| Author |
Message |
    
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3173
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:22 pm: | 
|
Muslim clerics in Afghanistan condemned Rahman's release, saying it was a "betrayal of Islam," and threatened to incite violent protests.
Some 500 Muslim leaders, students and others gathered Wednesday in a mosque in southern Qalat town and criticized the government for releasing Rahman, said Abdulrahman Jan, the top cleric in Zabul province.
He said the government should either force Rahman to convert back to Islam or kill him.
"This is a terrible thing and a major shame for Afghanistan," he said.
Well, at least we agree on the very last sentence--but for different reasons.
What is one to say in the face of such irrationality?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
I don't know. How does "freedom is on the march" work for you? |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3175
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
It goes far beyond even that, although I appreciate your ironic take on things. The whole situation in the Arab world is so convoluted, medieval, through-the-looking-glass that so many people really believe night is day and war is peace.
Moderate Muslims are shunned, exiled, or killed if they even raise a hint of disapproval. Converts are ordered killed by religious leaders, who spread ignorance and bigotry as if they were pearls of divine wisdom. Women are subjugated on a scale not seen for centuries. Oligarchs and war lords plunder nations while people live in grinding poverty and no one seems to rebel or even form a cogent political opposition (OBL started out that way but quickly morphed into something far more strange).
Can anyone point to a ray of hope, a way out of this situation? I feel such despair--there seems to be no way out except to wait for this dark age to work itself through Arab society.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4651
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
I recommend Lapham's column in the April issue of Harper's, just out. His take on the riots over the "Danish" cartoons, and the politically correct waffling by western politicians that excuses them, is dead-on. Though no, it's not a ray of hope.
I hadn't realized that some of the cartoons were in fact forgeries by Muslim leaders, designed to get the masses even more riled up. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 786
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
ESL - Afgans are not Arabs.b |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:59 pm: |
|
True, Doug, thanks. I was trying to distinguish between Muslims who are very fundamentalist and those who are not--I painted with the wrong brush. You are correct that while most extreme fundamentalist Muslims are also Arabic, some are not (Afghanistan, some elements in India and the Phillipines)--although it seems to be to a lesser degree in most countries outside of the Arab world. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5459
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
These are countries populated by people whose cultures and religous institutions haven't modernized. This will all take a great deal of time for it to approach what we see in the developed world -- past Bush's term, the next president's term, and your lifetime. How can you possibly be surprised by this, and if you aren't, why do you give up so quickly? |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7018
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
"how can you possibly be surprised by this, and if you aren't, why do you give up so quickly?"
That's the nature of liberalism. "If something is too hard, it's probably not worth doing in the first place."
It's why America has turned its back on the left. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Your brain is so twisted with loathing and hatred that you do not make any sense whatsoever. Nothing I said has anything to do with liberal or conservative politics. I feel sorry for you. You are a very sad person. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4660
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Sounds like how conservatives feel about poverty. And affordable health care. And balancing the budget. And really repairing (as opposed to destroying) Social Security.
Liberals want to solve problems. Conservatives just want their money back. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4661
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:08 pm: |
|
oh and I almost forgot! finding a real photo of Baghdad! |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7019
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Of all of a sudden ESL dosen't want us to know he's a lefty.. Can't blame him. If it were me, i'd be doing the same thing. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3185
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
You should be in a monastery, because you just don't get it. |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7020
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:51 pm: |
|
I see, so those who study and base their lives on religion are morons...Very radical left wing of you.. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 125
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
The Ayatollah Khomeinei once said "Islam is politics or it is nothing". Whatever he meant by that, it is probably safe to say that he was not endorsing a polity organized along the lines of, say, the Federalist Papers.
Therefore, I am not at all surprised by the developments in Afghanistan.
Saddened, yes. Surprised, no.
For Moslems, no piece of land that ever comes under the sway of Islam can ever be ceded back to the "Infidels". It may take a long time, but they expect to get it back. Something along similar lines seems to be the case with individual Moslems. Once you are in, you don't get out. Just picture Leonid Brezhnev wearing a turban.
Things like the Rahman affair, the Paris riots and the cartoon controversy should make us think twice about admitting Moslems to our country. A society that even pretends to endorse tolerance, pluralism, diversity and multi-culturalism is ill-equipped to cope with a religion based on conquest and forced conversion.
Cheers |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5261
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Quote:... think twice about admitting Moslems to our country
That's it, you just want to ban any Muslim?
What's next, dude, deport the Muslims now in the U.S.?
I don't think we need to use such sweeping generalities and overbroad characterizations. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4663
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
I know muslims who are every bit as secular in their lives and attitudes as you and I, so that's not the answer. However, there should be certain baseline norms that immigrants ought to avow to as far as the principles of Americanism go. If you're hesitant about free speech, freedom of religion and a few other basic ideas that the nation is founded on, you ought to be asked to go back on the same plane you flew in on. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3186
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
 |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5264
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Merton was a "lefty".  |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 126
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 6:40 am: |
|
Nohero,
You said:What's next, dude, deport the Muslims now in the U.S.?
I would deport any Moslem who advocated jihad or sharia. I would profile all Moslems as a matter of course. The European countries are beginning to deal with their Moslem problem and we should follow their lead. I have no desire to harm or go to war with Moslems. I just think that they would be happier and better off in a society where they would not have to worry about taking offense at people who do not share their beliefs. And so would we.
Cheers
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11111
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:26 am: |
|
3ring, so Spain is still a Muslim country?
Christians in the West brough Rahman's plight to the attention of the news media. He is now free. However, how many other similar cases have resulted in death sentences in Afghanistan that never made the papers? Basically, nothing has changed in the Afghan judicial system. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3187
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
Aw, Nohero, you caught me. 
cjc: Your post is the best so far, thanks. I agree with you that these cultures are mired in a medievel mindset, and I certainly appreciate the struggles they face with modernism. The extreme fundamentalism is a reaction to, and thereby a vindication of, the influence of modernism on these cultures. They are reactionaries against losing the world that they have been raised in--one where women are totally subjugated, where gender roles are harshly delineated, and where materialism is seen as threatening one's ability to live a spiritual life. Heck, we have similar debates in America, although in a much different fashion and format, and with far less at stake because there is more consensus and a well-developed culture of modernism that has evolved over time.
I am not surprised at what is going on, with Rahman or others, but I am very saddened that it is going to be a long and painful process, and many people are going to be hurt and brutalized before it plays out. My despair I expressed above is exactly over this--that no matter how much we on the outside want to help out (for humanitarian reasons and for reasons of enlightened self interest--ending terrorism), it is likely that there is little that we can really do except not try to make things worse. And I am not sure it is clear how to even do that.
I have yet to see someone, conservative, liberal, or in-between, lay out a plan that makes sense as to how non-Muslims can be most helpful.
3Ring's approach, while said with his/her typical hyperbole, is certainly logical--containment, strategic separation, saying "if you don't like our modern society, don't come here, so you won't get more upset." We did this with Communism during the Cold War--but it also subjected generations of Eastern Europeans to a grim political-economic existence while it played out, and the resulting societies, while more free, are certainly very shaky.
George Bush's approach of bringing democracy to Muslim lands also is not succeeding--not surprisingly, the cultural miscommunication is a gap that cannot be crossed. Certainly raining war on the fundamentalists is at best putting us in a holding pattern, and at worst is wreaking more havoc and instability in the region than existed before. Terrorists may be pinned down and focusing mainly on Iraq right now, but even conservatives understand that this is not solving the problem long-term.
Western aid and charities are seen with extreme suspicion as bringing the taint of modernism with them--Rahman is a prime example, which is why I think he was so vilified. He works for a Christian aid group, becomes enamored with Christianity, and converts. We let Muslims into our universities thinking that by sharing in our culture and education they will bring modernism and similar values back to their lands, but instead many reject what they have seen, often violently, and use their knowledge to build bombs or turn airplanes into weapons. Western aid workers are kidnapped and killed with little regard to their good hearts and kind works. They are simply objectified targets. Doing "good" is not good enough.
It is very frustrating that no one seems to even have decent answers.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2727
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
3ring, you wrote:
"I just think that they would be happier and better off in a society where they would not have to worry about taking offense at people who do not share their beliefs."
If that were the case, they would move there. Obviously they choose to live here for some reason. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 129
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Bob K,
I don't think Spain is a Moslem country anymore. Bin Laden may disagree:
Bin Laden opened his videotaped statement with this sentence: "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish." The "tragedy of Andalusia" refers to the conquering in 1492 of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. It was a central moment in the Islamic empire's quest for political and military power: Muslim expansion was not just checked; it was reversed. If Bin Laden truly wants to restore the original geographic dimensions of the caliphate, he may eventually look toward Spain.
http://www.slate.com/id/1008411
I hope the Spanish people have something to say about this. From what little I know of it, Al-Andalus was no picnic for Christians and Jews. Wherever Islam gains the upper hand, either numerically or militarily, dhimmitude is sure to follow.
Cheers |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3189
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
For what it is worth, Christian Spain was no picnic for Jews once Isabella decided to force them to convert or be exiled in 1492. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11115
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Actually I believe for the most part there was a fair amount of tolerance in Moorish Spain, although I ain't an expert. It certainly beat the Hell out of the Inquisition that came not long after, especially for us Prods and Jews.  |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3190
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
That is why I specified 1492. Jews were totally accepted and integrated into Spanish society for centuries before that, and then, bang, convert or be killed. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11118
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
ESL, sounds a lot like current day Afghanistan. Maybe in 500 years......... |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 130
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Rastro,
They do indeed choose to live here for some reason. The reasons that come to mind most readily are: some are genuinely assimilated (a rather small number, in my opinion), some are here to enjoy a higher standard of living, some are here (wittingly or unwittingly) as a 5th column. Consider, if there were few or no Moslems in America, it would be much more difficult for a Moslem planning mischief to move around freely, without attracting a lot of attention.
I don't sugarcoat the fact that I take a hardline on immigration in general, especially illegal immigration. I don't see how anyone could look at the numbers
and just shrug and say we need a constant supply of cheap labor. Even Robert Samuelson agrees with me, although I disagree with him on amnesty:
Even a country as accepting of newcomers as the United States cannot effortlessly absorb infinite numbers of poor and unskilled workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701202. html
None of this is really about hating other people or xenophobia. I would base it more on a view of human nature that I would call constrained, rather than unconstrained. Or realistic rather than Panglossian. Or the glass being half empty rather than half full. To put a theological spin on it, my perspective would be more Augustinian than Pelagian (or Semi-Pelagian). I haven't read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells recently, but I doubt that the Eloi had much to gain by dialoguing with the Morlocks and trying to understand them better.
It's all very well to burble on about multiculturalism and diversity, but that state of affairs is a bubble that has sprung up and been sustained by the globalization of the economy in the last few decades. The globalized economy itself is a bubble floating on the assumption of cheap and reliable sources of energy from some of the world's most unstable places. Take away access to energy and social arrangements would revert back to their default settings as they were for thousands of years, i.e. kinship, affection and self-defense.
I think America's task is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", not to remake the world in our own image. We have enough problems right here at home and we don't need to be the world's policeman, social worker, school nurse, referee, etc.
Well, I see that I've really shot my mouth off again, but thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I feel a little better now.
Cheers
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3191
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
BobK: Yup, again, that is why I am so damned depressed about the current state of the fundamentalist Muslim world. If people can learn to leapfrog from medievel technology to jet planes and the internet, I wish they could also leapfrog over 500 years of religious bigotry and violence. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2648
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
I just think that they would be happier and better off in a society where they would not have to worry about taking offense at people who do not share their beliefs
Isn't that also true of Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, devout Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews? All of them seem to be happy in the USA, why not Moslems?
A society that even pretends to endorse tolerance, pluralism, diversity and multi-culturalism is ill-equipped to cope with a religion based on conquest and forced conversion.
I could say "check out Christianity in the middle ages". ESL has already made the point that Muslim Spain was far more tolerant than Christian Spain. In fact when "The Catholic Monarchs" expelled the Jews they were given refuge by the Muslim Turks. The Ottoman Empire was far more tolerant of Christians and Jews than the "Christians" in Russia and Poland were of Jews.
But let's look at religions today. How can a society as described cope with a religion based on a hierarchial Church that gives its members no say in how it is run and demands uncritical acceptance of the pronouncements of its "High Priests", to wit; Roman Catholicism or Mormonism?
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 134
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
anon,
You are making some good points, but I can't really see eye to eye with you.
Isn't that also true of Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, devout Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews? All of them seem to be happy in the USA, why not Moslems?
America has historically (not officially) been a Protestant nation with significant RC and Jewish minorities. There certainly has been friction between all the groups you mention and things seem to have panned out. All of them have been around for a while and helped to shape our current consensus
on religious freedom. When the guy put a crucifix in a jar of urine a few years back, Christians didn't riot in the streets. They said they found it offensive and it all died down. I doubt that the guy even lost his government grant. Think of the reaction if someone put a Koran in a jar of urine. The cutting edge would be right at his neck! As far as I know, Islam played no role in the founding of America. I take Khomeini at his word (see my 3-30, 8:38 PM post above) and understand Islam to be a fusion of politics and religion. Wherever the religion goes, the politics are sure to follow. This is problematic for the American system of government (such as it is). I guess that Jews could go live in a Jewish society. Maybe Catholics could move to a Catholic country. But where could Mormons and Fundies go? Like it or not, this is their home. Moslems, on the other hand have options. The European countries are quite secular and they seem to be coming to the realization that sizable Moslem minorities can be quite a headache. I think we should learn from their experience and be very cautious about admitting Moslems to the US. To be sure, I am very skeptical about immigration in general. I think we should build the fence, declare a 5 year moratorium on all immigration and try to figure out exactly who is here and what they are doing. Only then would I consider allowing legal immigrationto start up again.
I'm sorry, but I have some other things to attend to right now, but I will respond to your other points tomorrow.
Cheers
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
anon,
You also said: I could say "check out Christianity in the middle ages". ESL has already made the point that Muslim Spain was far more tolerant than Christian Spain.
But I could say, that was then and this is now. Europe in the Middle Ages was religiously monolithic. Tolerance and pluralism were not on the agenda. Neither was Moslem immigration. I would respectfully disagree with ESL on how tolerant Moorish Spain actually was. Maria Rosa Menocal's book Ornament of the World seemed a little too good to be true. Richard Fletcher's book Moorish Spain is a little more hard-nosed. You can read a snippet of his conclusions here (footnote 20):http://www.secularislam.org/articles/bostom3.htm
I would still recommend reading both books, however.
I don't know what Andrew G. Bostom's deal is, he is a Professor of Medicine at Brown University, but he makes me look positively moderate!
But let's look at religions today. How can a society as described cope with a religion based on a hierarchial Church that gives its members no say in how it is run and demands uncritical acceptance of the pronouncements of its "High Priests", to wit; Roman Catholicism or Mormonism?
Not being RC or Mormon, I can't answer this for sure, but I guess an unhappy RC or Mormon can always pick up and leave (as hard as that can be for families, it can be done). There may be some negative sanctions, but nothing as drastic as for a Moslem apostate in a Moslem society. The RCs don't tell me not to eat meat on Fridays in Lent, the Mormons don't tell me to refrain from alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. So, I think that they "fit" America in a way that Islam does not.
I agree with the post by cjc that Islam could take a long time to modernize (if, indeed, it ever does). But in the meantime, I think we should maintain a healthy distance, for our own sake, as well as theirs.
I'm sorry to run on for so long, but this is a topic that interests me and I thought your comments were worthy of a reply.
Cheers
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3194
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
It is interesting to see how anon read into my statement.
I was very careful not to say that Jews fared a whole lot better under Moorish Spain than under RC Spain--what I did point out was that the Inquisition was particularly destructive to a long-standing Spanish Jewish community. There were times under both the Moors and RC rule where Jews fared better and times when they fared worse. Jews did do better under Islamic rule by and large because the Moors left them in relative peace more often than not. But when there were political upheavals, or when a different ruler was in place, Jews would become a target for increased oppression. Still, there was nothing like the forced conversions, expulsions, and torture of the Inquisition, and so on the whole Moorish Spain was better for Jews (and Protestants).
The pattern was similar throughout most of European history for Jews. In the Balkans, under Ottoman rule, Jews did okay most of the time, but there were certainly eruptions of anti-Semitic oppression (the same can be said for Catholics and Protestants under the Sultanate). So long as Jews and Christians paid tribute they fared okay most of the time, but they were heavily taxed and did not get the better jobs or or have the full rights that went to Muslims (including converts). The Sultanate was less interested in forced conversion than it was in forced taxation. For Jews under Hapsburg or Tsarist rule, life was much more brutal and oppressed and marginalized, and so, in general, it was better to be Jewish under Ottoman occupation (though still not a picnic).
The history for Jews is that they often become completely assimilated into a society, only to be brutally digorged after hundreds of years. Spain, Germany/Austria, Russia, Poland, Argentina in the 1970's. This goes to Las's question on another thread as to why Israel is often called a Jewish State--despite the amazing recent assimilation into American and Western European societies, some Jews recall this history and feel insecure even in America. They want a land where no other religion or people can wake up one morning and toss them out, or where they can go when they do get tossed out (let's not get into how Palestinians may feel similarly--that is for a different thread). Israel is a safety valve for some Jews. Most American Jews do not think about this, but some take this as a lesson of history. Certainly Russian Jews who had no concept of the religion used Israel in this fashion. Could it happen here? Phillip Roth's book's flaws notwithstanding, he certainly played a chord that resonates in a quiet, unspoken part of many Jewish minds. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 136
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 8:12 pm: |
|
ESL,
I have one quibble with what you said:
Still, there was nothing like the forced conversions, expulsions, and torture of the Inquisition, and so on the whole Moorish Spain was better for Jews (and Protestants).
Moorish Spain was effectively over in 1492. The Reformation is generally agreed to have started in October 1517. So there would have been no Protestants in Moorish Spain, unless you are referring to schismatic groups, like the Cathars or Waldensians who are are sometimes seen as harbingers of the Reformation? I don't know if these groups were active in Spain prior to 1492, but I suppose it is possible.
Cheers
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page