COMMENTS TEMPORARILY CLOSED - MIGRATING FROM HALOSCAN/ECHO TO DISQUS
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues
Monday, January 12, 2015
Charle Hebdo And The Bigger Issue
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues
At OnIslam.net, five Muslim academics expressed their outrage at the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Dr. Tariq Ramadan and Sheikh Omar Suleiman issued generic religion-of-peace platitudes. Dr. Wael Shihab appealed to Sura 5:32: "[W]hosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." On the surface, it seems many jihadi supporters would find vindication for the attacks in this sura, based on an the assumption that mocking Mohammed qualifies as "corruption" (or "mischief," in some translations). Lacking the Quranic version of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, I can't tell you how that root Arabic word is commonly used.
Unlike the others, Drs. Khaled Hanafy and Yasir Qadhi seek to address a root issue: whether or not Islam prescribes punishment for mockery of Mohammed. Each claims that such mockery (and even direct harassment) is recorded in the Quran, and in no event did Mohammed ever order retaliation. This approach should be further expanded upon; if the claim is correct, it will be substantiated by a list of all the suras recording such prophet-mocking incidents.
But that addresses only a subset of Islamic terror attacks. Most commonly the terrorists just want to kill non-Muslims for being non-Muslims; Boko Haram serves as a classic example.
All modern jihadi movements operate under the assumptions that a) Mohammed instructed future generations of Muslims to wage war against infidels as long as there are unconquered infidels on Earth, and b) that Islam supports private parties not authorized by governments (i.e. vigilantes) to undertake such warfare. Does Islam support either of these principles? Both Muslims and non-Muslims say yes, both Muslims and non-Muslims say no.
This post will not seek to discern whose interpretations are correct. As a Christian and a humanitarian (the Muslim world historically lags behind the West re human rights) I would prefer that Islam just go away, but it isn't, so the next best thing to hope for is the defeat of the jihadi view in the war on ideas. Unfortunately, the people best equipped to engage in that war are an ill-focused, disorganized lot.
Who has any chance of swaying Muslim opinion away from the jihadi view? Robert Spencer and Bill Maher? No. Muslims will most likely be swayed by Muslim authorities - clerics, politicians, academics. These leaders who reject the jihadi view need to organize in a united front, and put together a substantive message supporting their opposition to the jihadi view. They're not doing that. If they were, the American press so desperate to push the Religion of Peace meme would have found them.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 PM |
Unlike the others, Drs. Khaled Hanafy and Yasir Qadhi seek to address a root issue: whether or not Islam prescribes punishment for mockery of Mohammed. Each claims that such mockery (and even direct harassment) is recorded in the Quran, and in no event did Mohammed ever order retaliation. This approach should be further expanded upon; if the claim is correct, it will be substantiated by a list of all the suras recording such prophet-mocking incidents.
But that addresses only a subset of Islamic terror attacks. Most commonly the terrorists just want to kill non-Muslims for being non-Muslims; Boko Haram serves as a classic example.
All modern jihadi movements operate under the assumptions that a) Mohammed instructed future generations of Muslims to wage war against infidels as long as there are unconquered infidels on Earth, and b) that Islam supports private parties not authorized by governments (i.e. vigilantes) to undertake such warfare. Does Islam support either of these principles? Both Muslims and non-Muslims say yes, both Muslims and non-Muslims say no.
This post will not seek to discern whose interpretations are correct. As a Christian and a humanitarian (the Muslim world historically lags behind the West re human rights) I would prefer that Islam just go away, but it isn't, so the next best thing to hope for is the defeat of the jihadi view in the war on ideas. Unfortunately, the people best equipped to engage in that war are an ill-focused, disorganized lot.
Who has any chance of swaying Muslim opinion away from the jihadi view? Robert Spencer and Bill Maher? No. Muslims will most likely be swayed by Muslim authorities - clerics, politicians, academics. These leaders who reject the jihadi view need to organize in a united front, and put together a substantive message supporting their opposition to the jihadi view. They're not doing that. If they were, the American press so desperate to push the Religion of Peace meme would have found them.
Labels: Europe, Middle East, War on Terror, World
Monday, March 03, 2014
Blast From The Past
Posted by Alan at 6:10 PM |
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
It's Good To Be King
Posted by Alan at 11:33 PM |
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
The Lost World
Posted by Alan at 9:00 AM |
Friday, October 11, 2013
I Heard Bashar Assad Laughing With Delight The Day The Nobel Died
The envelope please...Chemical Weapons Watchdog Wins Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by Alan at
11:12 AM |
Labels: World
Friday, September 13, 2013
American Exceptionalism Explained
By Rush Limbaugh:
American exceptionalism...does not mean that we're better
people. And it does not mean that we're special, more qualified,
smarter, any of that, than anybody else in the world.
...
So what is it? Well, if you know the history of the world... Read your Bible, read whatever historical account of humanity you hold dear, and what you'll read about is human tyranny. You'll read of bondage. You'll read of slavery. The vast majority of the people, the vast majority of the human beings who have lived and breathed and walked this planet have lived under the tyranny of despots, the vast majority.
...
The US is the first time in the history of the world where a government was organized with a Constitution laying out the rules, that the individual was supreme and dominant, and that is what led to the US becoming the greatest country ever because it unleashed people to be the best they could be. Nothing like it had ever happened. That's American exceptionalism.
Senator Marco Rubio touches on what American exceptionalism means to the rest of the world: "History teaches us that a strong and engaged America is a source of good in the world. No nation has liberated more people or done more to raise living standards around the world through trade and charity than the United States. We remain a beacon of hope for people around the world."
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
...
So what is it? Well, if you know the history of the world... Read your Bible, read whatever historical account of humanity you hold dear, and what you'll read about is human tyranny. You'll read of bondage. You'll read of slavery. The vast majority of the people, the vast majority of the human beings who have lived and breathed and walked this planet have lived under the tyranny of despots, the vast majority.
...
The US is the first time in the history of the world where a government was organized with a Constitution laying out the rules, that the individual was supreme and dominant, and that is what led to the US becoming the greatest country ever because it unleashed people to be the best they could be. Nothing like it had ever happened. That's American exceptionalism.
Senator Marco Rubio touches on what American exceptionalism means to the rest of the world: "History teaches us that a strong and engaged America is a source of good in the world. No nation has liberated more people or done more to raise living standards around the world through trade and charity than the United States. We remain a beacon of hope for people around the world."
Labels: Philosophy, Politics, World
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Tragical History Tour
From Cathy Shaidle: Raining on the Nelson Mandela Parade.
Apartheid was tyranny. So was the Mandela-led terrorist organization that "carried out terror attacks at shopping centers, movie theaters and other civilian targets, not just 'establishment' ones like courts and banks."
A reminder that the bad guys' enemies often include other bad guys.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Apartheid was tyranny. So was the Mandela-led terrorist organization that "carried out terror attacks at shopping centers, movie theaters and other civilian targets, not just 'establishment' ones like courts and banks."
A reminder that the bad guys' enemies often include other bad guys.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Russian Government To Take Cue From Soviet-Era Dissidents
Back in the USSR, the samizdat (dissident press - literally translates as "self-publisher") employed typewriters because that form of press could be concealed from the authorities. Now Russian intelligence is increasing its typewriter usage because printed output can be concealed from electronic snooping by our authorities.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Friday, June 28, 2013
Political Hypocrisy Du Jour
Obama supports voter ID law - in Kenya.
This sort of voter identification comes in the form of a National ID - a policy historically opposed by libertarians, conservatives and the ACLU. All three came against such a proposal in 2004. The ACLU makes a strong case against the concept here. Some of the dangers dovetail with the recent NSA/IRS abuses.
Conservatives do want voter ID - just not in the form of a national ID card.But how to achieve it?
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
This sort of voter identification comes in the form of a National ID - a policy historically opposed by libertarians, conservatives and the ACLU. All three came against such a proposal in 2004. The ACLU makes a strong case against the concept here. Some of the dangers dovetail with the recent NSA/IRS abuses.
Conservatives do want voter ID - just not in the form of a national ID card.But how to achieve it?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The Cold War Is Definitely Over
KGB veteran Vladimir Putin cautions the US on intelligence agencies and adherence to the rule of law.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Friday, March 22, 2013
"They Will See Us As Liberators"
That certainly seems to be the case from the Kurdish point of view.
Posted by Alan at
3:00 AM |
Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror, World
Friday, March 08, 2013
A Brief History Of Hugo Chavez
From Frontpage Magazine.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Here's Hoping Venezuela Gets At The Very Least A Lesser Evil In His Place
Posted by Alan at 12:35 AM |
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Third Presidential Debate Reactions
Full transcript of the debate is here.
Krauthammer: "Romney went large — Obama went very, very small."
Elizabeth Price Foley, guest-blogging at Instapundit: Obama "snarky, condescending, peevinsh and small." She offers one example for each characteristic.
Steve Green, who live-blogged the debate: "Obama has run far and fast from his own record. Romney, I’m sorry to say, hasn’t always hit him for that as much or as strongly as I think he should have...[but] Romney is credible." Ann Althouse: "By adopting a strategy of only modestly challenging Obama and mostly seeming the same as Obama on foreign policy, Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue and kept the election focus on the economy...The election is about the economy...The only way Obama really could have won is if Romney had tumbled into some kind of exploitable gaffe. That didn't happen."
Two highlights from the debate. First, Russia:
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Elizabeth Price Foley, guest-blogging at Instapundit: Obama "snarky, condescending, peevinsh and small." She offers one example for each characteristic.
Steve Green, who live-blogged the debate: "Obama has run far and fast from his own record. Romney, I’m sorry to say, hasn’t always hit him for that as much or as strongly as I think he should have...[but] Romney is credible." Ann Althouse: "By adopting a strategy of only modestly challenging Obama and mostly seeming the same as Obama on foreign policy, Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue and kept the election focus on the economy...The election is about the economy...The only way Obama really could have won is if Romney had tumbled into some kind of exploitable gaffe. That didn't happen."
Two highlights from the debate. First, Russia:
OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Obama lied.
ROMNEY: [Russia is] a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.
Fox News has a video excerpt with Romney's response. The "rose-colored glasses" part starts at 00:33. Obama is completely unfazed by the "flexibility" remark.
Second...Romney brought attention to Obama's "apology tour."
Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.
In France he criticized America’s past “arrogance” and its “dismissive . . . derisive” behavior. In Trinidad he lamented a “disengaged” United States that sought to “dictate . . . terms” in the hemisphere. At the National Archives he charged his predecessors with making foreign-policy decisions “based on fear rather than foresight” and “trimm[ing] facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” Countries, even good ones, may sometimes need to apologize for specific mistakes. Generic national self-flagellation is another thing entirely, particularly when it is a form of personal self-congratulation.
Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror, World
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Romney’s Speech Before The Clinton Global Initiative
Michelle Malkin has the transcript. Inspiring stuff.
Don't be too taken aback that a Bill Clinton initiative is actually doing something productive for overseas markets. A lot of folks don't realize how despotic Third World economic policy is even when compared with some of the worst of Europe - which is worse than the whole of Clintonomics. Bill Clinton's strongest suit is that he always been a hawk for free trade; anti-protectionists by nature embrace a certain number of market freedoms that are sorely lacking in the Third World.
Posted by Alan at
9:00 AM |
Don't be too taken aback that a Bill Clinton initiative is actually doing something productive for overseas markets. A lot of folks don't realize how despotic Third World economic policy is even when compared with some of the worst of Europe - which is worse than the whole of Clintonomics. Bill Clinton's strongest suit is that he always been a hawk for free trade; anti-protectionists by nature embrace a certain number of market freedoms that are sorely lacking in the Third World.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Who Exported John Galt?
American tax policy did.
Posted by Alan at
11:51 AM |
Monday, August 20, 2012
Russia's Weirdest Dissident Group
Language warning.
Quoting Wikipedia, Pussy Riot is "a Russian feminist punk-rock band based in Moscow [that] stages politically provocative performances about Russian political life." They costume themselves in bright clothing and color-slashing balaclavas.
Very recently they were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for "hooliganism," for staging a performance in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, protesting against the subject of their usual target - Vladimir Putin - and against Orthodox Patriarch Kirill's vocal support for the Russian President.
The performance has been branded as "blasphemous." Chicago Boyz contributor TM Lutas explains why the charge is accurate with regard to Orthodoxy. In Orthodox cathedrals, the iconostatis is a wall of icons separating the outer and inner sanctuary. The icons depict Christ, the Apostles, and several chief saints (including that for whom the cathedral is named, if applicable). The women danced and sang directly in front of the iconostatis, a place forbidden to laypersons. Even the non-Orthodox may perceive the performance as an act of upstaging Jesus and the saints.
TM Lutas argues that the two-year sentence is appropriate, using criminal trespass law in Indiana for a comparison. "[Trespass] is punishable between 6 months and 3 years with a fine up to $10,000. As this wasn’t Pussy Riot’s first case of trespass and outrageous behavior, this is exactly the sort of case that would tilt towards the heavier end of the penalty range."
Eugene Volokh makes the case for trespass, but find the sentence too harsh. "Though the church was open to the public at the time, it was pretty clearly open only to prayer or quiet observation, not for people to use it for their own loud musical performances. It strikes me as quite right to prosecute them for trespass, and a fairly egregious form of trespass at that: The people weren’t just (say) overstaying their welcome at a normal business establishment, but disrupting the quiet of a place that many other people were using for quiet contemplation"
Present at the sentencing, chess grand master Garry Kasparov, himself a Putin critic, was accused of biting a policeman's hand. He tweeted this reaction: "I am sorry if the policeman who was beating me on the head had hurt his hand."
The band has attracted worldwide support from within and without the entertainments. relatively sane folks like Paul McCartney and cartoon characters like Madonna and Yoko Ono.
The sad thing is that Pussy Riot wouldn't matter if it weren't for a sentence that carries the appearance of political persecution. To call the band the musical equivalent of an Internet troll is an insult to Internet trolls. Read the lyrics to Putin Lights Up the Fires ("Father Lukashenko" refers to Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko) and three other songs ("Patriarch Gundyaev" refers to Patriarch Kirill - born Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev). This is vulgar drivel, less substantive than the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen.
Protesters should take at least two lessons from all this ado. First, semi-coherent rants make lousy protest media. It gives the impression that the protesters, while they might have a genuine grievance, really don't know what they're talking about. Snappy one-liners are nice, but they must be accompanied with some detail about what is being protested - explanations of what bad stuff is being done and why it's bad.
Second, don't unnecessarily alienate your potential allies. Clownish performance art runs into immediate public relations problems, but it's not an automatic deal-breaker. How seriously the weird gets taken varies. A vulgar protest group name is a huge turn-off; besides offending the sense of propriety of many, it portrays the protesters as folks you can't sit down and have a rational conversation with.
Pussy Riot's worst PR offense is its mockery of an entire religion - the act of profaning the iconostasis. The women say Kirill is a toady for the State. If the Orthodox doctrine of Symphonia ("which posits that church and state are to be complementary and exhibit mutual respect") fails to distinguish between respect and sycophancy, then that doctrine alone is at fault; giving sanctuary rules the finger is just scapegoating (at best). If Symphonia does not commit that failure, and if Kirill is a toady, then Kirill is at fault. Is he? You be the judge of that.
Update: If Pussy Riot is lamer than an Internet troll, and if there was a political motive behind the sentencing, that makes Putin (by association) look really small.
Update: Keeping with the second principle is very difficult when protesting against revered leaders or formal doctrines (religious or secular) - especially if the challenger has no clout in the belief system in question. In this case both could have been avoided, because the central problem is Putin. If he is a tyrant, spell out the tyranny and leave the Patriarch alone. Let the Orthodox faithful figure out the flaws of the Patriarch's political wisdom on their own.
Then again, I'm treating these women as if they were consciously interested in influencing opinion - the proper reason for protest. A lot of people protest simply to vent. I don't see a lot of attempted persuasion in their lyrics.
Posted by Alan at
6:44 PM |
Very recently they were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for "hooliganism," for staging a performance in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, protesting against the subject of their usual target - Vladimir Putin - and against Orthodox Patriarch Kirill's vocal support for the Russian President.
The performance has been branded as "blasphemous." Chicago Boyz contributor TM Lutas explains why the charge is accurate with regard to Orthodoxy. In Orthodox cathedrals, the iconostatis is a wall of icons separating the outer and inner sanctuary. The icons depict Christ, the Apostles, and several chief saints (including that for whom the cathedral is named, if applicable). The women danced and sang directly in front of the iconostatis, a place forbidden to laypersons. Even the non-Orthodox may perceive the performance as an act of upstaging Jesus and the saints.
TM Lutas argues that the two-year sentence is appropriate, using criminal trespass law in Indiana for a comparison. "[Trespass] is punishable between 6 months and 3 years with a fine up to $10,000. As this wasn’t Pussy Riot’s first case of trespass and outrageous behavior, this is exactly the sort of case that would tilt towards the heavier end of the penalty range."
Eugene Volokh makes the case for trespass, but find the sentence too harsh. "Though the church was open to the public at the time, it was pretty clearly open only to prayer or quiet observation, not for people to use it for their own loud musical performances. It strikes me as quite right to prosecute them for trespass, and a fairly egregious form of trespass at that: The people weren’t just (say) overstaying their welcome at a normal business establishment, but disrupting the quiet of a place that many other people were using for quiet contemplation"
Present at the sentencing, chess grand master Garry Kasparov, himself a Putin critic, was accused of biting a policeman's hand. He tweeted this reaction: "I am sorry if the policeman who was beating me on the head had hurt his hand."
The band has attracted worldwide support from within and without the entertainments. relatively sane folks like Paul McCartney and cartoon characters like Madonna and Yoko Ono.
The sad thing is that Pussy Riot wouldn't matter if it weren't for a sentence that carries the appearance of political persecution. To call the band the musical equivalent of an Internet troll is an insult to Internet trolls. Read the lyrics to Putin Lights Up the Fires ("Father Lukashenko" refers to Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko) and three other songs ("Patriarch Gundyaev" refers to Patriarch Kirill - born Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev). This is vulgar drivel, less substantive than the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen.
Protesters should take at least two lessons from all this ado. First, semi-coherent rants make lousy protest media. It gives the impression that the protesters, while they might have a genuine grievance, really don't know what they're talking about. Snappy one-liners are nice, but they must be accompanied with some detail about what is being protested - explanations of what bad stuff is being done and why it's bad.
Second, don't unnecessarily alienate your potential allies. Clownish performance art runs into immediate public relations problems, but it's not an automatic deal-breaker. How seriously the weird gets taken varies. A vulgar protest group name is a huge turn-off; besides offending the sense of propriety of many, it portrays the protesters as folks you can't sit down and have a rational conversation with.
Pussy Riot's worst PR offense is its mockery of an entire religion - the act of profaning the iconostasis. The women say Kirill is a toady for the State. If the Orthodox doctrine of Symphonia ("which posits that church and state are to be complementary and exhibit mutual respect") fails to distinguish between respect and sycophancy, then that doctrine alone is at fault; giving sanctuary rules the finger is just scapegoating (at best). If Symphonia does not commit that failure, and if Kirill is a toady, then Kirill is at fault. Is he? You be the judge of that.
Update: If Pussy Riot is lamer than an Internet troll, and if there was a political motive behind the sentencing, that makes Putin (by association) look really small.
Update: Keeping with the second principle is very difficult when protesting against revered leaders or formal doctrines (religious or secular) - especially if the challenger has no clout in the belief system in question. In this case both could have been avoided, because the central problem is Putin. If he is a tyrant, spell out the tyranny and leave the Patriarch alone. Let the Orthodox faithful figure out the flaws of the Patriarch's political wisdom on their own.
Then again, I'm treating these women as if they were consciously interested in influencing opinion - the proper reason for protest. A lot of people protest simply to vent. I don't see a lot of attempted persuasion in their lyrics.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Pope In Cuba
Reuters headline: Pope meets Cuba's Fidel Castro, slams U.S. embargo.
The embargo is a frustrating thing. On the one hand it really doesn't accomplish anything, as Cuba trades with many other nations. Pope Benedict is clueless when he says that the "restrictive economic measures" (the embargo) "unfairly burden [the Cuban] people." Well, it accomplishes nothing for the good guys - the embargo is manna from Heaven to the Cuban PR machine.
On the other hand, it is just to forbid citizens from trading with a hostile foreign government. Cuba is a hardline Communist nation, with none of the economic laxity of modern China or Cold War Hungary. There is no private commerce; all trade with Cuba is trade with its government.
Posted by Alan at
9:15 AM |
The embargo is a frustrating thing. On the one hand it really doesn't accomplish anything, as Cuba trades with many other nations. Pope Benedict is clueless when he says that the "restrictive economic measures" (the embargo) "unfairly burden [the Cuban] people." Well, it accomplishes nothing for the good guys - the embargo is manna from Heaven to the Cuban PR machine.
On the other hand, it is just to forbid citizens from trading with a hostile foreign government. Cuba is a hardline Communist nation, with none of the economic laxity of modern China or Cold War Hungary. There is no private commerce; all trade with Cuba is trade with its government.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Putin Wins Presidential Election
Posted by Alan at 12:30 PM |
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Most Important Thing To Keep In Mind About Qadaffi
Just because an evil dictator has been killed doesn't mean Libya becomes a better place. We don't know how peaceful - or how violent - the contest for power will be. We don't know who will fill the power vacuum. We don't know if the new boss will be someone the West can establish amenable relations with.
Don't break out the champagne glasses until we see how this thing turns out.
Posted by Alan at
9:05 AM |
Don't break out the champagne glasses until we see how this thing turns out.
Labels: Middle East, War on Terror, World
 |