The Sin Of Racism

 

It all started with going over to Baron Bodissey's great blog Gates Of Vienna, a favorite of mine, to research my previous post of the day about Islamberg In New York. I glanced over at the comments in the 'Dhimmocracy In America' and laughed, because I realized that the accusation of racism and Islamophobia is a commonly detonated gratuitous attack on the right leaning bloggers, and that far from being an exception, my blog's liberal commenters have become the cry for recognition of what has become the liberal norm.

Through reading this exchange, I came across a post written by the talented wife and blogging partner of Bodissey's, Dymphna, on her own blog, giving plenty of food for thought and discussion:

"The downward spiral of the Episcopal Church in its rush to irrelevance can nowhere be seen more clearly than in the enormous amount of leadership energy now spent on 1970's-style consciousness raising. Periodically, congregations are subjected to yet more hortatory about the need for right thinking. Once again, congregations are shown to be lagging behind the bureaucracy: whether it be race or gender or Palestine, Episcopalians have to be in line with whatever the politically correct thinking is at the moment.

Surely there is not a white Episcopalian left who has not discovered with great personal dismay his own covert racist thinking? Right? As a racism workshop facilitator once said, "if you're white, you're wrong." This facilitator also told his audience that it's inherently impossible, given the racist culture in America, for a black person to be racist. How's that for the ultimate in condescension?

My bona fides: I am white, but I live in a black community. I was married in a black church. Back when it was authentically cross-cultural, I was a member of the NAACP. In fact, we have some black people in our family.

Those who would condemn others for their failures to think correctly simply don't understand the hard-wiring in the human soul. We are born with a capacity to prefer our own kind. Watch any child encounter a stranger and you can experience the primitive startle effect that leads to a preference to be with one's own. This inclination toward the known is neither sinful nor wrong; it is human.

Game theory has shown that when members of a community are left to their own devices, groups of similars will collect or 'bunch' together. It is not deliberate segregation, it is congregation. Ask the black students on any campus who they prefer to hang with. And then ask them if this preference is racist.

In the continuing rush to right thinking, it is the children who lose out. The Law of Unintended Consequences is easily seen in the effects on children of both no-fault divorce and mandated diversity. The idea that culture can be sorted out and regulated is surely one of the most pernicious legacies from the 20th century. It is past time to move beyond this dated, statist thinking.

I'll be the first in line when a commission is formed to investigate the harm which accrues to children from illegitimacy and illiteracy. With all the oxygen in the room being consumed by correct thinking, though, it seems there isn't any left over for the kids. Bill Cosby had it right when he said the main problems facing black children have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with poor decisions. Now whose fault is that?

We are Christ's people. We need to be about our Father's business and we already have a Creed to tell us what that business is. The statements of Fr. Kelly's Creed - the ones that begin with an individual examination of guilty conscience and ends with a call for a permanent national Episcopal committee on racism - are jarringly wrong-headed. How about a national committee to make illiteracy uncool? That would be both Christian and cogent. How about a church which devotes its energy to strengthening the good rather than a church which is compelled to wallow in its own sinfulness? If I wanted to be a Calvinist, I would not have chosen to be an Episcopalian.

Once upon a time, the Episcopal Church was at the forefront of educating children to the fact of their individual free will and their membership, via Baptism, in the City of God. Now it seems that we stand only for the further balkanization by race which has so grievously retarded our culture.

Race and ethnicity are accidental. They are not instrumental in our salvation."

On a funnier note my good friend Kenny Pierce (check him out in the comments bellow), just reminded me of a post I wrote a long while back called 'You Just Need To Walk Away', which was about an accusation of racism, an accusation directed at my two blogging friends, Ed Morrissey and Jeff Goldstein, in the days when I was still a freshman blogger thinking that this was a grave accusation and rare. I have since come to realize that the word is brandished in the Blogosphere at every given opportunity and used as an excuse to accuse rather than an argument.

Comments

[alzaebo]

Eteraz won me over with his literacy, his impassioned self defense, his willingness to ponder unfavorable information concerning Islam. How rare that is! Persians are so very differnt from Arabists. Yes, I'm somewhat racist- who isn't? Thanks, Eteraz, heading for your blog now.

Kudos to this lush, gorgeous, intelligent site. First time reader to allthingsbeautiful. Thanks much!

My gosh I love the meme explosion of the Net- I'm so grateful I'm alive in this time.

[Kenny Pierce]

Along the lines of Arab humor involving themselves and Mohammed:

1. This Saudi Arabian is hilarious, on precisely the topic of the cartoons.

2. But then again, the master comment line for his blog describes his blog thusly: "The diary of a Saudi man, currently living in the United Kingdom, where the Religious Police no longer trouble him for the moment." He then adds:

In Memory of the lives of 15 Makkah Schoolgirls, lost when their school burnt down on Monday, 11th March, 2002. The Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter.

So I guess about all you can prove (if anything) from the guy's sense of humor is that (a) Saudis being human, you can't keep a sense of humor from popping up amongst 'em every now and then, but (b) the Religious Police are giving it the good ol' college try.

[Count Chocula]

"A day without laughter is a day wasted."
Charlie Chaplin

berryburger.com

: )

[Kenny Pierce]

Holy crap!

I miss a day to deal with family health issues and a work backlog, and come back to fifty more comments...wow.

Okay, let's see...after checking in the last time, I thought, "When I get back I'll have to tell Eteraz how much I enjoyed the line about, 'Then again, I cannot view things with the omniscience you clearly possess; I being a meager intellectually deficient Muslim, somewhere between a savage and a monkey, and you being one of the direct descendents of Aristotle,' which was a pretty funny response to David's sweepingly and tactlessly insulting comments on Islam. But I'll have to be sure to give David props on his insight into the "hostile" behavior Joseph has faced...but then I should also try to explain to David that all of his no-good-Muslim-but-a-dead-Muslim logic falls apart as soon as you deny the hidden premise that most people live lives of rigorous intellectual consistency when in fact people generally live by temperament rather than by belief...but the whole Islam thing isn't even the point of the thread and I'd hate to drag it further off topic...oh, I'll get back to it later."

Now, of course, I'm just throwing up my hands. No way I can address all the interesting stuff that's come up.

So just a couple of short riffs:

Eteraz, stick around, pretty please. I've enjoyed your comments immensely, even though I have the damndest time not pronouncing and spelling your handle as "Ersatz."

Dymphna, as a fellow Episcopalian (who would now term himself Anglican), I say that your comments on ECUSA are dead on target and could also be applied to a certain degree to the Churches of Canada and England. But I don't think Anglicanism as a whole is suffering the same syndrome.

Stefan, I was trying to explain to somebody else recently (can't remember whom) that the Left tends to think primarily in terms of Power (and hence Oppression), and that they have an automatic presumption that the person with power is most probably in the wrong. Your explanation of how the Left has historically been heavily shaped by Marxist thought does I think an excellent job of accounting for that phenomenon. I believe my own example was the Left's embracing the Palestinian cause even though Israel objectively does a much better job of conforming to the sort of behavior the Left claims to value -- but Israel clearly can spank the Palestinians at will, which means Israel has the power, which means they're the bad guy. I would say that insofar as nominally Christian thought obsesses on Power and Oppression, it ceases to be Christian (where the focus must be on Love); as Sixties activist Sheldon Vanauken said looking back years later, "It didn't occur to me that loving my neighbor and hating the oppressors of my neighbor were not exactly the same thing."

Alexandra, the question of humor in the Muslim and more specifically the Arab context is worth its own post and its own discussion. (1) A priori, one would think that in a shame-driven culture self-deprecating humor and good-ol'-boy-style teasing would involve complexities not present in the more anything-goes West. At the same time, Arab leader jokes are generally pretty hilarious (and closely akin to the Soviet-era jokes that were the dominant form of subversive political commentary back in the day). (2) I do not have the impression that Islam, as opposed to Christianity and Judaism, credits God with much of a sense of humor, especially involving Himself or His prophets. I find that my Arab Muslim friends are offended when I tell jokes that involve Jesus ((even though I and my Christian friends think them hilarious), because Jesus, as a prophet, is off-limits for humor. This does not, however, seem to hold true with Kazakh Muslim friends; thus this may have more to do with being Arab than it has to do with anything specifically in the Koran.

[Nasty_Ninety]

There is a game I have witnessed muslims play online in different forums. It's a game where they get non-muslims to think "not all muslims are bad" and they try to get non-muslims to fight amongst each other. I have always thought it to be a part of their war on the kufars whom they despise and consider to have the rights of animals... i.e. no human rights at all which is exactly what sharia law dictates.

There is another game I have seen them play whereby they contend "that isn't the real islam". A lot of people have been suckered in to this game too. All you have to do is read their own writings and history which is readily available online. Mohammed their prophet taught them to deceive and lie and that Allah likes his representatives to behave in this manner.

So don't be surprised if there are muslims who come along claiming they represent the "real islam" and that the masses of rabid muslims calling for the decapitation of the cartoonists for mildly offensive cartoons about Mohammed don't represent the real islam. Believe what they are doing in Nigeria, burning churches and slaughtering Christians. As muslims have increased into the majority in Nigeria, they have gradually taken away the rights of non-muslims and implemented sharia law there. Europeans had better wake up, they are going to do the same thing in Europe in the not so distant future.

Don't be surprised if some seemingly westernized muslim wants to play on your sympathies and play the victim. It's like the chant "this isn't the real islam" continues to be said every day as they go out in mobs killing people for Allah. We are going to hear this over and over again.

The worst thing that will happen from all this is that quite possibly we all will be forced to walk on eggshells for muslims lest their “religious police” complain about non-muslims telling the truth about Islamic teachings and what they are doing. They want to continue in their war against the infidel, the kufar as they call us, and at the same time say “that isn’t the real islam”.

[Ghost Dansing]

This phrase seems to be central to the argument against focusing on racism as an abhorrent human phenomenon.

"Game theory has shown that when members of a community are left to their own devices, groups of similars will collect or 'bunch' together. It is not deliberate segregation, it is congregation. Ask the black students on any campus who they prefer to hang with. And then ask them if this preference is racist."

Keep in mind that the words of Jesus invite us to transcend our natural instincts and human natures. Progressive governmental philosphy throughout history have incrementally sought to transcend the politics of brute power and force, and our human natures to pursue our most self-serving and basal interests toward a higher goal.

Our ability to transcend the dictates of our Id and Ego (this happens to be neo-Freudian, however any good psychology or sociology will due) is called growth and maturity...is essentially our transcending the dictates of our most base impulses.

One of the great accomplishments of the most decadent versions christian protestantism is to transform the vice of "greed" into a virtue. And there were plenty of christian sects, denominations and churches of that ilk that told Americans in the early and middle 19th Century that Slavery was OK because that was the natural order God had provided to mankind.

A spiritual awareness of racism, and a desire to transcend that human condition, to make things better, to reflect the Jesus' great commandment admonishing love for one another in our Religious and Governmental institutions is a goal not easily achieved, but a worthy goal nontheless.

[Alexandra]

Ali,

Whilst you feel that your experiences and what you feel you have personally contributed to the truth of Islam make you unable to follow the golden rule of the West, which is the ability to laugh at oneself, you should understand that this ability forms a fundamental premise to most of our discourse.

To take yourself, your purpoted superior knowledge and your deeds too seriously and not be able to laugh at yourself precludes you from truly understanding Liquid's intentions in this discussion. Knowing Liquid a little better than you, as a long standing commenter on this blog, you will find someone who is not only interested in a fair discussion but someone for whom civil discourse is paramount in the quest for the truth.

You should not belittle the ability to laugh, but be gracious in the knowledge that part of the reason the Muslim community has been able to hijack the Cartoon fiasco as a personal attack on the entire world of Islam, is their inability to laugh at themselves. Taking yourself too seriously is an indication of your innermost thoughts of superiority of mind and heart, and will always be a stumbling block in a civil discourse with someone whose opinions differ from your own.

This discussion is about racism, and as such your predisposition must be that the disaproval of the ways of Islam is based on racism. It would be interesting to know on what basis therefore you feel that the actions of the West in opposition to the ways of Islam are based on racist considerations, which seems to be a common accusation.

[liquid]

"Remember my defensiveness began when you lumped me in with the people I agitate against. You attacked me when it was clear there was no reason to do so. You wished that I'd laugh it off, but you have to learn to distinguish between people like me and people who must be mocked and hated (hint: they are the ones killing Christians in Nigeria)"

Ha Ha NO! Scroll up eteraz and read when you got defensive! It didn't start with ME...it started with you getting all jacked up over David's comment and just like in your response to that, along with your response to me here in this last post you can't seem to do it without painting yourself as being "the authority" on taqiyya and explain your view without arrogance and insult. That’s your problem not mine.

"If we say something stupid, as you did by suggesting that I engage in fatwa-making, telling the other person to laugh isn't how you get out of it. An apology suffices. Barring that, a personal resolution to not do it again will be enough. I'm not the only one on a quest to better myself. You have to be on one too whether you like it or not."

Ha Ha again it's your problem that you cannot see the sarcasm of my remark as I was replying to Baron and his humor, but you being all sensitive decided to not see the giggle I added, but that’s ok too, since you choose to be all offended. YOU call me the "eight grader" but it seems to be you that is always "reading things in to thing that are not there"

"I break my back to assure you have what you have always had. You laugh. I am accused of apostasy. You laugh. If you want to talk about fence-sitting, or having a "safe view", take a long look at your blog. Is it shame or laziness that prevented you from disclosing you ran one? A blog that is a distant critique of distant events with the distance of safety. But hey, at least you can laugh."

You don't break your back for me! You really should get over yourself. Dayumm you really have alto of self importance going on there don't you? Break your back for me...What the hell does that mean? Are you implying that you are one man show that is holding back the masses? As for dogging "my blog" Ha Ha, I don't hide that I have a blog, and I sure in the hell don't advertise it as being anything but sentiments of things I have found surfing on the net. I am not part of the "political blog roll linkage" which you seem so adamant to be a part of. I read what I want and surf where I want. Do you really feel that all blogs should have the same opinion as yours?

"I think the thing that troubles you most is that there really isn't anything that allows you to put me in camp with 'them.' "

No, I think to be honest that you came here posting and got all offended over David's comment and when you tried to make your point you couldn't do it without insult or arrogance. You just are all angry that I pointed that out. The reality is this ..David and I both have our own opinion and are entitled to it. Nobody has or is trying to put you into any camp with "them" or "anyone" eteraz, but it's obvious you are sensitive and offensive. As for your credentials...save it for an interview, because it doesn't impress me. I am not a publisher or care how many books you have read. As for your blog or your writing, I personally do not care about any of it, It's your journey not mine. Sure it's great you are trying to be a good muslim and reform the thoughts of others, but many good people have tried it only to be bullied by the radical islamist that don’t' want change. I wish you luck on that, but it won't matter one bit to me how you rewrite it on your blog, using 'western scholars' which for all I know were paid for by saudi money into the universities. I have interacted with you enough here to know that I won't be one of your fans cheering 'your ego' on while you go through your identity crisis.

BTW, I don't think I was the only one here trying to encourage you to lighten up!

[Ali Eteraz]

Oo la la, calling me a fence sitter! I exhort you to meander over to my blog. A quick read-through will apprise you of the fact that I have taken a side. My essay on Ali Shariati is the first actual Muslim critique of the architect of Iranian Revolution, and represents a 'moment' in reformist Muslim thinking. Those with adequate appreciation in the future will recognize it for what it is.

My essay 'Allah Wills It 'has been featured on religion magazines and on Gates of Vienna because it is so forthright in its critique. That is why I respect Dymphna and Baron so much -- they can see what I am doing. This is why I and am having so much trouble with you. I don't see how you can't see these things. Then again I also can't find Mel Brooks funny so it must be my deficiency.

In another post on my blog I expose the subtle evils of Pakistani madrassas, which I, incidentally, have attended and ran away from by risking my life. I have lived in Saudi Arabia and spent time investigating the lives of people in Taliban run areas of Pakistan. What have you done? Oh, exhorted me to laugh. Yes, maybe if I grab my stomach and give it a good heave ho, all the destruction and sadness I've seen will go away, and I'll become a lighthearted person who won't object to being mocked by some no-name woman from wherever you are. Remember my defensivesness began when you lumped me in with the people I agitate against. You attacked me when it was clear there was no reason to do so. You wished that I'd laugh it off, but you have to learn to distinguish between people like me and people who must be mocked and hated (hint: they are the ones killing Christians in Nigeria). You have to realize that we have to be accountable for what we say. If we say something stupid, as you did by suggesting that I engage in fatwa-making, telling the other person to laugh isn't how you get out of it. An apology suffices. Barring that, a personal resolution to not do it again will be enough. I'm not the only one on a quest to better myself. You have to be on one too whether you like it or not.

I've put these things on my blog, based in my personal experience, out there, in a matter of three weeks. What have you done? Oh, exhorted me to laugh. I do radical work on transforming the Shariah. You laugh. I research the activities of dangerous organizations. You laugh. I make promises to the future of Western civilization. You laugh. I break my back to assure you have what you have always had. You laugh. I am accused of apostasy. You laugh. If you want to talk about fence-sitting, or having a "safe view", take a long look at your blog. Is it shame or laziness that prevented you from disclosing you ran one? A blog that is a distant critique of distant events with the distance of safety. But hey, at least you can laugh.

As far as putting myself out there I don't see you venturing into Muslim blogs and carrying on an open discussion. No, you passed judgment -- Islam evil! -- now you sit and laugh. Meanwhile I have come here to engage all of you, despite the fact that I have - scroll up - been met with caustic and callous remarks from at least four different commentators, on a website that has -- no offense Alexandra -- not one single "positive" news about Muslims. I really seem like someone who is playing it safe! [And please don't try the farcical response that there are no Muslims who are doing anything worthwhile - take a look at the paraplegic painter on my blog; look up Shirin Ebadi; look up Asma Jehangir; look up Riffat Hassan; look up Abdullahi An-Naim; look up Khaled Abu el Fadl; look up Muhammad Mahmud Taha; look up Naguib Mahfouz; look up Farag Foda; look up Tasleema Nasreen; look up Fatima Mernissi, and on and and on and on].

As to the matter of laughter, you revealed your position on it quite clearly. With one word. "Fake." What was it? "Faking a laugh..." I guess faking laughter is all you have when you have the grammatical skills of an 8th grader. You can accuse me of taking pride in my education all you like; you can call it being defensive; but you have to realize that your ceaseless and tiresome reference to 'laughter' are your own means of defense. The village idiot's defense, let's call it that. I call hypocrisy out straight up. You call me names and then giggle about it. I come across as the hard-ass, which makes it easy for you to try and paint me in the same corner as the Islamists of the world. You want to laugh about something? Here, let's laugh at the incredible interest rates that I endured to get this education. Let's laugh about the two years I languished in Brooklyn's educational dysfunction waiting for an ESL teacher to be hired. Let's laugh about the backbreaking b.s. my father went through as an immigrant in Brooklyn. These things seem to me are the kind of things that make you laugh.

I think the thing that troubles you most is that there really isn't anything that allows you to put me in camp with 'them.' That I've outstripped you in all the things that -- what you thought was *your* civilization -- holds dear. Language, me. Writing, me. Education, me. Influence, me. Travel, me. Philosophy, me. Society, me. Now I have come in and taken from you the one thing you had -- standing up to Islamists and Wahhabis -- and done it better than you. Keep laughing; it's all you have left.

Still, at the end of the day, you can rest assured that my beef isn't with you; from you I want only recognition of the fact that as a consequence of my name or creed I am not a mindless fatwa-spewing automaton linked with the Borg collective. At the end of the day, whether you and I like it or not we are a "we." I'll do the ice smashing so you can keep laughing. I won't share a martini with you but I'll make certain you can drink one.

You are free to have the last word. Next time I respond will be in a few days relating to the matter of Muhammad's execution of those poets. I will drop a link here.

ps - my name is Ali Eteraz. Not Esteraz. Eteraz means protest in farsi.

[liquid]

OMGosh esteraz, here you go, do you really know anything about Brooks? He is NEVER funny! That is the whole joke and why that movie is so HIM, because he can't get a laugh unless he is making fun of himself, which actually I would suggest you try sometimes, but instead you choose to be all sensitive. MR SENSITIVE....(sigh)

You know, you go on and on about how "different you are" and how you hate to be all lumped up in with "all muslims" but yet you get some buzz off being offended don't ya? You love that moment when you can stand up and say "DON"T YOU DO THAT" Gives you a powerbuzz eh? Oh yeah, it shows in between your arrogance of how many degrees you have and OMGosh, all from ten top schools. DAYUMMM eteraz, all that intellectual high dollar education and not once did they teach you how to laugh? The least you could do is learn to "recite" a giggle now and then. But the reason you are not capable of it here, is because you are "Mr Sensitive" because although you know in your heart you are not like "those other muslims" you have put yourself on the fence. It's a safe easy place to be isn't it in all this turmoil??? You can sit up there perched really high on 'your view' and criticize both sides and feel real good about yourself then eh? Does it feel like some sacrifice? Makes you feel like a peacemaker?

But the bottom line eteraz is that when you do so, you are no more than a "fence sitter" meaning you cop out on making a decision. That’s why you get all bent out of shape and are constantly saying "It's nothing to do with taking sides" because it's much easier to think that way and you have had the luxury of being under the freedoms in the west to do so...you aren't living in Iran living under the regime. You aren't answering to the mullahs. You aren't one that lives day to day wanting freedom and wanting reform from the heavy hypocritical oppression not having the freedom to stand outside with a group of your friends without getting questioned or maybe arrested or having to live under the fear of the crane. No esteraz, you are the "educated one" "the honorable one" that can recite great books and brag about his education to the western non muslims that in your mind are just bigots and yet you still can't laugh out of fear of dealing with your own personal demons of being meshed into the dark side of Islam. Well eterez, I didn't have to go to any university to learn that it will be ISLAM that will force everyone to define who they are. I know you don't like hearing that, but its true, because they are rigged with demanding no criticism and at the same time demanding tolerance while not giving it. You can feel the conflict like the subject of the cartoons and realise that in the end, it is taking sides! I mean does freedom of the press have freedom or not? *quoting Voltaire: "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it".

"What you just did is just another form of "they all look alike to me."

Thats it really isn't it eteraz....well, sometimes in order to really grow on the inside one has to "unlearn" some of the crap that has been fogging up his psyche. For example, you can recite the koran all you want, but its about as fruitful as someone memorizing the bible and then not understanding a thing it means.If you want to be a muslim that only deals with the good things out of the koran thats cool, we can all live with that, but do it by being yourself, when you get off your fence and come down and be with people do it as YOU and not just your offensives. Be eteraz...not just another muslim that is easily offended! Being yourself is inside YOU ...you can't find it all in a book, some of it is your own responsibility of how you shape yourself and learning to lighten up a bit and faking a laugh now and then if you can't do it on your own won't hurt! Laughter goes a long way in cutting the ice on both sides of any conflict.

[eteraz]

Did you actually see the Albert Brooks movie? It wasn't funny! Did you see it? If you did, I'm really curious: was it funny? It wasn't funny.

Anyway, please don't ask me to lighten up, when after our long discussion, you are still willing to suggest, no, state outright, that I am the type of person who imposes fatwas! After my initial reluctance I became quite willing to look at things from your perspective and with respect. You, meanwhile, threw water on our entire dialogue by, after it had come to a congenial end, reaffirming the idea that you can't separate one Muslim (me) from all the other Muslims in the world. If there is fatwa makers in the world, then I must be a fatwa maker too. Why? Simply because I am Muslim? This is the kind of thinking you have to stop. I have said plenty on my blog and at Baron's about what Muslims need to do to come to terms with modernity. However, what you need to do to come to terms with Muslims is learn to separate the individual (me) from the mass of Muslims you see on TV or imagine in your head. It has nothing to do with humor.

Let me put it like this: when Ali Eteraz, a muslim with advanced degrees from top 10 schools, essayist, upholder of conservative values, poet, reciter of Nietzsche and Rawls, possessor of a greater facility with the English language than you have thus far demonstrated, will, at the end of the day, be capable of nothing more than giving fatwas (we both know what connotation that word carries), then is it really worth my while to create bridges between people like you and people like me? I mean, perhaps if I turned into God you might learn to distinguish ME - ME -ME - ME - ME - ME from all others: Muslim or not.

What you just did is just another form of "they all look alike to me."

For that I remain disappointed with your behavior. You are free to tsk tsk me and throw up all the smoke about Muslims not being able to take a joke (Which is tre amusing, because even your criticism about how *this* Muslim can't take a joke comes from you having heard a stereotype that *all* Muslims can't take a joke). Seriously, how many Muslims have you gone to dinner with? If you're in New York I'd be more than willing to take you for a steak. Assuming you can distinguish me from all the cab drivers who share my religion.

[Liquid]

OK eteraz, THAT does it!!!!!
There is no doubt about it anymore!!!!!!
YOU have Proven that there really is NO comedy in the muslim world!!!!! Albert Brooks was onto something way before his time eh?

YOU MUST LIGHTEN UP!!!!

Humor requires maturity ya know! So stop your victimhood when you should be laughing! Quit acting all fragile eterez, DAYUMMMM I am going to think you are all girly like sensitive gonna cry at a drop of hat thingy if you keep this up!

[eteraz]

Liquid,

I'm just really disappointed with that comment.

*Shakes Head*

[Liqiuid]

=======
When the hostess who serves pork chops at the dinner party no longer has to worry that you will leap up and stab her with a salad fork while screaming "Allahu akhbar!", *then*, and only then, will the hostility abate.
========

Ha Ha Baron, you are tooooooo funny, but actually there was a time here that I was worried that eteraz was going to put a fatwa out on poor David!

*sips her martini and giggles*

[eteraz]

hi everyone - just wanted to say that you have given me plenty to think about over the next few days. i will bit by bit address everything on my blog. more than a few individual comments deserve further exploration. im not sure if alexandra has me on her roll. but my blog is at eteraz.wordpress.com

im in the middle of a sort of working vacation so i wont actually post substantively until the 23rd. speaking of work, im going to go do some of that now.

see you later.

[Baron Bodissey]

Now for my tuppence-ha'penny's worth. I'll stay off-topic with eteraz, much to Dymphna's annoyance.

Eteraz: the hostility you experience from people is due to the fact that many thousands of people who loudly proclaim themselves Muslims are currently performing violent and unspeakable acts. It doesn't matter what it says in the hadith, or what's taught by scholars -- the actions are speaking more loudly.

When the violence in the name of Islam stops, so will the hostility. No one will care whether you're a Muslim as long as you behave like any other civilized person.

When the hostess who serves pork chops at the dinner party no longer has to worry that you will leap up and stab her with a salad fork while screaming "Allahu akhbar!", *then*, and only then, will the hostility abate.

You can't help it. It's built into the situation.

But I, personally, am glad that you are doing your part to demonstrate that other kinds of Muslims exist.

[dymphna]

Gosh, you guys sure did wander far from my little Episcopalian rant. Heavens to Betsy, everything from ad hominem attacks to reductios ad absurdum...and all without resorting to curses. Quite a feat.

An update on my Episcopalian rant: Our diocese, suffering a grave monetary implosion due to the investiture of the gay bishop, is, unfortunately still toot-tooting away on the p.c. train. At the recent annual council, with income swirling away, some divine or other proposed that the money used for education for "inclusiveness" be increased. These monies would be procured (she said advisedly) by taking it from other work in the diocese.

ECUSA: the incredibly shrinking church. Pretty soon they'll be able to fit all Episcopalians and Anglicans into a Mini Cooper...no, I won't be in the back seat.

eteraz: lighten up and love a little...we can't all be converted to your way of thinking by tomorrow. Hey, I know: take a day off and read Hafiz. That's what I do when the world is too much for me...

~!D

[Liquid]

esteraz, in your search, you will see many things that try to cover up the ugly past, but I pray that you eventually find truth. For many, the only way over the years that they have coped or tried to reform to something better than the reality in front of them and that behind them is to actually recreate it and/or make excuses for every unpleasant truth via "much interpretation".

There is no doubt that over the years, that history is rewritten, especially by those that are in power or hold the power to get the "so called last word into the historical documentations" and we are quite aware that this takes place even in our own time under our own logical noses, and as you can see, little is done to stop it.

I know that you didn't ask for it, but my best advice that I can give to you is to always go back to the source of things and how things originated to help avoid much deception. For example it's hard to get past muhammed himself thinking he was demon possessed. It's also hard to get past any logic in why God would ever send down an angel 'to muhammed' in the first place and then supposedly in this great revelation to suddenly recant on the historical story of the 'ultimate sacrifice', one must really think this one out, because it's not logical at all to call oneself a liar when you are "all truth" and yet many have tried to recreate this sacrifice in order to decieve. You see it's recreation in the traditions of many and yet none will substitute the truth. One must ask themselves who and what is the force behind this struggle of principals. One must always ask who and what took place here that would try to rob individuals of the gifts from their maker. This is important.

In fact, in the bible there is a warning not once but it is repeated for importance that if anyone EVEN if 'an angel' were to come down and teach another gospel that they would be accursed, and isn't that the very birth of Islam?

[eteraz]

Liquid,

Thanks for the reference. I have to say in all my years I hadn't heard of this. That's really depressing. I'm going to look into this. The fact that the primary authority for it is Ibn Ishaq's seera makes me think that much research is necessary. Ibn Ishaq's seera is something between a book of history and a book of fiction. In one passage he describes that at the birth of Muhammad a light shot from his mother's navel that reached all the way to Jerusalem. Still, he must have gotten wind of these incidents from somewhere and I will look into it.

Thanks.

[Liquid]

eterez, do a search on the names of Asma Bint Marwan and Abu Afak.

[eteraz]

Ninety,

Thanks for the link. Given that I study and write about Islamic Law, I already own a few collections of hadith.

My question wasn't to be directed to the collections at large. My question was: can you please direct me *to the hadith-narrations in which Muhammad exhorts people to kill because someone made fun of him.* That was your allegation: "Mohammed had people who made fun of him murdered according to the venerated hadiths (the Islamic narrations on his life)." Since you mde the allegation, the burden of production lies on you; so I will wait. Maybe some other time we can talk about *other* violent and illogical hadith-narrations, of which therey are many, (and also how the hadith play into the larger scheme of Islamic Law). However, this is not one of those times. Right now I'd like only the hadiths at issue.

Thanks for understanding.

[Stefan]

This comment is a bit off the course of the very interesting debate above but I was interested by the statement Alexandra quoted from Dymphna. Forgive me if I proceed to rant a bit…the hour is very late here in the Land of 10,000 lakes. :-)

The politics of victimization that is the hallmark of the Left’s critique of the human civilization is wrong-headed because it is permeated throughout by the simplistic “oppressor/oppressed” relationship preached by Marxism. This Marxist social duality is veiled with language about “tolerance”, liberation, rights, etc. and is smuggled into schools, places of work, universities, TV shows, movies, the NYT, NPR, and even religious congregations.

When the Left speaks about race they speak in terms of “whites” as oppressors and blacks (Hispanics/brown people/people of color etc.) as the oppressed. The corporation oppresses the worker. Abortion gives you the oppressed woman and the slavery that is the child forced on her by the oppressive male dominated traditional family structure. The Jews oppress the Palestinians. The Super-power oppresses all other nations. The animals and the world’s environment are oppressed by humans with their savage appetite for meat and the very industries and activities that fuel human livelihood. The rich oppress the poor. Parents oppress their children. Children oppress each other. The straight oppress the gay. The Conservative oppresses the Liberal Progressive. The CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, local police, the criminal justice system, and virtually every form of authority oppress the criminal and the “soldiers of the revolution”. The GI oppresses the detainee. The West oppresses the East and the South. Christianity, of course, oppresses the woman, the atheist, the Muslim, the homosexual, the “native”, those who seek “progress” through science, the sinner, the Buddhist, the pagan, the free lover, the Jews, the artist, the author, the actor, the musician, its own adherents, and the very concept of a secular society. Then finally, we have the evolutionary pinnacle of oppression. The white, Western, Christian Super-power of the United States of America which oppresses the entire world (especially with its southern, white, Conservative, evangelical tyrant: George W. Bush).

Every single issue the Democratic Left looks at seems to be seen through this Marxist-style prism which bends and distorts virtually every one of its major positions. As I have argued here before, I think that along with Marxism’s style of social critique, the Left has also adopted Marxism’s self-righteous revolutionary mentality which excuses all acts (lying, cheating, slandering, screaming down free speech and opposing ideas, judicial usurpation of the democratic rule of law, suicide bombing, social engineering, etc.) as long as it is in the service of the great and noble cause. The great intellectual dream is the creation of a purely secular, internationalized, Liberal utopia in which the “Individual” is the sole creator of his own personalized moral law. Where every idea, religious belief, race, gender, culture, moral code, creed, economic state, country, and every civilization is razed to ground so that no thing or entity will stand “above” any other. This is what the Left has envisioned as human freedom and equality. The scythe that must lay waste to the field of humanity will be some sort of fantastical International Leftist State like a Super-Power version of the UN or the EU. Those in charge would benevolently take it upon themselves to knock down anyone who rises, re-educate those that threaten the intellectual peace, and punish those that dare attempt to bring back or “conserve” things that reek of the old, discarded traditions and ideas. The United States must have its teeth pulled and be chained and muzzled. In the final analysis though, there is only person that is of great enough stature to rival such a “One World Government”. God Himself. Therefore, when the guillotine starts to fall it must be God’s head that is the first to roll.

[Liquid]

As far as respect goes, I showed you respect b/c you didn't disrespect me. I'm not one of those humanists who stay nice nice nice while I get lumped with fundamentalists or be accused of dissimulation. If David wants to believe that all Muslims act and think the same, then I am free to mock such views without giving him due process. Thanks for the exchange and good night.
----------

I don't think sharia should be in our western countries on any level, as once their foot is in the door in civil cases for them they will want more or it could grow to more.

As for David, well dang, I don't think David was trying to disrespect you, he was just expressing how he felt on trusting the practice of lying for the cause of Islam and I hope that doesn't mean you want to remove his site from the links on your blog.

[Nasty_Ninety]

I hate to educate you concerning Islamic narrations on the life of Mohammed. The last thing I would want is for you (if you are indeed ignorant of the hadiths, the narrations on the life of Mohammed) so that you might see why the Islamofactists do what they do. You might decide that this is the right thing to do since you beleive Islam is from God. It there none-the-less. With great reluctance I give you a site (which you might already have gone to repeatedly) It has been translated by "good muslims" here at this site http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html.

[eteraz]

Ninety,

Didn't see your message.

Can you please direct me to the hadith-narrations in which Muhammad had people murdered for making fun of him?

Thanks.

[eteraz]

Liquid,

Thanks for the cite. I wasn't aware of this poll. I have to say that its result bother me. Still: Couple of things.

1 - The sample size was only 500. Perhaps some academics need to carry out a bigger study.

2 - It had heartening things to say about integration. More than 30% of Muslims say they are ok with marrying non-Muslims. Trust me, that's pretty big.

3 - It said "that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community." See that? Civil - cases - relating - to - their -own - community. In other words, these moderates *aren't trying to impose the Sharia on others.* Just on themselves.

Mind you: I don't agree with it. I am against it vehemently and now that I have this factoid I will write a post on it in the near future criticizing the Muslim position. However, turns out that even their demand for Sharia were limiting it to themselves. In other words, not a cause for alarm as many knee-jerkers would want us to have. If there's ever a movement in the US by Muslims to apply the sharia to themselves I'll be against that too.

As far as respect goes, I showed you respect b/c you didn't disrespect me. I'm not one of those humanists who stay nice nice nice while I get lumped with fundamentalists or be accused of dissimulation. If David wants to believe that all Muslims act and think the same, then I am free to mock such views without giving him due process. Thanks for the exchange and good night.

[Liquid]

"I'm interested in seeing your authority for Muslims in detroit wanting sharia. Same with your suggestion that moderate Muslims in Uk want the shariah. What poll are you relying on? Hearsay won't cut it."
-------------

Daaaaaaaaayummm now you want me to research things for you as if you don't have google. HA HA Ok, well, I will give you a couple because I don't have the tim, but you can call up your research dept tomorrow and have them look into it for you.
Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

You can grab a pdf file there

Muslim Brotherhood

============
You didn't mention 'race' but you mentioned how Muslims appear to you on subways. That has everything to do with appearance. Appearance is related to one's racial composition. Racial profiling is merely the institutionalization of paranoia. That's how I got to 'race.'
=============

Ha Ha, now come on eteraz, surely after you RE- READ you can see what I typed. I made it clear in defense of David's idea/comment/view that mistrust is entitled to it's skepticism since "SOME" muslims in the west have practiced deciet in carrying out jihad. We can see it in the media and the mosque too, since some clerics will preach one thing and then say another in the news if interviewed.

I said that there is NO SIGN ON muslims OR ANYONE for that matter to distinguish who is going to do harm or suddenly get the call of jihad for any of us getting on a plane or the tube or for that matter eteraz, even in your local grocery! YOU want everyone to separate "the ability to lie for the cause of Islam" from the good and the bad in the west and I was trying to tell you that it's not possible by JUST LOOKING! There is NO sign to tell anyone who the enemy is! I can't help that your mind goes in a circle that leads you to racism because of your own personal demons on that issue but I never once brought RACE into the conversation here. That was YOU!
================

"Personally I have no issues when I get stopped at airports and checked. Just don't mess up my socks."
================

Ha Ha...well thats good eteraz, remember there are little kids getting refused to fly just because their name accidently gets on a list. Maybe you can vent your "profiling" issues at another time if Alexandra does a topic here on it. I think we all have "airport" nightmare stories!
---------------

Finally, I'll take this statement of yours in good faith. "No one really wants to classify "all muslims" as people with evil intentions."
----------------

Well thats good eteraz, because not everyone is careful with the Political Correctness today, heck,I don't even use spellcheck so the readers have to have trained eyes! Ha Ha, so all I am saying is, to lighten up and stop getting all offended when you are trying to share something or feel you can bring some enlightment to the table. We are all great people here and although we don't agree on alot of things, Alexandra runs a great blog and she always allows everyone to have their opinion as she shows much kindness and class. We learn from each other all the time without insulting each other's intellect. Many of us here might have a few more degrees from the universities but whats great about here is that all voices are heard and get to contribute.

[Nasty_Ninety]

Let’s face the facts. Muslims believe that Mohammed is a prophet. Mohammed had people who made fun of him murdered according to the venerated hadiths (the Islamic narrations on his life). That is why the big stink by muslims about the cartoons that make fun of Mohammed aren’t the least bit surprising. All that is left is when… when will some muslim who, will no doubt be denounced by other muslims, slaughter the cartoonists, just like Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered as he begged to try to reason with the “good” muslim who shot him and then tried to decapitate him. I expect more of the same from muslims, I expect muslims to continue to slaughter non-muslims while other muslims denounce the slaughter and continue to contend “Islam is a religion of peace” and “that muslim doesn’t represent Islam”.

[eteraz]

Liquid,

I'm interested in seeing your authority for Muslims in detroit wanting sharia. Same with your suggestion that moderate Muslims in Uk want the shariah. What poll are you relying on? Hearsay won't cut it.

You didn't mention 'race' but you mentioned how Muslims appear to you on subways. That has everything to do with appearance. Appearance is related to one's racial composition. Racial profiling is merely the institutionalization of paranoia. That's how I got to 'race.'

Personally I have no issues when I get stopped at airports and checked. Just don't mess up my socks.

Finally, I'll take this statement of yours in good faith. "No one really wants to classify "all muslims" as people with evil intentions."

[Liquid]

eteraz,

YOUR WORDS== "my point was related to terminology: that such behavior is not called taqiyah. As I have already defined it: taqiyah is when Shia Muslims in states of persecution changed their exterior behavior so that Sunnis would not kill them."

"By the way, I'm appalled that you'd suggest that Muslims in the West need symbols to make us appear safe to you. Dude, if you want to be live in paranoia, that's all on you."
============

MY WORDS == I understand your sensitivity to "terminology" but again, I think the "trust factor" on what is said and what is done is quite entitled due to the fact that it does happen here in the west. Alot of nonmuslims do not want sharia law here in the west and thats why I gave that example of the sharia law in saudi on what 'it says' it would uphold and then what 'it does' uphold. Ha Ha and I think anyone can read what I wrote about that there ARE NOT any symbols and did NOT suggest that the muslims in the west NEED symbols. Ha Ha how could that be implemented anyway...where is your logic? You enjoy twisting words that are not there eh? No one really wants to classify "all muslims" as people with evil intentions, but you have made it clear that you want everyone to have some magical ability to sort the good intentions from the bad intentions in those living in the west and not use terminology that insults anyone on this delicate matter when discussing it, and due to freedom of speech being threatened or that political correctness is gone haywire, when the polls are out there that large numbers of "moderate muslims" want sharia law IN THE WEST... Do a little research on that in the UK and in Detroit, USA! NOT all muslims are on the same page as you!
================

YOUR WORDS==To call it taqiyah, on largely arbitrary basis, simply because there is an Arabic word there, is both wrong as a matter of vocabulary, and unnecessarily prejudicial to Muslim such as myself.
================

MY WORDS== Hmmmmm I thought you said on your blog that you were not a muslim? I guess I should go back and read that since it maybe it was satire. I was under the impression you didn't practice Islam but had a muslim background. My bad!
===============================

YOUR WORDS ---"racial profiling is meaningless. Though all 19 nineteen of the 9/11 bombers were Arab, the 7/7 bombers were East African and Pakistani. Amongst the Islamists there is Chechens who look white. Richard Reid was white. Jose Padilla, hispanic. The Jamat al Fuqra is largely black. Point is, paranoia doesn't solve anything. It doesn't address the issues. It, in fact, makes it frustrating for people like me to talk to you, since the first thing I have to do is take you by your little hand and soote you as if you were some kind of virgin on your wedding night. "Oh relax dear, I'll take care of you." I have put myself out there for the sake of dialogue and discussion and promotion of western interests despite knowing full well there are westerners out there who can do nothing more but look at me and *lump* me with the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Surely if I have the chutzpah to stand up and speak with a bit of confidence, then you must too. If you don't, then how can you expect me to have any interest in what you have to say?"
=================================

MY WORDS== Hmmmm now here comes the "racial card" well I don't know where you read 'race' into my comments since I am quite aware that ANYONE can be a muslim and that Islam is not a race. I don't get the words Islam or Muslim confused with RACE. So that won't work. I have voiced that many times here on Alexandra's blog. Guess you just enjoy reading things in that aren't there when you are frustrated eteraz. As for paranoia, hmmmm, let me explain to you that there is much paranoia out there today and its very much justified. Some of us don't live in denial. It's not paranoia for the sake of being paranoid. Some can take reality and turn it into "ghosthorses" because it's much easier to deal with as a coping mechanism and then there are others that can see it for what it really is or the potential it can become. My point about not being able to determine who is "taking on the call for jihad on any given day" and "who is not doing so amongst us" has NO outward symbol or switch that automatically turns on for anyone to recognise, and I am sorry you can't read what I wrote, since I definately wasn't juxtaposing! Ha Ha HERE...read it again what I DID SAY, "Remember eteraz, there isn't any symbol or sign on any muslim's face or anyone for that matter that says, "Don't worry I am not here to hurt you" or one that visually says, "I am not a jihadist" when one is getting on the tube or boarding a flight to NY." Go read it again...I never suggested that muslims NEED a sign...hahahhaa since there is no way to do that!

Seriously Eteraz, as I said earlier up a post or two, you really need to lighten up, since your intial goal was to stop any character assasignation of "all western muslims" and yet in your frustration, you have done nothing but stoop to insulting David's intellect and tried really hard but have failed to classify me as a racist. Ha Ha

[eteraz]

Liquid,

the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorists did lead double lives. they did hide their true intentions. no one is arguing that.

my point was related to terminology: that such behavior is not called taqiyah. As I have already defined it: taqiyah is when Shia Muslims in states of persecution changed their exterior behavior so that Sunnis would not kill them.

what the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorists did can be called by a million other names: Terrorism, Concealment, Barbarism, Misrepresentation. To call it taqiyah, on largely arbitrary basis, simply because there is an Arabic word there, is both wrong as a matter of vocabulary, and unnecessarily prejudicial to Muslim such as myself.

By the way, I'm appalled that you'd suggest that Muslims in the West need symbols to make us appear safe to you. Dude, if you want to be live in paranoia, that's all on you. Fact is, that will not get you anywhere except in circles of fear. Even the NYC police commissioner has admitted that racial profiling is meaningless. Though all 19 nineteen of the 9/11 bombers were Arab, the 7/7 bombers were East African and Pakistani. Amongst the Islamists there is Chechens who look white. Richard Reid was white. Jose Padilla, hispanic. The Jamat al Fuqra is largely black. Point is, paranoia doesn't solve anything. It doesn't address the issues. It, in fact, makes it frustrating for people like me to talk to you, since the first thing I have to do is take you by your little hand and soote you as if you were some kind of virgin on your wedding night. "Oh relax dear, I'll take care of you." I have put myself out there for the sake of dialogue and discussion and promotion of western interests despite knowing full well there are westerners out there who can do nothing more but look at me and *lump* me with the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Surely if I have the chutzpah to stand up and speak with a bit of confidence, then you must too. If you don't, then how can you expect me to have any interest in what you have to say?

[eteraz]

Ninety,

So b/c I'm Muslim I can't be Western and can't exhort Westerners to have confidence in being Western? Are you serious? First of all, your statement immediately discounts the possibility that I could be a *Western-Muslim.* Which I happen to be. If I were an avowed Islamist, perhaps you'd have a point.

*This* inability to differentiate *between* Muslims is the real problem thus far that I have been trying to point out. On one hand you talk about "oh where are the moderate Muslims" and at the same time you lump all Muslims into one Borg-like collective. Logical fallacy. Mutual exclusivity. Circular reasoning.

How can you call yourself a person of acumen when you say statements like "the Muslim who survived was the one Allah wanted in power." That's like saying "God wanted Vietnam to happen so that leftists could take over." Perhaps such statements make sense in your world. In the world of the rational they fall flat as nothing more than childish hyperbole and irresponsible polemic.

[Liquid]

I understand your frustration at saying,"because it paints muslims in the west as conspiratorial insiders" but David is entitled to his opinion on the subject and I think he does represent the view of many that are entitled to a certain amount of scepticism, since there has been "some" muslims that have lived in the west that woke up one day and decided to wreak havock on the London transportion system. Many of their families had no clue about their motives; as they lived dual lives. They were lying to everyone as they plotted. I know that you don't agree with David's comment and that you feel it doesn't apply to you or all muslims in the west" but that's no reason to attack David's intellect in your response on explaining that it is not the intention or practice of all muslims in the west. I think David is quite an educated man and perhaps has his own past experience or views on taqiyah. Remember eteraz, there isn't any symbol or sign on any muslim's face or anyone for that matter that says, "Don't worry I am not here to hurt you" or one that visually says, "I am not a jihadist" when one is getting on the tube or boarding a flight to NY. It would be wonderful to relax in your logic that taqiyah doesn't exist for those in the west and that the caliphate is just a ghosthorse, but come on, for example in Saudi,"Islamic Shariah in force in the Kingdom never imposes capital punishment on persons who have not attained their majority” and that “a juvenile is defined under the Detention Regulation and the Juvenile Homes’ Regulation of A.H. 1395 (1975) as every human being below the age of 18” but take a look at this http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/27/saudia11931.htm

Perhaps it's good every now and then to take a deep breath and realise that opinions/ideas like David's are a result of 'actions/ideas by the sons and daughters of Islam and have been done in the name of allah' I don't think David was being bad, I certainly think he can speak for himself, but IMHO, I took it as it's just he was expressing that he doesn't trust anyone that is practicing Islam at this time. Remember that many don't even view Islam as anything but a political movement disguised as a religion.

[Nasty_Ninety]

There may be muslims who don't subscribe to sharia law or Islamic states. The big problem with Islam is that ever since the death of Mohammed "the prophet", those who ruled was determined solely through violence. Mohammed's comapanions warred against one another and assasinated one another to obtain the caliphate. Bottom line is this, the muslim who survived was the one whom Allah wanted in power. Uthman, the third Caliph of Islam, whom destroyed all the different version of the Quran except the one he authorized was assasinated for being a "bad muslim". (It's all documented in the venerated narrations on Mohammed's life much more understandable then the Quran by the way) Thus having a muslim post things like "Have some confidence in your freaking civilization" from someone who is an adherant of such a beleif system is automatically suspect. It's like the a muslim singing a lullaby to a non-muslim that has the lyrics "all is well, peace peace". But there is no peace.

[eteraz]

you are entitled to your views, but i am also entitled to tell the blogosphere when terms with specific historical meanings, i.e. 'taqiyah' are being used 1) incorrectly and 2) in an unncessarily alarmist manner. i'm especially alarmed by the equivocation of 'taqiyah' with dissimulation of the treasonous sort, because it paints muslims in the west as conspiratorial insiders. since we happen to be diligent citizens, for the large part maintaining per capita incomes of more than $50,000 (which is good taxing), such terminology is especially misleading. clearly the higher authority you follow is against falsehood.

finally, what gets tiresome for me is the sustained belief by so many that everything we're talking about has to do with "sides." It has nothing to do with sides. It has to do with principles of human dignity and with good ideas. I won't support the Western "side" if all it can call forth as its respresentatives are guys like David (from above) (thankfully this isn't the case) because he represents bad ideas. Nor will I support the Islamic "side" if all it can do is violate its own commitment to justice because that violates human dignity. I assure you, 'swinging' against both of these will never be tiresome. That precisely is what people of honor have been doing since the beginning of time.

[Liquid]

Well eteraz, I can see you are frustrated, seems you spend alot of time "swinging" on both sides, as the issues unfold, I am sure it gets tiresome for you, and I think you will better express alot of that for others to see in your novel, but you have to allow others to have their own opinion on things such as 'taqiyah' or the 'ability of the growing caliphate movement out there, instead of just trying to dismiss it all, since many times when it's mentioned it is now attached with not supporting a separation between state and religion, because a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Western Muslim, Syrian Muslim, etc, or whatever will each have a total different veiwpoint and experience on such things from their past experiences and/or for their future. It's a wonderful thing that here in blogsphere we are allowed to speak out on our thoughts, fears and ideas since so many are persecuted within certain countries for doing so.

As for your comment on "Have some confidence in your freaking civilization.", I personally don't put my faith in any man or civilization at all, I would rather put it into a much higher authority.

[eteraz]

Liquid, I love this statement. "If sharia took place here in the west, and that if you were still a westerner yourself, despite your muslim background, you would be considered a 'dhimmi' or 'apostate' yourself.

1. I don't believe that the Western Civilization is that pansy that we'd suddenly allow ourselves to be ruled by an out-moded and non-Western framework of political governance. Muslims compose, at best, 8% of the West? They couldn't even all get together and vote it in. Stop conjuring up ghost horses. I don't get defensive when I think people are coming after Islam. I get defensive when good secular Westerners start jumping at the slightest invocation of the word "Islam." It's like we got together and hit up on a lot of political-Ecstacy (TM) and now the slightest nudge of the trigger words (taqiyah! naqbah!) makes us jump. Have some confidence in your freaking civilization.

Anyway, there is a difference between a dhimmi and an apostate under Sharia. Under sharia you could only be a dhimmi if you were a person of the book (jew or a christian). As such, you could pay money and allow yourself to be ruled by your own religious law in private and economic matters. People often think dhimmi = second class citizen. It's not the Sharia that told people to treat Jews and Christians less than Muslims. It's the bigotry of the people. As a Muslim in the West I have been treated plenty shitty by Americans; I don't say that's the fault of the laws, I saw it's the fault of the people. So, assuming a great sharia state gets ensconced in the West, I wouldn't be a dhimmi.

As far as apostasy goes: I know enough islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) to go down swinging if any such allegations are ever made against me by my co-religionists.

[Liquid]

Ha Ha I don't feel "whipped" at all eteraz, geeze, you feeling all dom-like or something today? Can't people make a comment without you getting all defensive?

I knew what you were saying, just couldn't help but snag a few of your words to make a point. So get over yourself. Ha Ha and I think if anyone has read enough of your blog they would know that if sharia took place here in the west, and that if you were still a westerner yourself, despite your muslim background, you would be considered a "dhimmi" or "apostate" yourself. So recoil your claws and learn to lighten up!

[eteraz]

liquid, learn to read.

i was juxtaposing the constitutional order of medina *against* the later totalitarian practice of sharia. had later muslim generations followed the multi-cultural constitution of medina they might not have given into later sultan run sharia governments.

but since you were too busy getting off on thoughts of being forced into becoming a dhimmi -- you must be the 's' in S&M -- you obviously didn't bother to think about what i wrote. that's ok, you seem happy being whipped.

[Liquid]

Quote: "i think its rueful that the generation following muhammad did not look to the constitution as a model of fair governance. the muslim community's original political sin.
"

Yeah, can't you just hear this being said to a dhimmi under forced sharia law?

Like, "get with the program, you are under "fair governance" now and you should be all happy we are living under the Caliphate!

Oh yeah, I can see the billboards now...
"that good old fair sharia law...coming to a city near you"

Don't know why everyone can get all excited about that huh? Ha Ha

[Kenny Pierce]

(Just struck by what a difference spelling can make...)

[Kenny Pierce]

Your Anchorship,

Hear, hear.

[eteraz]

wiggle wiggle.

[eteraz]

by the way, since i'm so willingly bowing to the edifice of your intellect, i wanted to ask you: how can you allege that Muslims in the west are practicing taqiyah when even the most firebrand and suspicious of Muslim such as the Jamat al Furqa, are *openly* practicing their faith in places like South Carolina and New York.

They are *openly* calling their places "Holy Islamville" and you are saying Muslims are hiding their faith.

Then again, I cannot view things with the omniscience you clearly possess; I being a meager intellectually deficient Muslim, somewhere between a savage and a monkey, and you being one of the direct descendents of Aristotle.

[eteraz]

man, david, you have fallen so far off the enlightenment-rationalist bus, that you are floundering out there with the berkeley nihilists, and the islamo-fascists. your irascibe, and incredible, inability, and deficiency, to article a cogent and historically verified statement, has left me stupefied. your brilliance lies in your ability to *make* your opponent stupid. After talking to you I want nothing more than to speak in jibberish. In my previous post I made the mistake of recommending a history book to you. I must rescind that offer given your disposition to, as it seems, turn into a frothing firehouse of irrationality at the slightest appearance of reason.

Muhammad actually entered into a formal constitution with the residentes of medina. it included provisions for jews and christians and women. under our post-enlightenment standard, i obviously disagree with a number of its provisions. however, the fact that a constitution existed 1400 years ago in the muslim world seems to fly in the face of your allegation that muhammad slaughtered, enslaved or raped. i think its rueful that the generation following muhammad did not look to the constitution as a model of fair governance. the muslim community's original political sin.

i have on many occassions identified and exposed the fact that an entire jewish tribe was murdered by the army of muhammad. however there is sufficient (western) scholarship to suggest that this took place under the auspices of one of his vengeful generals. doesn't make it right or absolve anyone. I'm not really asking for that. I am, however, encouraging you to get your head out of your posterior, and see that there is a lot of scholarship that contradicts the fecal matter you are typing.

[David]

"as far as muhammad practicing dissimulation..."

Tell that to the Jews of Medina, whom Mohammed had slaughtered, raped and enslaved after decieving them in surrender negotiations.

He practicedtaqiyah, which was the primary justification for its formal delineation: what Mohammed did was obviously right.

Can't wiggle out of it. As long as Muslims revere the Butcher of Medina, theirs is a religion of hate, intolerance, treachery, deciet, rape, murder and enslavement. And if they repudiate the Butcher of Medina, then they no longer have Islam.

[eteraz]

you may also want to study the differences between the shia and sunni practices.

for example: shias permit temporary marriage contracts, the sunnis don't allow it. shias believe in a centralized clergy, sunnis spit on the idea. the differences are huge, and to suggest that the views of the minority sect in islam have somehow been adopted (and consciously, to boot), by the entire muslim immigrant population in the west (my god how wide you cast your net), is assinine -- and i'm in a giving mood right now.

[eteraz]

david,

lol to the taqiyah comment

taqiyah was historically practiced by the shia ( who emerged long after muhammad's death). shias practiced it in largely sunni environs because otherwise they would have been killed. a number of minority muslim sects have survived in sunni areas by practicing taqiyah: the druze, the ismaili and the bahai. it means 'dissimulation' in a loose sense. it can also be called pragmatism.

as far as muhammad practicing dissimulation, this is not historically accurate. he actually told his followers in mecca to be open about their islam, which led to their persecution. it was because they were being persecuted that they fled to medina.

again, throwing around words like taqiyah, about which you clearly know nothing, simply reinforces in my mind that you are not willing, or able, to engage the subject matter that the world is grappling with today.

by the way, moses maimonides encouraged the jews of yemen to hide their faith in the 13th century. muslims in russia during stalin times also practiced taqiyah, as well as muslims during the inquisition. i think you are smart enough to realize that religious persecution has been a real part of world history. as such, it makes sense that minority religious groups would hide their faith.

as far as muslims practicing taqiyah in the west: 2 things: 1) sunnis, who compose a majority of the muslim population, consider it a shia 'heresy' and won't engage in it, 2) the west offers us freedom of religion. that's why we came here in the first place. as such, since there is no persecution there is no grounds for the practice. finally, it simply doesn't have the offensive connotations that you invoke.

if its terrorists that got you spooked out, call them infiltrators and terrorists, stop maligning terms you clearly know nothing about.

here's an idea, go read some books. start with venture of islam by hodgson.

[the anchoress]

Race and ethnicity are accidental. They are not instrumental in our salvation.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think there are no accidents to our creation, and that we are born male, female, gay, straight, black or white for a reason that is deeply unknowable, but perhaps is part of how God wants us to come to receive or know him. I do not believe that I was accidentally born a heterosexual white woman. I don't believe my brother was accidentally born a gay white man.

[David]

JM: "Consider the prejudice here against any form of hajib, even when undertaken by a woman voluntarily, as it frequently is."

Hmmm, haven't run across that kind of prejudice here in America's Third World County™. Now, you might (wrongly) assume my reaction to be a result of prejudice. I simply assume the woman is ugly and appreciate her saving me the pain of seeing it. [clue: sarcasm]

JM: "I routinely also violate this American social convention and count mantras on a set of beads in public, on the bus or while sitting alone in building lobbies, for example. This causes a certain amount of hostility toward me from strangers."

You think? Or could it be that many city dwellers simply make a safe choice to avoid engaging the person acting weird, cos they've run across folks talking wildly or mumbling weirdly in the past, as I frequently did when I lived in an "inner city" neighborhood or later when I worked with some homeless folks.

Maybe such a generalization doesn't apply to you, and perhaps folks whose reactions you (rightly or wrongly) read as "hostility" are unfairly placing you in the "potentially dangerous weirdo" category, but folks need to make assessments very quickly to avoid trouble in urban situations.

The situations and assessments are different, here in a much more rural part of the country. Oh, I'd still probably avoid a stranger who was acting weird in public, but the local weirdos are all known to me, and I can avoid the potentially (or genuinely) dangerous ones easily and engage or not, as I choose, the harmless weirdos—even give the occasional lift to such, when they bum rides.

Because they are known weirdos.

If ya sit in public in an urban setting perhaps both looking and acting strangely, it's not going to be unreasonable for some folks to avoid you or even act in ways that you percieve as hostile.

As for your Muslim aquaintances whom you say are not violent or who do not endorse violence and are accepting of other religious beliefs, so? The Butcher of Medina taught his followers to lie to and decieve unbelievers whenever they were not in a position to impose their beliefs. Hence, if these are indeed faithful followers of the Butcher of Medina, I see no way you can verify that these people are not practicing such "holy deception," do you?

If they are not true followers of the Butcher of Medina, then why do they celebrate his "victory" in the slaughter, rape and enslavement of the Jews of Medina? Jf they do not celebrate that first great military victory of Islam, then they are apostate Muslims.

Can't have it both ways: either they revere a brutal, treacherous person or they do not. If they do not, then they are not Muslims.

Always remember when you hear soi disant "moderate" Muslims speak: their religion instructs them to lie to unbelievers whenever it is to their advantage, and to tell the truth only when it is to their advantage. Ask some NON-Muslim who has made a study of Islam to explain the taqiyya dispensation some time. (Why non-Muslim? It's inherent in the taqiyya itself: you can never trust a Muslim to tell you the truth; you must ALWAYS verify anything a Muslim tells you from other, reliable sources. A Muslim tells me the sky is blue? I'll look outside to check. And you should too. If for nothing else, out of respect for their religious views... :-)