The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[boombox]

Islam started as a very practical way of life, which frowned upon self indulgence in contemplating too much purely abstract theocratic ideas -- it stressed that the most important thing was Jihad, or living according to the way God intended for us to live, which is giving to the needy and protecting the weak, which was with justice, peace, and compassion.

Have you read the Koran? Just curious.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Islam started as a very practical way of life, which frowned upon self indulgence in contemplating too much purely abstract theocratic ideas -- it stressed that the most important thing was Jihad, or living according to the way God intended for us to live, which is giving to the needy and protecting the weak, which was with justice, peace, and compassion.

Yours is an interesting interpretation of the meaning of Jihad zhao.

In the Arab world, the author points out, the definition of the word Jihad is clear and unequivocal. It means a call to action on behalf of Islamic hegemony. The concept of Jihad is often defined to western audiences as simply a personal inner struggle or as a morally justified call to Muslims for the defense of their faith, but historically, Jihad has overwhelmingly been used in the sense of a call for violent military aggression against non-believers for the expansion of Islam.

In the Western world, the author notes, many high profile academics , journalists and activists are actively engaged in Public Relations and linguistical campaigns to convince audiences of a benign character of Jihad. But according to Phares, this a clear misrepresentation of the actual intent of the Jihadist movement.

"Jihad is not benign, and the West’s denial of that fact was terribly ironic. By instinct and as a result of my personal and professional background, I realized the enormity of what was happening: The United States was paving the way for its own defeat, by blurring its vision, confusing its mind, and moderating its reactions to the early danger signs, not to mention the terrorist strikes to come...."

This is drawn from the work of Walid Phares who is of lebanese descent and an expert on Middle Eastern Affairs. Read an account of his book here.

Muhammed also stressed respect for the older faiths (that he knew about), namely Judaism and Christianity, for these older traditions are founded on the same divine truths that Islam is based on. and that it was not until after the establishment of Israel in mid 20th century, and war crimes were repeatedly committed against Palestinians, that Muslims started hating jews.

Not sure about this bit either zhao. What are your sources, historical accounts etc? Anyway what is important is how religous texts are interpreted and applied politically.

 

[zhao]

Yours is an interesting interpretation of the meaning of Jihad zhao.

What are your sources, historical accounts etc?

"a short history of Islam" by Karen Armstrong as noted above. so none of that is my interpretation...

no i have not read the koran. you?

 

[boombox]

no i have not read the koran. you?

Yes. I find it strange that you condemn the superficiality of other people's grasp of Islam without having intimate knowledge yourself of its sacred text

i encourage people to find out about what a thing has meant to millions of people world wide for 1400 years before making childish umbrella statements about it based on what they saw on TV about it last week.

 

[Gavin]

This is drawn from the work of Walid Phares who is of lebanese descent and an expert on Middle Eastern Affairs.

...And a member of the neocon organization Foundation for Defense of Democracy, which supports extending the war on terror to Iran, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea....

On FDD's board of advisers are prominent neo-cons and Iraq war boosters, including former Defense Policy Board chairman and Ledeen's sidekick at AEI, Richard Perle; AEI fellow Jeane Kirkpatrick; and former CIA director James Woolsey, who also co-chairs the CPD.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ09Ak01.html

 

[mistersloane]

...And a member of the neocon organization Foundation for Defense of Democracy, which supports extending the war on terror to Iran, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ09Ak01.html

Nicely pointed out Gavin. Ahmed Rashid http://www.ahmedrashid.com/ takes a slightly more sober view in his book 'jihad' explaing lesser and greater jihad and all that jazz.

 

[Gavin]

Haha, to pick up an earlier thought in this thread, this article on Morrissey's alleged racism dubs 'racist' "the R-word":

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarfraz_manzoor/2007/12/is_it_really_so_strange.html

 

[crackerjack]

Haha, to pick up an earlier thought in this thread, this article on Morrissey's alleged racism dubs 'racist' "the R-word":

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarfraz_manzoor/2007/12/is_it_really_so_strange.html

Yeah, good piece that.

The greater danger with hurling such accusations at anyone - and in this I include, albeit with some hesitation, Martin Amis - is that we risk alienating what I suspect is a substantial portion of the public who have such concerns but are not actually racist. By saying everyone who challenges the orthodoxy about the untramelled benefits of multiculturalism and immigration is racist we devalue the term to the point of rendering it meaningless.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes. I find it strange that you condemn the superficiality of other people's grasp of Islam without having intimate knowledge yourself of its sacred text

Indeed.

One of the reasons I have difficulty with the commonly propagated idea that Islam is an "inherently peaceful religion" is the fact that most of the then-known world had been conquered by Muhammed's followers and converted to the new religion within just a few decades of his death; it was something like three centuries after Jesus's time that Christianity finally became the official religion of the Roman empire. Of course, Christians have been fighting each other ever since, and some five hundred years ago they started making a pretty good attempt at killing or enslaving most of the rest of the world, which doesn't really square too well with 'love thy neighbour'. So I suppose what I'm saying is, the contents of this or that holy book don't really count for much when many people who supposedly follow its teachings either ignore them or pervert them to their own ends.

 

[noel emits]

And Copey on Morrissey:

Now is hardly the time to start keeping people out of our country just because we’re scared of local accents disappearing off the streets. Now that WOULD be racist. However, what this country should not be ‘flooded with’ is migrants whose home countries display attitudes that are totally at odds with our open-minded British ways. So we should most certainly restrict entry to those from countries rife with misogyny, racism, homophobia, lawlessness and anti-Semitism, or take the risk that their closed-mindedness might well pervert the attitudes of those duller, less enlightened types among our own people. Surely, it is only common sense that our authorities should have the power to insist that all potential new ‘Britons’ accept our cultural metaphor BEFORE they even move here, rather than them expecting us to accept their oft Medieval attitudes, attitudes which we in Britain have fought for centuries to destroy. Surely THAT is the most sensible and democratic manner in which to do deal with immigration.

I think these things need to be said before they can't be said.

 

[nomadologist]

wha? am i reading this right?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Noel, that comment reminds me of the Dutch politician who got shot a few years ago, Pim Forteyn or something, who was popularly described as "far-right" because his party wanted to massively restrict immigration...but dig a bit deeper and it turns out he was anti-immigration because much of the Netherlands' immigrants, like those of Britain, were coming from parts of the world, particularly Islamic countries, where peoples' cultural values were greatly at odds with the famously liberal and progressive values common to Dutch politics and, indeed, most of the general public. This politician, who was himself openly gay, was typically liberal when it came to women's rights, gay rights, euthanasia, all of that.

Also, from the guardian blog, this is OTFM:

The problem is that to point out that something is fundamentally wrong with Britain worries militant progressives so they have to use 'racism' as a way of stifling dissent. Using 'racism' to try and silence critics of unlimited migration or to turn Britain into a deracinated treadmill is done in bad faith because they know what they have done and know they must square leftists positions with the imperatives of corporate capitalism and its insatiable need for cheap foreign labour.

So often, you hear the rallying cry "But immigrants are good for the economy!" - well a fine Leftist position that is, I have to say! It takes more to make a happy, functional society than a strong economy, FFS...

 

[crackerjack]

And Copey on Morrissey:

Now is hardly the time to start keeping people out of our country just because we’re scared of local accents disappearing off the streets. Now that WOULD be racist. However, what this country should not be ‘flooded with’ is migrants whose home countries display attitudes that are totally at odds with our open-minded British ways. So we should most certainly restrict entry to those from countries rife with misogyny, racism, homophobia, lawlessness and anti-Semitism, or take the risk that their closed-mindedness might well pervert the attitudes of those duller, less enlightened types among our own people. Surely, it is only common sense that our authorities should have the power to insist that all potential new ‘Britons’ accept our cultural metaphor BEFORE they even move here, rather than them expecting us to accept their oft Medieval attitudes, attitudes which we in Britain have fought for centuries to destroy. Surely THAT is the most sensible and democratic manner in which to do deal with immigration.

I think these things need to be said before they can't be said.

Actually i think Cope's stance is extremely dangerous. Either I've misunderstood him, or he wants to deny individuals entry to the Britain because he doesn't like their national culture. Judging by his list of baaaaaaaad characteristics, I'm guessing he means Mussies (3 of his 5 are certainly associated with many Muslim countries - lawlessness less so, racism maybe about par). You start closing the door to one specific religion and you really are throwing in the towel.

 

[nomadologist]

Gavin and HMLT among others... you are guilty of this! believe it or not, people might do some pretty horrific stuff to other people somewhere in the world and it might not be directly relatable to the actions of people in the West *shock* *horror*. Other people have agency too!

Culture, politics, social relations, economics etc are all bound up in the social totality of human existence (NB, these false distinctions were drawn up by white western theorists in the 19thC). Exogenous factors (i.e. external influences/pressures) clearly affect the behaviour of groups of people but more importantly - i would argue - are the endogenous forces within a given society. What shapes the way we as individuals behave? Our perception of the world is based to a large degree on institutional conditioning (by instititions I mean both the formal rules which constrain behaviour in society - i.e. legal and constitutional; and the informal practices - i.e. conventions and codes of conduct as defined by religion, tradition and custom). As Geoff Hodgson has argued:

We are all individuals, and the totality of our knowledge and experience is unique, but the mechanisms of our perception and acquisition of knowledge are unavoidably social and unavoidably reflect social culture and practices.

So social evolution is path dependent - i.e. historically contingent. This does not mean however that all behaviour is relatively valid. Chopping peoples arms off, flogging them or any number of equally barbaric practices are deplorable and people should unite in trying to prevent such practices in the future.

So what if people do horrible things that aren't directly related to the actions of Western superpowers? Does this mean that we should police and punish the world for not abiding by our cultural standards?

I believe wholeheartedly in human and civil rights, and would love for the entire world to be held accountable (in a truly fair and just way) for the abuses of both. The problem remains, however, that any "holding accountable" will be invariably conducted NOT IN A POLITICAL VACCUM, but by the superpowers-that-be in a highly assymetrical (power/resource/economics-wise) fashion that encourages Western hegemony in ways that I find politically and socially and morally repugnant.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Also, I think it's important - especially with regards to Morrissey's comments - to disentangle racism from xenophobia. You can be xenophobic without being racist, and vice-versa.

 

[crackerjack]

Also, I think it's important - especially with regards to Morrissey's comments - to disentangle racism from xenophobia. You can be xenophobic without being racist, and vice-versa.

And you can be a Little Englander (which is what Moz is) without being either.

 

[noel emits]

Actually i think Cope's stance is extremely dangerous. Either I've misunderstood him, or he wants to deny individuals entry to the Britain because he doesn't like their national culture. Judging by his list of baaaaaaaad characteristics, I'm guessing he means Mussies (3 of his 5 are certainly associated with many Muslim countries - lawlessness less so, racism maybe about par). You start closing the door to one specific religion and you really are throwing in the towel.

Yes he does say that, and I can see the problem there (although I don't think he's directing it at mslms), especially if we are talking about individuals who are emigrating because they find themselves incompatible with the environment in their home country. But again this is a case of denying what is plain to see - it is happening that large numbers of people are bringing with them cultural ideas that are at odds with what we might think of as the more admirable of British attitudes. If we feel that we can't acknowledge this without risking being seen as intolerant and prejudicial ourselves, isn't that an indicator of this very precarious situation?

But I think it's a mistake to say this is really to do with 'immigration', it's a more general confusion of identity. It is analogous to inviting people to share your home without making it clear what the general shared assumptions of behaviour might be. You know it might even be another example of that tragic post-colonial arrogance in the sense that the attitude is "of course everyone knows what Great Britain is about, nobody would ever disrespect our customs, we don't need to lower ourselves to tell them how to behave here.'

 

[nomadologist]

But the sorts who are emigrating in order to carry out terrorist schemes and such are vastly outnumbered by people who emigrate in order to actively join and assimilate to another culture and its ideals, right? I would say this is true in the U.S.

 

[Mr. Tea]

And you can be a Little Englander (which is what Moz is) without being either.

Yes, I wasn't intending to imply he was being either, but an accusation of xenophobia, even if unjustified as such, would make more sense in this case than one of racism.

 

[nomadologist]

This is exactly what I thought when reading this Morrissey article--when you're talking about being irrationally afraid of foreigners without regard to "skin-color" type designations, you're talking about xenophobia, not racism.