Demosophia

Scott,

Muslims are disgusted by these events and have been speaking out against them. And not just the 'moderates' you're always looking for, but the Islamists have been speaking out, as they always have, emphasizing the point that the killing civilians is not part of Islamic warfare and neither is beheading or other mutilation even of enemy combatants.

Check out islamonline.net, a site I'm sure you would characterize as Islamist, which has a whole section on the condemnation of such attacks in Islamic Law.

I understand that such images and events are highly disturbing to any human being, so I don't want to get angry at you, but I continue to realize that either you and others who make your complaint about Muslims not condemning these actions are either not paying attention or are just insincere.

By far, the majority of the victims of terrorism in Iraq have been Iraqis and Muslims, and the Muslim scholars and activists have constantly condemned such actions.

I don't know what's prompting those people in the "thieves' market to buy the videos" but its probably the same instinct that causes searches for the videotapes to be among the most popular topics on search engines here in the U.S. Personally, I haven't watched any of the tapes and have no interest in doing so.

Posted by: Abu Noor al-Irlandee at September 24, 2004 11:16 AM

I'm sure you're right that this outrages many Muslims, including some Islamists (Islamicists?). And I also understand that thet term covers a large array of different groups. But it's also true, at least according to what I've been told by people who have seen the broadcasts, that there's a significant amount of triumphalism about the beheadings in the Arab media. We rarely see Muslim clerics taking a principled and noisy stand against the Qaedists, which means either that they approve in some fashion or that they fear the consequences of disapproval. My contention is that we not only must demand that they take an unambiguous stand in opposition to these people, but they those of us in the sister cultures bear some responsibility for providing some protection and sanctuary.

As a practical matter, and because I'm slightly cynical about human nature, I also think that the Muslim world needs to start taking seriously the consequences of the poisonous attitude these acts are sewing. Should there be an attack using WMD the superficial constraints on "Jacksonian American" that have eschewed the tactics and strategy of Lemay's "total war," in favor of the current "moderate war" policy, would almost certainly be abandoned. There is more at stake here than simply good intentions and public relations.

Six months ago I started to learn Arabic, but one of the consequences of these beheadings is that I've unconsciously decided, for the time being at least, that such effort isn't fruitful. I don't really know who I'd talk to, or what we'd talk about. The whole notion of a cultural mileau in which such monsters can routinely "disappear" like Robin Hoods with dripping Kali fangs and reptilian moral standards just plain turns me off. My first impulse is to flush. Perhaps those moderates and Islamists who oppose this stuff need to make a bigger show of it?

Let me ask: Do you believe Islam compatible with Schumpeterian democracy (competition between elites for public approval through elections, and the peaceful transition of power) or Polyarchy? Or is allowing the public the option of choosing a legal/justice system other than Shari'a simply too risky for you?

Posted by: Scott (to Abu) at September 24, 2004 04:11 PM

Scott,

The type of environment created in Iraq is not the product of the Arabic language or of Islaam, but is the product of a society forced into a state by European colonialism, then under a brutal dictatorship for decades including a decade long war with its neighbor and a decade of sanctions, and then an invasion and occupation by a world superpower acting in its own interests.

To me, the biggest concern in judging any action is whether God likes it or not. If God is pleased with you, it does not matter if every single human hates you, it God is displeased with you, it does not matter if every single human loves you. I already said that myself and every Islamic scholar I have heard comment on the subject has stated that God has made it forbidden to kill civilians in the way that some have been killed in Iraq. So that's the point.

There are certainly many Muslims, especially those who live in the West, who are concerned about the effect of such actions on people's perception of Islaam. Muslims in the West realize things could get a lot worse for us and most of us expect that they will, and God knows best. I think most Muslims in the Muslim world don't believe the U.S. government (especially the current administration) could be any more opposed to Islaam and Muslims than it already is.

Again, Muslim scholars have been clear on condeming killing of civilians. I think you and others may be looking for Muslim scholars to step up and start naming whoever the U.S. Gov or the media is attacking as today's bogeyman and specifically condemn those people in the harshest of terms and state that Muslims should support the U.S. in fighting against them. For the most part, although some Muslims will do this (the secularized, the liberal or the very pr conscious) most highly respected scholars will not do this because they don't trust what the U.S. or the media claims and because they believe the U.S. is as much if not more of a source of oppression in the world and will not let themselves be seen as supporting the U.S. in its actions.

If such killings go on or become more prevalent (as they may in a post U.S. pullout Iraqi civil war, for example) the Islamists may become even more active in preventing them because as I said originally, it is mainly Muslims who are the victims, and because the issue of seeming to support the occupation would not be there. Of course, most Americans will not care then, since non-American deaths mean little to them. (I don't mean to suggest that philosophically Americans don't care about non-American deaths, but for a variety of reasons, global calamities that do not directly involve the U.S. go on constantly with little visible reaction from the American media and public).

Finally, to answer your question: I've never studied Schumpeter but judging by your parenthetical explanation I would say this:

Islam has no problem, in fact Islam recommends/commands that leaders are chosen with the consent and approval of the people and that there should be a peaceful transition of power. However, those rulers would not be permitted to rule by something other than Shari'ah (Islamic law based on revelation).

Although this is not a perfect analogy, the best way to understand it for Westerners is that the principles of Shariah would be enshrined as a "constitution" of the State which the rulers are obliged to uphold. Neither the ruler nor the people has the authority to amend such a constitution in such a way that it would no longer be the Shari'ah. (The complications come in understanding what exactly is shari'ah, how to handle difference of opinion among qualified scholars about certain Shari'ah rulings, and understanding the scope of Shari'ah as opposed to administrative aspects of government (bureaucracy, traffic laws, etc. I know to some they will think such complications make it impossible to practically "rule by Shari'ah" but for anyone who has studied history, law, or politics, such issues are present in any political system.)

And God knows best.

Posted by: Abu Noor al-Irlandee at September 24, 2004 05:26 PM

I'm sorry, but I think you're reaching in your explanation of the Iraqi experience. Those circumstances (colonialism, etc.) are actually far less significant to me than, for instance, whatever it is that has seduced most of the population of the Middle East into the Satanic belief that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are genuine documents reflecting a real "Jewish Conspiracy." Besides, the vilest monster in Iraq isn't Iraqi, he's Jordanian.

(Speaking of Jordanians, I have a poster of a hauntingly beautiful Arab woman from Salt, dressed in traditional garb, on my wall. There's something in her eyes. I'd call it anger in a western woman, but it's not anger. It's resentment.)

What is it that allows a totalitarian/paranoid belief system to fit Arab culture like a key in a lock... like the key that fit the lock of the German culture of the 1930s? What have you done, or what has been done to you, to serve up this fate? What is it that has introduced the old infection into a new culture, and what made it acceptable? That's a mytery worth solving, beacause it seems to be repeated in every generation.

The Western legal system isn't based on vague humanistic abstractions as most people presume. It's based on Mosaic Law that has been modified by precedent. It isn't God's Law, because we assume that humans can't live exclusively by God's Law while in this fallen state. We live by a law devised by man, based on a pattern provided long ago by God... but its stability often exceeds its wisdom. In my experience God's Wisdom, or even that portion of Wisdom that is passed from God to Man, can't be written down... because its reason surpasses words to the same degree that God's Name (Logos) passes all words and names that can be pronounced by the human tongue... and it was even this same Logos that was the inspiration for Greek Civilization. An attempt to express this wisdom in a written form is as futile as the attempt to build a Ferrari race car out of peanut butter and chewing gum. The medium is incapable of carrying the design, except as a pure form of Irony.

To me Islam is the Religion of Irony. It is a pure expression of the will of the Creator in a manner and form incomprehensible to the adherants. It is like a child's cry, in the night. It is like groping blindly in the dark, motivated by some incomprehensible urge, and touching a key. It isn't the key that's important, but the touch. The key fits but one lock in one door in one house, inevitably on the verge of crumbing forever into dust.

But perhaps there's grace in the act and calling of interpretation.

Posted by: Demosophist (to Abu) at September 25, 2004 12:06 AM

Barclay speech rejecting curled transceivers empress:ambulatory numbed!

Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:07 AM