Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Dear Holy Father, Stop Feeding the Bears

Bo Register, someone I know on the Internet (which is to say rather well, intellectually) in trying to understand what I have been mumbling about The Pope's speech, just responded with some simple words that capture the same thing with an elegance that is only possible when we one does away with the academic language, and the anguished long discussions, and so on. His translation of my words was, simply, that I:
"...really, really wish y'all would stop feeding the bears...."
Now, them's words most North Americans should understand, so to speak.

Here's how it came about. I was saying, on a mailing list, that personally, I think the Pope owes me an apology--and people like me who would like, and work for, trying to help sanity prevail in the Muslim world/communities. What he's done is a gift to the people who'd like Muslims to follow their extremist, fanatic attitude. And as I was saying here in the last few days whether he did it out of naivete, ill-advisedness ("stupidity" seems inappropriate for such a respected person), or malice, I know not. Though Karen Armstrong's op-ed in The Guardian yesterday makes the case that it is a mixture of all three.

To this, Bo said, "I'd think the apology should come from those who are calling for the pope's head in the name of the 'religion of peace'. They are the ones that make life difficult for those who try to act on the principles of Islam that lead to the great civilizations of the Caliphates, not the Pope. "

And I replied, "I am not asking for the pope's head in the name of the religion of peace. I am asking for it in the name of sanity and not doing stupid things. Like saying things you know will play into the hands of evil people," and make all talk to sanity and moderaton even more difficult to get through.

Bo then asked, "Are you then asking for the head of the Imams in Somalia as well? Of all those that threaten violence over a quote?"

And I replied, "That is a fight we fight in the Muslim world and communities. And have been for 3 generations now. And for a LOT of that period, the people you might support in government and leadership (both the US government and the Pakistan government, and the colonial British one, and even Gandhi) were supporting the other side. If you want to be adversarial, I'd like to say that y'all be the newcomers to the party. Stay a while this time, will ya?"

And Bo concluded, "I'll take that as a "Yes", I am and I have been, and really, really wish y'all would stop feeding the bears...."

To quote George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States: "Touche."

Technorati tags applicable to this post: - - - -

Monday, September 18, 2006

Karen Armstrong on the Pope's Speech

Reproduced below is Karen Armstrong's op-ed on the Pope's recent speech. It captures one of the threads going through my head--discussed this very thought with my brother on Friday, for example. And these are much needed words. Words that might help explain the "Why" to non-Muslim audiences.

In the Muslim world/communities, I fear even these words will only add fuel to the fire The Holy Father has lit--whether out of naivete, ill-advisedness ("stupidity" seems inappropriate for such a respected person), or malice, I know not. Though the article below makes the case that it is a mixture of all three:

------
We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam

The Pope's remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1874786,00.html

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a
dialogue with the Islamic world. "I approach you not with arms, but
with words," he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his
book, "not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with
love." Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of
the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into
spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated
the "bestial cruelty" of Islam, which, he claimed, had established
itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? "I shall be worse
than a donkey if I agree," he expostulated, "worse than cattle if I
assent!"

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians
were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it
impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was
so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the
Muslims he approached with such "love" might be offended by his
remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with
apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor
Manuel II: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and
there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Vatican seemed
bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope's words,
claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended "to cultivate an
attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and
cultures, and obviously also towards Islam".

But the Pope's good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam
is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it
brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the
Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the
Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who
have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make
common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in
full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is
entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders
began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish
communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their
campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in
Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have
wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of
Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not
- or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for
centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and
behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land,
Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march
3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave
unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed
- actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children
and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood
libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew
as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent
faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to
exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting
brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first
became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time,
when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant
clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a
lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith
that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At
a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite
the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving
too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting
subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the
Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness.
This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so
vociferously to the Pope's denigration of Islam have accused him of
"hypocrisy", pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to
condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy
violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope
Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day
after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to
believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam
was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from
the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul
II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming
on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely
dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably
Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too
many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice,
convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are addicted to violence. The
9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles,
have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as
typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every
time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century,
Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity.
The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all
rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western
belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death
were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until
the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim
empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as,
according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic
revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have
surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to
intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of
Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle
East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an
ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists,
and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the
received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to
eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back
into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq,
Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility,
there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we
are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History

Technorati tags applicable to this post: - - - -

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The Pope's Statement

There's a hullabaloo starting about "The Pope's Statement". My first reaction was in a reply to a comment on this blog. I actually took the time to read what is actually an academic speech. I think I can do an executive summary--and will, when I get a chance. In the mean time, here are my first impressions (my taking "Rhetorical Theory": at grad school should come in handy *some*where):

He's actually making the case for religion (and, in particular, theology) to be considered more seriously in academica and in intellectual circles generally. He (amazingly!) seems to be using
Manuel II's words (the part about Islam, which is incidental, but the part where Manuel's Christian insight into what is and isn't nice religion) as an opening quotation, as an example of what wonderful insights reason is capable of, when guided by religion (and he repeatedly says Christianity is particularly good at that).

My analysis: As I have taken to saying so often nowadays, the man and his use of that incident out of over 2000 years of Christian history are either naive, ill-advised ("There is no sin except stupdity," said Oscar Wilde), or malicious. I would say the same about the school of cardinals that elected their most conservative, and backward-looking theologian to lead them at the opening of the 21st century.

And in that sense, the complaints from the Muslim world have some basis; poking folks in the eye ain't the best way to make friends. Now if we had an official Caliph, he could challenge the man to a duel and we could be done with it and lots of people wouldn't have to be affected by riots and suchlike.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: - - - -

Friday, September 15, 2006

COMMENTARY: Kill us, too: We are also Americans

Got the following in email. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be premised on the assumption that a Jihadist--and I use that word advisedly--would NOT want to kill someone like him. I don't think that's true at all; the most extreme of such people are very clear that if you choose to live in the US or think any good of the US, you are, if anything, more deserving of what these people do...

Kill us, too: We are also Americans
Radical Muslims not worthy of the religion
By ASLAM ABDULLAH
Special to the Review-Journal
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1783_0_25_0_C

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require."

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

I am not alone, there are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

During the past two decades, you have brought nothing but shame and disaster to your religion and your world.

You said you "invite you not to drop your weapons, and don't let your souls or your enemies rest until each one of you kills at least one American within a period that does not exceed 15 days with a sniper's gunshot or incendiary devices or Molotov cocktail or a suicide car bomb -- whatever the battle may require." I invite you to surrender, to seek forgiveness from God almighty for the senseless killing you and your supporters are involved in and repent for everything you have done.

You say that the word of God is the highest. Yes, it is. But you are not worthy of it. You have abandoned God and you have started worshipping your own satanic egos that rejoice at the killing of innocent people. You don't represent Muslims or, for that matter, any decent human being who believes in the sanctity of life. Many among us American Muslims have differences with our administration on domestic and foreign issues, just like many other Americans do. But the plurality of opinions does not mean that we deprive ourselves of the civility that God demands from us. America is our home and will always be our home. Its interests are ours, and its people are ours. When you talk of killing of Americans, you first have to kill 6 million or so Muslims who will stand for every American's right to live and enjoy the life as commanded by God.

By growing a beard, shouting some religious slogans and misquoting and misusing some verses of the divine scriptures, you cannot incite Muslims to do things that are contrary to our religion. Yes, you even fail to understand the basic Islamic principles of life and living. Islam demands peace in all aspects of life, Islam demands respect for life. Islam demands justice.

What you are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, India or other parts of the world is anti-human and anti-divine. You are an enemy of Islam as much as you are an enemy of America. You must understand that God who entrusted you with life is the same God who spelled his spirit in every human being regardless of his or her religion or ethnicity or nationality or status. You are violating him.

We feel totally disgusted with your action and we condemn you without any reservation. Don't come to our mosques to preach this hatred. Don't visit our Islamic centers to spill the blood of innocents. Don't think that just because we share the same religion, we would show some sympathy to you. You are not of us. You don't belong to the religion whose followers are trying to live a peaceful life for themselves and others serving the divine according to their understanding. In our understanding of faith, you appear as anti-divine and anti-human. We reject you now as we rejected you yesterday.

There is nothing common between you and us.

We stand for life, you want to destroy it.

We accept the divine scheme of diversity in the world and you want to impose conformity.

We respect every human being simply because he or she is a creation of the divine, and you hate people based on their religion and ethnicity.

We support freedom and liberty and justice, and you promote bigotry, murder and strangulation.

You will never be able to find a sympathetic voice amidst us. Our differences with others will never lead us to do things that are fundamentally wrong in our faith, i. e. taking the lives of innocent people and killing others because they are different.

So on Sept. 11, when you will be hiding in your caves, we will be out in the streets paying tribute to those who you killed because you failed to see the beauty of life. We will condemn you once again the same way we have been doing ever since 9/11 because we are Muslim Americans.

Aslam Abdullah is director of the Islamic Society of Nevada.

Muslim Man Pleads to Die in India

Someone sent this yesterday. How does one do a petition? I have never done one, but this cause just seems as good as any to start with.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/pak-resident-pleads-to-die-in-india/21556-3.html

Jammu: A 100-year-old man from Pakistan is begging to be allowed to spend his last few days with his family in Kashmir. But rules require him to return to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
"Give me a place for my grave in India. Let me die here with my children, please don't send me to Pakistan, for god's sake," pleads 100-year-old Nadeem Din who had crossed over to Pakistan occupied Kashmir during the 1965 war and could never get back.

His desperate plea is to be allowed to die next to his family. After forty-long years, Nadeem managed to get back to his family in Rajouri district of J&K about a fortnight ago.
"I have no one there. My children are here in India. My land, my ancestors, everything belongs here. I don't want to go to Pakistan," he says.

Nadeem and his cousin had crossed over to Pakistan occupied Kashmir during the 1965 war and could never get back. But when the Chakka Da Bagh route opened recently on the Line of Control, Nadeem managed to return home.

He only got a 15-day permit, but that period has lasted now. His wife is no more and the only thing he pleads the governments is, to be allowed to stay back with his brother and children in India. He has requested the state government and the home ministry, but has not received any help from them so far.

"We plead, let him die in peace here. We are Indians. My brother is 100-years old, where will he go? Allow him stay back or send us with him," Jamal Din, Nadeem's brother says.
Din has already been in India for 16 days. If he doesn't go back on his own, authorities will force him to return on the September 25. Till then, all he can hope for is either the time to freeze or borders to melt.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: - -