rather kill you than listen. Those who would hate you before they know you.
And Scientologists.
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
The US didnt fight to save a Muslim population. If this were the case the US would have entered Bosnia before the Serbs killed 200,000 Muslims. The US only entered the fray because the war threatened to spread to US NATO allies.
I worked for the US DoD in Europe during this period. There were many of US that wanted the US to enter the fray early on. We wanted the the US to live up to the motto “Never Again”. This wasnt the case, we watched, with full intelligence, as Muslims and Croats were slaughtered for several years. Not until the conflict threatened to engulf NATO allies did we do anything about it, this at a point when the Muslim armies were actually making major battelfield advances.
Re(1): The legitimacy of government
Why didnt the US have an issue with Iraq in the 1980s Steve? Not one of your lot have every answered that question. Iraq was committing mass murder for years without much more than a peep from the US. Why did the US only start to have an issue with it when Iraq invaded Kuwait? If the US was really interested in Iraqis wouldnt the US have gone into Iraq after they gassed their own people? Why the warm relations with Baghdad after incidents like this?
The answer is that the US felt that Iran was the bigger enemy at the time so it was more than willing to look the other way and have Iraq at its side even though the Iraqis were commiting mass murder.
There is no way to get around the fact that the US failed to do a single thing during the worst of Saddams reign.
Re(1): The lesser of two evils
Steve writes “Jasra, we don’t think like Muslims. We don’t need to conquer the world. While the Wahhabis and their Muslim followers want to plant the black flag of Islam in every Western capital, the United States has granted all its former colonies independence. The Muslim fundamentalists demand that the whole world adopt its way of life. America, by contrast, makes no such demands. If you don’t want to buy our way of life, then don’t. At worst, we’ll try to make some product or service that will appeal enough to your tastes that you will buy it. America is not forcing you to watch Baywatch. By contrast, your local Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue will beat you with a cane if you aren’t wearing the proper burqa or lagging to prayer. ”
What a load of utter rubbish! Anyone who knows about bin Laden knows that the goal of al-Queda is not really a global caliphate. You would get no one to die for such a thing, but you will get loads of people to die for a clearly set political agenda, which is what bin Laden has.
I agree with former CIA bin Laden expert Michael Sheuer who says that people who espouse the nonsense like Steve does are actually part of the problem and will keep the conflict going for years and years because they dont have a clue as to who al-Queda are and what they want. They are completely misinformed.
Pingback: Mahmood’s Den » Blog Archive » Dammit, it’s STILL ain’t enough!