For the benefit of the influx of new readers from other sites, some ground rules of this community below the fold. (More …)
Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Admin
-
abunoor
“As Muslim leaders, we have witnessed the physical, psychological, and emotional torment that victims of domestic violence endure, and we are taking this opportunity to speak out against this vicious crime. The victims of domestic violence are not at fault for the abuse imparted upon them and the perpetrator has not been given “divine” permission to inflict pain on others. There is absolutely no basis for domestic violence in Islam and Islam is unequivocally against all forms of abuse.”
http://www.marwaaly.com/2011/10/muslim-chaplains-against-domestic-violence/ -
aziz
Anwar al Awlaki is dead. Best thing to say is simply, Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un and leave the rest to Allah.
(though, I did have more to say)
-
aziz
So, Huntsman revealed his neocon crazy last night:
“I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If there was ever a reason to use American force, it would be that.”
-
aziz
@thabet1979 took serious issue with my 9-11 tenth anniversary post, commenting:
I have to say I am quite disappointed by this post. It seems you just want to sweep the horrors of the last decade under the carpet, so long as the victims are not American.
I must say, it’s exactly this sort of demand for ritualized condemnation that I had in mind when I wrote the post. Whether it comes from the left or right, the insistence that American Muslims apologize for this or condemn that is a game I won’t play anymore. Especially things that we really have absolutely nothing to do with, and utterly opposed, like terrorism, or the Iraq War.
What the critics really want is for me to condemn an apologize for Islam/America itself and that I will never do, and wear my refusal to do so with pride.
-
aziz
Fordson: Faith, Football, and Fasting - open in limited run through September 15th:
-
Jo
Aziz: thanks for posting the trailer on Fordson. The movie looks very inspiring and shows the community of Dearborn as quite courageous. I will try to catch it. Though “limited in distribution” it is actually playing close by
-
JESSE DZIEDZIC
Wonderfully well executed piece!!!
-
-
aziz
I’ve signed this “Muslim American Declaration” as a statement of principles.
-
aziz
@zack_a and @thabet1979 dismissed it “weird” and a “loyalty test”. I don’t see it as a loyalty test, I see it as a much needed affirmation driven by genuine civic pride and nationalism. Given the different milieu that muslims experience in the US versus the UK, I suppose it’s not surprising that the reasoning behind teh declaration might be foreign to a UK-based muslim, but from our perspective it’s really quite simple: we are under attack by a concerted and well-funded smear campaign, and we must respond.
Pretending that we don’t have a PR problem on principle alone will only widen the gulf. We must act in good faith. And we do.
-
svend
I’ll admit that I’m of two minds on this. I certainly get tired of indulging misinformed (or even outright bigoted) perceptions of Americans Muslims as disloyal or extremist with endless reaffirmations of basic human (to say nothing of American) values, but however one feels about the fairness of the MSM/Beltway conversation about Muslims and Islam there are undeniably serious perception and communication gaps that ultimately threaten us all (Muslim Americans by depriving them of equality and non-Muslim Americans by dumbing down the political process in ways that encourage self-defeating choices domestically and internationally).
With all the misinformation that’s out there I think it’s often necessary to do the opposite, unapologetically turning the tables and debunking misconceptions, but there’s no getting around the necessity of addressing (and periodically re-addressing, sadly) the concerns that normal people have, rightly or wrongly. There are some people who’ll never be satisfied and who’ll idiotically label this as “taqiyya” (or as Lady Macbeth protesting too much), it’s true, but this isn’t about them. This about reaching the many well-meaning people who have reached a point where they instinctively distrust Muslims because all they ever hear about us is negative. You’re unlikely to plant the seeds of dialogue with them by being defensive, even if it’s eminently justified in many cases.
-
Aziz
Yasir Qadhi also has a piece that might also be uncharitably called a “loyalty oath” (we are muslims, we are safe, harmless, etc). It’s a good piece. See:
-
Arwi
The mention of Muslims in teh Civil War made me curious, and a few clicks away I discovered Hadji Ali aka Hi Jolly.
I think the Hi Jolly Statement of Principles would be more appealing. Truth, justice and Camelmania, perhaps?
-
-
-
-
aziz
Today is 9/9 - the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir.
-
Aziz
Zack Ajmal takes issue with the “valorization” of Massoud, whom he labels as just another barbarian warlord and a jihadi. There’s a discussion unfolding in the comments there at Brown Pundits but I confess I’m at a loss. Clearly Zack has different sources than I do.
-
Abu Noor
Taking issue with the “valorization”? Oh come on, if you’re going to take issue, how can you pass up the chance to take issue with the “lionization” of Massoud?
-
Abu Noor
Interesting but brief report on NPR on this issue, the way they reported it at least whether Massoud was substantially better than the other warlords of the era obviously depends on whom you talk to, but obviously many believe he was, however there seemed to be a consensus even among his supporters that his successors, including many who fought with/under him, have been disappointments in the Karzai era.
-
Abu Noor
Here’s the link to the NPR story
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/09/140333732/in-afghanistan-assessing-a-rebel-leaders-legacy
-
-
-
-
Ben Pendleton
I had the privilege of meeting, photographing and interviewing Ahmad Shah Massoud in Takhar Province, Afghanistan in the Fall of 1991. Here’s a website that you can check out if you’re interested: http://asmassoudphotos.redbubble.com/.
An amazing man, in my opinion.
-
-
aziz
Democracy, Jewishness, Greater Israel: pick two.
It is interesting to see how the binational state idea is picking up steam again, among the remnants of the Israeli left.
-
Matthew
You understand that many understand the demands made of Israel as “Security, Democracy, Jewishness: pick two.”
I agree with most of what Strenger says. I also support the Palestinian bid because I believe Palestinians deserve national self-determination, and I despise Netanyahu. But I hope after the declaration, negotiations will continue (with my hopes for their fruitfulness) as before. Because I believe the existence of Israel is just, and I’m opposed to attempts to define the Left in a way that effectively precludes such a belief.
-
-
aziz
Mayan Muslims in Mexico - a fascinating profile:
On a dirty road past tourist shops, dreadlocked backpackers and Spanish-style catholic churches and just beside an abandoned mill inhabited by indigenous squatters, sits a mosque - built from a mud hut - and nestled in a corn field.
It is about as far from Mecca as one can get, but this is where Salvador Lopez Lopez comes to pray.
An indigenous Mayan, fluent in the local Tzotzil dialect, Lopez is one about 500 Muslims in Chiapas, Mexico’s southern-most state.
And, like many stories in this state plagued by poverty, Lopez’s journey to Islam began with a tragedy.
-
Arwi
According to reports, most Spanish Muslim missionaries in Chiapas come from the Murabitun sect, a largely European group of converts to the Sufi strain of Islam. Some Islamic groups have been highly critical of the Murabitun and their interpretations of religious scriptures.
-
-
aziz
The Domestic Crusaders returns to New York! Buy your tickets now for the 9-11 commemorative performance this upcoming weekend…
-
aziz
A landmark report on Islamophobia was published today by @wajahatali, @mattduss and others at @AmProg. Essential reading. This is the way we fight back against the hate of the JAFIS - with facts. As the tenth anniversary of 9-11 approaches, the JAFIs are gearing up a campaign of vilification and hatred against Islam and muslim Americans like never before. This report is an essential tool and its imperative we all read it and share it as widely as possible.
You can download the report as PDF or read online.
-
Jo
Aziz: Sorry. I am new to these discussions. What does JAFIs stand for. Are you referring specifically to the Jewish Agency for Israel or is it used here as a generic term for all ( extreme )right wing Jewish groups.
thank you, Joan-
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
I am not Aziz, but I wanted your misconception to be corrected ASAP. JAFI is a term Aziz uses for Just another “Frothing” or “F….ing” Islamophobe. It has nothing to do with any Jewish group or with Jewish identity.
-
Jo
Thank you for your response Abu Noor. Yes, I thought perhaps that is what was meant. I too believe fighting hate with facts is a good plan, although with much media today, figuring out what is a “fact” can be very challenging, even for the most astute. Have good good weekend
Joan -
aziz
thank you AN for teh assist. Sorry Jo for not replying sooner. JAFI is just a tongue in cheek term I use which is easier to type than “Islamophobe”
the Jewish Agency for Israel thing is totally unrelated, though there is some coincidental (or correlated?) overlap, surely…
-
jo
thanks, Aziz
-
-
-
-
-
aziz
The Noor Foundation: Can Islam and Science coexist?
I find the premise to be a little bogus. The threat to the scientific method from American political conservatism is far more a concern, especially since arguably scientific illiteracy in the US affects US policy, which has disproportionate global impact (ex. global warming)
-
aziz
A months-long investigation by The Associated Press has revealed that the NYPD operates far outside its borders and targets ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government. And it does so with unprecedented help from the CIA in a partnership that has blurred the bright line between foreign and domestic spying.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=pWphudFP -
aziz
The Night of Power is imminent.
-
aziz
Loonwatch is really building a solid case in rebuttal to Jihadwatch’s claims that they are not against all muslims, but just extremist Islam.
Pretty devastating.
-
abunoor
Justin Elliott, from Salon, whose piece on the ties between Rick Perry and the Aga Khan was linked here last week, has an update on the reaction to the piece from the Islamophobiasphere.
http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/15/perry_geller_gaffney
Gaffney’s group claims that this may not be a problem since Ismailis may be “good Muslims” (progressive, persecuted by Saudi Arabia, etc.) while Geller and her ilk are having none of it (“Assasins” “Taqiyya”).
-
aziz
*munches popcorn*
-
aziz
and here’s a follow up to the original story:
-
Abu Noor
I have to agree completely that it makes little sense to conclude from a relationship with the Aga Khan that someone has a good relationship with the American Muslim community. I also find the fact that Rick Perry signed a “halal bill” in Texas and then supported anti-Shari’a bills to be further evidence of my strong belief that the halal bills are silly (especially the way the Muslim community treats them like major accomplishments).
-
-
-
aziz
Thinly-veiled propaganda for Israel at @techcrunch today, surprisingly. Not teh venue I’d have expected to see this.
I left the following comment in the thread, addressed to the author:
Israel has “total” freedom of speech? Then why is it now illegal to speak in support of the Boycott movement?
http://www.forward.com/articles/139822/
Also, where was the freedom of the press in discussing the case of Anat Kam?
Also, in 2009 Israel’s ranking for freedom of the press (by Reporters without Borders) fell 47 spots to 67 out of 175, thanks to Gaza war censorship by the government.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-ranks-low-for-freedom-of-press-after-gaza-war-media-ban-1.5765
Look, I value nationalism and pride. But propaganda like this undermines the valid reasons to applaud the demonstrators. In a way, you have discredited them.
Celebrate the courage of your fellow Israelis in standing up for social justice. But scoring cheap points against Arabs and the UK? Disgraceful. Face it, friend, since the Arab youth and protestors live under autocracies, they have shown a lot more courage in their demonstrations than your compatriots - because they really are putting their lives on the line, for freedom.
Perhaps you should be praising them and articulating a message of solidarity for your Arab brothers instead of taking cheap shots.
-
plimfix
The riot blogs. I’ve been blogging about the UK riots almost from the beginning. Lots of links to comment on the Left and Right, but given the stupidity of some of it, expect strong language from me.
-
aziz
European Christians allying with secularists against Islam are basically dupes. The secularists want to destroy us all. If anything, they are the common enemy against our shared values.
-
Mc Kiernan
Yer pushing the envelope or maybe the envelope is pushing you.
-
aziz
??
-
-
Hitch
I guess I am your enemy. If only I knew.
No secularism is your friend. Secularists wrote the treaty if Tripoli for example, but it’s long been forgotten what kind of religious toleration was expressed in that text.
But I am quite aware that there is an odd boogey-man forming under the label “secularism” and that there is an attempt to organize a movement that indeed sees it as the problem, and tries to counter it. Some of the “interfaith” movement is in that category. It’s actually quite troubling, because it’s just yet another form of “otherization”. Given that non-believers are already heavily stereotyped in the US for example it’s warrant a little more reflection than just state that “secularists want to destroy us all”.
-
aziz
This is a classic case where you are simply applying a label monolithically. Would you prefer I write, instead of the term secularist, “persons who object to any spirituality on display in the public square”? How about “people who condescend on theists as intellectual pygmies to be marginalized politically for the Greater Good”? How about “so-called defenders of Enlightment Values who have wrongly interpreted the Enlightment as a validation of Reason as a truly objective process” ?
I mean, take your pick, and tel me what YOU want me to call these people. Obviously they aren’t you, but since you insist on calling yourself a secularist, AND you absolutely refuse to allow me to use the term because you insist that my usage of it to describe the people above MUST also include YOU with no possible nuance opr distinction permissible, I await your pedantic instructions.
Or maybe, you can cut me some slack and understand the obvious context of my use of the word secularist, just as I would be willing to cutt you slack on using the words Islamist, Jihad, Fundamentalist, Shariah, etc.
-
Hitch
I wasn’t applying the label at all. I was quoting you use the label. But let me address this in turn:
“persons who object to any spirituality on display in the public square”
Ok let’s get this right. In the US secularity simply means that the STATE cannot create, fund, or give any other space, visibility or support to any religious display. But note that to say “public square” serves as a beautiful confusion. This is only stuff that the state has anything to do with. On any land that anyone but the state owns, and that space can be as public as can be, everything can be displayed. And yes that is precisely what secularism is and should be. So why not describe this as what it is: Simply the establishment clause of the 1st article of the bill of right of the US constitution, which does not contain a word about “public square” (for good reason, because that “public square” thing is just a meme to misconstrue what secular means).
“people who condescend on theists as intellectual pygmies to be marginalized politically for the Greater Good”
Aww. Yeah another stereotype. No secular says nothing about people’s attitudes towards other’s points of view. They may think what you say or not. But yeah, religion is hardly marginalized anywhere I have ever lived. But let’s get real again. You don’t like to be marginalized? I don’t like to receive death penalties. Reality is that people like me have historically been subject to death penalties and in some countries still are subject to such. And you get upset because someone may think your ideas are bad and don’t want them to have weight in the marketplace of ideas? Well I sympathize, but it’s not the kinds of problems actual critics of religion face.
“so-called defenders of Enlightment Values who have wrongly interpreted the Enlightment as a validation of Reason as a truly objective process”
What are enlightenment values? Freedom (liberte)? Equality (egalite)? Toleration? “Brotherly” Love (fraternite) (today we’d call it empathy, solidarity). Yep, these are “horrible” values to defend.
No the problem is that some sectors of society and some intellectual strands fail to live up to these good standards. Freedom only for some, equality in an Orwellian sense (some are more equal than others), toleration with a footnote (we are tolerant, except when you criticize us), and empathy and solidarity, but only for the in-group.
So what should you call “these people”. Well how about friends? How about human? How about critics? And certainly not people who want to “destroy us all”. At best they disagree with aspects of your world view, and allowing that is what a free society allows.
As for cutting slack, don’t cut me slack. If I misuse a word in your view, please do issue your perspective or correction.
-
aziz
the Enlightenment values I referred to are the ones that place human reason as the ultimate, objective ideal of human thought, that value empiricism over spirituality. There are aspects of the Enlightenment with which I agree strongly, but they were never unique to eth Enlightenemnt and found expression in Islamic societies as well - partuicularly the value of free thought and reason as a means towards Truth. The difference is that the Enlightenment era equated reason *with* truth. The simple truth about Truth is that it’s not true - and now we are going back to the old “super-rational” debate which I’ve linked before and represents a true tangent: http://superrational.blogspot.com
-
Hitch
Yes, it’s an interesting topic. Before the enlightenment the public was not expected to participate in democratic decision making. What we forget about these ideas of the Enlightenment is context. The whole point of telling everybody that they need to reason is precisely because deliberation, evaluation of the facts and data and a joint decision is what underlies the process. It’s no longer an authority (monarch, church) who decides this for you. So what is the process to make those decisions. Enlightenment philosophers were concerned to educate the public about being those decision makers. To be “enlightened” simply means you are capable of that participation. It’s the “age of reason” not because reason is a dogma, but because if you are not used to reason through a situation you won’t be helping the democratic process.
As for “truth” with all sorts of capitalizations, Yes the enlightenment has allowed that we challenge each other’s notion of truth. If you know a better way to allow a market-place of ideas and pluralism, again I’m happy to hear how to do it better.
-
-
-
-
-
Arwi
You frequently use “secularist” to mean atheist or agnostic, but that is not right at all, secularism is about the relationship between religion and the state. Plenty of pious people are secularists, Soroush for example favors secularism on teh grounds that state power corrupts piety.
(posted this in the wrong thread a few seconds ago, you can delete that one)
-
Hitch
But even if we substitute secularism with atheism it’s still not correct to say that “atheists want to destroy us all”… just saying , but yes the problem that secularism and non-belief is conflated is problematic. Secularism simply means that your state concept is not theocratic, but decided by some mechanism through the voting citizen and nothing more.
-
aziz
no, the peo;ple we are worried about are the ones who do not advocate freedom of religion, but the ones who advocate freedom FROM religion. And don’t pretend that the latter types arent disproportionately powerful and motivated. The hijab and minaret bans are irrefutable evidence.
-
Hitch
You are aware that Sarkozy is catholic. The party who spearheaded the minaret ban in Switzerland? Eidgenössisch-Demokratische Union. Right wing Christian(!) party.
No my friend. What is going on here is not secularists wanting freedom from religion. It’s right wing religious people defending their “values”. Much of the left parties that work hard on integration and toleration in Europe are actually the secular parties. The president of Austria? Atheist. And 60% of Austrians _oppose_ minaret bans. Yeah, “horrible” secularism.
You attack a boogey-man my friend, not understanding what actually happens.
But let me keep it real, some new right wing demagogues do call themselves secular. Just like not all Christians are right wing, so are not all Secularists left wing. But your narrative of what drives those bans is plainly false and it mostly refutes that you don’t understand what is going on.
The truth is that the trouble is the intolerant right wing, which is largely (though not exclusively) religious (in the case of Europe, Christian). Even populists who pose as secular, like Geert Wilders make appeal to “judeo-christian” values. Why? Because that’s the crowd and the mind-set he looks to appeals to. He is not really a secularist because he DOES want to wield state power to limit religious expression.
The insane murderer Brevik? Christian wielding heavy Christian symbolism (crusade, templar, etc) and advocated for a reconversion of protestant churches to Catholicism. Right win violent anti-immigrant groups in both Europe and the US (EDL, BNP, … David Duke…)? Christian. Check into the background of the most fervent political islamophobes in the US, especially congressmen. You guessed it…
There is a duped narrative here about that the problem is “secularists”. But it’s false.
-
thabet
“but the ones who advocate freedom FROM religion. And don’t pretend that the latter types arent disproportionately powerful and motivated. The hijab and minaret bans are irrefutable evidence.”
This is just plain wrong — see what Hitch said with respect to the parties which are pushing against banning Muslim “symbols”.
-
aziz
it may be that hijab bans and minaret bans are being driven on the ground by tapping into rightwing (and religious) xenophobia, but the framework under which they are even remotely legal is the european style secularism. France is the most extreme with Laïcité
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
The language of secularism, like any -ism, is an absolutist one. That it enables religious xenophobes to further persecute religious minorities is a feature, not a bug, and that is why I called those same xenophobes “dupes” in my original comment.
-
Hitch
I think it is historically relevant to understand why France and the US are not carbon copies in this domain. The one line summary is that Europe had strong and dominant and constantly interfering churches that undermined pluralistic democracy, a problem that the US did not have to content with as they were able to actually escape that predicament.
But let’s take away Laicite. You think it would be any better? No. The same religious right wingers would oppose minarets but just be openly religious, perhaps worse, force muslim kids into christian conversion or prayers, force that christian church authorities have legal and legislative power or influence.
Yes secularism is an -ism. If you have a better system to have multiple world view coexist I’m happy to hear it. But by better I mean better for all, not better for one doctrine.
So the idea that secularism enables religious xenophobia is basically ahistoric. In fact the inverse is true. European enlightenment has lead to a range of improvements, such as the Jewish emancipation that were strictly unthinkable before.
In fact I said it before but let me say it again. Secularism even in the sense of Laicite means (your source): “absence of government involvement in religious affairs” and what is the problem here is that governments, under the pressure of Christian right wing politicians _fail_ that principle.
-
-
thabet
We had this debate at e dot org once.
‘Secularism of the right’ vs ‘secularism of the left’.
-
aziz
sigh. I feel like TI perpetually lives in e-org’s shadow. sadly I cannot maintain (nor deserve) the same cult of personality that matching e’s success would require.
Still, TI has certainly outlived its predecessor. The big flaw is the reliance on any one person. I’d hoped that by broadening the base of who contributes, we’d avoid that problem.
-
-
-
-
-
Abu Noor
I am a little confused as to what we are actually disagreeing about here, but as far as I can tell I am generally with everyone else in thinking that Aziz is off base in the way he thinks about the alliance between Christians and anti-religous people. Further confusing me is that HItch’s comments about atheists and secularists appealing to or working in coalition with right wing religous followers seem to support Aziz’s contentions more than disprove them.
At the same time, I agree completely with Aziz that you guys are being slippery in your use of “secularism.” It is well know that secularism means different things in different contexts and one cannot simply say things like “secularism means this and not this…”
Also, there are definitely real issues with people who nominally belong to a religion themselves but are still anti-religion or anti-some religions in the public sphere.
-
Hitch
Two points as I see it. One is that alliance. The second is clarity of terms. I do not think that you can address this if we are not clear in terms.
But I’m sorry that if someone says “The secularists are going to destroy us all.” I will have a reaction because I am in a sense of it a secular humanist (not that labeling works too well in that arena).
In many ways this is no better than saying “The islamists are going to destroy us all.” It’s sloppy and stereotypical language and it is not me who chose the sloppiness.
So let’s address the latter first. The word secular has indeed two meanings. Both of them I think are understood. The problem is of course that the two meanings superficially have an overlap and that being unclear what one means is problematic. I have actually extensively addressed the elaborations that Aziz gave what what he means to be secular and I think it is quite obvious that his description of secular is not at all far from me. Yes I do criticize religions and think we all are in the marketplace of ideas. Yes I do defend enlightenment values. Yet I do not advocate for a secular society to destroy diversity of viewpoint. In fact I advocate the exact opposite, and further I claim that enlightenment values too advocate the opposite.
So the twisting and confusion of terms is actually not isolated with the word secular. What enlightenment means too is contested and confused, in fact what disbelief means too is often confused.
But let’s actually take secularist to mean a person who thinks that a society is best in which political discourse is dominated by reflection and deliberation and advocacy of citizens needs. I.e. religion is either private or plays no other particular role.
Who are the people who hold this? Well it is people on the demagoguic end (typical far right, populist right etc), but it is also people on the end of multiculturalism, toleration, integration, pluralism etc.
That is you both have people who indeed could be argued to want to “destroy” one world view or another, and you have people who actively oppose said destruction.
But that is not the lone part of the narrative here. Aziz basically claims that the attitude of the “secularists” is the problem and Christians are somehow tempted into a dangerous alliance with those. What I think is evident if people actually look at the players, the truth is much more complex. Large swats of motions that demonize Muslims are Christians and they demonization is not driven by some secular notion at all.
Aziz paints those Christians as dupes. In reality they are the main faction of the ring leaders. People like Breivik are not atheists inviting in Christians. He’s a Christian inviting in atheists (if they adopt and fight for Christian values).
But I get where the stereotypes come from. People in the US like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins criticize Islam and write op-eds on hijabs. Leave alone that some of these are demonized in their own ways with claims that indeed they want to literally destroy Muslims, when in reality they of course want no such thing.
That image is transplanted into Europe, as if that drive what is going on there. The European reality is grossly misunderstood by doing this though.
Now reality is complex and I do not deny that there are right wing anti-pluralistic secularists. But the idea that Christians get duped into allying with folks who want some destruction is basically wrong. It’s these right wing Christians who themselves have those sentiments. Further it denies reality to define secularism around those particular people. As said, most of the pluralistic attitudes in Europe are carried by secular folks. To recognize that is just reality and a reality on which I challenge Aziz’s narrative.
So to paint secularism with this brush basically serves to demonize secularism, and yes I will be damned with I just let that slide. Frankly I know this narrative. I see it quite a bit by some. Eboo Patel can fall into this though he has complexified his position (it seems). John Esposito at times will paint secularism as the problem, not unlike the Pope… but it’s easy to forget what the Pope says about Christianity and Islam in turn later. And such are the narratives formed what the supposed problem is. It’s “secularism” that we ought to be afraid of (because “they want to destroy us all”). In fact it’s a boogey-man that many like. Christians are happy to off-load blame. So much so that you can hear people claim that European fascism was secular (a cruel joke at best, it was in fact right-wing Christian). Further it is a narrative that is sellable as a kind of pan-abrahamic bulwark against those wicked seculars. And as it further actually synergizes with some aspects of varied Islamic thought, one can construct this strawman of an enemy: the disbeliever. But it is a strawman. So question is, do we want to discuss reality or do we want to live by some stereotypical narratives that defy it?
I have no problem with criticism or debate on what secularism means. In fact I am positive that we don’t have the same or likely compatible world views. But if there is that debate, we should have it on what is real.
-
aziz
I’ll re-read your arguments Hitch and reconsider. But you say that it’s obvious that what I painetd as secular and what you claim as secular are the same thing. If that is so then you would agree that hijabs and minarets be banned. If so, then yes, I guess we are enemies. If no, then you’ve written a lot of words that obfuscate rather than elucidate.
-
Hitch
No I do not agree that hijabs or minarets should be banned. There are limits to liberty, and those start where people are discriminated or harmed, but none of these come even close.
We may well be enemies, but it’s only if you chose to advocate against freedoms that a person of conscience should have. I have yet to see that.
What I do think is at play are bad stereotypes. These are things that well meaning people can discuss.
-
-
-
Arwi
there are definitely real issues with people who nominally belong to a religion themselves but are still anti-religion or anti-some religions in the public sphere.
There are real issues with people who claim that secularism is only supported by atheists and the ‘nominally religious’. I think I have mentioned and linked Soroush’s work several times, for what good it does.
-
-
Abu Noor
Arwi,
Never said “only supported by” so I’m not sure who you are arguing with here or why you quoted me before making your statement.
Salaam.
-
Abu Noor
To clarify Arwi, I am just saying that I of course agree that there are sincerely religious people who support secularism, but in some ways that still goes back to a definition of what is secularism. I surely understand how a sincerely religious person can be wary of government involvement in religion, in fact I would expect it. But I do not understand a sincerely religious person who is opposed to supporting and accomodating religious expression in the public sphere.
-
-
-
aziz
I see Dan Simmons made NPR’s list of top 100 SciFi/Fantasy. Regrettable, since the man is a rightwing islamophobic loon.
I’ve interacted directly with him on the web - see these two posts from CoB v1.0, The Century War with Islam(-phobia) and Dan Simmons responds.. sorta
also I did make a brief foray into Simmon’s web forum and had a thoroughly unpleasant experience. At one point, Simomons “invited” me to consider a gedanken experiment:
In this case, the Thought Experiment is this – What might the world be like in 2006 if Islam did not exist?
Now, before accusations of advocating genocide come cascading in, please not that I’m not asking us to imagine that the people in all Islamic nations and cultures did not exist, merely the religion-ideology as a ruling and unifying fabric in those nations and cultures. In that sense, this might be compared to someone in 1940 Europe asking – “What would this continent be like if National Socialism and fascism did not exist?” The German and Italian people, no longer unified by the transformative-beliefs, would still be very much alive and working and reading and taking their children to parks, etc.
Ah, I see! Islam, National Socialism, fascism! Understood?
My beef with Orson Scott Card is similar, though I haven’t blogged about it. Read Card’s own essay and see for yourself:
-
aziz
though, one thing of value from that experience was a recommendation for novels by George Alec Effinger, A Fire In The Sun, When Gravity Fails and The Exile Kiss - all of which apparently feature a muslim protagonist. Will add that to my List.
-
Anon
He may be an Islamophobe, but he’s an amazing writer. Illium/Olympos was fantastic, literally and figuratively.
-
-
aziz
The 30 Mosques crew report from South Dakota with an amazing and beautiful profile of an American convert to Islam and his Malysian wife. They married while he was in prison.
-
bingregory
Singaporean. But yeah, that was great.
-
aziz
er, oops. *blush*
-
-
-
aziz
Rick Perry is the anti-Herman Cain - he’s had a long relationship with muslim Americans.
Of course, President Bush also had warm relations with muslims before taking office. But still, I’ve also had firsthand experience seeing Gov. Perry’s attitude towards the muslim community and it is genuine.
-
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
Aziz, do you know any accurate figures on how many current day followers there are of the different Ismaili groups, perhaps broken down by country?
-
islamoyankee
Our official website is here: http://theismaili.org/ but I don’t think we have country breakdowns.
-
MT
Thanks for posting this, Aziz. It’s good to be reminded that it’s possible to be a conservative without being an unhinged bigot! Unfortunately, Governor Perry’s comments regarding climate change are cause for concern. He just isn’t taking the crisis seriously. It’s a shame, because I’d like to vote for someone other than Obama in 2012, but the alternatives aren’t attractive.
-
Arwi
You frequently use “secularist” to mean atheist or agnostic, but that is not right at all, secularism is about the relationship between religion and the state. Plenty of pious people are secularists, Soroush for example favors secularism on teh grounds that state power corrupts piety.
-
-
aziz
Ramadan is the month of Jihad. Also, math, and They Might Be Giants.
-
aziz
Beards, beards, and more beards at the New York Times:
Go ahead, picture a religious Jew.
Now picture a Muslim cleric.
Now an Amish farmer.
What do they have in common? Beards. And not neatly trimmed beards, but, in the popular stereotype, long, unruly beards, which connote piety, spiritual intensity and a life so hard at study that there is no time for a shave. The scholar, the mystic, the terrorist, the holy man — they all have beards.
More psychoanalysis follows. But why the focus on religion? What does the author make of Paul Krugman, I wonder? Or Robert Spencer?
-
Arwi
Krugman doesn’t have an unruly beard. There is a difference between facial hair for fashion and leaving the beard untrimmed because of lack of vanity. (The difference between rasta dreads and “fashion dreads” is similar).
-
-
aziz
The 8th Annual Brass Crescent Awards have begun! The nominations phase is open until September 6th, so head over to http://brasscrescent.org/ and make your picks now!
-
aziz
The Ramadan blog series, “Longest Days, Shortest Month” continues at City of Brass - lots of really amazing guest posts from G. Willow Wilson, Kulsoom Abdullah, and others. I am even writing an occassional post myself!
-
aziz
The Guardian has an interactive timeline of the Arab Spring protests. I find it appropriate that Israel is included - referencing the popular demonstrations by Israelis over housing, not anything related to the IP conflict.
-
aziz
I found this article at AJE, about debunking arguments againstM the right of return, informative and persuasive.
-
aziz
Prayers in Mecca at the Grand Mosque will be streamed live on YouTube during Ramadan at: http://www.youtube.com/MakkahLive
the press release:
Google has announced that it will show prayers live from Makkah during Ramadan on its video-sharing service, YouTube.
The internet giant confirmed on Monday that it had been working in close partnership with the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.
“This is the first LiveStream event coming from MENA, specifically Saudi Arabia, and we hope that it will give the opportunity not only to two billion Muslims but to the entire world to observe one milion Muslims praying each day from the holiest point in Makkah, the Kaaba, for the first time in history,” said a Google statement.
-
plimfix
Trendy vicar Donald Reeves, once described by Maggie Thatcher as ‘a very dangerous man’, has written a piece for Guardian CiF promoting the peace and solidarity organization he helped found, Soul of Europe, as a grass roots solution to European Islamophobia. I’m not impressed by his group’s “tea and biscuits” approach.
shams, 
Arwi, 
JESSE DZIEDZIC, and 
Jo are discussing. 
Ben Pendleton, 
Abu Noor, and 
thabet and 3 others are discussing. 
Anon, and 
MT, 
thabet 4:39 am on September 17, 2011 Permalink |
I’m not demanding any “apology”, though I know many who would like one.
I’m pointing out there has been no attempt to correct the injustices of the last decade, and now you’d like to sweep all the torture and war and ‘move on’.
Aziz 9:57 am on September 17, 2011 Permalink |
OK, you’re not demanding an apology, you’re demanding a condemnation instead.
Really, though, if you draw the conclusion that I don’t care about the policies of the past ten years, or stand by the especially risible accusation about non-Americans, or your persist in your assumption about my attitude towards torture, then either you’ve been reading someone else the past ten years with teh same name, or you’re guilty of a rare lapse of good sense.
I’m not going to defend my position on any of the things you are on about here. But neither will I accept yoru lazy characterization of my views, especially when you should know better. I think you’re as guilty as the Islamophobes here of making unique demands on American muslims.
Basically, you dismissed my earlier affirmation of my citizen identity as a “loyalty test” but now you’re demanding I subscribe to another loyalty test all the same.
Willow 10:14 am on September 17, 2011 Permalink |
Aziz, I think you’re being unfair and defensive. For us to say as Americans that it’s time to move on comes off as deeply arrogant, as there are millions of innocents in 2 countries who are still suffering the direct effects of 9/11. It’s not our place to say it’s time to move on, because they are an intrinsic part of this narrative whether it’s convenient to your conscience or not. Only when they are ready to move on will we be able to say so without sounding like brutes. For an American to say it’s time to move on from the fallout of 9/11 is like a white person declaring the end of racism.
Aziz 11:16 am on September 17, 2011 Permalink |
Of course I will be defensive, if I’m accused of not caring about deaths of non-Americans.
However, there are two narratives to 9-11, the American one for muslim Americans - which is about Islamophobia, civil rights, and citizenship ideals. The other narrative is a foreign policy one which to be blunt is basically the same narrative as in the 80s under Reagan, in the 90s under Clinton, in the 70s, the 60s, etc. It’s Great Game Geopolitics where wise white men make life and death decisions about lines on a map. I reject the notion that 9-11 was a cause for the foreign policy under Bush, because evidence abounds that the invasion of Iraq was being planned well before September 11, 2001.
I wrote my post as an American Muslim affected by 9-11 which lest we forget, was actually a bad thing that happened right here in America. Am I forbidden from observing the tragedy and impact on my home, just because there were also bad things done by people I didnt support and by policies I advocated against? For failure to Mention, I’m condemned?
Thabet wants me to condemn American policy. I wont play that game, as I said, and thats teh game I am looking forward. (I never used the words “move on”. I dont know how you “move on” from something. Do you “move on” when a parent dies? Do you “move on” from cancer? I don’t know what that entails. I hope I never “move on”.)
But neither will I continually frame my approach to my identity in the false narrative of Islam vs America. I will not play the “you’re with us or against us” game either. I’m proud of being who I am. And i have nothing to apologize for, for my religion or my nation.
This particular critique coming from an English citizen is especially ironic
shams 9:46 am on September 21, 2011 Permalink |
oh my habbibi.
it ISAmerica vs. Islam…its always been America vs. Islam….. the GWOT was always a global war on al-Islam.
Its the coming Demographic Singularity.
Arwi 5:46 pm on September 25, 2011 Permalink |
it’s time to finally reclaim our confidence and our resolve about who we are as a nation and as a people
In what sense did “we” as a “nation and as a people” lose our confidence and resolve and what would it mean to “reclaim” it?
shams 7:35 am on October 17, 2011 Permalink
“In what sense did “we” as a “nation and as a people” lose our confidence and resolve and what would it mean to “reclaim” it?we have succumbed to paranioa induction.”
and Julian says we are going to become a police state on the way to non-linear system collapse.