PDA

View Full Version : Muslim Civil War?


Lyle
12-16-2009, 03:13 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16friedman.html

Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam. We had a civil war in America in the mid-19th century because we had a lot of people who believed bad things — namely that you could enslave people because of the color of their skin. We defeated those ideas and the individuals, leaders and institutions that propagated them, and we did it with such ferocity that five generations later some of their offspring still have not forgiven the North.

Islam needs the same civil war. It has a violent minority that believes bad things: that it is O.K. to not only murder non-Muslims — “infidels,” who do not submit to Muslim authority — but to murder Muslims as well who will not accept the most rigid Muslim lifestyle and submit to rule by a Muslim caliphate.

What is really scary is that this violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most “legitimacy” in the Muslim world today. Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public. Secular Arab leaders wink at these groups, telling them: “We’ll arrest if you do it to us, but if you leave us alone and do it elsewhere, no problem.”

How many fatwas — religious edicts — have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Very few. Where was the outrage last week when, on the very day that Iraq’s Parliament agreed on a formula to hold free and fair multiparty elections — unprecedented in Iraq’s modern history — five explosions set off by suicide bombers hit ministries, a university and Baghdad’s Institute of Fine Arts, killing at least 127 people and wounding more than 400, many of them kids?

Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.

“What Muslims were talking about last week were the minarets of Switzerland, not the killings of people in Iraq or Pakistan,” noted Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “People look for red herrings when they don’t want to look inward, when they don’t want to summon the moral courage to produce the counter-fatwa that would say: stabilizing Iraq is an Islamic duty and bringing peace to Afghanistan is part of the survival of the Islamic umma,” or community.

So please tell me, how are we supposed to help build something decent and self-sustaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan when jihadists murder other Muslims by the dozens and no one really calls them out?

A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.

Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects. They aspire to, are able to and must be challenged to take responsibility for their world. If we want a peaceful, tolerant region more than they do, they will hold our coats while we fight, and they will hold their tongues against their worst extremists. They will lose, and we will lose — here and there, in the real Afghanistan and in the Virtual Afghanistan.

Lyle
12-17-2009, 08:24 PM
http://chronicle.com/article/Of-MinaretsMassacres/49393/

I, for one, find that context, apology, and intolerance matter in the following way. If you steep yourself in the atrocities of the Armenian genocide, not to mention the many intolerances exhibited by majority-Muslim societies toward Christians, Jews, women, gays, and other non-Muslims, one's conclusion is not an absolutist moral judgment, but a decision on who owes a greater apology to whom, a decision on how to allocate one's moral energy.

The day that Turkey apologizes and pays reparations for the Armenian genocide, that Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches and synagogues, that the Arab world thinks the homeland principles it applies to the Arabs of Palestine also apply to the Armenians of Turkey—on that day, I will find time to commiserate with the generally kind and hard-working Muslims of Switzerland.

Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle Review, teaches philosophy and media theory at the University of Pennsylvania.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-18-2009, 04:28 AM
http://chronicle.com/article/Of-MinaretsMassacres/49393/

Lyle, you can't address "Muslims" en masse and expect them to assume responsibility for the acts of some Muslims.

Re: the earlier post on why 'official' Islam doesn't condemn terror more vociferously, I'd say 1. there's a lot of clerical commentary you aren't reading because it's happening in local mosques, not major politicized/televised ones and 2. there is no 'official' Islam. As in, it's actually specified as an article of the faith that there WILL be no such thing; the top clerics don't have anything, theologically, approaching the power of, say, the Pope or the Dalai Lama. It's not a centralized faith that way. Instead, those clerics whose religious statements have force have that force BECAUSE they already have political power, and use that political power to add weight to their religious ideology. You seem to be suggesting that the ideology has political legs because these guys matter in the theological hierarchy, but actually, since there is no theological hierarchy, it's the other way around.

Whatfur
12-18-2009, 10:28 AM
Lyle, you can't address "Muslims" en masse and expect them to assume responsibility for the acts of some Muslims.

Re: the earlier post on why 'official' Islam doesn't condemn terror more vociferously, I'd say 1. there's a lot of clerical commentary you aren't reading because it's happening in local mosques, not major politicized/televised ones and 2. there is no 'official' Islam. As in, it's actually specified as an article of the faith that there WILL be no such thing; the top clerics don't have anything, theologically, approaching the power of, say, the Pope or the Dalai Lama. It's not a centralized faith that way. Instead, those clerics whose religious statements have force have that force BECAUSE they already have political power, and use that political power to add weight to their religious ideology. You seem to be suggesting that the ideology has political legs because these guys matter in the theological hierarchy, but actually, since there is no theological hierarchy, it's the other way around.

So where Lyle is being too inclusive you are also by means of giving them all a pass and echoing excuses that don't fly. There may be truth in the facts you put forward, but you imply that we would be happy by what is being said in most mosques and you imply that if as individuals clerics came forward, it would have little effect. I would disagree with both.

opposable_crumbs
12-18-2009, 11:16 AM
The day the Israeli's stop their illegal settlements and apologise, is the day I start to condem European anti-semitism?

Sounds like Carlin Romano has more in common with the Bin Ladens of this world than he or she would ever realise.

Whatfur
12-18-2009, 11:48 AM
The day the Israeli's stop their illegal settlements and apologise, is the day I start to condem European anti-semitism?

Sounds like Carlin Romano has more in common with the Bin Ladens of this world than he or she would ever realise.


I'm sorry (<-- not really apologizing), I did not see what you are seemingly replying to in anyone's comments or in the article presented. You may have a bone to pick but it is from a different animal.

opposable_crumbs
12-18-2009, 12:00 PM
I'm sorry (<-- not really apologizing), I did not see what you are seemingly replying to in anyone's comments or in the article presented. You may have a bone to pick but it is from a different animal.

The day that Turkey apologizes and pays reparations for the Armenian genocide, that Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches and synagogues, that the Arab world thinks the homeland principles it applies to the Arabs of Palestine also apply to the Armenians of Turkey—on that day, I will find time to commiserate with the generally kind and hard-working Muslims of Switzerland.

The day the Israeli's stop their illegal settlements and apologise, is the day I start to condem European anti-semitism?
I was just trying to hi-light the idiocy of such sentiments. I hope it makes more sense in context.

Whatfur
12-18-2009, 12:15 PM
I was just trying to hi-light the idiocy of such sentiments. I hope it makes more sense in context.

"Sense" may not be the right word, but yes... it shed more light on your linkage, thanks.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-18-2009, 03:23 PM
So where Lyle is being too inclusive you are also by means of giving them all a pass and echoing excuses that don't fly. There may be truth in the facts you put forward, but you imply that we would be happy by what is being said in most mosques and you imply that if as individuals clerics came forward, it would have little effect. I would disagree with both.

But if my two points ARE true--that the bulk of clergy don't talk like this and that the ones who do have political power independent of religious authority-- then would you concede (again IF my facts are true) that IN THAT CASE, Lyle's challenge/callout to moderate clerics is nonsensical?

I understand you can argue that my two IFs are not true, in which case, we have to debate and bring forward our respective knowledge of Islamic theology and contemporary practice, but I'm just wondering if, as a starting point, you can see how my conclusion follows from my premises.

Lyle
12-18-2009, 03:24 PM
I'm paraphrasing the author's point. I can write whatever I want to write Preppy. If I cause a ruckus, I cause a ruckus. :)

I agree with your point 1, by the way. I think that is a fairly obvious point. However, complaining about Muslims killing Muslims is still not nearly as well demonstrated as complaining about America or the West killing Muslims. Agree or disagree?

I also agree with you point 2, but we still call all Protestants faiths (plus Catholics) Christian do we not?

I think you're also missing the point. Clerics and massed groups of Muslims carry on about America and Israel, and yet they do not demonstrate the same anger when a suicide bomber blows up a bunch of Muslim children in Baghdad. That's Friedman's point. If you're the Muslim cleric or man in the street who carry's on about America and Israel, you sure as hell should be carrying on with equal or more fervor about Muslim on Muslim killings. This has nothing to do with how the different Muslim communities function or Islamic theology, but what moves them to publicly demonstrate their feelings.

TwinSwords
12-18-2009, 03:26 PM
But if my two points ARE true--that the bulk of clergy don't talk like this and that the ones who do have political power independent of religious authority-- then would you concede (again IF my facts are true) that IN THAT CASE, Lyle's challenge/callout to moderate clerics is nonsensical?

I understand you can argue that my two IFs are not true, in which case, we have to debate and bring forward our respective knowledge of Islamic theology and contemporary practice, but I'm just wondering if, as a starting point, you can see how my conclusion follows from my premises.

Lyle's game, and the game of conservatives, is to try to generalize the blame for terrorism and atrocities from the individuals who committed the acts to the entire population of Muslims. It's transparent hatred and bigotry, and I believe you should not engage with them as though their critique is the least bit sincere or honest. They simply want to condemn all Muslims, and hold all Muslims repsonsible for the acts of a tiny (vanishingly small) minority.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-18-2009, 03:35 PM
Well then, my criticism above goes to the writer and to those who believe his argument, which, I'm assuming since you've A. posted it and B. said similar stuff before, includes you. Confirm or deny?

Lyle
12-18-2009, 03:43 PM
Confirm or deny which arguments, and from which article? I was editing my post while you responded so read it again.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-18-2009, 04:27 PM
I agree with your point 1, by the way. I think that is a fairly obvious point. However, complaining about Muslims killing Muslims is still not nearly as well demonstrated as complaining about America or the West killing Muslims. Agree or disagree?.

Depends where you are. In the region of the Muslim world I know best--Central, South and East Asia (ie non-Arab Islam)--I disagree. I think it's probably about 50-50 in these parts.

I also agree with you point 2, but we still call all Protestants faiths (plus Catholics) Christian do we not?

Yes, and all Muslims are Muslim. But when we say "this group of people is composed of Christians," we also mean, to be seasonal, "the members of this group believe Christ was the son of God, born to Mary by Virgin Birth," and a host of other such things. The list of tenets we can attribute to Muslims is much shorter than the list of core beliefs we can attribute to Judaism or Christianity. You can't ask Muslims, writ large, to respond, clerically, to things fundoos say, because where moderate Protestants respond to the religious right by saying things like "Well, yes, I see this passage in the Bible where it says sodomy is a sin, but I interpret it differently," many moderate Muslims aren't actually working from the same core scriptural material as the hardliners.

This has nothing to do with how the different Muslim communities function or Islamic theology, but what moves them to publically demonstrate their feelings.

I'm saying, Lyle, the obligation of Muslims to say "hey, terrorists, you are bad guys" is no more than that of anyone else to say "hey, terrorists, you are bad guys." The suggestion that they have a special obligation "as Muslims," which is the underlying current of Friedman's argument, is false because, as I understand Islam "as Muslims" has less meaning/substance as a phrase than "as Christians" does.

As someone who has part-Muslim parentage, I'm not saying this lightly. I think it is a structural flaw in Islam as a social order that it does not have the scriptural or organizational officialdom needed to respond to extremism, but the fact is that it doesn't. So I think any attempts to ask "Muslims" to do anything is just a fool's errand.

On the other hand, I think groupings based on ethnicity within the Muslim world have valence. So asking Pakistanis what they think about Talibanization "as Pakistanis" is valuable. Asking them what they think about it "as Muslims" is ultimately not.

Whatfur
12-18-2009, 05:13 PM
But if my two points ARE true--that the bulk of clergy don't talk like this and that the ones who do have political power independent of religious authority-- then would you concede (again IF my facts are true) that IN THAT CASE, Lyle's challenge/callout to moderate clerics is nonsensical?


First, those were not your points in your initial post but were only your implications...thus me looking for clarity and now finding it...but no, even, IF the "bulk" of clerics in their mosques spoke negatively of terrorists and other islamic radicalism and even if the hierarchy is different I think they still have an obligation to do it publically. History is made by individuals. Sorry, no concession.

I understand you can argue that my two IFs are not true, in which case, we have to debate and bring forward our respective knowledge of Islamic theology and contemporary practice, but I'm just wondering if, as a starting point, you can see how my conclusion follows from my premises.

You might have guessed correctly. ;) No. I do not think your facts are true. I doubt that the bulk are actively anti-radical in their mosques and don't see much reliance on the hierarchy, even in other religions (Ok, maybe the pope) so I think you inflate its importance in this discussion. I would be happy to be convinced otherwise but then would still feel they were allowing their religion to be abused without doing all they could to prevent it. When some NY Bishop makes a strident stand about something, he can get on TV, so could any NY Mosque Cleric...probably almost anytime he desired.

Lyle
12-18-2009, 05:25 PM
No, no... we're talking about specific Muslims here. Muslims that go out into the street and protest Danish cartoons yet don't get all riled up over a suicide bombing (lots of them) in Baghdad.

It is the same problem with bin Laden, he doesn't thank the United States for helping Muslims in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, or Somalia, yet can only get angry at the United States for putting infidel soldiers in Saudi Arabia or supporting the Saudi royal family (who made bin Laden rich interestingly enough). This is a common way of thinking throughout the Muslim world (perhaps more so in the Arab and North African world, which I'm more familiar with... its people at least). Some of it is just generic developing world thinking, which is, it is always the West's fault, not ours.

Just like the Fareed Zakaria piece (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/11/29/gps.pakistan.blame.cnn) on CNN recently about how many Pakistanis believe the suicide bombings there are carried out by the likes of Blackwater or some other outsiders (even after the Taliban claim responsibility for it).

Your last point is a good point. I don't disagree with it (your point about talking about the Tablibanization of Pakistan). The problem is moderate Muslims are fundamentalists too. Moderate Muslims really aren't moderate, they're just not radicalized. That's the bulk of Muslim people (okay, maybe Arab Muslims). There are then westernized and secularized Muslims, but they're a minority. As I said before in another post, there are well educated Muslims who want there to be an Islamic caliphate one day that spans from Morocco to somewhere in Asia. They may not want it done through violence, but they see all Muslims as one great bloc, and the state would be something akin to the E.U. maybe, that's how they explained it to me. They also sympathize with the likes of violent radicals, and take greater offense to Western violence on Muslims, than Muslim violence on Muslims. These were "moderates".

We may have a disagreement on what constitutes a "moderate". And I definitely think they're some differences in thinking between the Arab world and a place like Pakistan, and certainly places like Indonesia and Malaysia.

Whatfur
12-18-2009, 07:17 PM
Lyle's game, and the game of conservatives, is to try to generalize the blame for terrorism and atrocities from the individuals who committed the acts to the entire population of Muslims. It's transparent hatred and bigotry, and I believe you should not engage with them as though their critique is the least bit sincere or honest. They simply want to condemn all Muslims, and hold all Muslims repsonsible for the acts of a tiny (vanishingly small) minority.

And your game is to make silly generalizations about conservatives.

Wishing that Islams leaders (and Muslims in general) anywhere in the hierarchy did more to vanquish the "tiny (vanishingly small) minority", who make a mockery out of the religion of peace with their actions, is not blaming them for terrorism or any of the other attrocities. That's idiotic. Your hatred and bigotry is what is transparent. Your attempt at telling people who they should debate or convince also shows your obvious willingness to perpetuate your own ignorance.

Lyle
12-18-2009, 08:28 PM
Pointing out that Muslim terrorists are Muslims is bigotry? Say what?

Have you not seen me defend the right to build minarets in Switzerland recently? Why would I defend the right to build minarets in Switzerland, if I was out to condemn all Muslims for being Muslim? Why do I criticize France for banning the ha-jib, if I'm out to condemn Muslims for being Muslim? Why Twinswords, why o why?

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 01:23 PM
No, no... we're talking about specific Muslims here. Muslims that go out into the street and protest Danish cartoons yet don't get all riled up over a suicide bombing (lots of them) in Baghdad..

Well, yes, those folks are hypocrites, but I think the way this argument is phrased, by Friedman and yourself suggests you mean Muslims writ large and I disagree with that characterization.

Just like the Fareed Zakaria piece (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/11/29/gps.pakistan.blame.cnn) on CNN recently about how many Pakistanis believe the suicide bombings there are carried out by the likes of Blackwater or some other outsiders (even after the Taliban claim responsibility for it).

The whole Blackwater situation here is way more complicated than that. Most people I have spoken to don't believe any such thing. Rather, many of them do believe that the suicide bombers are retaliating AGAINST Blackwater and its ilk rather than against the Pakistani state. That is also an incorrect interpretation of the violence, but it is not the same as saying the terrorism is fake or US-orchestrated.

The problem is moderate Muslims are fundamentalists too. Moderate Muslims really aren't moderate, they're just not radicalized. That's the bulk of Muslim people (okay, maybe Arab Muslims). There are then westernized and secularized Muslims, but they're a minority. As I said before in another post, there are well educated Muslims who want there to be an Islamic caliphate one day that spans from Morocco to somewhere in Asia. They may not want it done through violence, but they see all Muslims as one great bloc, and the state would be something akin to the E.U. maybe, that's how they explained it to me. They also sympathize with the likes of violent radicals, and take greater offense to Western violence on Muslims, than Muslim violence on Muslims. These were "moderates".

We may have a disagreement on what constitutes a "moderate".

Yes, we do. The people I've met in most Muslim countries don't match your description at all. Even if you limit it to "Arab Muslims." North East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean represent Arab Islam but the median religious view there is hardly right of center. The only countries where I would say the median view is far right are the ones on the Arabian peninsula itself, and they represent, by population, a very small sliver of the Muslim world.

Moreover, and this is the crux of the point I'm making, the power those countries on the Arabian peninsula have is political, not religious, and would not diminish if extreme views were denounced from the pulpit in Rabat or Jakarta. Rather, you'd be better off asking Saudi Arabians "as Saudi Arabians" how they feel about Wahabbism as a political force. Or, trying to give more political attention to the rest of the Muslim world to deplete the political power the Saudis--and thus the rightist religious culture that prevails there--enjoy.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 01:27 PM
I'm confused, 'fur.

I understand that you see an obligation because you believe that a Muslim cleric, or many of them, loudly and publicly denouncing this violence would have an impact. I disagree with that view, but I understand why, if you believe this, it would be incumbent on Muslim clerics to conduct such denunciation.

But if, hypothetically, it would not have an impact, why would someone still have a moral obligation to carry out an act that would have no impact?

Whatfur
12-19-2009, 02:15 PM
I'm confused, 'fur.

I understand that you see an obligation because you believe that a Muslim cleric, or many of them, loudly and publicly denouncing this violence would have an impact. I disagree with that view, but I understand why, if you believe this, it would be incumbent on Muslim clerics to conduct such denunciation.

But if, hypothetically, it would not have an impact, why would someone still have a moral obligation to carry out an act that would have no impact?

You have a funny way manuveuring the questions, hypothetically or not, to a point where you seem to want to be able to say Ah HA!!! See!!!. ;)

But sure I will play along...if I knew it would have no impact, I would not suggest it or see it as much of a moral obligation. I think proof of the opposite of what you hypothetically allude has been/was evident in Iraq and elsewhere.

Lyle
12-19-2009, 02:25 PM
When speaking broadly, it is Muslims writ large. How else can it be? The whole of the white South was responsible for segregation were they not? It was on them to do something about their own backwardness, yes?

Of course down at the individual human level things are much different. Not all whites supported segregation, but segregation was just as much their burden of responsibility as it was for the segregationist. That's, I think, the point Tom Friedman is making... and me too (Fareed Zakaria as well, at least in regards to issues in Pakistan).

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 03:29 PM
if I knew it would have no impact, I would not suggest it or see it as much of a moral obligation. I think proof of the opposite of what you hypothetically allude has been/was evident in Iraq and elsewhere.

Okay, so we're disagreeing about the weight/impact such a denunciation would have.

I'm convinced the impact would be minimal because I see the weight clerical voices have had in Iraq and Iran as being the consequence of political conditions. So if other clerics, who do not ALREADY have political power, make statements, I don't think those statements have any valence in and of themselves.

Do you have reason to believe that the weight of clerical voices in Iran and Iraq derives from religious rather than political authority, and that it could therefore be counterveiled by clerical voices from elsewhere in the Muslim world? Please elaborate.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 03:34 PM
When speaking broadly, it is Muslims writ large. How else can it be? The whole of the white South was responsible for segregation were they not? It was on them to do something about their own backwardness, yes?

Of course down at the individual human level things are much different. Not all whites supported segregation, but segregation was just as much their burden of responsibility as it was for the segregationist. That's, I think, the point Tom Friedman is making... and me too (Fareed Zakaria as well, at least in regards to issues in Pakistan).

I'm just not sure I'd say the same thing about whites in the South either. I'm pretty consistent that way. In other words, I'd say that all whites who benefitted from that system had some part to play in sustaining it--this seems factually correct--but I would not attribute a collective moral responsibility on the whole society. That just seems too far for me. To the extent that I make moral judgments about other people's social worlds, I try to make them at an individual, not a collective, level.

AemJeff
12-19-2009, 03:50 PM
I'm just not sure I'd say the same thing about whites in the South either. I'm pretty consistent that way. In other words, I'd say that all whites who benefitted from that system had some part to play in sustaining it--this seems factually correct--but I would not attribute a collective moral responsibility on the whole society. That just seems too far for me. To the extent that I make moral judgments about other people's social worlds, I try to make them at an individual, not a collective, level.

How do you feel about "affirmative action" as a response to generations of structural racism?

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 04:08 PM
How do you feel about "affirmative action" as a response to generations of structural racism?

Eh. Mixed. It seems to be sound policy in that by helping to bridge an economic gap that happens to correllate with race, it contributes to social stability and economic growth. Bring minorities out of ethnic ghettos in American cities by helping them get good education and good jobs, say, and you might see some impact on interracial gang violence. You'll also have that many more people contributing to the national economy.

In other words, I can see many practical arguments for why this would be beneficial to the society going forwards. I'm not really compelled by the moral argument that we should have affirimative action as a form of atonement for past crimes.

Whatfur
12-19-2009, 06:36 PM
Okay, so we're disagreeing about the weight/impact such a denunciation would have.

I'm convinced the impact would be minimal because I see the weight clerical voices have had in Iraq and Iran as being the consequence of political conditions. So if other clerics, who do not ALREADY have political power, make statements, I don't think those statements have any valence in and of themselves.

Do you have reason to believe that the weight of clerical voices in Iran and Iraq derives from religious rather than political authority, and that it could therefore be counterveiled by clerical voices from elsewhere in the Muslim world? Please elaborate.

Here's a name... Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Probably had as big an impact in Iraq as anyone since the ousting of Saddam. He not only involved himself in the political but did so from a religious base. Actually if I am not mistaken he issued of fatwah telling other clerics to involve themselves politically. Although he made a number of statements that were not necessarily in our best interests...he did seem to work from a point of reason for the most part.

Again though, let me say the history is about individuals...you discount the weight of one or another voicing anti-radical sentiments. I would argue that if say a Martin Luther King type Muslim cleric had gotten to Osama Bin Laden at the right time well...just maybe...

I would also add that this is not only about how muslims think or feel but how non-muslims think or feel about them. (isn't that how this started ;) ) So if by not speaking up or by only speaking up within mosques...then how are non-muslims suppose to be convinced that the "bulk" are not rooting for the terrorists or at least apathetic. But no, instead we here in America get to listen to CAIR, or we see Imams intimidating people at airports and then sueing when their intimidation leads to fear.

Good or bad my doubts started on 9/11 when I was working at a university. Right down from where I worked was a small newsette where I would sometimes get a magazine or newspaper to read at lunchtime. It was run by a couple Pakistani brothers who always seemed quite pleasant. On 9/11 the place was packed overflowing into the street with foreign students etc., Pakastani probably...high fiving eachother and bouncing around with a party atmosphere. It was eye-opening. I also, a couple years later, worked with a Turkish man who was devout Muslim. Great guy. Actually helped him put together facts as he was involved in acquiring permits for the building of a school to be attached to the mosque he went to...I once asked him point blank about how the leaders in his mosque talked about the terrorism. Although he spoke diplomatically, his initial silence, his stumbling to find words and the look on his face (busted!) answered my question.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-19-2009, 07:25 PM
It's 5 am here, and I need to get a few winks before starting the next day's work. But two things

1. I'm not denying the significance of individuals like Sistani. Or of individuals in history largely. I'm saying Sistani and his ilk have religious power BECAUSE they have political power. So based on that, I believe the counterveiling forces must be political, not religious.

2. I think the general principle of "until you demonstrate your good faith by agreeing with us, we can't engage with you" is a silly Manichean place to start a foreign policy. Foreign policy is all about the fact that people elsewhere don't always agree with you. Rather, we should be trying to understand where and how disagreements function and then using combinations of force, money and diplomacy to erode those disagreements, rather than treating as the enemy anyone who doesn't a priori stipulate agreement.

Whatfur
12-19-2009, 08:37 PM
It's 5 am here, and I need to get a few winks before starting the next day's work. But two things

1. I'm not denying the significance of individuals like Sistani. Or of individuals in history largely. I'm saying Sistani and his ilk have religious power BECAUSE they have political power. So based on that, I believe the counterveiling forces must be political, not religious.

2. I think the general principle of "until you demonstrate your good faith by agreeing with us, we can't engage with you" is a silly Manichean place to start a foreign policy. Foreign policy is all about the fact that people elsewhere don't always agree with you. Rather, we should be trying to understand where and how disagreements function and then using combinations of force, money and diplomacy to erode those disagreements, rather than treating as the enemy anyone who doesn't a priori stipulate agreement.

1. You have it exactly backwards...not sure it matters. The original argument is about impact. He either has it or he doesn't and it is obvious that he does and did. If I am a devout shia muslim in Iraq and the Ayatollah says something, I listen to him religiously.

2. Again you change the argument. What are you quoting? It did not come from me. Its not an argument I am trying to make. It may be an argument you wish to argue against...but almost anyone can shoot fish in a barrel....except maybe when they are really tired. Get some sleep.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-20-2009, 03:55 AM
1. You have it exactly backwards...not sure it matters. The original argument is about impact. He either has it or he doesn't and it is obvious that he does and did. If I am a devout shia muslim in Iraq and the Ayatollah says something, I listen to him religiously.

2. Again you change the argument. What are you quoting? It did not come from me. Its not an argument I am trying to make. It may be an argument you wish to argue against...but almost anyone can shoot fish in a barrel....except maybe when they are really tired. Get some sleep.

1. Yes, it is about impact. But it is about the impact the voices of other non-Sistani clerics would have. And I am saying that impact would be small, because I see Sistani's power (which I don't deny) as coming from attributes OTHER THAN his religious position that the other non-Sistani clerics would not have.

2. The argument that the reason other clerics should speak out is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they aren't all fundoo sympathizers (which you said in your post before last) strikes me as asking for a priori agreement.

Whatfur
12-20-2009, 07:55 AM
1. Yes, it is about impact. But it is about the impact the voices of other non-Sistani clerics would have. And I am saying that impact would be small, because I see Sistani's power (which I don't deny) as coming from attributes OTHER THAN his religious position that the other non-Sistani clerics would not have.

2. The argument that the reason other clerics should speak out is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they aren't all fundoo sympathizers (which you said in your post before last) strikes me as asking for a priori agreement.

You need a bit of reeling in and then you can have the last word. The path you have taken here is not very linear. You use the word fundoo in a way I am not familiar. I thought fundoo meant something like "awesome"!


The simple points I purport here are these:

1. Muslims in general do not speak out enough publicly against those muslims participating in terrorism and if they did so it would/could have a positive affect in a number of ways. Such as... empowering others to do the same, , showing the terrorists that it is true that they are a minority and disdained, showing terrorists that peace-loving, fair-minded muslims are not willing to let them abuse their religion, and showing non-muslims that it is true that the majority ARE peace-loving and fair-minded and against terrorism. al-Sistani was just an example one speaking out and having an impact. His position, both religious and political helps, but other clerics here and everywhere can have some affect too...either as individuals or via a show of numbers.

2. Where you claim/imply Muslims ARE speaking out against muslims participating in terrorism but doing so privately in their mosques or amongst themselves...I profess doubt of it happening and would bet there is more negative talk in most mosques about actions of the U.N. and America than negative talk of muslim terrorists. My personal experience as well as news stories seem to back me up. I have never been in a mosque and know you have not either.

Bottom line is we have always heard that better than 80% of Muslims respect the religion of peace as exactly that while being appalled by terrorists using their religion as a shield. I like to think that is true, but even so then they are an amazingly weak majority.

Lyle
12-20-2009, 03:17 PM
I do too, when talking about an individual or when interacting with people... but when speaking broadly one gets thrown into the collective. Germans, collectively guilty of the Holocaust, you know... White Rose or no White Rose. Or it's like an American President apologizing for slavery. He's thinking of America's collective guilt, rightly or wrongly.

Arguments on the micro level tend to not work as well at the macro level, the aggregate individuality sums up to something different.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
12-20-2009, 10:05 PM
Lyle and Whatfur,

I do not disagree with you that Muslims in general express more outrage about the actions of powerful foreign governments than they do about the similarly evil actions of fellow Muslim citizens or even their own Muslim governments. (Although definitely they have anger about those as well.)

Again I'm not defending the phenomenon that one is quicker to criticize outsiders but it is by no means limited to Muslims. It actually seems to be human nature, although I would say one of the purposes of Muslim religious teachings as well as other moral teachings is to guard against this aspect of our nature.

Do Black Americans tend to protest more about police brutality than they do about the Black on Black crime that goes on daily. Yes, but this doesn't mean they do not feel the Black on Black crime or that they excuse it or it doesn't bother them. And I'm not saying it's right but it's a more complex phenomenon and one that should be understood if one wants to change it rather than just condemned from the outside. (That's if one actually cares about solutions and is not just trying to show how they are better than the "other."

Do you think Americans in general talked protested, spent money and engaged more in a concerted effort to stop the more than 150,000 murders of Americans by other Americans or the 3,000 murders that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent deaths of American troops overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq during the time from 2000 to 2009. Does this mean Americans don't care about murders if Americans do them?

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee (http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com)

Whatfur
12-20-2009, 11:07 PM
Lyle and Whatfur,

I do not disagree with you
...

Does this mean Americans don't care about murders if Americans do them?

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee (http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com)

Does this mean that you cannot come up with analogies that actually apply to this situation?

[hint] Thread title

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
12-21-2009, 12:15 AM
I'm sorry I don't follow..perhaps because it's late and I admit I didn't read every single post above although I read a good amount.

I was not trying to respond to everything mentioned above either but just trying to point out that a wide variety of people respond more vociferously or more noticeably or just differently in other ways to certain kinds of injuries than to others and that there is a variety of different reasons for this, with one common one being that people tend to focus more attention on harms from "outsiders" than from "insiders," even when "insiders" of the same group almost always in reality harm each other much more than "outsiders" do.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-21-2009, 12:20 AM
Hi 'fur,

Net fritzed out for about 12 hours, so delayed response. Fundoo is local slang for fundamentalist.

I understand that SIstani was just an example and that you are making a larger point about individuals in the Muslim community speaking out and what value that would have.

I'm arguing that public statements from members of the community have zippo value unless that individual already has a political or other public platform, AND I'm arguing that clerics don't have a real public platform unless they are already political heads.

I agree there is value within the Muslim community for moderate voices to be heard, but I don't think those voices need to be public/globally broadcast etc.

The only additional value that comes from that publicity is what you cite as your last reason--the demonstration of their sentiments to the outside world. And that last reason I reject as a kind of litmus test that I consider unproductive to foreign policy.

The other reasons (the impacts such speaking out would have within Islam) I see as valid goals, I'm just arguing that public statements would not have those impacts.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
12-21-2009, 12:34 AM
We're definitely on the same side in general in this discussion but I'd like to differ with a couple of things here Ms. McPrepperson.

First, it should be made clear that Sistani is a special case since he is a Shi'a cleric and Shi'as actually do have a clerical hierarchy with certain authority to bind others.

Second, Most Muslim scholars with "political" authority are so invested by Muslim governments, the majority of which are as much as if not more strongly interested in condemning violent extremism as are any westerners although certainly they want to be able to use such techniques from time to time to suit their own purposes.

I think there are other scholars that do have a certain influence, although this is very tricky to measure or know how deep it really is.

In terms of stopping violence from occurring there is no value to Muslims speaking out in ways such that rightwingers in America would hear them. Of course, at the risk of accusing people of being disingenuous I don't think that's what the loudest voices consistently calling for such things really want, they just want a debating point to use against Muslims. And they would make up another one or as they've done here continue to repeat a ridiculous charge...since countless Muslim scholars constantly condemn terrorism and violent extremism.

To the extent that some people of good will end up getting influenced by this right wing made up smear or just feel better to be able to have something to point to when the right wing smear is brought up, I guess that's where a possible value of Muslims issuing condemnations in such a way that the general public would take notice would come in.

Hi 'fur,

Net fritzed out for about 12 hours, so delayed response. Fundoo is local slang for fundamentalist.

I understand that SIstani was just an example and that you are making a larger point about individuals in the Muslim community speaking out and what value that would have.

I'm arguing that public statements from members of the community have zippo value unless that individual already has a political or other public platform, AND I'm arguing that clerics don't have a real public platform unless they are already political heads.

I agree there is value within the Muslim community for moderate voices to be heard, but I don't think those voices need to be public/globally broadcast etc.

The only additional value that comes from that publicity is what you cite as your last reason--the demonstration of their sentiments to the outside world. And that last reason I reject as a kind of litmus test that I consider unproductive to foreign policy.

The other reasons (the impacts such speaking out would have within Islam) I see as valid goals, I'm just arguing that public statements would not have those impacts.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-21-2009, 01:22 AM
First, it should be made clear that Sistani is a special case since he is a Shi'a cleric and Shi'as actually do have a clerical hierarchy with certain authority to bind others.

Yes, true, but the bulk of militant Islamism comes from Sunni countries.

Moreover, I remain convinced that the top Shi'a clerics have real power and influence because of political structures rather than religious ones. Yes, it's true that Shi'a Islam is more hierarchical, but it's also true that it is far more fragmented and has been since the Middle Ages. The relatively recent consolidation of Shi'a Islam and the concurrent rise of the mega-cleric I see as an essentially political development.

Therefore, the individuals whose speaking out would have value would be political leaders--the demonstration of public sentiment would be voting for those leaders. And, as you point out, the elected leaders of these countries are outspoken in their condemnation of such violence.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
12-21-2009, 01:41 AM
I'm not sure we agree on the Shi'a clerics question but I think we're talking a little past each other. I'm not sure what constitutes a "political" as opposed to a "religious" structure for you. Which is Hamas? Which is Hizbollah? Ikhwan al-Muslimoon? Al-Azhar?

I'm not saying it's worth belaboring the point further I'm just saying I don't so much disagree with you as I'm not clear on what you are arguing here.

On the point about "elected officials" I would just add to the mix the fact that in most (but not necessarily all) of the countries where violent extremism exists there is no real democracy and these are often also the countries where there is most distinctly a set of religious scholars in some kind of alliance with the regimes versus those that in opposition versus those that try to "stay out of politics" which as we know is not truly even possible, we all are relating to the political situation in some way.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee (http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com)

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-21-2009, 02:17 AM
I'm not sure we agree on the Shi'a clerics question but I think we're talking a little past each other. I'm not sure what constitutes a "political" as opposed to a "religious" structure for you. Which is Hamas? Which is Hizbollah? Ikhwan al-Muslimoon? Al-Azhar?

I'm not saying it's worth belaboring the point further I'm just saying I don't so much disagree with you as I'm not clear on what you are arguing here.

On the point about "elected officials" I would just add to the mix the fact that in most (but not necessarily all) of the countries where violent extremism exists there is no real democracy and these are often also the countries where there is most distinctly a set of religious scholars in some kind of alliance with the regimes versus those that in opposition versus those that try to "stay out of politics" which as we know is not truly even possible, we all are relating to the political situation in some way.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee (http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com)


Happy to clarify what I mean, but as you say, we seem to agree on the substance of 'fur's argument. Hamas, Hizbollah, the Brotherhood, I see as political groups. In the sense that they ACTIVELY profess political goals and assume official governance roles.

What 'fur and Lyle seemed to call for above in this thread, however, was a denunciation of such extreme positions from 'ordinary' Muslim clerics--ie the imam at the mosque around the corner from where I'm sitting right now. That guy is, in my taxonomy, a more purely religious authority. Even if hundreds of thousands of local imams issued such statements, they would not act as counterweights to radical leaders because the nature of their power is different. It's a difference of kind, not simply of degree.

So I was basically arguing that beyond the unsavory litmus test quality of what 'fur and Lyle were saying, I just didn't think the speaking out they were calling for made sense as responses to radical clerics, because you would need those responses to be in kind, i.e. to come from the political process.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-21-2009, 02:43 AM
I do too, when talking about an individual or when interacting with people... but when speaking broadly one gets thrown into the collective. Germans, collectively guilty of the Holocaust, you know... White Rose or no White Rose. Or it's like an American President apologizing for slavery. He's thinking of America's collective guilt, rightly or wrongly.

Arguments on the micro level tend to not work as well at the macro level, the aggregate individuality sums up to something different.

Again, Lyle. I won't say Germans are collectively guilty of the Holocaust. I've never believed that. Ditto slavery. I just completely reject the notion of collective guilt. I'm scratching my head to think of an exception to this, but I honestly can't think of a scenario in which I've ascribed collective guilt.

Whatfur
12-21-2009, 09:23 AM
I'm sorry I don't follow..perhaps because it's late and I admit I didn't read every single post above although I read a good amount.

I was not trying to respond to everything mentioned above either but just trying to point out that a wide variety of people respond more vociferously or more noticeably or just differently in other ways to certain kinds of injuries than to others and that there is a variety of different reasons for this, with one common one being that people tend to focus more attention on harms from "outsiders" than from "insiders," even when "insiders" of the same group almost always in reality harm each other much more than "outsiders" do.


Even if you murder rate and "black on black" crime comments were relevant to the discussion I would counter that the laws prosecute them as they are designed to. Crime does get attention and government at every level tries to mitigate it. The reason they make bad examples here is that in most cases these people are individuals working as such. The murders you point to are not commited by same group of people following a similar doctrine. It also is not like we see crime by "insiders" and just ignore it because they are insiders (You know, like honor killings in Muslim countries).

Closer to the point might be the Oklahoma bombing. Do you not think that received enough attention? Actually it still does. My pointing to the thread title was meant to bring up thoughts our our own civil war. Close to 700,000 Americans dead. I realize it was fought to preserve the union but it certainly came to head because most people found slavery distasteful. It may have taken a century or so for it to come to a head, but during that century there were hundreds of vociferous abolutionists.

Terrorism is the crux of the matter here. Terrorism against innocents. Not talking collateral damage...talking the planned execution of innocents. That is what is distasteful. The bombing of marketplaces...train stations...office buildings ....the strapping of bombs to the mentally retarded. It was cowardly and distasteful when McVeigh did its, when the Irish did it and is now as Islamists do it.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
12-21-2009, 11:29 AM
Whatfur, I'm still not understanding you....Do you think Muslims ignore extremist terrorism? What an ignorant statement. Do you know how many Muslim soldiers and policemen have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq? Do you know how many "militants" have been arrested, jailed, killed, tortured?

I am not saying that I defend the actions of the governments nor have I ever said anything that would justify terrorism.

I am completely lost as to what point you are making, but I think I've done my best to make my point to you and if you don't get it I don't think belaboring the point anymore will help.

Even if you murder rate and "black on black" crime comments were relevant to the discussion I would counter that the laws prosecute them as they are designed to. Crime does get attention and government at every level tries to mitigate it. The reason they make bad examples here is that in most cases these people are individuals working as such. The murders you point to are not commited by same group of people following a similar doctrine. It also is not like we see crime by "insiders" and just ignore it because they are insiders (You know, like honor killings in Muslim countries).

Closer to the point might be the Oklahoma bombing. Do you not think that received enough attention? Actually it still does. My pointing to the thread title was meant to bring up thoughts our our own civil war. Close to 700,000 Americans dead. I realize it was fought to preserve the union but it certainly came to head because most people found slavery distasteful. It may have taken a century or so for it to come to a head, but during that century there were hundreds of vociferous abolutionists.

Terrorism is the crux of the matter here. Terrorism against innocents. Not talking collateral damage...talking the planned execution of innocents. That is what is distasteful. The bombing of marketplaces...train stations...office buildings ....the strapping of bombs to the mentally retarded. It was cowardly and distasteful when McVeigh did its, when the Irish did it and is now as Islamists do it.

Whatfur
12-21-2009, 11:45 AM
Whatfur, I'm still not understanding you....Do you think Muslims ignore extremist terrorism? What an ignorant statement. Do you know how many Muslim soldiers and policemen have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq? Do you know how many "militants" have been arrested, jailed, killed, tortured?

I am not saying that I defend the actions of the governments nor have I ever said anything that would justify terrorism.

I am completely lost as to what point you are making, but I think I've done my best to make my point to you and if you don't get it I don't think belaboring the point anymore will help.

You make a statement. Attribute it to me. And then call it ignorant. Nice. Your examples seem more of ignorant deflection, propaganda, and BS. I am and have been mainly talking about public denoucement by muslims, of islamic terrorism. I am just saying when its done it helps and if 80+% of Muslims are peace-loving, anti-terrorists that they could/should do MORE to reign in their cowardly brethren. What's so difficult about that? You are the one trying your damndest to make this about something else.

Lyle
12-22-2009, 02:03 AM
... not even the near genocide of Native-Americans? :)

Lyle
12-22-2009, 02:26 AM
I'm not claiming Muslims aren't standing up to radical Muslims at all. Some Muslims certainly are. Many Muslims have lost their lives doing so, and many more probably will.

... and yes, I don't disagree that Muslims in places where U.S. forces are killing Muslim civilians, the Taliban, or Muslim extremists are going to be very concerned about their countrymen, tribesmen, or whatever being killed. I would too, if I was in their shoes.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-22-2009, 03:31 PM
... not even the near genocide of Native-Americans? :)

Nope.

Lyle
12-22-2009, 08:09 PM
Well, good for you... and arguably the right way to look at it all.

Whatfur
12-22-2009, 10:03 PM
Happy to clarify what I mean, but as you say, we seem to agree on the substance of 'fur's argument.
....
So I was basically arguing that beyond the unsavory litmus test quality of what 'fur and Lyle were saying.

Whoa, whoa, whoa..."unsavory"?

I merely jumped in here when you professed knowledge about what was being said or not being said in mosques. In spite of threatening to share your "respective knowledge", you have since shared nothing to prove me wrong. And secondly I merely stated that any and all public condemnation can have some positive affect and you disagreed. I provided an example and you attempted to discount it with a religious vs. political rationale while in the end having to agree with my point. I will add that much of my original statement was talking about mosques and Muslims in America...but as you wanted to expand upon that I let you. You may be correct that the Joe Cleric in Podunk, Iraq may not have much of a voice...but 20 Joes may. Again, in America where if non-Muslims felt Muslims here were with us in our disdain for terrorism that could certainly help public perceptions.

In any case, I ask "what litmus test is it you presume I proposed that was "unsavory?". Asking for more vociferous clarity? Hardly "unsavory".

kezboard
12-23-2009, 03:28 AM
So this guy's beef is that the Swiss are being criticized for the minaret ban while Turkey is supposedly never criticized for the Armenian genocide?

I think that's very silly.

Lyle
12-23-2009, 01:28 PM
Enh.... the woman is arguing if Switzerland is to offer up some kind of apology (of course not going to happen since they just voted on it), Turkey and different Muslims countries should also be offering up their own apologies about their own bigotries, before she gets up in Switzerland's face.

opposable_crumbs
12-23-2009, 04:18 PM
Enh.... the woman is arguing if Switzerland is to offer up some kind of apology (of course not going to happen since they just voted on it), Turkey and different Muslims countries should also be offering up their own apologies about their own bigotries, before she gets up in Switzerland's face.
It's still very silly and only a moron would support such a twisted piece of logic. If I have insulted you I would apologise, but I have to hear back from George Lucas first.

Lyle
12-23-2009, 07:40 PM
No, not really silly. Nobody has to apologize. Muslims certainly don't apologize for non-Muslims not being allowed into Mecca, which is her point. She's simply giving them the bird until they apologize for their backward policies and past transgressions.

opposable_crumbs
12-23-2009, 08:01 PM
No, not really silly. Nobody has to apologize. Muslims certainly don't apologize for non-Muslims not being allowed into Mecca, which is her point. She's simply giving them the bird until they apologize for their backward policies and past transgressions.
The Bin Ladens of this world use similar logic. She seems happy to trade in her integrity for hubris, I personally, would feel short changed.

Lyle
12-23-2009, 10:32 PM
Bin Laden doesn't just flip us the bird though. :)

kezboard
12-23-2009, 10:51 PM
What does the Armenian genocide have to do with not being able to get into Mecca?

Lyle
12-24-2009, 12:30 AM
Nothing, they're separate issues. They're simply arguments on the essayist's list for not wanting to complain too much about Switzerland's recent anti-minaret vote.

She wants people to not only talk about Switzerland's stupidity, but Turkey and Saudi Arabia's stupidity as well... all at the same time apparently.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-24-2009, 03:49 AM
I consider asking for those 20 clerics to come out publicly to be unsavory. Firstly, because I take it as a given that needs no public demonstration that all Americans, Muslim or not, value safety from terror, even if we differ on how to achieve it. Secondly, because it's unclear to me what policy value it would have if someone like yourself WERE sufficiently convinced by public proclamations by Joe Clerics that they were on your side? If you woke up tomorrow confident of Muslim-American support for beating terrorism, how would your policy positions change? How would American policy change? I don't think it would have an impact, except to make you feel good. It's nothing more than a political litmus test.

I didn't concede anything to you. You said that al-Sistani's influence is evidence of the influence other clerics could have. I said al-Sistani's influence is evidence of a political phenomenon and that he therefore tells us nothing about the potential influence of Joe Clerics. So we continue to disagree about the importance of Joe Clerics, or at least of their public statements.

kezboard
12-24-2009, 05:47 AM
They're simply arguments on the essayist's list for not wanting to complain too much about Switzerland's recent anti-minaret vote. She wants people to not only talk about Switzerland's stupidity, but Turkey and Saudi Arabia's stupidity as well... all at the same time apparently.

Yeah, I get it. Uhh, there are a lot of things that are worse than the minaret ban, but, like the Armenian genocide, they aren't really news. Why are we spending so much time harping on this health care bill? We should be talking about the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Over 100,000 people died, and this is just some silly legislation.

Lyle
12-24-2009, 02:45 PM
Huh?

Whatfur
12-26-2009, 02:06 AM
I consider asking for those 20 clerics to come out publicly to be unsavory. Firstly, because I take it as a given that needs no public demonstration that all Americans, Muslim or not, value safety from terror, even if we differ on how to achieve it. Secondly, because it's unclear to me what policy value it would have if someone like yourself WERE sufficiently convinced by public proclamations by Joe Clerics that they were on your side? If you woke up tomorrow confident of Muslim-American support for beating terrorism, how would your policy positions change? How would American policy change? I don't think it would have an impact, except to make you feel good. It's nothing more than a political litmus test.

I didn't concede anything to you. You said that al-Sistani's influence is evidence of the influence other clerics could have. I said al-Sistani's influence is evidence of a political phenomenon and that he therefore tells us nothing about the potential influence of Joe Clerics. So we continue to disagree about the importance of Joe Clerics, or at least of their public statements.

You have a really strange definition of unsavory. I take offense to your application of it here. My desire that more Muslims speak out against terrorism is hardly unsavory. That's ridiculous.

Secondly, did you or did you not say Sistani had impact? Yes you did. When I said clerics speaking out can have an impact, did I differentiate between whether the source of the impact was political or religious? No I didn't. You are a moving target Preppy.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-26-2009, 05:42 AM
You have a really strange definition of unsavory. I take offense to your application of it here. My desire that more Muslims speak out against terrorism is hardly unsavory. That's ridiculous.

Secondly, did you or did you not say Sistani had impact? Yes you did. When I said clerics speaking out can have an impact, did I differentiate between whether the source of the impact was political or religious? No I didn't. You are a moving target Preppy.

1. I'm saying the notion of 'no apologies until you apologize,' [see thread title] ie that some action/sentiment on the part of the US is contingent on that speaking out on the part of Muslims is unsavory in the sense that it seems to me like a litmus test.

2. I understand that you do not recognize any distinction between political or religious impact. Therefore, it logically follows that you would see a potential impact of other clerics. I ACCEPT that your argument for these other clerics to speak out FOLLOWS from YOUR interpretation of figures like Sistani.

But because I DO NOT HAVE THE SAME INTERPRETATION of Sistani, I DO NOT ACCEPT your argument about the other clerics. In other words, we agree that Sistani has impact. We do not agree about what relevance that fact has for other clerics. And THE REASON we disagree about the other clerics is because I see a religious/political difference, and you do not. Fair enough. I don't think there's much more to debate here.

Whatfur
12-26-2009, 10:36 AM
1. I'm saying the notion of 'no apologies until you apologize,' [see thread title] ie that some action/sentiment on the part of the US is contingent on that speaking out on the part of Muslims is unsavory in the sense that it seems to me like a litmus test.

2. I understand that you do not recognize any distinction between political or religious impact. Therefore, it logically follows that you would see a potential impact of other clerics. I ACCEPT that your argument for these other clerics to speak out FOLLOWS from YOUR interpretation of figures like Sistani.

But because I DO NOT HAVE THE SAME INTERPRETATION of Sistani, I DO NOT ACCEPT your argument about the other clerics. In other words, we agree that Sistani has impact. We do not agree about what relevance that fact has for other clerics. And THE REASON we disagree about the other clerics is because I see a religious/political difference, and you do not. Fair enough. I don't think there's much more to debate here.

Preppy, I never signed on to the thread title and you have moved your target again. Coming out publically in a denoucement of terrorism is not asking anyone for an apology.

Maybe your attempt at multi-tasking here has you a bit overwhelmed. I am not Lyle...he is not I.

Lastly, if you someday have some proof of Muslim leaders speaking out and it not having an affect...please throw it out here. I realize your opinion is all you think we should require here...but it falls a bit short.

Lyle
12-26-2009, 12:16 PM
Preppy,

You misunderstand what has been said. This has nothing to do with US foreign policy. The woman that wrote the article is simply saying that she will not seriously criticize Switzerland, if Muslims will not seriously criticize themselves as well. She thinks Switzerland made a stupid decision, but she is also concerned about the stupid decisions Muslim countries make. This has absolutely nothing to do with US foreign policy, but about how to talk about all the stupidity in the world.

There is no litmus test. She just wants to have an open and honest discussion about the world's stupidity. Isn't that what you want as well?

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Preppy,

You misunderstand what has been said. This has nothing to do with US foreign policy. The woman that wrote the article is simply saying that she will not seriously criticize Switzerland, if Muslims will not seriously criticize themselves as well. She thinks Switzerland made a stupid decision, but she is also concerned about the stupid decisions Muslim countries make. This has absolutely nothing to do with US foreign policy, but about how to talk about all the stupidity in the world.

There is no litmus test. She just wants to have an open and honest discussion about the world's stupidity. Isn't that what you want as well?

Lyle, I want an open discussion. But I won't restrict myself from criticizing stupidity A because someone else has not criticize stupidity B. I consider asking for that reciprocity IN ADVANCE of making my critique to be a litmus test.

Lyle
12-26-2009, 12:55 PM
I think she's just saying she won't have the conversation (with Muslims) to begin with if its only going to be limited to talking about Switzerland. She has already criticized Switzerland you know?

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-27-2009, 08:46 AM
I see that, but I still disagree with it. I don't think she, or I, or anyone should be placing any condition that Muslims have to say x or y before we will dialogue with them about Switzerland. It's a litmus test because it says "I will only admit to the sphere of public debate about Switzerland those who hold opinions x and y." Even if the expression of those opinions expands discourse and thus contributes to openness, demanding their expression is a closed-discourse thing to do.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-27-2009, 08:54 AM
Preppy, I never signed on to the thread title and you have moved your target again. Coming out publically in a denoucement of terrorism is not asking anyone for an apology.

Maybe your attempt at multi-tasking here has you a bit overwhelmed. I am not Lyle...he is not I.

Lastly, if you someday have some proof of Muslim leaders speaking out and it not having an affect...please throw it out here. I realize your opinion is all you think we should require here...but it falls a bit short.

Going to try this one more time, Whatfur. I am not moving the target, I'm trying to express the same target in different words because it seems my view is not clear to you. I'm not trying to persuade you of it, just trying to get you to see what my view is. Just as I understand--but disagree with--your view.

You and Lyle are making different arguments but they share certain attributes and those attributes are the ones I differ with. So my critique to you both is the same. He is making a point about public discourse based off an article. You are making a broader point about Western confidence in the sentiments of the Muslim world and how that impacts our response. Both arguments ask for certain behaviors/statements etc from the Muslim world--his in writings, yours in sermons--as a precondition for particular responses from the West. I reject that framework altogether. States impose preconditions on discourse. Peoples should not. That is my view. So anytime anyone says, "I won't discuss x with you unless you admit y," no matter what variables are in those slots, I reject.

On the specific point of impact, why don't you wander into a local mosque and try talking to people first. I've already done that, multiple times. Then we can compare notes.

Whatfur
12-27-2009, 10:26 AM
Going to try this one more time, Whatfur. I am not moving the target, I'm trying to express the same target in different words because it seems my view is not clear to you. I'm not trying to persuade you of it, just trying to get you to see what my view is. Just as I understand--but disagree with--your view.

You and Lyle are making different arguments but they share certain attributes and those attributes are the ones I differ with. So my critique to you both is the same. He is making a point about public discourse based off an article. You are making a broader point about Western confidence in the sentiments of the Muslim world and how that impacts our response. Both arguments ask for certain behaviors/statements etc from the Muslim world--his in writings, yours in sermons--as a precondition for particular responses from the West. I reject that framework altogether. States impose preconditions on discourse. Peoples should not. That is my view. So anytime anyone says, "I won't discuss x with you unless you admit y," no matter what variables are in those slots, I reject.

On the specific point of impact, why don't you wander into a local mosque and try talking to people first. I've already done that, multiple times. Then we can compare notes.

Preppy,

Ahhh...thanks for clarifying your confusion. Like I earlier alluded, you ARE having trouble differentiating what you think I said or meant with what you think Lyle said or meant. I was not nor am I now looking to portray my desire for a more vocal Muslim community as a "pre-condition" to anything. That is YOUR own invention. I simply believe that it is both logical and obvious that the more people hear that Muslims here and everywhere abhor terrorism, the better. Pretty basic stuff.

I will throw one more thing out there though that is relevant ...and that is I don't think the press gives those that do speak out publically against terrorists enough face time. So again, the ones we do seem to hear about are those channeling money to terrorist organizations, preaching hate, or advising people like the Ft. Hood shooter. Now this concept kind of leads us back to the very first point I made as well as your shallow, throw-down at the end above. I have never been inside a mosque. By the same token I HAVE been in synogogues dozens of times and never learned a spit about Judism while there. So as you passed through the "womans door", what was being preached in the mosque?

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-27-2009, 12:28 PM
Preppy,

Ahhh...thanks for clarifying your confusion. Like I earlier alluded, you ARE having trouble differentiating what you think I said or meant with what you think Lyle said or meant. I was not nor am I now looking to portray my desire for a more vocal Muslim community as a "pre-condition" to anything. That is YOUR own invention. I simply believe that it is both logical and obvious that the more people hear that Muslims here and everywhere abhor terrorism, the better. Pretty basic stuff.

I will throw one more thing out there though that is relevant ...and that is I don't think the press gives those that do speak out publically against terrorists enough face time. So again, the ones we do seem to hear about are those channeling money to terrorist organizations, preaching hate, or advising people like the Ft. Hood shooter. Now this concept kind of leads us back to the very first point I made as well as your shallow, throw-down at the end above. I have never been inside a mosque. By the same token I HAVE been in synogogues dozens of times and never learned a spit about Judism while there. So as you passed through the "womans door", what was being preached in the mosque?

1. I can't find it at moment (posting by phone), but you said above that such statements from Muslims would have an impact on how much the West believes reports that Muslims do in fact abhor terror. In other words you are holding them somewhat guilty, or at least in doubt, until they publicly proclaim otherwise. That's a precondition in my eyes. I take the opposite view. Show me a Muslim supporting terror and I say "Oh yes, he supports terror." Show me a Muslim who has nothing on the subject and I assume nothing. Or I assume what I assume of any non-Muslim, that he abhors it. But I don't require any special statement from a Muslim to be convinced of his views.
2. Yes, I agree the media doesn't cover this.
3. Day to day local concerns like any good preacher does--give charity, work hard, don't drop out of school, coupled with much railing that the government does not provide jobs and schools (true). When there's an attack locally (as there has been today), its condemned.

Whatfur
12-27-2009, 02:00 PM
1. I can't find it at moment (posting by phone), but you said above that such statements from Muslims would have an impact on how much the West believes reports that Muslims do in fact abhor terror. In other words you are holding them somewhat guilty, or at least in doubt, until they publicly proclaim otherwise.

Again and again you make this big leap. Desiring they do something and holding them guilty for not are two different things.


That's a precondition in my eyes. I take the opposite view.

I cannot prevent you from creating a view for me and then opposing it. Its just not the view I expounded nor meant to.


Show me a Muslim supporting terror and I say "Oh yes, he supports terror." Show me a Muslim who has nothing on the subject and I assume nothing. Or I assume what I assume of any non-Muslim, that he abhors it. But I don't require any special statement from a Muslim to be convinced of his views.


Nor do I. But do I think individual and concerted efforts can be beneficial? Sure. Has it shown to be? Certainly. Does silence perpetuate skepticism? Only among humans. Is that skepticism warranted? In most cases, probably/hopefully not. In all cases? Definately not.

Lyle
12-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Muslim countries need to change more than Western countries though, and that is what she's after. It's counterproductive to have a conversation with Muslims about banning minarets in Switzerland if you can't also talk to them about Mecca, terrorism, Armenia, or whatever.

It may offensive to you Preppy, but Muslims are going to just have to learn to be stood up to. Me thinks, their skin is all to thin.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-27-2009, 04:26 PM
Lyle, I see the point but I still disagree w it. As we discussed elsewhere on the thread, I reject the whole notion of collective guilt. So therefore the notion of Muslims having to change more or any particular onus being placed on Muslims writ large is illogical to me.

I understand why it is a perfectly logical position for YOU. I'm not trying to accuse you of being illogical. Rather, this woman's argument only seems to me to be a logical position IF, as you do, one accepts the philosophical notion of collective guilt.

So it's because I start from a different first principle (morality at the individual level only), the whole argument she is making doesn't compute.

kezboard
12-27-2009, 06:54 PM
It's a non-sequitur, Lyle, that's the point. It makes as much sense to say "We can't talk about the minaret ban until we talk about the Armenian genocide" as it does to say "We can't talk about health care reform until we talk about the occupation of East Timor". They have nothing to do with each other. Get it?

Lyle
12-27-2009, 09:34 PM
No, sweetheart, you don't get it. Muslims complaining about the West, has got everything to do with the West getting to complain about Muslims. It goes hand in hand. You may disagree, but I believe you would be wrong.

Heath care of course has nothing to do with East Timor though. :)

kezboard
12-28-2009, 04:35 AM
Muslims complaining about the West, has got everything to do with the West getting to complain about Muslims.

Who's preventing you from complaining about Muslims, honeybuns?

Lyle
12-28-2009, 04:54 AM
Aren't you trying to stop me Toots? You keep trying to shame me into giving up my jihad.

kezboard
12-28-2009, 01:38 PM
Shame you? Even I don't think I could do that, snookums.

PreppyMcPrepperson
12-30-2009, 06:17 AM
even, IF the "bulk" of clerics in their mosques spoke negatively of terrorists and other islamic radicalism and even if the hierarchy is different I think they still have an obligation to do it publically. History is made by individuals.

This is the statement that got us started down this line. The operative word here for me is obligation.

If someone has an obligation and doesn't fulfill it, that's a form of guilt. You were saying above there is an obligation to make these public statements and then saying clerics were failing to fulfill that obligation. That's not the same thing as saying 'wouldn't it be nice if they did?' You do understand how saying something is an obligation is different from saying it’s a desirable option, yes?

I would also add that this is not only about how muslims think or feel but how non-muslims think or feel about them. (isn't that how this started ;) ) So if by not speaking up or by only speaking up within mosques...then how are non-muslims suppose to be convinced that the "bulk" are not rooting for the terrorists or at least apathetic.

Where you claim/imply Muslims ARE speaking out against muslims participating in terrorism but doing so privately in their mosques or amongst themselves...I profess doubt of it happening

In the above passages, it seems to me you explain one reason you think this obligation exists, which is that it will change the sentiments of non-Muslims. If Muslims publicly saying "we abhor terror" are needed to convince you that Muslims abhor terror--if such statements will change your view--then it logically follows that, in the absence of such statements, your present assumption re: Muslims is that they don't abhor terror. Therefore, it seems to me you are imposing the guilt of sympathizing with, or being neutral towards, terror on Muslims who don't publicly attest otherwise.

Whatfur
01-04-2010, 10:47 PM
This is the statement that got us started down this line. The operative word here for me is obligation.

If someone has an obligation and doesn't fulfill it, that's a form of guilt. You were saying above there is an obligation to make these public statements and then saying clerics were failing to fulfill that obligation. That's not the same thing as saying 'wouldn't it be nice if they did?' You do understand how saying something is an obligation is different from saying it’s a desirable option, yes?


Sorry slow to respond... up running dogs off the grid in temperatures that would make Al Gore shiver.

Why yes, Prepster, I do understand the difference between an obligation and a desire? Do you understand that they are not mutually exclusive? I CAN feel they should have a sense of duty, an obligation, to making such proclamations...I can also desire they do. You are free to have your opinion, but your guilt "jump" is still just that. Let me just plainly say that I do not feel they are guilty of ANYTHING besides bad judgement and missed opportunities.


In the above passages, it seems to me you explain one reason you think this obligation exists, which is that it will change the sentiments of non-Muslims. If Muslims publicly saying "we abhor terror" are needed to convince you that Muslims abhor terror--if such statements will change your view--then it logically follows that, in the absence of such statements, your present assumption re: Muslims is that they don't abhor terror. Therefore, it seems to me you are imposing the guilt of sympathizing with, or being neutral towards, terror on Muslims who don't publicly attest otherwise.

Preppy, you lack the ability to tell anyone what "logically follows" if you are doing so with the above. Again you are trying to create an opinion or what "logcially follows" for me and then arguing against it. That's pathetic. I just stated in my last post that I choose to believe exactly the opposite so you can knock off your self-indulgent picture painting any time.

"Does silence perpetuate skepticism? Only among humans. Is that skepticism warranted? In most cases, probably/hopefully not. In all cases? Definately not."

Do you have different answers for the above questions?

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-05-2010, 05:31 AM
Why yes, Prepster, I do understand the difference between an obligation and a desire? Do you understand that they are not mutually exclusive? I CAN feel they should have a sense of duty, an obligation, to making such proclamations...I can also desire they do. You are free to have your opinion, but your guilt "jump" is still just that. Let me just plainly say that I do not feel they are guilty of ANYTHING besides bad judgement and missed opportunities.

I understand that you feel that they have an obligation to take certain steps, and simultaneously feel that it would be good for them to take those steps even without the obligation. Do you understand that since you hold two, separate but not mutually exclusive, views it is possible for me to look that those two views, and reject one of them on its own merits?

Now as to why I reject the view re: obligation. I think you are misunderstanding my definition of guilt here, so I will try to explain.

An obligation is a moral duty to do something, which it is assumed one should fulfill. When you comply with that duty, nobody buys you a special prize, but if you do not fulfill the duty, it's assumed you have erred. That's how duties work: it's assumed that you fulfill them, it's morally neutral to do the assumed/expected and morally bad to fail. Whereas if there's an abstract good deed that you, Whatfur, would like me to do but there's no obligation, then I can get brownie points for doing it but remain neutral if I don't, because it's not assumed/expected that I would.

Agency/responsibility for something morally bad is guilt. So in the case of Muslims, if the obligation you perceive exists, then many Muslims are guilty, in the simple sense that they are guilty of not fulfilling the obligation. But if you have a different definition of guilt, we can use the term moral failure instead. An obligation introduces morality; a failure to fulfill an obligation is thus a moral failure.

As you will see if you read my exchange with Lyle elsewhere on this thread, I reject the notion that a social group of people (to be distinguished from states and companies, which are legally defined groupings) can ever have agency for moral failure . So therefore, I do not believe such social groups ever have obligations. And that includes the obligations that you see for Muslims.

"Does silence perpetuate skepticism?

Only among the already suspicious.

Whatfur
01-05-2010, 09:16 AM
I understand that you feel that they have an obligation to take certain steps, and simultaneously feel that it would be good for them to take those steps even without the obligation. Do you understand that since you hold two, separate but not mutually exclusive, views it is possible for me to look that those two views, and reject one of them on its own merits?

Now as to why I reject the view re: obligation. I think you are misunderstanding my definition of guilt here, so I will try to explain.

An obligation is a moral duty to do something, ...



Similar to my not coming to you with questions of logic I will not come to you when in need of word definitions. There are "moral" obligations but not ALL obligations are moral ones. If I felt it a "moral obligation" I would be arguing even more stridently. But it if it will make you feel any better I will agree with you that they are not obliged morally to do anything.



Only among the already suspicious.

Not "only". Are you not fighting here against over-generalizations by using an over-generalization? Would you like the definition behind that type of behavior?

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-06-2010, 02:48 AM
Well, yes, there are non-moral obligations--legal ones. And that doesn't seem to apply here. My understanding of morality is very broad, encompassing every right/wrong classification that's not legally or contractually ordained. So what you might call a social obligation, an obligation to follow an abstract custom, I would also consider a moral obligation. And find the same problem with it I've outlined above.

Are you positing a kind of obligation I have not considered here? Please elaborate.

I stand by my last generalization. People who respond to silence with suspicion must be already suspicious since the silent person has not added any data to the situation to create the suspicion. I am not already suspicious in this situation, so the silence has zero impact on my thinking.

TwinSwords
01-06-2010, 07:14 AM
Well, yes, there are non-moral obligations--legal ones. And that doesn't seem to apply here. My understanding of morality is very broad, encompassing every right/wrong classification that's not legally or contractually ordained. So what you might call a social obligation, an obligation to follow an abstract custom, I would also consider a moral obligation. And find the same problem with it I've outlined above.

Are you positing a kind of obligation I have not considered here? Please elaborate.

I stand by my last generalization. People who respond to silence with suspicion must be already suspicious since the silent person has not added any data to the situation to create the suspicion. I am not already suspicious in this situation, so the silence has zero impact on my thinking.

Prep,
I applaud your earnestness and your dogged pursuit down the rabbit hole, but your mistake in this whole thread was granting the faulty premise that Muslims fail in some kind of unique way relative to practitioners of other faiths to speak out against terror, the clear implication being they are somehow signaling their support through their silence. You might as well have gotten in a long debate where your position was "yes, blacks are shiftless and lazy, but that's just fine, because [insert nineteen pages of text]." The two wingnuts you've been keeping entertained don't know a damn thing about how much condemnation terrorism gets from Muslims. Nor do they care. They are merely repeating long-standing wingnut talking points. The only thing that matters to them is being able to use each and every terrorist incident as an excuse to broaden the blame out as much as possible, to implicate as many Muslims as they can with sweeping brush strokes. I'm amazed you played along and granted them credibility. It's enough to make me think you have not heard this charge - that Muslims aren't sufficiently vocal in opposition to terrorism -- but it's an old wingnut standby merely being repeated by a two hatemongers who never had an original thought in their lives.

Ocean
01-06-2010, 08:26 AM
Thank you, TS.

Whatfur
01-06-2010, 09:07 AM
Well, yes, there are non-moral obligations--legal ones. And that doesn't seem to apply here. My understanding of morality is very broad, encompassing every right/wrong classification that's not legally or contractually ordained. So what you might call a social obligation, an obligation to follow an abstract custom, I would also consider a moral obligation. And find the same problem with it I've outlined above.

Are you positing a kind of obligation I have not considered here? Please elaborate.

I stand by my last generalization. People who respond to silence with suspicion must be already suspicious since the silent person has not added any data to the situation to create the suspicion. I am not already suspicious in this situation, so the silence has zero impact on my thinking.

Let me try one last time to draw a stick person for you...you know as opposed to your straw people.

Situation 1:
Abortion clinic bombed. The Catholic church, being at the forefront of the Pro-Life movement, has an obligation to speak out against this type of heinous action. It is NOT a moral obligation but one out of a sense of duty... a placard to where they stand...the providing of clarity to its members and others.

Situation 2:
Father O'Henry hears a confession from a young woman from his church in which she alludes to...say...a hatred of abortion clinic doctors. Afterwards, the same day, a layperson from the church brings to him a sheet of paper left, forgotten? in a pew that holds a map and diagram of an abortion clinic in the city with references about "bomb placement". The good father has a MORAL obligation to report this to the authorities.

I hope you can see the differences and why I think your conflating the definition is rather opportunistic.

Lastly, feel free to stand by your generalization, I will stand by my feeling that lumping everyone into the same category as having already been suspicious is silly and bigotted actually. Ever see the Twilight Zone episode where everyone in the neighborhood loses electricity except one house?

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-06-2010, 04:21 PM
I understand how Situation 2 is an example of moral obligation. I don't understand how Situation 1 is an example of some other kind of obligation. I would say they are two different kinds of morality, but both still moral obligations. If you see Situation 1 as something other than a moral obligation, can you be more specific about what kind of obligation it is.

Saying it's a sense of duty doesn't help since duty and obligation are synonymous. My question is, a duty or obligation to what/whom? If not to a moral code, and not to the law, a duty to ____?

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-06-2010, 04:27 PM
I appreciate the point you're making. And if you see above, you'll note I started the exchange with 'fur on precisely that point, that there are Muslims of course engaged in denouncing terror.

But I do think 'fur is correct that there are not Muslims all over English-language TV stations HE might be watching denouncing terror. I'm fine with that particular form of silence. He's calling for public denunciations that would reach non-Muslims ears in the US. I'm saying he should not be calling for those.

We're not actually debating the question of whether Muslims abhor terror at the moment (we've already established that I think they do and 'fur suspects otherwise). Rather we're discussing whether 'fur needs to know what they think at all.

Whatfur
01-06-2010, 04:53 PM
I understand how Situation 2 is an example of moral obligation. I don't understand how Situation 1 is an example of some other kind of obligation. I would say they are two different kinds of morality, but both still moral obligations. If you see Situation 1 as something other than a moral obligation, can you be more specific about what kind of obligation it is.

Saying it's a sense of duty doesn't help since duty and obligation are synonymous. My question is, a duty or obligation to what/whom? If not to a moral code, and not to the law, a duty to ____?

I am just saying that If a group sets themselves up to be the authority in a given area then the obligation is to provide clarity in those areas. It also behooves them to. "A duty" to their members so they are clear as what is right/acceptable behavior and what is wrong. "A duty" to inform others who might jump to the wrong conclusions because the ulitmate goal of the church and the bomber might be similar. The obligation is also to their own cause. An obligation to the truth of their cause.

If in situation 1 the church said nothing it would not be immoral. In situation 2, if the priest said nothing it would be...especially if a bombing came to pass.

bjkeefe
01-06-2010, 05:03 PM
Thank you, TS.

Second that. Well said, Twin.

Whatfur
01-06-2010, 05:09 PM
I appreciate the point you're making. And if you see above, you'll note I started the exchange with 'fur on precisely that point, that there are Muslims of course engaged in denouncing terror.


Not quite where this started.

...

We're not actually debating the question of whether Muslims abhor terror at the moment (we've already established that I think they do and 'fur suspects otherwise). Rather we're discussing whether 'fur needs to know what they think at all.

Do not misrepresent me. I have plainly said (plain enough for most) that I suspect that they abhor terror also. What fur needs to know or not know is only a small piece as it is more about the fact the Muslims providing clarity is in their own best interests.

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-06-2010, 05:16 PM
The duties you outline for Situation 1 still strike me as moral duties. What you've described is a code of honor, in a way--the notion of a duty to the Church's members, to honor the commitment that they have made to the Church. To me an honor code is a subset of the broader category of moral obligations. It seems you disagree, but I'm not understanding why/how.

Whatfur
01-06-2010, 05:36 PM
The duties you outline for Situation 1 still strike me as moral duties. What you've described is a code of honor, in a way--the notion of a duty to the Church's members, to honor the commitment that they have made to the Church. To me an honor code is a subset of the broader category of moral obligations. It seems you disagree, but I'm not understanding why/how.

If you want to place it all in one big happy basket, feel free. I tried my best to show you how I am differentiating them. YOU fail to understand a (the obvious) difference it seems and you seem intent on making them the same. I find your need to do so rather silly.

Bottom line, if the "Religion of Peace" feels no "sense of duty" to protect its reputation as the "Religion of Peace" then they always have....you. ;)

Let's be done. Bye.

PreppyMcPrepperson
01-07-2010, 06:08 AM
I'd love to actually understand the distinction you're making, but it's not obvious (to me) and you're not helping me through it. That's too bad.

We're done.

Lyle
01-19-2010, 07:14 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/muslim_groups_still_mia_on_terror_vvzt1Uuffh8xE6tG NUSZsJ/0

The Anti-Defamation League last week said new efforts by American Muslim groups "to root out radicalization" were "a sham." As an example, it pointed to a Chicago convention staged by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America last month -- which, ADL National Director Abe Foxman said, was "nothing more than a cover for the dissemination of hateful anti-American and anti-Israel views and anti-Semitism."

Participants accused America of attacking Islam and targeting US Muslims at home and abroad. On sale, ADL reported, were books and CDs by such firebrands as Anwar al-Awlaki -- the Muslim cleric linked to al Qaeda.

The ADL's not alone. Another law-enforcement source tells me CAIR and other groups have been worse than useless: To this source's knowledge, US Muslims have played virtually no role in foiling local plots.

Whatfur
05-08-2010, 07:11 PM
This article just reminded me of this thread. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/07/m-zuhdi-jasser-times-square-muslims-homegrown-islamist-terror-hasan-faisal/)

Lyle
05-12-2010, 12:59 AM
Allahu Akbar to that!