Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Right. Listen, if you don't want to have a discussion, just say so.

My initial argument was that the attitude amongst Muslims that violence visited upon those who insult Mohammed or desecrate a Koran or blaspheme in some other way is justified seems to create an atmosphere that breeds Muslims who engage in such violence. You and Ty argued that is was more about being poor and disaffected (simplified version of your arguments, for sure). I don't entirely disagree. I thought both of your arguments were very convincing. However, in places where people can spontaneously join in and crush a woman with rocks and their feet because someone loosely accused her of burning the Koran and the Minister of Religion said such a killing would have been justified only if she actually burned the Koran, it leads me to believe that, although surely the issues you mention are important contributing factors, there is more to it than poverty and feeling like an outsider.

And I agree that there may be a change brewing based on the reaction you mentioned (although, it is very hard to tell if the swift reaction to the mob killing is based on the fact that the woman was "innocent" of the "crime" she was killed for or if murder by mob generally is the issue). I surely don't disagree that any such change should be welcomed.

But it seems to me that there is something different about how many* Muslims think about their religion and what an appropriate punishment should be for those who insult it, or worse, who don't believe, that contributes to an atmosphere in which people (young, poor, whatever) think it's okay to turn to violence in the name of Islam.

TM

*Not all or most.

My general view on this is that there are a wide range of reasons why the Middle East in particular and other areas where there are large Islamic populations to a lesser extent is very much a mess in a lot of ways, but that these have a lot to do with history, a lot to do with economy, and a lot to do with the particular way religion has interacted with that history and that economy. I really don't find an awful lot of use for broad statements about Islam devoid of the context of a particular area, and I will very much diminish and ridicule people who attempt to make such statements. They are almost always silly.

That doesn't mean every statement about Islam broadly doesn't make sense. For example, one common thread, whether we are talking about my neighbors in a tony 'burb or someone in rural Pakistan or rural Nigeria, regardless of whether we're talking twelvers or Wahaabis, is the Hadj, and the Hadj plays a particular role in spreading radical Islam and in providing a very protected environment for jihadis to come together each year.

Take Afghanistan. Actually, take Kabul. A woman is beaten to death here by a mob at a shrine. The people inciting it are screaming about blasphemy. What's going on?

I don't know. I'm still reading up on it. Kabul is a mixing pot, a place of many ethnicities and cultures. Also place of culture and libertine reputation for many years. A place that has seen heavy repression of Islam under some governments, that has seen a lot of very liberated women, and that was, under the Taliban, very repressed and very much thought of as a problem by them as they tried to impose fundamentalism. This isn't Kandahar. The fundies don't run the place. But they're there. I've had two relatives in Afghanistan, and each enjoyed Kabul. Thought of it more like an Indian city, but with less poverty, than a Middle Eastern one in look and feel.

Are there tribal or class elements to this besides religious ones? Family disputes involved? How much is focused on the burning of the Qur'an? I don't know. Sure sounds like that was the match that lit the fuse, but some sources say it was a false rumor, some say it was true.

I do know there is a strong reaction, that there are a lot of women marching in the streets, that her funeral became a major political statement by women. The focus in the streets seems to be on this being about women and how they are treated.

What about the statement by the ministry official - who was that, anyway? It was an unnamed official, not the Minister. It this some leftover from Kandahar or is this someone trying to undermine the current minister, or who?

From this event, what can I say about Islam as a whole? About proclivity to violence? Hell, I know there is a frightening element in Afghan society that looks like the bastard hate child of Jerry Falwell and Oliver North. I know there are fundies who probably think the woman shouldn't have been in the shrine at all. Was the ringleader also someone who American troops had put inside a metal tanker without water for four days in hundred degree heat, whose fundamentalism was also deeply anti-Western, who hates women who clothe themselves in a western style, and what was she wearing? I don't know, but it's possible. It's also possible some of the mob was missing limbs from old Russian mines. What motivates people to turn into a mob anywhere, what kind of deeper dissatisfaction and frustrations?

These issues are things for a nice complex novel. I don't pull out of it particularly useful or interesting broad statements about Islam and proclivity to violence. Power to you if you can. You want to talk about the Middle East and why it is messed up? I think a lot about that. Pick a country and I'll be happy to focus on it. I'm reading up on Lebanon and Iran in particular now, both fascinating places, and getting ready for a short trip to Israel in a couple of months.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

To me the interesting, and unknowable, question is why the fact that she likely didn't burn the Koran is so prominent. Because it sort of parallels the fuck nuts that feel it was okay to shoot the kid in Ferguson because he stole a pack of cigarettes. Both "crimes" shouldn't be a death sentence with no need of a trial.

And why it is different that no one (other than people with clearly unacceptable racist feelings) is saying "let's take a step back and think of whether it's okay that racially biased cops shoot kids where they shouldn't," whereas there seems to be a portion of muslims that think, "well if she had burned the holy book....." GGG you know more than us about the Middle East, would the protests be lesser if she had?

EDIT(I had not read T's last post before writing this- he is the Fugee to my TMdiva)

Right now I'm reading the protests as a long-repressed element in Kabul coming back to the surface, saying enough with the lunatics. And the asshats suggesting that maybe burning the Qur'an deserves a death sentence are inciting that.

But I do think charging someone with burning the Qur'an is a particular form of blood-libel, a particular call to arms. I'm not sure there is an equivalent here in the states, unless perhaps it's flag burning. In general, little is sacred in Islam - they don't worship buildings or people, not even the Prophet. But these written words are sacred. Mother Mary, the Cross, and the Holy Grail rolled into one.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My general view on this is that there are a wide range of reasons why the Middle East in particular and other areas where there are large Islamic populations to a lesser extent is very much a mess in a lot of ways, but that these have a lot to do with history, a lot to do with economy, and a lot to do with the particular way religion has interacted with that history and that economy. I really don't find an awful lot of use for broad statements about Islam devoid of the context of a particular area, and I will very much diminish and ridicule people who attempt to make such statements. They are almost always silly.

That doesn't mean every statement about Islam broadly doesn't make sense. For example, one common thread, whether we are talking about my neighbors in a tony 'burb or someone in rural Pakistan or rural Nigeria, regardless of whether we're talking twelvers or Wahaabis, is the Hadj, and the Hadj plays a particular role in spreading radical Islam and in providing a very protected environment for jihadis to come together each year.

Take Afghanistan. Actually, take Kabul. A woman is beaten to death here by a mob at a shrine. The people inciting it are screaming about blasphemy. What's going on?

I don't know. I'm still reading up on it. Kabul is a mixing pot, a place of many ethnicities and cultures. Also place of culture and libertine reputation for many years. A place that has seen heavy repression of Islam under some governments, that has seen a lot of very liberated women, and that was, under the Taliban, very repressed and very much thought of as a problem by them as they tried to impose fundamentalism. This isn't Kandahar. The fundies don't run the place. But they're there. I've had two relatives in Afghanistan, and each enjoyed Kabul. Thought of it more like an Indian city, but with less poverty, than a Middle Eastern one in look and feel.

Are there tribal or class elements to this besides religious ones? Family disputes involved? How much is focused on the burning of the Qur'an? I don't know. Sure sounds like that was the match that lit the fuse, but some sources say it was a false rumor, some say it was true.

I do know there is a strong reaction, that there are a lot of women marching in the streets, that her funeral became a major political statement by women. The focus in the streets seems to be on this being about women and how they are treated.

What about the statement by the ministry official - who was that, anyway? It was an unnamed official, not the Minister. It this some leftover from Kandahar or is this someone trying to undermine the current minister, or who?

From this event, what can I say about Islam as a whole? About proclivity to violence? Hell, I know there is a frightening element in Afghan society that looks like the bastard hate child of Jerry Falwell and Oliver North. I know there are fundies who probably think the woman shouldn't have been in the shrine at all. Was the ringleader also someone who American troops had put inside a metal tanker without water for four days in hundred degree heat, whose fundamentalism was also deeply anti-Western, who hates women who clothe themselves in a western style, and what was she wearing? I don't know, but it's possible. It's also possible some of the mob was missing limbs from old Russian mines. What motivates people to turn into a mob anywhere, what kind of deeper dissatisfaction and frustrations?

These issues are things for a nice complex novel. I don't pull out of it particularly useful or interesting broad statements about Islam and proclivity to violence. Power to you if you can. You want to talk about the Middle East and why it is messed up? I think a lot about that. Pick a country and I'll be happy to focus on it. I'm reading up on Lebanon and Iran in particular now, both fascinating places, and getting ready for a short trip to Israel in a couple of months.

Clearly you're passionate and knowledgeable about this topic. I find everything you've written above to be very interesting. And I'm not really into making generalizations for the sake of making generalizations. I clearly do not know the ins and outs of the many different Muslim communities around the world. If you tell me that there isn't an undercurrent in many different Muslim communities of a tolerance for or belief that any type of blasphemy is an offense that should be punishable by violence, I'll let it go. I haven't argued over why it's there. I'm not arguing about the causes. I just think that undercurrent is part of the reason why, for example, Muslims in one community can stone someone to death for desecrating the Koran and Muslims in another will kill someone for drawing a cartoon of the prophet.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

When will ISIS get its Torquemada?

You think ISIS is ready to be 600 years behind the Catholic Church?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you want to look at propensity to commit violence across large groups of people, I would warn you that most statistical surveys will show the US is the one of the most violent countries in the world outside of active war zones. Our murder rate last year was higher than Afghanistan's. If you look at deaths in custody, we're competing with some of the most repressive dictatorships in the world. If you look at death sentences by courts, we're once again in the company of notorious police states. We should be careful about throwing stones.

If I said that Americans who oppose those things have a responsibility to speak out against them, and to teach other Americans that these things are wrong and are not what being an American is about, what would your reaction (and Ty's reaction) be?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Clearly you're passionate and knowledgeable about this topic. I find everything you've written above to be very interesting. And I'm not really into making generalizations for the sake of making generalizations. I clearly do not know the ins and outs of the many different Muslim communities around the world. If you tell me that there isn't an undercurrent in many different Muslim communities of a tolerance for or belief that any type of blasphemy is an offense that should be punishable by violence, I'll let it go. I haven't argued over why it's there. I'm not arguing about the causes. I just think that undercurrent is part of the reason why, for example, Muslims in one community can stone someone to death for desecrating the Koran and Muslims in another will kill someone for drawing a cartoon of the prophet.

TM

It's lively and diverse in Islam.

Of course it's material that if you look at places where blasphemy remains a crime, you're going to find a bunch of Catholic countries and Muslim countries, with prosecutions and penalties more common and heavier in the Muslim countries. Likewise, not a lot of legal systems have a notion of apostasy as a crime (in the Europe, there's a long history of heresy prosecutions but not much focus on apostasy; Islam has been more forgiving of deviating in your interpretation of the faith, as you would expect from a faith without a centralized structure, but less forgiving in giving up the faith altogether).

But in many areas within Islam, the fundamentalism is of relatively recent vintage, growing slowly after the breakup of the Ottoman empire and accelerating with the revolution in Iran, so the question is: why did those places become more fundamentalist? Why did strains like Wahhabism emerge and then consolidate power? I don't think the answer to that is particularly intrinsic to Islam as a religion, I think it has a lot to do with power, oil, colonialism, and broader conflicts. Blaming it on Islam usually implies there is a fundamental, unbridgeable difference between "us" and "them".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If I said that Americans who oppose those things have a responsibility to speak out against them, and to teach other Americans that these things are wrong and are not what being an American is about, what would your reaction (and Ty's reaction) be?

I'd say where the fuck have you been and why haven't you been paying attention that you aren't seeing people speak out against them? Are you being intentionally dense?

And if you ask the same question about the death of Farkhunda, I'd also ask what rock are you living under that you don't see the protests? And with ISIS, are you missing who is actually fighting them?

Of course, I am wondering where the Republicans are speaking out against the 47 idiots. They need to teach them that this is wrong and not what being an American is about.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's lively and diverse in Islam.

Of course it's material that if you look at places where blasphemy remains a crime, you're going to find a bunch of Catholic countries and Muslim countries, with prosecutions and penalties more common and heavier in the Muslim countries. Likewise, not a lot of legal systems have a notion of apostasy as a crime (in the Europe, there's a long history of heresy prosecutions but not much focus on apostasy; Islam has been more forgiving of deviating in your interpretation of the faith, as you would expect from a faith without a centralized structure, but less forgiving in giving up the faith altogether).

But in many areas within Islam, the fundamentalism is of relatively recent vintage, growing slowly after the breakup of the Ottoman empire and accelerating with the revolution in Iran, so the question is: why did those places become more fundamentalist? Why did strains like Wahhabism emerge and then consolidate power? I don't think the answer to that is particularly intrinsic to Islam as a religion, I think it has a lot to do with power, oil, colonialism, and broader conflicts. Blaming it on Islam usually implies there is a fundamental, unbridgeable difference between "us" and "them".

When you say that TM is "blaming it on Islam," you show that you are missing the point. He is not saying that Islam is inherently bad. He is not comparing Islam to, for example, racism.

He is saying that (in his view, which I share) that Islam is being taught in many places in ways that lead people to accept things that are awful -- killing people for insulting Islam or the Koran, subjugating women, etc. And (I believe he is saying, and I certainly believe this) that he believes that muslims who do not think that way need to push back.

Why does that become something muslims in particular need to do? Because muslims have more opportunity and more credibility for shaping the discussion of what Islam means, and how it is taught, than other people do. (And yes, I realize there are 2 billion Muslims, and an Imam in Indonesia may have little sway in Saudi Arabia. He'd still have more than my priest would, and while I'd rather see Imams in the Middle East and other places where radical Islam has taken root be those most vocal opponents of it, that's inherently difficult.)

If Islam itself were the problem -- inherently bad -- no one could say that Muslims should be looking to cure the problems. That would be like saying that "you racists really ought to deal with the Klansmen among you to make them understand that isn't what racism is really about."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd say where the fuck have you been and why haven't you been paying attention that you aren't seeing people speak out against them? Are you being intentionally dense?

And if you ask the same question about the death of Farkhunda, I'd also ask what rock are you living under that you don't see the protests? And with ISIS, are you missing who is actually fighting them?

Of course, I am wondering where the Republicans are speaking out against the 47 idiots. They need to teach them that this is wrong and not what being an American is about.

Saying that people already are is valid and good, and as interesting as TM has said it was.

If you instead said that I might as well be saying that people who drive black cars should be speaking out against the violence in America, I'd say you're a whackadoo.


(As to the recent incidents, I was in Vegas so I was sort of under a rock when they occurred.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

When you say that TM is "blaming it on Islam," you show that you are missing the point. He is not saying that Islam is inherently bad. He is not comparing Islam to, for example, racism.

He is saying that (in his view, which I share) that Islam is being taught in many places in ways that lead people to accept things that are awful -- killing people for insulting Islam or the Koran, subjugating women, etc. And (I believe he is saying, and I certainly believe this) that he believes that muslims who do not think that way need to push back.

Why does that become something muslims in particular need to do? Because muslims have more opportunity and more credibility for shaping the discussion of what Islam means, and how it is taught, than other people do. (And yes, I realize there are 2 billion Muslims, and an Imam in Indonesia may have little sway in Saudi Arabia. He'd still have more than my priest would, and while I'd rather see Imams in the Middle East and other places where radical Islam has taken root be those most vocal opponents of it, that's inherently difficult.)

If Islam itself were the problem -- inherently bad -- no one could say that Muslims should be looking to cure the problems. That would be like saying that "you racists really ought to deal with the Klansmen among you to make them understand that isn't what racism is really about."

Miraculously, it appears Muslims are listening to you - the Taliban have now condemned Farkhunda's killers and lectured them on this not being the true way of Islam! Success! It was good of you to help educate them on speaking up.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(As to the recent incidents, I was in Vegas so I was sort of under a rock when they occurred.)

Velvet's implants finally developed too much scar tissue, huh? Poor bastard.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(As to the recent incidents, I was in Vegas so I was sort of under a rock when they occurred.)

Sidd, you ignorant slut...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Prediction: within two presidencies, we will have a President who refers to the Islamic Republic of Iran as an ally.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Miraculously, it appears Muslims are listening to you - the Taliban have now condemned Farkhunda's killers and lectured them on this not being the true way of Islam! Success! It was good of you to help educate them on speaking up.

I'm curious what you think about this Daily Show conversation. I feel like it is very similar to what we've been discussing here. You would probably tend to agree with Stewart who seems to disagree with Ali's contention that there are problems with Islam itself that need to be fixed.

I do think both are pretty much on the same page, and it boils down to Stewart thinking that people will bastardize any religious text in order to do insane shit, while Ali seems to be arguing that certain aspects of the way Islam is taught leads to a culture in which death is valued above life and that (among other things) needs to change.

She also echoed some of your points about the many reformers who are risking their lives and need to be supported.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/ayaan-hirsi-ali

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm curious what you think about this Daily Show conversation. I feel like it is very similar to what we've been discussing here. You would probably tend to agree with Stewart who seems to disagree with Ali's contention that there are problems with Islam itself that need to be fixed.

I do think both are pretty much on the same page, and it boils down to Stewart thinking that people will bastardize any religious text in order to do insane shit, while Ali seems to be arguing that certain aspects of the way Islam is taught leads to a culture in which death is valued above life and that (among other things) needs to change.

She also echoed some of your points about the many reformers who are risking their lives and need to be supported.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/ayaan-hirsi-ali

TM

She also starts talking about an inherently interesting theological issue, which is, how do you or do you even attempt to apply a document written in the 7th century to today's morality. It's an argument I've had repeatedly with fellow Catholics, where the traditional view is that the Church itself is eternal and immutable, and that plays a very significant role in why we don't have women priests yet. It's particularly difficult in a religion where the word itself is what is divine, and the prophet was only a vehicle for transmission of the word of God.

Others attempt to dig the document out from its historical context: maybe all that sexist shit was overlaid on it by subsequent generations (fans of Arabic poetry are especially fond of this approach, since there was a real flowering of Arabic poetry written by women at the time of the Prophet, probably one of the greatest set of original documents relating to ancient world proto-feminism you'll find). This is probably easier to do with the Qur'an than the Old Testament if you really parse through the two documents.

I don't know if she still considers herself Islamic or not, and whether she's arguing about how to interpret Islam or against Islam, but figuring this one out is essential for every ancient religion trying to adapt in the world, of course, but Islam, like every other religion, has to do it in a particular context.

It's an interesting debate, though I suspect it's not the debate you're focused on in looking at that clip. You're probably more focused on whether she is pointing out something intrinsically bad or different in Islam itself that leads to bad things.

As to that, I'd say this: if tomorrow you miraculously converted every member of ISIS to Catholicism, I don't think you'd materially change the way ISIS operates. You'd still have a movement of people funded by captured oil revenues trying to consolidate power in a fragmented landscape where there are alternatives that are, for people trying just to stay alive, arguably worse, and where lots of external actors had or were looking to buy their own local proxies to foment war. And they would still be thinking about outdoing our shock-and-awe approach by being more shocking and more awful than anyone else, though as Catholics they'd probably choose mass burnings at stakes rather than beheadings as their shocker of choice. Some of this is tactical: if you are trying to run a blitzkrieg through a place that already features a wide range of repressive oil-funded murderous dictators, and proxies are already taken for Iran, the Soviet Union, and the US, how do you gain a competitive advantage?