Updates from johnpi Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • johnpi 1:25 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: adam gadahn, , Azzam al-Amriki, Azzam the American, , ,   

    Adam Gadahn arrested: Al Qaeda’s American spokesman arrested in Pakistan.

    Enemy combatant or American citizen?

    Military tribunals or civil courts?

    The charge against him, treason, is a death penalty offense for which no one has been executed since the 60s. This is going to be high in the news for a long time and will prompt some major constitutional questions.

    Gadahn was just in the news yesterday for a new tape calling on Western Muslims to attack their own countries and suggesting targets. It will also probably feature prominently in media coverage.

     

    • midwinterspring 2:32 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Is it treason or defection? Does the law distinguish between the two? It seems to me there is a big difference between working for the enemy while pretending to be on the other side and declaring quite vocally which side you are on and leaving the country. I don’t know of any reason I should have sympathy for Gadahn, of course, but the “war on terror” tends to be structured so that only one side is allowed to be at “war,” whereas the other side is supposedly criminal by default.

      • cbarwa 3:12 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Depends on your citizenship really, I think; in wartime if you engage in direct actions there really isn’t much difference

    • Willow 3:33 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think conrad is right–it’s only defection if you ditch your citizenship. You can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, or whatever that English metaphor is. Then again, seeing as Afghanistan is under US occupation, it might not matter either way–there is no other government to which he can appeal for sanctuary.

      • aziz 4:20 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        well, Afghanistan isnt under occupation in the Palestine sense. It’s important tonote the difference – the Karzai govt is a sovereign entoty just as the Maliki govt is.

        • cbarwa 6:58 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Legally that is in a narrow sense true, Aziz; however, in reality as we all know the GoIRA is basically bankrolled and supported by NATO led coalition; without that support it would collapse. Moreover, given the dubious nature of how the govt was selected and the flawed electoral process, its representativeness can be questioned.

          • aziz 8:05 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            all true. but not an “occupation” in the Palestinian sense nevertheless. The US govt is in fact relatively powerless to effect change within Afghanistan in the political sphere – the election fraud is evidence to that effect.

            • Willow 1:08 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              That’s just votes. Even in this country real political change (or lack thereof) happens after the ballot boxes are emptied. If the Afghanis caught OBL on their own soil and wanted to try him themselves, what exactly do you think would happen? If the Maliki government ordered all US troops out of Iraq by next month, what would happen then?

              Precisely. That’s a military occupation. “Sovereign” my foot.

            • aziz 6:43 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              well, wasnt Saddam’s trial ru8n by the Iraqis? And to be fair, the Iraqis have in fact told us to get out – and we are. In fact Bush, not Obama, began gthe drawdown under a (gasp) timetable, thou the right would never be able to admit this.

            • cbarwa 11:50 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              The US govt is in fact relatively powerless to effect change within Afghanistan in the political sphere – the election fraud is evidence to that effect.

              Yeah but what was the alternative, back Abdullah Abdullah? The GoIRA is about as sovereign as the PDPA regime was during the Soviet Occupation or the South Vietnamese govt during that war. True, all these examples are not occupation in the Palestinian sense of the term and they are probably legally speaking regarded as sovereign states, but that would be about all imo.

    • Dan 3:34 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’d say execute him, but I’m sure the losers on various Salafi Muslim blogs such as MuslimMatters and such will come to his defence and claim he’s being oppressed by the “kuffar”.

    • aziz 4:18 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      im actually somewhat in favor of trying people like this under the military code rather than teh cvilian one. Its not like the UCMJ is a kangaroo operation – its a rigorous body of law that is in parallel to the civilian system and frankly may be better equipped to handled these cases.

      As long as we are using a genuine system of justice, we are still abiding by our principles.

      now, whether “military tribunal” is the same thing as a UCMJ trial is another matter…

      • abunoor 5:09 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        The current military commissions act, passed in 2006 and amended in 2009 does not provide for trying U.S. citizens by military commission.

        • aziz 5:54 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          the military commission thing is not teh same thing as the UCMJ – that latter was passed in 1950 i believe and it is a true system of law. military tribunals/commissions are essentially “battlefield courts” with officers serving as judge and jury.

          i think that 2006 law shoudl be repealed. IN fact im an extremist here – i think Obama should add two more justices to SCOTUS (well within his power!) and get a overturn on that basis alone.

          If libertarians were worth a half a damn in this ocuntry theyd sign on to this with anamen and a hell yes.

      • abunoor 5:11 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Also, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “better equipped” in this context, but it should remain clear that military commissions provide less rights for defendants and make obtaining convictions easier, and this is their primary attraction for the government.

        • aziz 8:05 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          see above comment. a military commission/tribunal is *not* the same thing as the UCMJ.

        • aziz 12:44 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          this is an interesting hypothetical case study which really tries to get into detail about teh differences:

          http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_2002_Wntr/ai_103136519/

          summary:

          The military justice system gives service members virtually all rights and privileges that are afforded to citizens who face prosecution in civilian courts. In many areas–such as the right to counsel, the pretrial investigatory process, discovery, sentencing, post-trial processing, and appeals–the military system offers benefits to an accused that are more favorable than those available in civilian systems.

          Americans, now firmly settled in the era of an all-volunteer military force, would not support a military justice system that did not provide fundamental due process and fair trial guarantees. The Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes a system that is separate and different, but one that fully meets expectations for fairness and protection of individual rights. The American citizens who volunteer to serve their county deserve nothing less.

          • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 7:09 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            Aziz, and those same Americans apparently will not accept those they label as “terrorists” to be tried in a system which would confer similar rights upon them. As Obama reportedly is preparing to force his AG to reverse the decision to try KSM in a civilian trial (guaranteeing conviction was not enough) all of this discussion has very little to do with the real world, I’m afraid Aziz.

            I can see the Fox News talking heads now: “And now some people want to give the same rights to the terrorists who want to kill us as the brave soldiers who defend us. They just don’t get it.”

            • aziz 7:21 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              i dont know how it will play out, but I am thinking that a military trial might be something we can at least agitate for (we being the muslim community). Its better than tribunals, and in some ways actually better for the accused than a civilian trial.

              plus – we can use some of the psychologiucal PR against the right this way. imagine the headline:

              “Muslim Americans demand military trial for accused terrorists – ask Obama to apply UCMJ”

              its pro-justice and anti-Fox News.

            • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 7:31 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              Aziz, I don’t think it would work as well as you do in terms of PR. The fundamental problem is you’re trying to appeal to contradictory audiences, you’re trying to appeal to civil liberties advocates and Muslims by saying that it has all the protections of a civilian trial but as I said at the beginning, this is exactly what those who are opposed to civilian trials don’t want, they don’t want protections.

            • aziz 10:24 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink

              im not trying to appeal to the extremist audience – i do believe (your mileage may vary) that theres a “rational middle” who will skew towards bad policy if the nonsense from the right is not met with rebuttal or counterargument. I basically believe in the common sense of the common man, but also in GIGO.

    • AA 4:57 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Muslim Public Affairs Council of Southern California welcomes the news.

      http://www.mydesert.com/

    • aziz 5:22 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      wtf – is it really him or not? there appears to be substantial confusion.

    • Pretty Pink Unicorns 6:52 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      To quote Mona Eltahawy: “And Muslims in the US tell al-Qaida to fuck off”.

      Well said, Mona.

      And fuck off, al-Qa’ida.

  • johnpi 1:25 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    Willow wrote:

    There is clearly something deeper going on that you’re worried about or have doubts about

    You are correct about being troubled, specifically, spiritually troubled. This response is to Aziz too. Abu Noor, I think you’ve been reading too much of Umar’s long goodbye and seem to be stuck on the notion of ‘progressive devils’ being a fifth column of something or other…

    When I first exchanged some emails with Aziz and he invited me to blog here, I told him that I had been closely following TI for some time, but I hadn’t really engaged or participated because I wasn’t in a very good headspace, I was somewhat angry about some of my conversion experiences, and I didn’t want to engage poorly or from a bad place (I was also upset about how some orthodox problem-solving seemed to create dysfunction in modern life – Islam should give us all the tools we need to succeed anywhere at any time). I was particularly upset about feeling ‘silenced’ (don’t ask disrespectful questions) and how – internally – that imbued those questions or concerns with more power and interest than they probably merited just from being bottled up. The initial blogging I did was helpful for deflating that material and kind of getting it out of the way, and it was at about that point that I started blogging here.

    I’ve continued to use the blogging to try to ‘process’ what comes in from the dunya and from other Muslim perspectives and communities, but I think that what may be happening is that in driving myself up against every point of contention in the media and every point of seeming incoherence within the ummah and within Islam, that it’s having an unhealthy spiritual effect, and I’m falling back into that bad headspace again, or at least not a very good space in which to be engaging other Muslims.

    So I need to take a break from being a media junkie, abstain from the blogging and find other diversions for awhile. Finding more and new Muslim community offline in another context might be a good idea too.

    To try to sum up the point, I do believe it’s a matter of spiritual integrity not to ignore the world and what’s happening in it if it challenges your faith or your practice, but wading out into this stuff day after day – seeking it out – for too long is also bad for your spiritual health.

    So I’m going to dial my blogging way back for a bit…

     

    • thabet 3:58 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I don’t know you in person, and it is hard to draw any firm ideas about people across a blog or the ‘net (there are exceptions to this…!), but you seem like a good man in genuine search of something. May God help you find it.

      Good luck.

    • null 5:08 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’ll miss your news finds and commentary! You’ve consistently bought a lot of interesting articles to my attention that I would have missed, had I not followed your blogging.

      Your post is very true true however, and I recognise some of this in myself. Inshallah, it will be a productive break for you. Good luck!

    • aziz 8:01 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Hang in there John, and I think you’re wise to step back from blogging if that’s what you need. We are here whenever you need us.

      You may want to consider using a Journal here at TI for your “processing” – i always find that writing helps, and you can always make the Journal private if you dont want everyone to read it.

      And do let me know if you need anything or just want a sounding board in confidence. Im here for you man :)

    • cbarwa 9:12 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Found your posts to be interesting and useful, even when I didn’t agree with them, hope the break refreshes you and sometimes we do all need a break. Look forward to your return!

    • abunoor 9:34 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      John,

      Either you are misunderstanding my post or you are noticing something that I am not consciously aware of, Certainly on no conscious level do I think there is some fifth column of progressive Muslims. But I do think that there are major conflicts coming in the Muslim community along the lines of the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform conflicts in Judaism and these conflicts will not be solved by discussions, especially internet discussions.

      I think stepping back from blogging is a very good idea. I am also planning to, if not step back, change the way that I interact with the Islamosphere inshAllah.

      All the best and I hope we can meet in person someday (you should come to ISNA, John, especially if you’ve never been it’s a must experience for Muslims in NA.

    • Willow 10:35 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’ve scaled my blogging way back in recent months for similar reasons–the flood of information and hostility gets to be too much, and unhealthy. Right now TI is the only blog I regularly visit, down from at least half a dozen a few years ago.

      I will tell you what a wonderful old Syrian sheikha (yes, a woman) told me when I complained that the world felt like it was falling down around our heads: when you feel that way, stick to the walls of your house like a saddle to a horse. It’s derived from a hadith, I believe. Her point was that if everyone took the best possible care of their own households–raised good children, had good relationships with their spouses, took care of their parents–the problems of the world would fall away one by one, because it would become full of righteous people.

      As one convert to another–I know well the pattern of despair you’ve fallen into. You’ve got to get out of it, any way you can. Any way, John, because it will begin to erode your sanity. Start by isolating yourself from any Muslims whose character you don’t admire, even if they look pious and dignified on the outside. The sad fact of the matter is that there are people who just want to test you and grind you down because you are a vulnerable newcomer, and white, and they’re angry. Get away.

      The world punishes people who fail to see contradiction. Sometimes you just have to let contradictory things be contradictory, and not half-kill yourself trying to reconcile them.

      • aziz 11:57 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Sometimes you just have to let contradictory things be contradictory, and not half-kill yourself trying to reconcile them.

        Yes. in fact this is the answer to the question John posed earlier – active doublethink. My reasoning is thus:

        1. knowledge (‘ilm) is infinite and derives ultimately from Allah.
        2. I am finite and also derive from Allah.
        3. Therefore my understanding of ‘ilm can never be complete.

        I am a HUGE defender of the scientific method, and so you can imagine I have major contradictions to reconcile as well. But i dont – i just accept that these two routes towards ‘ilm are valid (revelation, and science), that the end point is the same (Allah), and that any seeming contradiction is a function of my incompleteness rather than a flaw in the universe or creation.

        This means that there is value in asserting 2 + 2 = 5. All of us are hard wired to recoil from anything in Orwell’s 1984 as evil incarnate but the truth is that the techniques employed therein which horrify us are really the same techniques we ourselves use on ourselves every day. Orwell’s genius was to simply change their scope.

        Doublethink is not evil, its a survival tactic. As Douglas Adams wrote, with regards to the sheer horror of the Total Perspective Vortex, “if life is going to survive in a universe as big as this one, the one thing it absolutely cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.”

        • AA 1:52 pm on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Speaking of contradictions, it may be a good coincidence that I just saw this quote on friend’s FB.

          “People claim there is no truth, and they assert this as true; they say that man can know nothing, but this is something they think they know; they claim that ‘life’ takes precendence over thought, and yet this is something they think! People are so stupid they do not notice these contradictions.” – Frithjof Schuon, (…Logic and Transcendence, p. 239)

    • aziz 11:59 am on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I also want to assure you of something. Dont assume that your experience is unique to converts by any means. Conversion is a process, a starting point, but after that you are on teh same straight path as all of us – and those of us born into the faith arent less susceptible to tripping than you are.

    • bingregory 9:06 pm on March 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Can somebody link the post this is following up on? TQ

  • johnpi 1:56 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , ,   

    One wonders how far claims that contemporary Western culture is compatible with science can be taken:

    Cyber-bullying rises as climate data are questioned.

    The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.

    Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.

    To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and intimidation – cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.
    ….

    Trenberth says that is the most dispiriting aspect of the e-mails: Facts don’t carry more weight in the public debate. The nature of public discourse – be it climate change or health care – has changed; information that does not fit one’s worldview is now discounted or rejected.

     

  • johnpi 9:48 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    Darkness begets dishonesty, study finds.

    Dim lights can make it seem as if no one is watching, triggering moral transgressions in many people, a new study suggests.

    Past research has shown that when people are concealed from view by others, say when they are wearing hoods, these individuals will be more likely to commit criminal acts and other bad behaviors.

    But what about times when we’re not actually anonymous – people can see us – yet we feel like we’re hidden? The researchers of the new study describe it as the adult version of hide-and-seek: Kids often believe no one can see them when they cover their eyes even though they are hiding in plain sight. Turns out, a dark room can have a similar psychological effect on adults.

    So does it follow that women who don’t cover are likely to be more honest and have fewer moral transgressions than those who do?

     

    • plimfix 12:39 am on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

    • johnpi 8:25 am on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Thabet:

      I contend that one of the reasons (though not the only reason) why we have a ‘poverty of science’ in Muslim countries is because ‘pure’ science is viewed as potentially subversive, as good science only recognises its own internal logic.

      and

      …this juxtaposition of a ’secular’ cirricula and a ‘religious’ education can have the danger of creating double-think: we need to start making spaces for our religious beliefs which are sheltered from the ever-growing space that science tries to occupy. This can create a sort of ‘intellectual fiedism’ (or a ‘fideistic phantasmagoria’ if you want — thanks to Eteraz for that fantastic phrase). A stronger version of this would be to give religious truth precedence over a scientific claim. In this case we need to ask (i) how far can our claims that our religion is compatible with science be held (which many Muslims do claim); and (ii) whether we want to continue learning this modern science, which could have both long- and short-term implications.

      Ignoring the implications, or ignoring discussing the implications, is bad for my iman, the kind of thing that at least has the appearance of credibly challenging orthodoxy, and which rattles around in my head and becomes a much bigger blockage than it should. The more I try to ignore something, the more power it seems to have over me…

      And of course this isn’t just a question for Muslims: Nuns who wear a habit and orthodox Jewish women cover too…

      The practice of wearing a habit comes from the idea that to avoid scandal or temptation they would wear clothes that avoid any display of human form. A coif (the large white starched linnen item worn by nuns across the chest) was to prevent the showing of the bustine.

      And overthrowing one reason to cover doesn’t undo any other reasons someone might choose to cover: “Clothes made the man…a religious habit derives from the same motivation: to publicly show membership in a certain group. “

    • abunoor 10:12 am on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      John,

      This is one of the more bizarrely silly posts I’ve read. I thought of engaging it to show why it is so silly, but that would be giving it too much credibility.

      • johnpi 1:25 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I knew this was smackdown material when I posted it, but it is important all the same. There are two questions I’m raising here, and I probably bouched this post by mixing them:

        1) The relationship of science and new information to the deen.

        2) How do you address information that comes to new converts that challenges Islamic practices or doctrine? When I was a new convert this is the kind of thing I would have a huge question that I wanted to engage with people of Islamic knowledge, but the question seemed so big and threatening and insulting in a way that I refrained from asking it. And as I said, the unasked question, the suppressed doubt weighs on the mind, and the lack of input and engagement causes it to loom large.

        A convert may have a question that is silly, that is bizarre, that is completely lacking in credibility, but that doesn’t mean the appropriate response is to attempt to ridicule it away. It satisifies you personally, but it doesn’t satisfy the convert or the seekers needs.

        Abu Noor, if you would like to recover me to orthodoxy, you should take the question seriously… think of this as a question at the dawah table. How do you respond?

        And Aziz, really, is that what you say to new or recent converts when they come to you with questions that seem silly, bizaare, etc: F$%ktard, F$%k off, etc.

        I’m beyond being called a ‘recent convert’ but I recall the experience of reading or taking in contrary or challenging information and then having no one to really process it with because the level of obvious disdain or hostility was so high – and how that lack of engagement caused something that might have otherwise been easily processed to take on distorted significance – a process I’m painfully repeating in this thread by making a bigger deal out of this than it merits, but I think there is value to the community and to dawah efforts to advocate not walling off questions from people who are otherwise trying to draw closer to the religion…

        • johnpi 1:36 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Willow, I think you’ve gotten at what I’m trying to illustrate better than the others: How the lack of engagement and context, the isolation of facts and assertions that do exist as being outside the realm of acceptable dialogue, can lead to the problems you describe.

        • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 2:19 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          John, I have to be honest I understand you to be a serious and sincere person but I find it hard to believe that this would be a sincere questioner: “I don’t get this hijab thing because it’s “scientifically proven” that people are more dishonest in the dark or when nobobdy knows them”

          And it is actually best not to engage people who seem to be insincere in their questions. Or if it someone like you who I perceive to be sincere about something but they have latched onto a bizarre distorted example it is easiest to simply show them how wrong they are about the example, but that is not going to do anything for whatever the bigger concern is.

          So, yes, I could tell you above what Aziz and Willow have already pointed out that far from making people “anonymous” wearing hijab at least in a non-Muslim country is more likely to make people watch you and remember you. Many of us who are “visibly Muslim” notice that it affects our behavior in that we know that people who associate however we act with Islam. Of course, most importantly if a person is sincerely covering out of taqwa due to the commandment of her Lord, then her hijab is a good indication that she is aware that Allah (swt) is always watching and this is more effective than knowing that people are watching in preventing vice or dishonesty.

          But of course none of that discussion would address the real problem, which is that someone who would latch onto that study and somehow think that it raises questions about hijab, has absolutely no confidence that the Qur’an and Sunnah are actually from God and that God’s guidance is the best guidance for the human. Discussing a specific fiqh ruling and trying to convince someone on grounds other than the sources of revelation of its truth will not remove such doubts from the one who has them. Of course you are right to note that simply dismissing the person or their concerns or treating them with disdain will not remove the doubts either.

          I understand that all people often benefit from someone just listening to their concerns, whatever they might be, and being sympathetic to them. In my experience most people don’t even care too much how you answer the question that they are “asking” nor are they likely to be “convinced” by your answer. The best you can hope is that they feel closer to you for having shared something with you and that you don’t say anything to explicitly turn them off.

          I worry however that in some cases sympathetic listening to certain complaints does reinforce bad, incorrect,or unhealthy habits of thinking. So I would be hesitant to engage your discussion as you tried to initiate it above just as I would be turned off if I saw some Muslim arguing, ‘this study proves that hijab is right’. It may seem to give some people comfort in the short run but in the long run it is a very superficial.

          I don’t know….I’m sure in person I could explain to you more what I’m getting at John but right now I’m worried how much of what I’m trying to say will be communicated here……

        • aziz 8:08 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          And Aziz, really, is that what you say to new or recent converts when they come to you with questions that seem silly, bizaare, etc: F$%ktard, F$%k off, etc.

          Im not clear on what my response has to do with converts… my comment was that the research in the article you cited, which suggests that teh perception of anonymity increases unethical behavior, is analogous to the behavior of people online, as perfectly and brilliantly described by Penny Arcade.

          I am aghast that you could interpret my comment in any other way, and very confused as to what it has to do with conversion, but I do sincerely apologize for not being as clear as I thought I was.

          I really dont see the relevance of the study to hijab at all, whether it be a muslim argujng in its favor or a non-muslim arguing against it. What does a hijab have to do with darkness? Or anonymity?

          True, a niqab (as opposed to hijab) obscures identity, but that is a different dyamic because its purpose – regardless of whether the garment is worn by choice or by imposition – is to render the bearer invisible, to exclude them. The anonymity in the study you linked, and the Greater F$%kwad Theory, is a self-aggrandizing sort of anonymity which strips away the ethical substrate but puts the person on center stage.

        • aziz 8:10 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          2) How do you address information that comes to new converts that challenges Islamic practices or doctrine?

          great question, one which the example given really doesnt serve very well. Maybe we can restart the debate in a new thread without th ebaggage? A far better example would be to reconcile scientific evolution and creationism. I personally believe in both. And there are aspects that do ddirectly contradict; I have my strategy for dealing with this and I am happy to discuss it. But in the context of the currentthread, it seems out of place.

        • Willow 10:54 am on March 3, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          John there certainly is plenty of scientific knowledge that would seem to challenge traditional interpretations of religion–Islam is not unique in this regard–but of all the points you could choose to bring up this is possibly the most frivolous. Darkness begets violence? Really? And from this you make a running leap to hijab, which covers less of the face than a pair of sunglasses?

          Come on, man. Let’s get real here for a second. This post reads as either gullible or troubled. There is clearly something deeper going on that you’re worried about or have doubts about, and it has nothing to do with weird studies on the wearing of hoods. Let’s address whatever that is instead, because in the long run your own spiritual and emotional health is much more important than this red herring.

    • Willow 10:52 am on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      By this logic, the British Isles and the Pacific Northwest must be crawling with the most unsavory characters on Planet Earth…I hope the next time you’re out on a hot sunny day you’ll remember to forgo a hat and sunglasses in order to avoid sinking into criminality.

      This tempts me to think that the acquisition of scientific facts is much like the acquisition of hadith: reading a few truisms here and there haphazardly on the internet, without sitting down to a serious course of study that provides methodology and context (and common logic), results in paranoid hand-wringing rather than knowledge.

      • aziz 11:05 am on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        the methodology of the study sucks. But I can plausibly believe the result as a general finding about human nature; I think we can safely conclude that its irrelevant to hijab.

        Really its just evidence in support of the Greater Internet F$%ktard Theory.

    • cbarwa 2:45 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Reading the title, was worried this was some study about skin-colour :D

    • anon 7:48 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      It is not a good idea to paint people in broad strokes and then judge them. Everything depends on INTENTIONS. (and the Quran says, only God knows what is in our hearts)
      A criminal may want to cover up because he has intentions of stealing or other criminal activities—thus his intentions govern his behaviour.
      A Muslim woman covers up because she feels it fulfills a religious requirement–thus her intentions for covering are not for criminal acts—but for piety.

      Which is why, In Islam we will be judged not just on our actions, but also on our INTENTIONS!

  • johnpi 3:47 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , ,   

    Website of anti-coed Saudi cleric shut down.

    The website of a top Saudi cleric who issued an edict calling for those who support co-educational environments to be put to death has been shut down on Sunday.

    Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak’s website was shut down following a barrage of criticism from religious scholars in Saudi Arabia and Egypt condemning his fatwa (religious ruling) as a call for violence.

    Many religious scholars in Saudi Arabia denounced Barrak’s ruling, saying it was similar to rulings once issued by religious fundamentalists, or Takfiris, accusing other Muslims of apostasy and condemning them to death.

    The important thing here is not that he said it, but the response that it got.

     

    • midwinterspring 3:53 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The Saudis are going to have to do a whole lot more than that to merit any kind of praise.

      • johnpi 10:06 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Actually, my point of view on the Saudi government is changing, and more and more I’m seeing it as a force for moderation in that country.

  • johnpi 3:35 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    This is dumb: Afghanistan bans coverage of Taliban attacks.

    Afghanistan on Monday announced a ban on news coverage showing Taliban attacks, saying such images embolden the Islamist militants, who have launched strikes around the country as NATO forces seize their southern strongholds.

    The Taliban are making their own videos, they don’t need the media to get video drama when they’re standing right next to it. Here’s a Frontline documentary that aired on Tuesday, “Behind Taliban Lines.” At one point one of the fighters is shown holding up a small device – either a cell phone or a small digital camera – showing off video of one their own attacks.

    This ruling is self-serving on the part of the Afghan government.

     

  • johnpi 2:26 pm on February 27, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Lucky you…’Brighton Tea Party’: Tea Party movement spreads to Britain.

    Apparently some character named Daniel Hannan is involved:

    In addition to being anti-tax and a vocal Eurospectic, Hannan is also well known for his outspoken criticism of publicly funded health care. Last summer he appeared on Fox News to bash proposals to fix the US health care system as well as rail against Britain’s health services.

    ‘Eurospectic’ – Did they mean ‘Eurocentric’?

    Who knew Brits were pining for a US-style health system…

     

    • Dan 2:43 pm on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Daniel Hannan isn’t anti-Muslim and he is a sensible lad IMO. He’s far different than the normal teabaggers here in the states.

    • Willow 3:08 pm on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think they meant Euroskeptic. Ie, skeptical of the EU model of government, and of the Euro as a viable currency.

    • thabet 3:53 pm on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Daniel Hannan is a fool.

      • null 7:59 pm on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Can you please expand thabet? I’d be interested how he comes across to actual Britons.

        I’ve only read some of his articles at the Telegraph, and watched a handful of his youtube videos and – bar his opposition to universal healthcare – he seems exactly like my kind of conservative.

        • thabet 5:47 am on February 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          I used to think he was at least principled, even if I wasn’t going to agree with him. When he repeatedly criticised Labour over the BAE Systems scandal I thought good on him for bringing this up. But when the Tories rushed to defend new plans by Labour to limit investigation into these sorts of corruption cases (i.e. Tories recognising a new law would be good for them when they get back into power), he remained quiet..

          And there’s a lot more about Hannan I dislike, but mostly I just find it hard to take ‘libertarians’ too seriously. Sorry.

        • thabet 12:05 am on March 11, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Here’s some more evidence of Hannan’s foolishness and ignorance.

  • johnpi 8:40 am on February 25, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    Daud Abdullah, director of Middle East Monitor, writes in Al Jazeera about Israel’s recent annexation of several mosques in the West Bank by designating them “Jewish Heritage sites.”

    Abdullah writes that there has been some speculation that this is an effort to create a distraction from the developing negative media frenzy over Mossad’s recent assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai.

    A very good point:

    Observers have rightly noted that while the European Union maintains its proscription of Hamas as a “terrorist organisation”, they are yet to produce any evidence that the organisation has carried out a single military operation outside Occupied Palestine.

    This is in stark contrast to the Israeli government, which threatens, attacks and occupies the lands of neighbouring countries, and assassinates its opponents in other sovereign nations.

    Related: Dubai has now named 26 suspects in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabouh, the Hamas figure.

    Israel’s use of counterfeit foreign passports led one Australian reporter to worry about “terrorists” ability to do the same thing. Richard remarks:

    Doesn’t this tell you heaps about western prejudices in favor of our own and against the unwashed hordes, that this reporter would not have realized that any nation that carries out an assassination on foreign soil while abusing the security of numerous erstwhile allies is engaging in terrorism. Why can’t these Mossad agents be called terrorists too?

    If Israel would lift one finger to make a genuine effort toward peace and resolution I’d be happy to promote it, but everything Israel does seems to go in the other direction.

     

  • johnpi 8:17 pm on February 22, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , Lee Rodgers, , radio hate   

    Bay Area hate radio jockey Lee Rodgers has been fired. Some memorable moments:

    “You [Iraqi] people do what ever you want to each other and this country just don’t give us a reason to come back or we’ll massacre every last damn one of you.”

    “Indonesia is really just another enemy Muslim nation. … You keep screwing around with stuff like this we are going to kill a bunch of you. Millions of you.”

    It wasn’t a ‘friendly’ firing if there is such a thing, and there’s no information on what was the catalyst. He finished his regular show and was called into the front office. No goodbyes, no swan song for the listeners…

     

  • johnpi 6:36 pm on February 22, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , ,   

    Glenn Greenwald putting the conclusion of the Najibullah Zazi criminal case in perspective:

    Najibullah Zazi, was charged in a civilian court with plotting to blow up subways in New York City, was given a lawyer, was Mirandized, was not sent to Guantanamo, was not subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and was not put before a military commission. Today, he pled guilty, ensuring he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

     

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel