Muslim Apologists Are Dim
Paul Berman writes for The New York Times about illusions...no, not just dashed...shall we say...firebombed? His, that is.
And then there are the illusions maintained by the "tolerance" types. I have to laugh at the use of that word. Would you be "tolerant" if some guy stormed into your neighbor's house and slit his daughter's throat because she refused to go around with a black tablecloth with two eye slits cut in it over her head?
Sorry, there are some things that nobody who's human and civilized ever has any business tolerating -- and certainly not for willful lack of information. Yet, in Berman's words:
Western intellectuals without any sort of Middle Eastern background would naturally have manifested an ardent solidarity with their Middle Eastern and Muslim counterparts who stand in the liberal vein -- the Muslim free spirits of our own time, who argue in favor of human rights, rational thought (as opposed to dogma), tolerance and an open society.But that was then. In today's Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for Western consumption.
Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy -- quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.
A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies -- one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.
Berman's book -- Power and the Idealists: Or, the Passion of Joschka Fischer and Its Aftermath.
At the risk of being both intrusive and redundant (I linked this somewhere else here earlier today), this piece from A&LD covers much of the same territory, including the nuances of intellect affection for the bad guys.
Anyway, civilization is all about modernity. Even the new Burj Dubai tower was designed by a Chicago firm. The miracles that will sustain and ennoble humanity will continue to come from societies built on the rule of law and not the righteousness of the clan. Our ability to quickly form reliable, enforceable agreements with strangers is a big part of our strength. (In the 1980s there were a lot of complaints from American businessmen that dealing with the Japanese could be no fun, because they wanted too many nights out bonding and drinking have have precious conversations... Meanwhile Eddie from Nebraska just wanted to sign the fucking contract and get back to the factory in Omaha. That's come to mind often as Tokyo's been in the doldrums for the last fifteens years.)
Crid at April 9, 2008 12:34 AM
That should read intellectual affection for the bad guys.
You knew who I meant.
Crid at April 9, 2008 12:36 AM
Also, and this is the last comment and I mean it this time, I like the Weekly Stardard guy more than Berman. By considering things only through the prism of Islam, Berman not only presumes scholarship in the Middle East to be as senselessly trendy as it is in the States, he fails to see how the social backwardness of the region nourishes Islam in ways that might work over much of the underdeveloped world.
Again again again: We have to fight for modernity. Everyone, including Al Gore, who argues for living 'more naturally' needs to be confronted. Nothing is more naturally human than tribal politics.
Crid at April 9, 2008 1:01 AM
I haven't read this book, but using the word "idealist" in a sentence with "Joschka Fischer" sounds like a big misunderstanding of Fischer to me. It's true that he made his career in a party of idealists (the Greens). From the beginning, the German Green party consisted of two opposing fractions, the "Fundis" (= fundamentalists, but with a sense of political idealism, not with religious undertones) and the much smaller group of the "Realos" (= realists, also in a political sense). Fischer had alsways been a "Realo". Over the years, the Realos became bigger and took over the party, and Fischer was their star from the very beginning.
Rainer at April 9, 2008 2:02 AM
Sorry, I meant to write "always".
Rainer at April 9, 2008 2:04 AM
Thanks, Crid -- a much better piece. For example:
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 6:28 AM
Ayaan Hirsi Magaan (let's use her actual name, not the fraudulent name she used to lie to Dutch immigration officials) openly declares she is no longer a Moslem. So why are we pretending she is? Or do we know something about her that she doesn't?
Magaan doesn't just insult radicals. Her words are offensive to all Moslems. Now I know some conservatives think offending 1.3 billion ppl is a fab idea. But if there's a war, I'm sure you chicken-hawks and your over-fed kids won't be on the frontline.
MM at April 9, 2008 6:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/09/muslim_apologis.html#comment-1538834">comment from MMHer words are offensive to all Moslems.
It's called freedom of speech. Enlightenment values say that it's okay to criticize that which you find wrong. I do it all the time. Only Muslims will slit your throat because they're upset you insulted their religion. Christians will merely huff about it.
Because you're in a religion of backward goatherds with oil wealth and low self-esteem doesn't mean we should throw away freedom of speech or start bending over to Islam, but that we should defend our values.
As I've said time and time again, I find it ridiculous to believe, without evidence, in god. But, rabbis and priests are not standing up before their congregations telling them to kill those who've spoken out against their religion. Or to kill, convert, or tax and humiliate "infidels" in general.
I stand with Ayan Hirsi Ali (and call her what she apparently wishes to be called) in all she says, and admire her courage in standing up against barbarianism.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 6:53 AM
"But if there's a war, I'm sure you chicken-hawks and your over-fed kids won't be on the frontline." No but my short tempered, hairy and well armed ass will be. Pissed and wanting pay back for taking away my alchool, porn and other sinful activities.
"Her words are offensive to all Moslems." And you know this how? How do you know if Muslims are not more offended by bat shit crazy honor killings and terrorist acts that give them a bad name? Personally the greatest threat to Muslims (moderates) are the reaction of the world to the fundy nutbags. Even seiks are getting a bad rap cause the average person can't tell the difference.
vlad at April 9, 2008 7:03 AM
"if there's a war" Dude do they not get TV or something. We took one of the most powerful regimes in the mid-east and kick the ever living shit out of it. Now most people don't support the war which will change if we are attacked directly. If we are attacked directly on our soil you'd be surprised how quickly flame thrower and other unsavory cave clearing weapons will come back into use.
This weak decadent American crap was spouted by Japan during WWII. Yes your right and when some ass clown threatens our decadence we get real pissed.
vlad at April 9, 2008 7:08 AM
"attacked directly." Should read attacked directly again.
vlad at April 9, 2008 7:21 AM
I think you mean "Sikhs," Vlad.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 7:24 AM
MM -
Do you know what happens when Americans are angered?
Do you want to know what happens to Islam if there's another 9/11?
Hint - What we can do today would make Dresden and Nagasaki look like a match.
And you can drop the chickenhawk bullshit. Because if it came right down to it, I'd drop 60 pounds and join the Navy. And that's only because no other force will have me at my age.
I don't see you strapping on the Mother of Satan and strolling into a Sbarro any time soon.
brian at April 9, 2008 7:26 AM
"I think you mean "Sikhs," Vlad." Yup, ENG stands for English Not Good. Also anyone who dresses even close to mid east. Turks, southern Russians, etc.
Also if they try that stunt again there will be a draft and I can finally get on that bus to Swamp Legune(SP).
vlad at April 9, 2008 7:31 AM
But if there's a war, I'm sure you chicken-hawks and your over-fed kids won't be on the frontline. -MM
Oh really?
No but my short tempered, hairy and well armed ass will be. Pissed and wanting pay back for taking away my alchool, porn and other sinful activities. -Vlad
Because if it came right down to it, I'd drop 60 pounds and join the Navy. And that's only because no other force will have me at my age. -Brian
And I and a lot of others (including many others' many children) will be right in line behind them, on the homefront, armed and ready. Make no mistake, Islam would do well to heed the warning about not waking the sleeping dragon - there are more of us than you can even imagine.
(Oh and remember too, that the dragon sleeps with one eye open.)
Flynne at April 9, 2008 7:40 AM
It is not wise to meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.
brian at April 9, 2008 8:14 AM
I really think MM is a doorknob. Calvin Broadus is a much cooler name than Snoop Doggy-Dogg, but if that's what the guy wants to be called.... To worry about saying things that are "offensive" to primitives is exactly the topic of the links post here. MM ought to read them.
Before we're done, those 1.3 billion people are going to be more than offended.
Crid at April 9, 2008 8:32 AM
This piece --another from A&LD-- discusses another problem I have with Berman, his promiscuous use of the word "neocon." There are people who sincerely believe, against the best evidence we could ever imagine, that the Middle East would be going swimmingly if only it weren't for Dubya. As Kagan puts it: "I once heard a Cornell professor earnestly define neoconservatism as an ideological commitment to torture and political oppression."
Crid at April 9, 2008 8:43 AM
Yup, ENG stands for English Not Good.
I found it cute.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 9:13 AM
There seems to be much self hatred in the "academic" community. They trumpet the merits of freedom, then harp endlessly on every real or imagined failing of free and independent western society, as though they are the root of all the worlds evils...then willingly clutch the viper of militant Islam to their chests like long lost lovers, embracing these antiquated and repressive ways of living even though they represent every oppression "acedemia" purports to oppose...and then as moderates and reasonable persons from those cultures embrace western notions of tolerance & understanding...these same academics aid radicals in marginalizing those reasonable people. As though that self hatred mandates that anybody who would embrace any aspect of western culture...must be inherently wicked or out of touch.
There is a reason that the statement:
"Its an academic question" is used to mean, "Its irrelavent/useless/debatablebutmeaningless/pickasimili".
Sure Islamic nations have some just grievances with the west...but so does the west with the east, the far east with the west, the west with the far east, and everybody in the middle with everybody not in the middle. Very few of those disputes are going concerns, and even fewer of those going concerns are worth fighting over.
Yet somehow the dominant forces of Islam seem to conclude that they are entitled to wage perpetual and unending brutal & savage war on everyone who disagrees with them.
Its enough for me to wish that Andrew Jackson would rise from the grave & run for another term. *L*
Robert H. Butler at April 9, 2008 9:36 AM
Time and time again, free speech around Muslims = death. For example:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/08/asia/AS-GEN-Pakistan-Hindu-Killed.php
His crime? "Heated debate." His Muslim coworkers accused him of blasphemy against Mohammed.
If I were murdered every time I had a "heated debate" about Christianity, or said something sort of insulting or just flippant about belief in god, I'd be dead hundreds of times over by now.
Get the difference?
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 10:23 AM
"There seems to be much self hatred in the "academic" community." It's not really self hate but a hatred of a system that forbids them real power based on self perceived intellect. They have this strange belief that the Muslim world of the past (or a fairy tale) where learning was the definition of power (clerics/scholars) is the same one we have today.
When you live in an Ivory tower don't throw bricks at those defending it.
vlad at April 9, 2008 10:36 AM
Actually, I think what the multi-culti wing of the "academic" community thinks isn't based in much that makes sense or is real at all. That's why so much of the writing and thinking produced by this community is incomprehensible goop. They're missing an essential element: logic. Just for starters.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2008 11:38 AM
I wonder how much of the liberal/academic Western response to the Islamic radicals is colored by their reflexive opposition to all things Bush-related. This quote from the piece above: "pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy" seems relevant. In the eyes of many of these people, especially those who haven't been paying attention, radical Islam is a reaction to our militaristic overreach, particularly under the current administration. This leads them to make the wrong attribution of causality - that Bush/the neocons/America caused the radicalization of Islam. Now, I loathe our President as much - no, probably more! - than the next guy, but it ain't his fault these nutters think the way they do. Nor is he wrong that the solution entails killing a whole bunch of them. Back to the main point, though - I think the academic/left's tolerance of Islamic radicalism has some of its roots in 1) their desire to attack Bush, the Neocons, etc., and 2) their fundamental ignorance of what these people are about.
justin case at April 9, 2008 12:05 PM
Alot of truth to that Amy. Alot of truth to that.
In the course of my time studying, one thing I've noticed about many...not all...but many, academics is that they hate to commit to anything. They will say a great deal without conveying any conclusive thought.
However a regular consistency is a blind idealism that paints even the most barbarous practices as being morally on par with personal liberty.
Now I understand in principle that if one is to study another culture, one must study it within the confines of that culture's moors, apply the values it espouses to how well it succeeds by its own standards.
But that method of study is purely for purposes of understanding it, studying it...it is NOT a guide for relating our culture to it.
Therein is where academia fails, and fails badly, it does not distinguish between "the lab" if one will forgive the comparison...and real world problems between radically different cultures, some of said problems are not only irreconcilable, but guaranteed to incite violence in one party, or the other...or both, in a globalized world.
Put the 7th century Islamic civilizations (which they are for the most part) in the 21st century surrounded by liberalism, & by Islamic standards, dens of SIN & TEMPTATION, and the cultural reaction of violence is not only understandable to the observer...but known to be inevitable as contact intensifies and unwanted changes are introduced.
Robert H. Butler at April 10, 2008 9:25 AM
Leave a comment