Hubris is overreaching pride and arrogance. Many Greek tragedies have the gods punishing those like Oedipus. Shakespeare tragedies have circumstances punishing those like MacBeth and Othello. It seems that rarely do the electorates punish those with overreaching pride and arrogance. They do it by not voting and those with hubris never count the non-voters.
Scott Walker is one who is showing overreaching pride and arrogance in his abilities.
He touts his electoral success but ignores that he won with a low turn-out. Many other newly-elected Republican governors won with higher vote counts (of those who bother to vote). Those who signed the petition to recall Walker but then didn’t show up to vote were also arrogant.
He talks about the “invisible hand of the free market”, but ignores Adam Smith’s admonition of trusting those who live by profit.
He is proud to have passed a “right to fire” law, but ignores Smith noting that the masters could organize to keep wages down but it was illegal for the workers to organize to raise wages. If workers can refuse to pay union dues, is there a complimentary law that businesses can be part of Chambers of Commerce without paying dues?
He thinks that facing down demonstrators qualifies him to take on the likes of ISIS. Facing demonstrators armed with pizzas is not same as facing a few thousand jihadists armed with AK-47s, rocket launchers and more. Also, he ignores the history of meddling in the Middle East; it has always backfired, maybe not right away, but within a few years.
I only have my keyboard against Scott Walker’s many microphones. If you are a Wisconsin voter who didn’t show up in one of more of Walker’s election “landslides”, please show up the next time.
Many politicians other than Walker cite their belief in American exceptionalism. Sorry, but many people in other countries, well-governed or not, believe their countries are exceptional. The difference is that many of these people don’t think their exceptionalism gives them the right to tell other countries how to conduct their own affairs. Those who believe in American “exceptionalism” refuse to see how often the “gods” have punished this hubris: Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and more. The proponents of the “domino theory” seemed to have ignored that a game of dominos can go off in unexpected directions.
The hubris of the jihadists of ISIS and other terror groups make the hubris of American politicians look like a parlor game. The jihadists claim they are doing Allah’s will, but how do they know this other than repeating it to each other? Where is their forgiveness to others that Allah gives them? And if they believe “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”), can’t Allah right these “wrongs”.
If God could flood the entire world, killing thousands of pregnant women and their unborn children, couldn't God send a lightning bolt to strike “blasphemers” dead? If God could destroy the tower of Babel, built out of bricks, couldn’t God bring down the skyscrapers of steel in all the cities of the non-believers? If God could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the residents were sinful, couldn’t God destroy all the much larger cities of today where there is much “sin” according to purists who believe in an Almighty God?
The greatest hubris of all is that of countries with nuclear weapons. They want to prevent other countries from having any capacity to build nuclear weapons, but they seem very disinclined to reduce the number of their own nuclear weapons. These nuclear countries are ready at a moment’s notice to cause more death and destruction than the God of the Old Testament did from the beginning of the world.
Mel wishes the pen were mightier than the sword far more often than it has been.
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?
A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out. He stated this over and over again.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Contrasting counters to radical Islam
The January-February issue of Utne Reader has two articles about wildly contrasting ideas about countering radical Islam.
The first is "Jihad Against Islam, America's right wing is on a witch hunt, and they're tying Muslims to the stake" by Robert Steinback, from Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It is a summary of how a large number of people in the U.S. believe that all Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and that "mainstream Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims". Much of this is being fueled by a "coterie of core activists". Max Blumenthal called it "the Great Islamophobic Crusade." Their complaint about the Islamic center near the World Trade Center gained support from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The assumption of these modern Crusaders is that the likes of Osama Bin Laden are interpreting the Koran correctly.
The second is "Bollywood's Soft Power, India's hugely popular films wage a cultural war on extremism" by Shikha Dalmia. The article was original published in The Daily. The Utne article is excerpted from Reason, a libertarian magazine.
Bollywood is "India's flamboyant film industry", and its films are shown all over Asia from Indonesia to Dubai. Dalmia likens the effect of Bollywood to extremism to the effect of rock and roll on the demise of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall but the Beatles, and "Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged to Paul McCartney that the Beatles paved the way for perestroika and glasnost".
Bollywood's allure is that it is based on Eastern values and that the actors look like the viewers. Some countries like Dubai embrace Bollywood. Others that are trying to control all aspects of life, like Pakistan, "are trying to purge Bollywood from their soil". The harder they try to limit Bollywood, the greater its popularity.
BTW, Bollywood's "three highest-grossing male leads are Muslims".
These two articles illustrate the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. And you would think that the intellectuals in the anti-Islam jihad would have learned that all the vinegar (and money and lives) that have been sloshed around in the name of defense of the U.S. would have caught on by now to the fallacy of their approach.
The first is "Jihad Against Islam, America's right wing is on a witch hunt, and they're tying Muslims to the stake" by Robert Steinback, from Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It is a summary of how a large number of people in the U.S. believe that all Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and that "mainstream Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims". Much of this is being fueled by a "coterie of core activists". Max Blumenthal called it "the Great Islamophobic Crusade." Their complaint about the Islamic center near the World Trade Center gained support from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The assumption of these modern Crusaders is that the likes of Osama Bin Laden are interpreting the Koran correctly.
The second is "Bollywood's Soft Power, India's hugely popular films wage a cultural war on extremism" by Shikha Dalmia. The article was original published in The Daily. The Utne article is excerpted from Reason, a libertarian magazine.
Bollywood is "India's flamboyant film industry", and its films are shown all over Asia from Indonesia to Dubai. Dalmia likens the effect of Bollywood to extremism to the effect of rock and roll on the demise of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall but the Beatles, and "Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged to Paul McCartney that the Beatles paved the way for perestroika and glasnost".
Bollywood's allure is that it is based on Eastern values and that the actors look like the viewers. Some countries like Dubai embrace Bollywood. Others that are trying to control all aspects of life, like Pakistan, "are trying to purge Bollywood from their soil". The harder they try to limit Bollywood, the greater its popularity.
BTW, Bollywood's "three highest-grossing male leads are Muslims".
These two articles illustrate the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. And you would think that the intellectuals in the anti-Islam jihad would have learned that all the vinegar (and money and lives) that have been sloshed around in the name of defense of the U.S. would have caught on by now to the fallacy of their approach.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us
First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
A must-read on counter-terrorism
I've been toying with ideas about using non-lethal means to counter terrorism, including bombing insurgent hideouts with honey, out-Koraning the jihadists, and making the whole movement foolish in the eyes of its potential supporters.
The last idea is already well underway. See "Countering Terrorism With Mockery", Robert Mackey, New York Times, 2010-07-15.
It includes some clips from two movies that show wannabe jihadists as incompetent.
But one does have to be careful, those who feel insecure can lash out at those who reinforce their insecurity. Pakistan has banned "Tere Bin Laden", a mock interview with a Bin Laden impersonator, because of concerns of a revenge attack.
The last idea is already well underway. See "Countering Terrorism With Mockery", Robert Mackey, New York Times, 2010-07-15.
It includes some clips from two movies that show wannabe jihadists as incompetent.
But one does have to be careful, those who feel insecure can lash out at those who reinforce their insecurity. Pakistan has banned "Tere Bin Laden", a mock interview with a Bin Laden impersonator, because of concerns of a revenge attack.
Friday, November 13, 2009
If you consider your course just, will your means be wise?
"When you once describe a venture as a holy war you surrender all capacity to judge honest alternatives." - Jamail Tabari, Arab archaeologist, character in "The Source" by James Michener. This was published in 1965.
Tabari was describing the blunder of the Crusaders assuming that Arabs were part of the "enemy". The Arabs wanted to form an alliance with the Crusaders against the Turks. The Crusaders saw the Arab clothes and slaughtered the "enemy", even those who were Christian.
I also thought of "When will they ever learn" as the title of this blog entry.
Bush invades Afghanistan without many Pashto-speaking troops and Iraq without many Arabic-speaking troops. Did he really understand what people on the ground really wanted? He thought of himself as a liberator; they thought of him as an invader.
Jihadists wage war against those wherever who don't agree with them. Are they any different than the Crusaders massacring Arab Christians? Or George Bush invading countries he doesn't understand.
Where are the Crusaders? Where are the Mamalukes? Where will the Jihadists be in one hundred years? Where will the United States be in one hundred years? I don't think either will achieve its supposed goals by then. And each will be replaced by other antagonists on their own "holy wars".
When will they ever learn?
Tabari was describing the blunder of the Crusaders assuming that Arabs were part of the "enemy". The Arabs wanted to form an alliance with the Crusaders against the Turks. The Crusaders saw the Arab clothes and slaughtered the "enemy", even those who were Christian.
I also thought of "When will they ever learn" as the title of this blog entry.
Bush invades Afghanistan without many Pashto-speaking troops and Iraq without many Arabic-speaking troops. Did he really understand what people on the ground really wanted? He thought of himself as a liberator; they thought of him as an invader.
Jihadists wage war against those wherever who don't agree with them. Are they any different than the Crusaders massacring Arab Christians? Or George Bush invading countries he doesn't understand.
Where are the Crusaders? Where are the Mamalukes? Where will the Jihadists be in one hundred years? Where will the United States be in one hundred years? I don't think either will achieve its supposed goals by then. And each will be replaced by other antagonists on their own "holy wars".
When will they ever learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)