Saturday, August 26th 2006
What’s In a Name?
There has been much controversy in recent weeks over the use of the term “Islamofascist.” President Bush recently referred to the 20 or so potential terrorists (and the movement behind them) who hoped to bomb trans-Atlantic flights in the same fashion. Talk radio and conservative bloggers use the term as an epithet as well.
But some take offense to the term. Many Muslim groups, including CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) blast the term as offensive and inaccurate. But is it? Is the strictest form of Islamic Sharia law comparable to fascism? The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
The definition fits the term like a glove: Ahmenijad is hardly of the mind to share his authority with others. The Taliban never let its subjects purchase or even possess certain things, including music and television sets. Terrorism is, without question, axiomatic in this case. Censorship is common, certainly in the case of Salman Rushdie. And belligerent nationalism/racism is self-explanatory when you take a look at the desire for a pan-Islamic caliphate devoid of Jews.
I’m obviously convinced, especially when you observe the emphasis (in fascism and in Sharia) of the state or the society over the individual. Thoughts?
The reason the definition fits like a glove is because it’s a really broad definition that would fit any dictatorship like a glove. There is a name for the type of logical fallacy you’re using here, but I’m not sure what it is. Anywho, Soviet Russia, Rwanda (during the genocide), Communist China all fit the same definition, and so you’re just equating fascism with dictatorship now.
More important than whether or not some of the modern Islamic bad guys fit a classical definition of fascism, is whether or not we (and the President) should use the term.
The rather obvious answer in my opinion is that it is a stupid and counterproductive thing to do. It’s stupid becuase it takes a bunch of groups with diverse ideologies, practices, and objectives and lumps them all together. [Granted, the goal of Bush and other hawks is to do exactly that, but just because it’s in their agenda to ignore the differences between these groups for their own goals, doesn’t mean it’s smart for the rest of us to go along.] See here for more information: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009518.php
And it’s counterproductive because it pisses off the people who could be most helpful in our current struggle: moderate Muslims. It’s like if I were trying to rally moderate Christians to help me opposed extremist rhetoric from Jerry Falwell and others and I started referring to those extremist preachers as ChristianFascists. It’s just going to alienate the people whose help I need most. And considering how badly the war in Iraw and Afghanistan are going, Bush is hardly in a position to be pissing off his potential allies. [And here we see perhaps a glimmer of the notion that given the option of using a term that is politically useful for the ‘08 elections, but that could lead to potential setbacks in the global war on terror, we see what choice Bush will make.] More on that here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=32929
Comment by Andy R. — 8/26/2006 @ 6:45 pm
I think what Andy’s trying to say is that the definition fits like a hand-sized sack.
Comment by Beetle — 8/27/2006 @ 9:25 am
Andy, one thing in your posts doesn’t make sense to me. Why would moderate Muslims be bothered by the term? If someone called Jewish terrorists “Judeofascists,” and they were, I would have zero problem with that term. Hell, I’d really hate the assholes who took my religion and made it part of a destructive term.
This whole idea that terms like this offend Muslims really bothers me since it incredibly infantilizes Muslims, especially American Muslims. The term may be inaccurate (though I’d sort of quibble), but it is in zero way offensive.
We talk about Christian Crusades in the 12th century, because that’s what they were. We can talk Atheist Purges in the USSR, because that’s what they were. But we can’t talk about Islamic Facsism/Terrorism, because the descriptive appellation might offend people? Please.
Comment by Morbo — 8/27/2006 @ 10:06 am
Morbo:
I think you’re confusing two different questions:
1) Should it offend them?
2) Does it offend them?
Now what you’re arguing about is question number 1. And although we disagree about point 1, (by which I mean, I think you’re wrong) that’s not the interesting question. The point you should be looking at is number 2. Now either they’re lying, or it does offend moderate muslims when Bush starts referring to various groups and ideologies as Islamofascism. [And seeing how the point of the word seems to be do conflate various Islamic movements with Nazism, I certainly see how that could offend someone. There are certainly a lot of muslims who appreciate all of the social work that Hamas and Hezbollah are doing (building health clinics, schools, etc.) and don’t like to hear those groups associated with the Nazis.
Comment by Andy R. — 8/27/2006 @ 10:36 am
Very well, let’s say it does offend them (something I’m not overly convinced of, since I don’t think CAIR or similiar groups are at all representative, or at least I hope not), what do we do? Do we change the wording to pacify in lieu of accuracy (which I believe it is), or do we maintain our position and try to make our case.
Now yes, Bush is awful at making his case in terms of reaching out to moderate Muslims. But that doesn’t mean we other people shouldn’t be making it.
Comment by Morbo — 8/27/2006 @ 10:55 am
Morbo, you talk about “fascism” because it brings up lots of emotions tied to a difficult time in world history.
Comment by ghost of clark kerr — 8/27/2006 @ 11:11 am
I don’t know what that comment means.
Comment by Morbo — 8/27/2006 @ 1:07 pm
I’m curious Morbo, did you read the links to the two blog posts I included above? Your most recent comments are in direct contradiction to the points that those people were making, and I’m wondering if you disagree with them or you just haven’t engaged what they said.
Comment by Andy R. — 8/27/2006 @ 1:56 pm
I read the links. I find their points obvious at best and utterly useless at worst. It’s your regular rant against generalizations.
We use blanket terms. We call the Crusades a Christian endeavor, even though one of them was called against Fredrick the Great of the Holy Roman Empire - the Pope even told Crusdarers to leave Jerusalem and instead focus on this king who annoyed the Pope. We refer to the Roman conquest of Spain even though Carthage actually conquered Spain and simply lost it to Rome in the Punic Wars.
I understand people are bothered by the words - that may be a fact I can’t dispute. But I have never been of the belief that offending someone is enough of a reason to change terminology or beliefs.
So let me ask you: I am not at all offended when people call Baruch Goldman a Jewish Terrorist. That’s what he was. An adjective doesn’t mean that everyone who shares the nominative shares the adjective. It’s simply an adjective.
Comment by Morbo — 8/27/2006 @ 2:27 pm
Moderate Muslims should be smart enough to distinguish themselves from the butchers that are conducting their “holy war.”
More important than whether or not some of the modern Islamic bad guys fit a classical definition of fascism, is whether or not we (and the President) should use the term.
But the issue at hand is whether it fits the definition - then we can talk about its appropriate use.
all of the social work that Hamas and Hezbollah are doing….
Does that social work include killing & kidnapping Israelis and killing many, many more Lebanese civilians in order to do Tehran’s dirty-work?
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/28/2006 @ 12:20 pm
TO:
But the issue at hand is whether it fits the definition - then we can talk about its appropriate use.
As I already said, the definition that you provided for fasicism seems to apply just as well to any number of communist countries, and at the point where you are defining a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship in the same way, then it doesn’t add any meaningful information to call it Islamofascism if your definition of fascism is so broad as to just mean dictatorship. And I don’t think the part about socioeconomic controls applies anyway, as most of the groups we are talking about are non-state actors, and hence don’t have that type of control. [And that just gets into whether or not we should classify non-state actors as being fascists anyway, as fascism is usually applied to governments.] Secondly, I find the question of whether we should use the term on practical grounds a much better conversation to have than whether or not the definition fits on purely linguistic merits. If it were counterproductive to our goals (mine, yours, America’s…) to use the word, I imagine that would over-ride any concern about if the definition actually fit.
Does that social work include killing & kidnapping Israelis and killing many, many more Lebanese civilians in order to do Tehran’s dirty-work?
I assume this question is rhetorical, ’cause its too stupid to respond to.
Comment by Andy R. — 8/28/2006 @ 1:25 pm
Islamism is certainly different from communism. If the two were so alike (or at the least, not radically opposed), why was there a massive, bloody war in Afghanistan from 1979-1989? The Mujahadeen didn’t wake up one morning and say “Hey! Communism is kind of similar to what we want…..come on down Red Army!” Hostile states tend to, almost all the time, be governed by hostile ideologies. (Cold War, WWII, Napoleon’s conquests, the current War on Terrorism, the Crusades et cetera).
In terms of politics and ideology Islamism and communism aren’t as similar as Islamism and fascism. Communism by definition seeks to impose a dictatorship of people, the Proletariat, in order to achieve a classless, secular society. Islamism seeks to impose a dictatorship of an idea or a thought: strict observance to Sharia and the Quaran. Marx was, in his mind, a populist. Not exactly so with Nasrallah.
You’re right that in my assertion I used too broad a definition for fascism. But Islamism today (Ahmenijad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah) shares more characteristics in its worldview to fascism than to communism or any other from of government.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/28/2006 @ 5:16 pm
Tommy: Do not confuse the Soviet-Afghan war as a battle of communism versus Islamism. It was a fight, for the Afghans, of sovereignty and independence.
As for the term “Islamofascism,” certainly there is such a thing. You’ve failed to justify its use though, especially in the context present–you’ve cited the strictest form of Islamic Sharia law as being the epitome of fascism. Unfortunately, no where do you cite what Islamic Sharia law is, and no where do you cite sources from Islamic texts that justify that law. You cannot simply say “shariah” and define it as “what Iran does.” Shariah is not a system of actual, specific laws as you imply above–the word itself coming from the Arabic root for “road/path”, shariah is a system for deriving these laws, and many Western Muslim intellectuals would argue that the very essence of this system promotes freedom to dissent and other democratic values. Even if the system is limited in scope because of its restraint to the Qur’an and Hadith, those who create laws, etc, do have a burden to explain their religious justification for them to their peers. Whether or not the Iranian regime is totalitarian is arguable, though it’s certainly rigid, oppressive, and tyrannical–but it seems odd that this is written off to its Islamic nature, when the number of areligious totalitarian states in the region far outnumbers the religious ones. Syria? Iraq? Egypt? Jordan? Libya? Are there any religions ones around besides Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan?
Anyway, it’s not surprising that CAIR objects to the term. They are afraid that the term will lose its narrow definition (which I would say it already has), and will be used to target American Muslims in general.
Comment by Yaman — 8/28/2006 @ 9:59 pm
Of course it was a war for independence, but opposing ideologies contributed to that fight as well.
I wont argue with you about what sharia is. But I will point out that executing people in soccer stadiums (such as the Taliban did) hardly constitutes respect for individual rights. Scholars the world over, Muslim or not, should acknowledge that. If an areligious government does the same, it is likewise totalitarian.
As to whether or not the Iranian regime is totalitarian, just look how they treat people like you and me (bloggers): they jail them.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/30/2006 @ 2:24 pm
Tommy: You’re right, it’s a slap in the face of individual rights, but that does not tie into your post or my response, or the term ‘Islamofascism.’
Comment by Yaman — 8/30/2006 @ 8:14 pm
Tommy: Actually, a revision of my earlier statement: I certainly believe it’s a slap in the face of individual rights, but that certainly is not the Cal Republican’s line. Why is executing somebody in a soccer stadium a violation, but not executing them at a state penetentiary, due process issues aside?
Comment by Yaman — 8/30/2006 @ 8:15 pm
It ties into Islamofacism because regimes that practice that term take actions such as those executions. I’m using those executions as evidence of their extreme, state-comes-first ideology. I really feel like I’m repeating myself now….
And as to your revision: you need not worry about what Cal Republicans say about anything. Worry about what I said, not who I am.
And you cannot worry ignore that pesky “due process” thing. In modern (i.e. 21st century) governments there is the right to a fair trial. And the government does not prosecute adultery, or teenage promiscuity the way the Taliban did or Tehran does (and the way Bin Laden would, should he win his conquest for a Caliphate).
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/30/2006 @ 9:57 pm
Almost forgot, executions in the U.S. are not very common. And they are never public spectacles.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/30/2006 @ 9:59 pm
Tommy: It doesn’t matter, an execution is an execution. I find it strange that you would focus on Iranian executions and dissident arrests, when the Iranian government was elected, while the Egyptian government has conducted the same amount, if not MORE, arrests and its government was not elected. I wish you would drop the human rights facade now and be honest, and criticize Iran for the reason that matters most: that it opposes the US and Israel. All the rest is simply dressing on the cake, and I’m sure something that we would forgot about rather quickly if it wasn’t the case that it posed a threat to US and Israeli power in the region. After all, isn’t that what the US relationship with the Assad government in Syria has been for decades? The amount of rhetoric coming out of the US regarding Syrian human rights violations and the undemocratic nature of the country is indirectly proportional to the amount of cooperation, secret or public, the US is receiving from the Syrian government.
Comment by Yaman — 8/31/2006 @ 8:08 pm
It’s stupidity like this that happens when you use “Islamofascist” to descibe a bunch of wildy disparate and oppositional groups: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009606.php
It makes me wonder if Bush is really this stupid, if he thinks his Republican supporters are this stupid, or if Republicans really are this stupid.
Comment by Andy R. — 8/31/2006 @ 10:55 pm
Don’t change the subject Yaman. Nice try. Of course Egypt and Syria have human rights abuses, I’m not disputing that in the slightest: they should be rectified just as they should be in Iran. But my blog is about religious governments (specifically totalitarian, Muslim ones).I’m not ignoring something because I don’t blog about it. Jeez.
Andy: Would you stop dropping your damned talking points links and actually debate the facts? Take your tin-foil hat bomb-throwing rhetoric somewhere else.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/1/2006 @ 12:29 am
Tommy, I am responding to your comment in which you sharply criticized Iran for the death penalty, insinuating that that was a form of fascism. My comment is not off-topic, and I did not bring these other issues in to begin with because I took the post in good faith–but in the comments above you’ve shifted away from the term Islamofascism and into this talk about human rights in Iran, and the violations of such being fascist. Well, Iran is not far off from the rest of the governments in the region in terms of human rights abuses, and the fact that it does it in the name of religion does not make it any more evil or unacceptable than the other secular governments. What makes its human rights abuses an issue in this forum is not the human rights abuse itself, but rather the rising threat Iran poses to US interests in the region. This is the same reason why the right-wing in America suddenly became feminists in the preparation for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq, despite their opposition to abortion rights at home, and despite their almost passive attitude towards domestic abuse rates at home–which, interestingly enough, are almost identical to domestic abuse in a country like, say, Syria. You really think we went to Afghanistan to liberate women? Is that what you really think? I mean, come on, the most obvious paradox in the face of this is Saudi Arabia. What about those women? I know, personally you might not be guilty of this, and you certainly don’t think you are, and you may even be acting with good intentions, but the entire framework of your dialogue here is built along those lines of bashing human rights records in countries that oppose America while simultaneously ignoring, or at least underemphasizing, human rights abuses in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and most recently, Libya. This is the problem with the “moderate” right. I’d much prefer the radical right, which at the very least, despite its hawkish, jingoistic, incendiary, and racist nature, is honest about its feelings, and won’t give a country like Saudi Arabia the pass simply because it’s a “friendly” one.
Comment by Yaman — 9/1/2006 @ 1:22 am
“Well, Iran is not far off from the rest of the governments in the region in terms of human rights abuses, and the fact that it does it in the name of religion does not make it any more evil or unacceptable than the other secular governments”
I’m not disputing that at all. In fact, if you actually took the time to read the post above yours, you’d see that. In both cases should they be rectified: religious and secular. For the purposes of my blog, however, I was talking about governments that use religion as an agent of intolerance. Now would you like me to rephrase this for a third time or do you finally get it?
This is the same reason why the right-wing in America suddenly became feminists in the preparation for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq
That’s BS. The pro-war (not necessarily right-wing) community in the U.S. had plenty of good reasons to invade the two countries. Afghanistan was obviously linked to 9/11 and Iraq was building WMDs (or so we thought). The fact that women can now show their faces (gasp!) in Afghanistan is a beneficial result from our invasion - it was not a rallying cry for us to invade.
“opposition to abortion rights at home, and despite their almost passive attitude towards domestic abuse rates”
Typical talking point. So it’s not OK to kill terrorists but it is OK to kill the unborn?
You really think we went to Afghanistan to liberate women?
Where the heck did I ever say that? Another case of you changing the subject. Are you one of those people who believe we went into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline?
….but rather the rising threat Iran poses to US interests in the region.
Or is it the other way around? Are Tehran’s supporters giving Ahmenijad a pass to do whatever because he has two now-unfriendly governments on his borders? Just a thought….
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/1/2006 @ 3:09 pm
“The fact that women can now show their faces (gasp!) in Afghanistan is a beneficial result from our invasion - it was not a rallying cry for us to invade.”
Afghanistan’s human rights abuses were, in fact, a rallying cry because they helped demonize the subject. Justification or not, I’m criticizing the rhetoric: it is disingenuous for people to cite this as a “reason” to invade other countries, when other factors are clearly the more prominent one: whether they be to build oil pipelines, strengthen American power abroad, or whatever.
“Typical talking point. So it’s not OK to kill terrorists but it is OK to kill the unborn?”
That’s cute. I don’t know how it is possible to “kill the unborn.” But I don’t want to get into an abortion debate here.
“Or is it the other way around? Are Tehran’s supporters giving Ahmenijad a pass to do whatever because he has two now-unfriendly governments on his borders? Just a thought….”
No, I am not trying to vindicate Iran, and I am not encouraging the US or the world to “back off” so that it can develop nukes–I don’t want to see this happen anytime soon. But, the more aggressive the US becomes, the more precious the nuke becomes to Iran–as a deterrent and a tool of self-preservation–in fact, these are the reasons Iranian military officials cite to the public, just as Reagan used to justify weapons buildup in the 80s. More importantly though, my comment is about the issue of why human rights in Iran are suddenly an issue for the administration, and for the right wing, in public discourse. Let me give you a hint: it’s because Iran is a threat to US power and influence in the region, not because of the abuses. Otherwise, we would be starting with the overthrowal of the Saudi monarchy, which to this day is the best example of your beloved Islamofascists!
Comment by Yaman — 9/1/2006 @ 8:50 pm
The fact that women can now show their faces (gasp!) in Afghanistan is a beneficial result from our invasion - it was not a rallying cry for us to invade.
Um, not so much. Unless you meant some small minority of women who live almost entirely in the capital. Or maybe you just stopped paying to Afghanistan 3 or 4 years ago, back when things were in slightly less terrible shape. See this:
“I can barely see through the mesh in front of my eyes and cannot see anything out the sides… Loose threads tickle my nose. Breathing is difficult. I cannot hear, maybe because I cannot see. It is obvious, but still should be pointed out, that most Afghan women live every day like this, dull and blurry.”
source: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/14904269.htm
Or this
“That striking symbol of Afghanistan, the head-to-toe covering of women that is known as the burqa, remains widely used everywhere.”
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101705.html
If I were the type of person to engage in “tin-foil hat bomb-throwing rhetoric” I might note that if Bush hadn’t pulled a substantial number of our troops out of Afghanistan for his Iraq disaster, then the Taliban might not be regaining power there and threatening to create a new safe haven for terrorists.
P.S. Is this that debating the facts thing you were talking about?
Comment by Andy R. — 9/1/2006 @ 9:10 pm
I’m not sure why this particular post interest me so much, but it does…
Anyway, I couldn’t let this quote pass by without posting it, since it’s from conservative heroboy Jonah Goldberg:
“Wahhabism looks a bit more like some of the crazier iconoclastic Protestant cults of the early reformation than Fascism proper, if you ask me.”
source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZiNDQ1MDc5MWNhYjc3ZmQzYzRlNGVhMWI3NGYyZTE=
So maybe we should call it Islamo-Christo-Fascism. How does that sound?
Comment by Andy R. — 9/1/2006 @ 9:47 pm
Andy: That contradicts all we’ve ever learned about the Moslems,though. Are you Andy Ratto by the way?
Comment by Yaman — 9/2/2006 @ 3:39 am
Saudi Arabia is now investigating their own nuke program thanks to fears of their enemy, Iran, who now is on the verge of getting them and then starting WWIII because of Islamofascists ways and a hatred of Israeli people.
Yaman, Islamic Law is Fascist in its root core. It calls for classicism at all levels of society. The Middle East were looking for nukes long before President Bush, which makes your argument null-and-void, and worthless. It just shows your full of propaganda fighting for the fascists, and trying to keep face in an ideological democratic nation – so they won’t deport you to the guantanamo bay resort.
When you defend Islam against democracy you lose all your credibility. It is not a religion of peace, only a religion of peace for Arab/Muslim born men. There is no freedom of religious laws in Islam and that itself makes it a fascist consideration.
When Bush says Islam or whomever of the nations that have called for the destruction of the west Islamofascists, he is correct, and it is only the pussy left-wing sissy-people that cower to your propaganda. Islam does not want to live peacefully with other religious they want to dominate them and tell then what to do if they want to live. Sounds worse than Nazism that focused on one race for extermination, where Islam looks to dominate all other non-Arab-blood-Islamic males in the world.
Your defend Islam like it is a noble law. Far from it, it compares to suppressive regimes in history and a way of life above all others to enslave people that are not Arab-blood-Islamic-males. Just because the left, in general, has bought in to your bullshit doesn’t mean others, especially at Berkeley, will too.
There is not argument for justification of Islam to me; its fascist’s tenants are draped across the pages of its laws all over the world.
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 11:00 am
Andy: That contradicts all we’ve ever learned about the Moslems,though.
Which statement were you referring to?
Are you Andy Ratto by the way?
Yes.
Comment by Andy R. — 9/2/2006 @ 11:17 am
Anonymous: There is no such thing as Islam. It is not alive. Stop talking about it as such. No other people in the world is treated as such. Why don’t you evaluate the people directly based on their own actions and beliefs, instead of what you expect them to believe through your own interpretation of their religion?
Comment by Yaman — 9/2/2006 @ 11:18 am
“Qaeda urges non-Muslims to convert to Islam: video”
“DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda called on non-Muslims especially in the United States to convert to Islam and abandon their ‘misguided’ ways or else suffer, according to a video tape posted on a Web site on Saturday.”
Look Yafool!!!!!!
Your religion of peace of crap is at it again.
Reuters: linked from Drudgereport.com
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 11:20 am
Anonymous: Thanks. I’m not a Muslim though. al-Qaeda, of course, is not the best way to predict the beliefs of Muslims, though they do make a point of finding scriptural justification–coherent and acceptable to non-Salafi scholars or not–for all of their actions. This statement is more important symbolically, because it was always required that an enemy be invited to Islam before making war on him–of course, most scholars agree there are other conditions that should be met, but al-Qaeda is not worried about that. Michael Scheuer documents this methodology quite well in his book Imperial Hubris–which I have some problems with but I don’t want to get into.
Comment by Yaman — 9/2/2006 @ 11:37 am
Top ten reasons why sharia (Islamic law) is bad for all societies
Yaman,
Does Islam really practice human rights?
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 11:54 am
Get some free time and read this Yaman.
The Myth Of Islamic Tolerance MUSLIM LAW AND THE NON-MUSLIM Condition:
“Robert Spencer has here assembled a collection of documents devastating to PC myth and multiculturalist wishful thinking. Anyone concerned about the dangers of politically motivated distortions of Islamic theology and history should not miss this explosive and enlightening volume.” JEFFREY RUBIN, Editor, Conservative Book Club
“A necessary corrective to the prevailing opinion fostered among academics by Karen Armstrong, Abou El Fadl, et al. that Islam is a religion of peace, justice, and tolerance. The work brings to light the total suppression of human rights in Islamic society, the true meaning of jihad (armed conflict against all nonbelievers), and the horrors of dhimmitude (life for Christians and Jews under Islamic law). It should be required reading for all those who seek a true understanding of the socioreligious basis for the rise of Osama bin Laden and his network of international Islamic terror.” PAUL L. WILLIAMS, PhD, Author of OSAMA’S REVENGE: THE NEXT 9/11–WHAT THE MEDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT HAVEN’T TOLD YOU
THE MYTH OF ISLAMIC TOLERANCE brings to light the deeply ingrained historical, cultural, and religious elements of a profound modern crisis–the violence, fanaticism, and contempt for outsiders that characterizes much of the Islamic world today. This wide-ranging group of essays clearly explains how these poisonous attitudes are rooted in laws and cultural habits that are connected organically to the concept of jihad and its corollary institution, dhimmitude–which are in turn a primary impetus for global terrorism today. The scholars presented in this essential volume come up with many surprising and disturbing conclusions.
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 11:59 am
BTW Yaman, “al-Qaeda, of course, is not the best way to predict the beliefs of Muslims”
I agree with you on this point.
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 12:01 pm
Anonymous, the easiest way to contradict your claims (which still embrace the same methodology as above) is to look at the coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims in many places around the world, especially the Middle East. Maybe you’re talking about under an Islamic state, but even that history contradicts what you say–they did not live as equals, which I will be critical of, but they were certainly “tolerated.”
Comment by Yaman — 9/2/2006 @ 12:06 pm
Yaman, you want to use inductive argument tactics, which makes it impossible to speak on Islamic Law. Yes, I would agree what people living under Islam are generally good people. However, the inanimate law of Islam is what I only have issue with here. You cannot contradict historical claims, or written accounts of Laws with there outcomes in Islamic history. I’ve read them and Classicism was my conclusion to its overall system. America was not perfect, but its experiments continue to work toward a class-less society. Islam doesn’t seem to be going toward this goal, in general.
As far as an Islamic state and toleration, until fully tolerated policy exists, in these concepts of Islamic states, the word most accumulated to describe the system remains Islamofscist.
Muslim living alongside other religions exists in the world, not because of choice, but because of the regional laws. In America, Islam must respect the American justice system and its laws – or leave.
Comment by Anonymous — 9/2/2006 @ 12:52 pm
Anonymous, you make it sound like all of your comments have been about Islamic Law as a theoretical construct, but this is not the case in either tone or content. Maybe that was your intent, but you’ve done a terrible job getting that across. I’m not really interested in going out of my way to defend a religion I do not proscribe to, but I will defend a people if they are being unjustly attacked. Whether or not it’s possible to have tolerance and human rights in an Islamic state is, for all intents and purposes, moot, because I have not met a single Muslim in America who would admit that Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan were truly Muslim states–and this is not duplicity, as some have implied, but it is a good sign because at the very least we know that the popular Islamic state envisioned by most people is not of the fascist nature that you speak of. I wonder, Anonymous, if Hamas, for example, is truly a group of Islamofascists, why haven’t they passed laws banning the consumption, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages, and why haven’t they passed laws creating religious police like the ones in America’s most important ally, Saudi Arabia, or laws segregating genders in schools? Why not? Because their scholars are not interested in doing it, or because they know that such moves would be wildly unpopular and would lead to their removal in the next election? Truly democratic institutions can keep even Islamists in line, assuming they are not working to overthrow them–and there is no evidence that Hamas, for example, is trying to do such a thing.
Comment by Yaman — 9/2/2006 @ 1:35 pm
Yaman:
Afghanistan’s human rights abuses were, in fact, a rallying cry because they helped demonize the subject
I don’t think the images of what Al Qaeda did to lower Manhattan needed any “help” Yaman. I’m not saying it wasn’t a factor but it certainly wasn’t a huge rallying cry. OK this is the second time I’ve said this in as many posts. Up for 3?
whether they be to build oil pipelines, strengthen American power abroad, or whatever.
I knew it.
I don’t know how it is possible to “kill the unborn.” But I don’t want to get into an abortion debate here.
What? Killing the unborn is an abortion. And you brought it up. Again, you’re changing the subject.
just as Reagan used to justify weapons buildup in the 80s
Fair enough, but SDI, in its nature, was a defensive project, not offensive.
suddenly an issue for the administration
Shouldn’t they be an issue for everybody? And your dislike for the administration shouldn’t blind you to what’s going on in Tehran and what went on in places like Kabul and Kandahar. How many times do I need to say this……
which to this day is the best example of your beloved Islamofascists!
My beloved Islamofascists? I despise the Saudis and most governments in the Middle East in general. You’re really running low on substance Yaman when you put words into somebody’s mouth and then go “Aha! Gotcha!”
Andy
back when things were in slightly less terrible shape
Yes Andy. Things were in such a better shape when people were executed in soccer stadiums, opposition leaders were killed, repressive law was the rule (and not the exception), and the government was harboring international terrorists.
“if Bush hadn’t pulled a substantial number of our troops out of Afghanistan for his Iraq disaster”
Again with the liberal talking points. Thanks for changing the subject for what, the third time? In response, however, the violence in Afghanistan is nowhere near what it is in Iraq. And I admit a security deficit exists in some isolated portions of the country. But what should be done? Pull out of Iraq? That will not happen and sure as hell wont be good if done in the near future. Instate a draft? Probably not going to be too popular. So again we’re left with a situation that Bush hasn’t handled to the best of his ability, and a political opposition that is too rabid with hatred for him to even sit down and discuss an alternate plan.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/2/2006 @ 7:51 pm
Tommy: You misunderstood what I was referring to when I said “back when things were in slightly less terrible shape.” I was referring to the time period just after the Taliban fell, when things were actually looking up for Afghanistan, not the period when the Taliban was still in power. I certainly don’t have anything good to say about the Taliban (as I was one of those “crazy liberals” who was saying we should do something to save the women of Afghanistan in the years before September 11th).
Also, I may not have been explicit enough with my prior comment, as you seem to have taken it as a non sequitor.
You brought up the point that Afghani women don’t have to wear burqaas anymore. This is a conservative talking point, in the sense that it isn’t true, at least not in any meaningful way.
Now obviously this conversation isn’t about Afghanistan, I was just merely correcting your statement that things were going well over there. They aren’t. And things seem to be getting much much worse. And that probably almost entirely because of all of the troops we have pinned down in Iraq that can’t help in Afghanistan.
So again we’re left with a situation that Bush hasn’t handled to the best of his ability, and a political opposition that is too rabid with hatred for him to even sit down and discuss an alternate plan.
Are you for real? Bush has made a career out of needless partisanship. He regularly works so that any bill that would recieve bipartisan support is continually marked up until no Democrat could ever support it. Bush has never given any indication that he is interested in bipartisanship, and there is a long history of people who work with him receiving, at best, nothing in return, and oftentimes much worse.
You seem to think that something written by a “liberal” is defacto both an opinion and wrong, so I don’t think it would do much good to educate you by providing you with a link to a liberal site, but here is more on Bush and his needless partisanship. (And I’m not changing the subject, you brought it up.)
“After a calculated display of bipartisan mourning for public consumption, the Bush administration thereafter refused to consult with or even take notice of the existence of an opposition party. Republican consultants advised their clients to use the war as a wedge issue in reelection campaigns and the Republican leadership declared rhetorical war on mild-mannered Tom Daschle… The White House cynically proposed a union-busting plan for the Department of Homeland Security designed solely to arouse Democratic opposition. The President told cheering audiences that Senate Democrats didn’t care about the security of the country and campaigned tirelessly even against congressmen who had supported him.”
source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004753.php
I’ve always thought that Republicans would be so concerned about actually winning the war on terror that they would oppose Bush using it as a cynical political campaign prop to be used in elections, even if it means harming our efforts in defeating the terrorists, but the Republicans continually prove me wrong…
Comment by Andy R. — 9/2/2006 @ 9:15 pm
This is a conservative talking point, in the sense that it isn’t true, at least not in any meaningful way.
It isn’t true according to whom? Any how do you define any “meaningful way?” See this link: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/afghanistanunveiled/women.html. There is still much work to do in terms of women’s rights and equality in Afghanistan. But it also shows quite a bit of progress since the Taliban fell. More needs to be done, granted. But the situation is much better for an average Afghan woman than when Mullah Muhammad Omar was in control of the country.
Bush has made a career out of needless partisanship. He regularly works so that any bill that would recieve bipartisan support is continually marked up until no Democrat could ever support it. Bush has never given any indication that he is interested in bipartisanship.
No Child Left Behind? The new pension bill passed recently? The way he led the country immediately after September 11? And the argument can be made that Bush is partisan because his opposition is. It’s a two-way street. Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore aren’t exactly emblems of bipartisanship.
You seem to think that something written by a “liberal” is defacto both an opinion and wrong
That’s ridiculous. I’m conservative in that I agree with many conservative principles and policies, not because I think everything liberal is wrong. I’m no fan of the administration’s environmental policy, its funding for math and science, or the massive deficit.
And as a response to your Washington-monthly article: take a look at my newest blog to see an example of the ridiculous foaming-at-the-mouth partisanship in Washington.
I’ve always thought that Republicans would be so concerned about actually winning the war on terror that they would oppose Bush using it as a cynical political campaign prop to be used in elections, even if it means harming our efforts in defeating the terrorists, but the Republicans continually prove me wrong…
The Bush administration shouldn’t put its best face forward in that we haven’t been attacked in 5 years on our own soil? That argument makes absolutely no sense.
All: So we’ve discussed abortion, Afghan women’s rights, American politics, Bush, SDI, and BCR. Does anyone have anything relevant to say about the original topic of this post or do we need to talk about the economic policies of Zimbabwe too?
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/3/2006 @ 6:08 pm
Tommy, you seem to reject altogether the idea that America might be trying to strengthen its power bases abroad. I don’t know why it is even worthwhile for anybody to deny this–it’
Comment by Yaman — 9/4/2006 @ 3:36 am
Ooops. Lt’s write that off for a 4am post. Anyway, I don’t know why it’s worthwhile for atnybody to deny this, it
Comment by Yaman — 9/4/2006 @ 3:37 am
Damnit. It’s not necessarily a bad thing so i don’t know why it’s worthwhile for anybody to deny that America is trying to strengthen its influence around the world. Whether its influence has been positive, for both the subjects and the perpetrators, is arguable, but the fact that iti s ihappening is undeniable–it’s natural anyway. So the fact that you categorically reject the “oil pipeline” idea (which I never embraced by the way) is kind of disturbing. With regards to the Saudis, it doesn’t matter if you condemn them with libservice–the point is that you completely support the rule of the House of Saud, insofar as it is not hostile to America–surely, you encourage reform, but you know as well as I do that this will never happen–the extremists will have their way with their subjects. But the day that the house of Saud turns against America, then all of a sudden Americans at the diplomatic level will find a conscience that acknowledges the human rights violations, and encourages action to be taken to repair them.
Comment by Yaman — 9/4/2006 @ 3:47 am
“Truly [ Hamas’ ] democratic institutions can keep even Islamists in line.” Yaman.
That’s nice, why doesn’t hamas run freedom of religion and let the jews be? Doesn’t sound democratic to me.
“Whether or not it’s possible to have tolerance and human rights in an Islamic state is, for all intents and purposes, moot, […]” Yaman.
You are truly a wonder of a kind Yaman.
99.99% of Americans put ‘human rights ‘ at the top of their lists of importance for any government they, the people, want to live under. After the United States Constitution was finished, most people in the states said they would not ratify it until a promise of a People’s Bill of Rights was issued to them all. I think this would be a good plan for Islam as a whole. Let people be people and live in tolerance.
“Anonymous, you make it sound like all of your comments have been about Islamic Law as a theoretical construct, but this is not the case in either tone or content.” Yaman
I see you care less, as long as Islamofascism procures its right, eh?
Islam is a theocracy, based upon an Islamic Law, geared toward classicism. That’s not in any shape or form a democratic formula. Lets stick to a deductive argument.
Your attempts at induction are off-topic. Let get back only to Islam and its governing formula, called the Sunnah.
Comment by Anonymous — 9/5/2006 @ 10:48 am
So the fact that you categorically reject the “oil pipeline” idea (which I never embraced by the way) is kind of disturbing
That wasn’t the reason we went in Yaman! Come on. 9/11, Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda were the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. And you didn’t embrace the idea, but you did say it:
when other factors are clearly the more prominent one: whether they be to build oil pipelines,
And as to the idea of the “increasing American power” abroad. I don’t think that’s so much the case. We didn’t topple the Taliban or Hussein to increase hegemony. That’s Telegraph-street rhetoric, completely devoid of any factual basis. Why didn’t we take out Tehran then? Which, by the way, has twice the oil reserves of Iraq, is building nuclear material for a bomb, and contributed to the 34-day war in Lebanon. It makes no sense.
it doesn’t matter if you condemn them with libservice–the point is that you completely support the rule of the House of Saud
Do you mean lip-service? No I don’t. I’d like to see Saudi Arabia governed by a secular government that invests in its infrastructure, not madrassas [look at other gulf-state governments]. Call it whatever you like, but you’re lying when you say I “completely” support a government which I loathe.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/5/2006 @ 1:12 pm