veiled4allah

freedom and responsibility

Now things are really getting out of control: Mohamed cartoons provoke bomb threats against Danish newspaper. No, no, and no again. But at the same time, I can only agree with this:

I'm finding it difficult to find a way of defending the Danish newspaper which decided that the way to demonstrate against censorship is to roll out stereotypes about stupid Arabs with swords, suicide bombers seeking virgins and jokes about how Muslims would stick out in an ID parade, whilst at the same time deliberately trying to provoke people by printing an image of Muhammad. While free speech is essential to democracy, I despair when this is held up to be an example of that exercise. Without knowing the context that the images were printed, and without translation of some of the Danish writing, the exact intentions - whether good or bad - are doomed to remain obscure outside of Scandinavia. But I have to wonder what the reaction would have been here if, to provoke "debate" about censorship, a newspaper like the Sun published a series of "satirical" cartoons featuring a series of stereotypes regarding black people and Jews in a particularly vicious manner. The Sun would be accused of having the morals of the 1930s, and would be put on the same ideological shelf with Mr Griffin.

This is a lot bigger than just the cartoons, it's about Muslims feeling under siege, that things that would be considered beyond the pale if they were about another religion or another ethnic group are OK as long as they're about Muslims. It's about all the other perceived double standards, like the U.S. claiming the right to use nukes even pre-emptively but not allowing Iran to develop even a peaceful nuclear power program. I'm a very strong defender of free speech, but we would get a lot further in solving our problems if instead of trumpeting our right to insult and deride others in the name of that free speech, we spent more time trying to build bridges of understanding and to work for justice. Why not challenge ourselves to use our freedom for good? No one can force another to be good, and that's why the freedom is there, but as moral people, don't we each owe it to our own conscience to aim for the best and to use our freedom in a responsible manner? Update: Steve Gilliard has a couple of very good posts about this. First:

The Europeans are full of shit here. Those cartoons are deeply offensive and are no better than if the WaPo or Boston Globe had a cartoon of Al Sharpton being lynched. Freedom of the Press is fine, but depicting Muhammad as a drunk with women is asking for a major reaction... ...Europeans have made it clear that Muslims are outsiders. Then, in the crudest way possible, they insult their faith and wonder why muslims refuse to buy their products, withdraw their ambassadors and make bomb threats. Hint: this is a direct assault on their faith. Muhammad didn't tell anyone to bomb anything. It is lazy, cheap thinking to say that and then hide behind press freedom when people are pissed beyond words.

Then:

While the cartoonists have the right to say what they want, and no one should bow to terrorism, the problem with the cartoons was that they were genuinely offensive, bigoted, actually. Many suggested that Muhammad was a terrorist or approved of terrorism. It's easy for people in the West to assume Muslims are not rational people, who get upset at the slightest mention. But this isn't that case. These cartoonists went out of their way to find the most offensive way to depict Muhammad and then sat back, stunned that people didn't like their uninformed takes on Islam. It's really a slap in the face to law-abiding, hard working muslims and says "this is what they really think about you". What truly offends me is the way people are saying "well, they have the right to say it". We have the right to say many things, but why avoid the responsibility for your words.

I am very saddened to follow this story, because of the rhetoric on both sides. Certain Muslims who are over-reacting (though it's a very small number compared to how many Muslims there are in Denmark and other European countries, and a small percentage of the population in Muslim countries who are protesting). And also some of the Islamophobic comments being made by Americans (just check out the comments on Gilliard's first post, see some responses to similar comments at Daily Kos: 1, 2). Meanwhile, Thabet has a round-up of Muslim posts on the issue, and here's another rare sensible blog entry to highlight because there are so few. Later: Paul Vallely has a reasonably decent overview of how Muslims approach the issue. One thing that seems to be getting lost in all the shouting is that this is not just about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being depicted - but that the depictions are racist stereotypes. I see so many liberals boasting about their "right to blaspheme" and how "brave" they are because they want to re-publish the cartoons. What they don't seem to realize is that to most Muslims, this is like boasting about how "brave" you are to publish anti-semitic cartoons. I'm pretty darn sure that nearly everbody who's doing the boasting would change their tune in a big hurry if that were the case. Is it open season on Muslims now? That's what we have to wonder. We need to do a lot better job of making our case, but Western liberals might actually want to look at the cartoons, imagine if there were similarly stereotypical and offensive images of Jews or blacks or another minority group, and decide whether they would be in such a big hurry to promote these cartoons. More (frequently updated): Akram's Razor and scorponic provide useful background on the political and social situation in Denmark. Necessary context for understanding where the cartoons came from. Chapati Mystery, meanwhile, looks at the history of portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad in European history and culture. This fits right in, but not in a good way. Good commentary from Thabet, Osama Saeed, Umm Yasmin, As'ad, Umm Zaid, Umar, Haroon, Saracen.nu, Indigo Jo, Yunus and Bloggerheads. Also, thank you, Bill Clinton. Ben P again looks at the larger context in Denmark and Europe. When you read to the end, onanyes gets it. Also excellent are Jamie and Helena Cobban. Steve Gilliard comes back again with a reminder about what European colonialism did to Muslim countries and the kind of treatment Muslims in Europe have faced. Along similar lines, Vespertine reminds us that this has happened in the wake of Abu Ghuraib, and I could add Guantanamo and CIA black sites in Europe, all of which places Muslims have been tortured and religiously humiliated as a matter of American policy. Brad Spangler mentions the West's "bloodthirsty imperialism" in making war on Iraq. This didn't happen in a vacuum, folks. Other good thoughts from SulaymanF, quaoar, Andrew Bartlett, lenin, Atrios, Juan Cole, and Natasha. In a somewhat different take, Curious Hamster suggests that we not play into the hands of extremists with this. Juan Cole fact-checks where the violent protests are actually occurring, and BBC reporter John Simpson how widespread they actually are. The British newspaper the Guardian discovers that that Danish newspaper refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus because they feared it would cause offense. Double standards, anyone? For those Muslims who need to see it, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz prints columns (1, 2) criticizing the cartoons because of the long history of anti-Semitic cartoons (so let's get those out of publications in the Muslim world, mm'kay?). Muslim views by Tariq Ramadan, Aziz Poonawalla (1, 2), and Qadeeb al-Ban (1, 2). And some non-Muslim views from remove office, qrswave, Suzanne Nossel, and Sisphyus Shrugged. I am also collecting some commentary from the mainstream media here. Given its recent actions, I suppose the Iranian government couldn't help but bring the Holocaust in. Raiyan condemns. Also see posts from Tristero, Karie B in Denmark, and Beowulf, plus more from Umm Zaid, Qadeeb al-Ban, Haroon, and Svend. CAIR condemns the Iranian holocaust cartoon contest. Originally, the Danish newspaper at the heart of the controversy was going to publish these cartoons but later backed down. This must prove somebody's point about something. Most of the protests are peaceful but radical groups are infiltrating to cause violence. Meanwhile, European journalists are thinking again. Contributions to the debate of note are lenin, Marc Lynch who links to some Arabic-language condemnations of violence, Amir Hussain, and Rahul Mahajan. Either the story is starting to die down now, or other things are occupying people's attention. Less commentary, but the quality of these three is very high. Muslims Anas Altikriti and Zaid Shakir, both community leaders, explain why Muslims are upset while urging non-violent response. Steve Gilliard talks about being an outsider, as Muslims are in Europe. And, saving best for last, Arthur Silber compares it to the earlier incident of Quran descration at Guantanamo, and peoples' responses to that. He then has some truly excellent commentary about propaganda and how this controversy serves the interest of war proponents. A must read. Digby does an excellent follow up to Silber's post. Dervish reports on a conference in Qatar attended by some leading Islamic scholars in the West and what they said about the cartoons. And interesting contributions from Helena Cobban and Abdullah Al Rahim at Tabsir. In an unfortunate development, Muslim graves vandalized in Denmark. Jeffrey Feldman has an excellent discussion of this. Elsewhere, thousands of Muslims marched peacefully in London against Islamophobia (blogger report, news report). Thoughtful contributions from scholar of Islam John L. Eposito and British Muslim Fareena Alam. Helena Cobban shares the view from France. Arthur Silber looks at the extreme reactions of right-wingers. Some pretty disturbing stuff there. Although this issue has mostly disappeared, Lawrence of Cyberia posts an excellent discussion of hate speech. Best response yet: Ahmad Humeid uses examples from the Prophet Muhammad's own life to illustrate how Muslims should actually respond to insults and attacks. Along similar lines is Hesham Hassaballa's What Would Muhammad Do?. CAIR has an op-ed under the same title: What Would Muhammad Do?. And the same advice is given in British imam warns against overreaction. Sincere Muslims can take heed. Elsewhere, the Organization of Islamic Conference, an international body of Muslim countries, condemns violence. Florida Muslims condemn violence. Religious groups decry reaction to caricatures. U.S. Muslims Reject Violent Response to Cartoon Controversy. Muslims are reaching out to fellow Canadians in hopes of erasing images of cartoon violence. FROM OUR READERS: Muslim protests overreact to cartoons of Muhammad. U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy: Muslim-Americans condemn cartoons - and violence that's come with them. LETTERS: Rejecting violence, debating free speech. CAIR Responds to Cartoon Flap with Educational Campaign. Assimilation, tolerance mark U.S. Muslims' reaction to cartoons. U.S. Muslims Try to Ease Europe's Discord. U.S. Muslims put cartoon dispute in perspective. Muslim Group Launches Education Campaign. Muslims Launch Campaign to Educate About Prophet Muhammad. Islamic education campaign demystifies faith. Sacramento Muslims join educational effort. S.C. Muslims to teach about prophet. Detroit Muslims plan drive to teach others about Islam. Cartoon furor is chance to teach. Muslims Launch Teaching Effort to Counter Furor Over Cartoons. Making the episode a 'teachable moment'. Islamic education campaign to counter cartoon criticism. Philadelphia Muslims seek to counter backlash. Muslim group sets education effort. Delaware County Muslims address controversy. Muslims to teach others about Muhammad. Event will discuss life of Muhammad. U.S. Muslim Group Launches Education Effort on Islam's Prophet. Islamic group tackles cartoon controversy. Davis Muslims react by reaching out. Islamic Group Promotes Mutual Understanding. Muslim groups launch project about the life of Muhammad. Muslims distance selves from rioting: Violence Condemned In Open Forum. Forum: Islam Is Not About Violence. A Muslim call for peace and solidarity. Islamic Center reaches out with welcome mat. Faiths unite to counter 'clash of the uncivilized'. Philly Muslims react to the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Fatwa by group of prominent Muslim scholars condeming violence and aggression. OIC denounces cartoons violence. Seattle area Muslims seek to educate others about Muhammad. Open house at Tempe mosque. CAIR Responds to Muslim Cartoon Controversy. Forum examines outrage about Muhammad cartoons. Ohio Muslims balance respect, their beliefs in cartoon debate. Mosque opens its doors to neighbors. Islamic education effort starts. Open house to provide understanding of Islam, the Prophet. Egyptian students find peaceful way to protest Muhammad cartoons. Muslim activist speaks on Muhammad's life. Bay area residents should consider Islam education events. Fremont Muslims hosting events to educate public about Islam. Cartoons spark local educational effort. Missouri center announces open house to discuss beliefs of Islam. A campaign to promote understanding. In cartoon debate, a chance to educate.

I cry for what America is becoming

Hunter at Daily Kos notes the sickening combination of two stories, Bush Administration Files 11th Hour Papers Blocking the Release of Darby CD Photos and Video Of Abu Ghraib Torture and White House Aims to Block Legislation On Detainees. The first story, the new Abu Ghraib photos and videos, is about rape and murder allegedly committed by American soldiers. Some of the victims may have been children (1, 2, 3). And, not satisfied to cover up this depravity that resulted from its policies, the Bush Administration wants the right to continue using torture:

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

There are many things Bush has done or overseen that I oppose and even hate, but Abu Ghraib is something I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive, it is a perversion of everything that this country is supposed to stand for. This is the face of America for many around the world now: torture and rape, even of children, and demanding the right to do it with impunity. We're destroying everything that we had built up before. May God have mercy on us.

double standards?

I'm kind of bemused at the sudden excitement over banning desecration of the American flag. Wasn't it just a short time ago that many of these same people were blaming Muslims for being upset over desecration of the Quran? Now, if you get upset about people desecrating a flag, don't you think you could have a little empathy for how other people feel about desecration of what they believe to be the revealed word of God?

when you love, sometimes you have to criticize

I've said before (1, 2, 3) that just as when you see someone you love doing something wrong you should speak up, so when you love your country and you see it doing something wrong, you should speak up. In that spirit, go read More things we throw away by Hilzoy. Read the whole thing. Via Body and Soul.

not the way to win hearts and minds

Juan Cole:

The Guardian reports that news (from Newsweek) that US soldiers desecrated the Koran--and at one point flushed pages of it down the toilet as a technique for humiliating and breaking detainees at Guantanamo--has provoked a second day of protests and then rioting in Jalalabad, this time with loss of life. On Tuesday, 2000 students had demonstrated. On Wednesday, 5,000 to 10,000 university, medical and K-12 students came out, and then they went on the attack, including against US troops. Four died and 70 were injured... ...In secular American society, I suppose the shock value here could only be hinted at if we imagined someone flushing a small American flag down the toilet. But probably we can't imagine it at all. The technique of humiliating Muslims as a way of "breaking" them for interrogation has often veered toward torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and it wasn't effective as a technique. The Israeli flag was also used at one point, apparently. The US military has a tradition of such humiliations, going back to treatment of the Filipino Muslim rebels in the early 20th century. But there is a difference between humiliating Muslim prisoners and humiliating Islam. Whatever goddam military genius came up with the bright idea of flushing the Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo should be court-martialed, and Bush had better get out there apologizing before this thing spirals further out of control.

Can we at least agree to not desecrate sacred religious texts and scriptures? When Americans says "it's not a war on Islam", people look at things like this and they take that as so many lies. Added: The protests and riots are spreading. There isn't a lot of goodwill left for America in the Muslim world, but this will probably destroy most of what's left. Update: Newsweek published a retraction that some say is not really a retraction at all. Why? Similar stories about desecration of the Quran have already been reported elsewhere (see also here). Juan Cole and Arthur Silber comment. Update 2: Lots more: more stories of Quran desecration reported elsewhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) including from the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch as well as the FBI, more on Newsweek's "non-retraction" retraction (1, 2, 3), more commentary (1, 2, 3), an editorial, a Muslim perspective, and a reality check about reactions in the Muslim world (see also Riverbend on this). And what was really going on in Afghanistan anyway? Doesn't have much to do with Newsweek, actually. Update 3: Government confirms five instances of Quran desecration, commentary, and the policy that this is a part of. Aside: A complaint I've seen in some quarters is that Muslims seem to be more concerned with descration of the Quran than with the torture of Muslims. In case you're curious, I have one entry (this one) about Quran desecration and (at last count) 99 about torture. Try that claim somewhere else.

the words we use

Motazz Soliman at alt.muslim reflects on How the Use of Adjectives Can be Burdensome and Tedious. What does he mean by that?

When we pick up the newspaper, read a book, watch television, or engage in conversation, we come across the terms "Muslim" and "Islamic" for descriptions of things related to the religion or to its adherents. Often, the two adjectives are used interchangeably as synonyms. They may truly be part-and-parcel of a family of vocabulary in the everyday usage of language. But the question arises as to whether they are one and the same. And here comes the dilemma. If we fuse the two together, as they often are, we risk adding inappropriate or meaningless terminology and connotations that do not belong to the system of codes, values, ethics, beliefs, rituals, bonds, and understandings Muslims know as "Islam." For instance, the mainstream discourse often refers to a particular kind of illegitimate violence committed by some Muslims against civilians as 'Islamic terrorism.' Muslims would take offense at this characterization because the implication here, deliberately or mistakenly, is that fault lies within Islam itself. Using the phrase "Islamic world" to describe the area of the world where Muslims form geographic majorities presents similar problems. First, it risks associating underdevelopment, conflict/warfare/civil strife, inequality and discrimination, and other negativities or "backwardness" with teachings from Islam or with steadfastness to them. Secondly, it risks excluding, or at the very least marginalizing, the contributions, status, and plights of the diaspora of Muslims residing elsewhere (like in the West).

He discusses several related issues as well. The language that we use does often shape how we think about things, so it's good to step back and examine it.

questions of torture, retaliation, and vindication

At first, it wouldn't seem like there was anything unusual about the story of a brutal torture-execution in Iran. The criminal himself was a sicko who lured young children into the desert, sexually molested them, and then killed them; the execution involved flogging him and his victims were allowed to enact retribution on him, then he was executed by hanging. One would think this was just another story about the barbarity of the Muslim world and what is called the Islamic penal system. As usual, one expects that right-wingers in particular would work up a righteous fury, perhaps use it to argue why we need to make war on Iran to liberate it, or something. But, in what seems to me at least to be a strange twist, conservative blogger and law professor Eugene Volokh announced that he agreed with what happened in Iran, because he feels that retribution should be an important element in punishment. He even went so far as to say that the Constitution should be amended if the Eighth Amendment (against cruel and unusual punishment) would get in the way of this. Say what? While most of the liberal blogosphere has erupted in outrage, Mark Kleiman, a professor of publicy policy, has taken a somewhat contrarian view (see also his follow-up). Among other things, he notes that life imprisonment - especially in conditions such as prevail in American prisons - is a more cruel punishment than many people admit. The damage is more psychological than physical, but no less real for all of that. This is a point that I myself have made before:

Some people feel that the existing form of the prison system in America is unjust and inhumane. Some people go even further and say that incarceration as a punishment is itself inhumane. After all, human beings are locked up in what amount to cages (i.e., the prison cells) where they have next to no privacy and have to offer complete obedience at all times to corrections officers and to ask permission for almost anything they do. An argument can be made that imprisonment is really a form of slavery, and a particularly cruel form at that since the prisoners are kept locked up. We're not used to thinking like this. It's taken as a given in America that prison is far more humane than corporal punishment. But is it? The body heals; the mind and the soul may not. When we consider whether the prison system is humane we should look at the psychological damage caused by captivity. It's not as easy to measure as physical damage, but it may be far worse and more lasting.

Kleiman also, especially in the follow-up post, discusses whether there is in fact a value to what is variously called retaliation, retribution, or vindication; Kleiman uses "vindication" to express the positive aspects. He points out that some of our own laws have vindication as their major or primary justification, such as hate crimes laws, and that some prosecutions also can be justified only by the principle of vindication, since deterrance is not enough to explain them. So the question may not be whether retaliation or vindication is a valid aim of the penal system, but how far we should go in it. Torture and mutilation in the service of vindication cross the line (and thus, so does Volokh; update: it appears that he has changed his mind), but a different form of retaliation or vindication may be acceptable. At this point, I'm going to wander off onto a diversion, leaving the previous train of thought sort of hanging there. What exactly does Islamic law say? The quote of myself above came from a blog entry that was primarily about Islamic penal law. I devoted a lot of that entry to the question of due process and standards of proof (something I also discussed here and more briefly here), in order to conclude:

If an Islamic society truly upheld the standards of proof, the harsh corporal punishments like flogging and cutting off the hand would only be meted out on a small number of brazen criminals who deliberately commit their crimes in front of others (and, presumably, in defiance of those others' attempts to stop them or talk them out of it). And the rest of the penal code could be of whatever form that the society felt was best. This could be other types or corporal punishments (as in the past), or incarceration (as in the modern Muslim world), or even (yes) restorative justice.

OK, that's all well and good as far as it goes, but what about this particular case? A man who sexually violates and then murders children and does so over and over again (it's estimated that he had killed more than 20 children this way) is surely a hardened and brazen criminal who deserves the strongest punishment. And in another part of that entry, I also included this note about retaliation:

Qisas refers to the principle of retaliation for assault and murder. The Quran permits, but does not require, retaliation in kind. What do I mean, it doesn't require? The decision rests with the victim or the victim's family. The victim or family can seek retaliation, or they can accept a restitutive payment, or they can forgive the offender. Restitutive payment (diya in Arabic) is also the punishment set for manslaughter. The Quran strongly recommends that the victim seek restitution or offer forgiveness because this erases sins and is better in God's sight. Also, remember that the attack must have been witnessed and deliberate.

I didn't really go into the question of retaliation very much except for that note, but linked to an article which does discuss it at greater length. Here is what it says:

A qisas crime is one of retaliation. If you commit a qisas crime, the victim has a right to seek retribution and retaliation. The exact punishment for each qisas crime is set forth in the Quran. If you are killed, then your family has a right to seek qisas punishment from the murderer. Punishment can come in several forms and also may include "Diya." Diya is paid to the victim's family as part of punishment. Diya is an ancient form of restitution for the victim or his family. The family also may seek to have a public execution of the offender or the family may seek to pardon the offender... ...Contemporary common law today still is filled with the assumptions of retribution. The United States federal code contains "mandatory minimum" sentences for drug dealing, and many states have fixed punishment for drugs and violence and using weapons. The United States justice system has adopted a retribution model which sets fixed punishments for each crime. The idea of retribution is fixed in the U.S. system of justice. Qisas crime is simple retribution: if one commits a crime, he knows what the punishment will be. Diya has its roots in Islamic Law and dates to the time of the Prophet Mohammed when there were many local families, tribes, and clans. They were nomadic and traveled extensively. The Prophet was able to convince several tribes to take a monetary payment for damage to the clan or tribe. This practice grew and now is an acceptable solution to some qisas crimes. Today, the Diya is paid by the offender to the victim if he is alive. If the victim is dead, the money is paid to the victim's family or to the victim's tribe or clan. The assumption is that victims will be compensated for their loss. Under common law, the victim or family must sue the offender in a civil tort action for damages. Qisas law combines the process of criminal and civil hearings into one, just as the "civil law" is applied in many nations of the world. Qisas crimes are compensated as restitution under common law and civil law... ...Another concept of qisas crimes is the area of punishment. Each victim has the right to ask for retaliation and, historically, the person's family would carry out that punishment. Modern Islamic law now requires the government to carry out the qisas punishment. Historically, some grieving family member may have tortured the offender in the process of punishment. Now the government is the independent party that administers the punishment, because torture and extended pain is contrary to Islamic teachings and Sharia Law.

It's this last paragraph that's perhaps the most interesting, because it applies directly to the situation in Iran, and it echoes the point that Kleiman was making. To have a principle of retaliation in the law does not mean that "anything goes" or that it justifies torture. That is vengeance, not justice. What happened in Iran was vengeance, not justice. My main point in the blog entry about Islamic penal law was that it is not a fixed and static system. Rather, it has certain fixed points, the maximum punishments allowed, and limits on when and how these can be meted out. And it also has within itself a flexibility that can allow it to adapt when we as a society develop and advance. While it can turn into a system of harsh corporal and capital punishments, as all too often seems to be the case in the Muslim world today, it can also become a system to support concepts such as restorative justice. Rather than giving in to our lowest impulses, we can seek towards our highest ideals. I'd like to close with a quote from an article about how and why torture is forbidden in Islamic law, which I think sums the issue up well:

It has been found that one cannot use criminal means to fight crimes. If that is the case, then there is no difference between criminals in uniform and criminals without uniform, both carry AK-47. If, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is interested in Sharia, then he must remember that it came to us through Mohammad (PBUH) and not Machiavelli. Machiavelli wrote "Prince" and not the Quran and Sunna. Crime is the anti-thesis of Islam. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was Rahmat-ulil-Al-amin, and he was not a Marcus, Shah of Iran, Pinochete or Stalin. Islam is very clear, there is no such thing "crime for the good of Islam." Unfortunately Pakistani wolves use Islam as a camouflage for their criminal ends... ...Torturers, aren't you afraid of Allah, have you ever thought about the day of judgment, what if in future your sons, daughters or wife are subjected to the things which you practice on others. Would you like it? If not, don't do it to others.

Kleiman stresses this point as well. We should not ourselves become criminals in our policies against crime. We sell our souls to the devil and the price is higher than we realize; we may not be able to bear its full measure when the judgment is called in on us.

occupation, not tyranny alone, causes terrorism

Juan Cole makes an important distinction and says that the cause of radical Muslim terrorism is not so much authoritarian governments as foreign military occupation. Thus the Bush Administration's policy to remove authoritarian governments in the Middle East and (apparently) replace them with American military occupation (as has already occurred in Iraq) is exactly the wrong thing to do. Cole brings some historical examples:

Let's think about terrorism in the past few decades in a concrete and historical way, and it is obvious that it comes out of a reaction to being occupied militarily by foreigners. The Muslim Brotherhood developed its Secret Apparatus and began committing acts of terror in the 1940s in Egypt, which the British had virtually reoccupied in order to deny it to the Italians and then Germans. The Brotherhood assassinated pro-British judges and pro-British politicians (the British installed the Wafd Party in power). The Brotherhood had grown to some half a million members by 1948. Some Brothers also volunteered to fight in Palestine against the rise of Israel, which they saw as a colonial settler state. After the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Prime Minister Nuqrashi in 1948, it was banned and dissolved. It was briefly rehabilitated by Abdul Nasser in 1952-1954, but in 1954 it tried to assassinate him, and he banned it again. There was no major radical Muslim terrorism in Egypt in the period after 1954 and until Sadat again legitimized the Brotherhood in 1971, despite Egypt being a dictatorship in that period. The intimate connection between foreign military occupation and terrorism can be seen in Palestine in the 1940s, where the Zionist movement threw up a number of terrorist organizations that engaged in bombings and assassinations on a fair scale. That is, frustrated Zionists not getting their way behaved in ways difficult to distinguish from frustrated Muslim nationalists who didn't get their way. There was what the French would have called radical Muslim terrorism in Algeria 1954-1962, though the Salafis were junior partners of the largely secular FLN. French colonialists were targeted for heartless bombings and assassinations. This campaign of terror aimed at expelling the French, who had colonized Algeria in 1830 and had kept it ever since, declaring it French soil. The French had usurped the best land and crowded the Algerians into dowdy old medinas or haciendas in the countryside. The nationalists succeeded in gaining Algerian independence in 1962... ...The south Lebanon Shiite groups, Amal and Hizbullah, turned to radical Muslim terrorism mainly after the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of South Lebanon, which is largely Shiite. The radical Muslim terrorism of Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards grew in part out of American hegemony over Iran, which was expressed most forcefully by the 1953 CIA coup that overthrew the last freely elected parliament of that country. Likewise, Hamas (the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood) turned to terrorism in large part out of desperation at the squalid circumstances and economic and political hopelessness of the Israeli military occupation of Gaza. The Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s was among the biggest generators of radical Muslim terrorism in modern history. The US abetted this phenomenon, giving billions to the radical Muslim ideologues at the top of Pakistani military intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence), which in turn doled the money out to men like Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a member of the Afghanistan Muslim Brotherhood (Jami'at-i Islami) who used to throw vials of acid at the faces of unveiled girls in the Kabul of the 1970s. The US also twisted the arm of the Saudi government to match its contributions to the Mujahidin. Saudi Intelligence Minister Turki al-Faisal was in charge of recruiting Arab volunteers to fight alongside the Mujahidin, and he brought in young Usamah bin Laden as a fundraiser. The CIA training camps that imparted specialized tradecraft to the Mujahidin inevitably also ended up training, at least at second hand, the Arab volunteers, who learned about forming covert cells, practicing how to blow things up, etc. The "Afghan Arabs" fanned back to their homelands, to Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, carrying with them the ethos that Ronald Reagan had inspired them with, which held that they should take up arms against atheist Westerners who attempted to occupy Muslim lands. To this litany of Occupations that produce radical Muslim terrorism, Chechnya and Kashmir can be added.

Cole then applies this analysis to situations in the contemporary Middle East, especially Lebanon, and concludes:

I'm all for democratization in the Middle East, as a good in its own right. But I don't believe that authoritarian governance produced most episodes of terrorism in the last 60 years in the region. Terrorism was a weapon of the weak wielded against what these radical Muslims saw as a menacing foreign occupation. To erase that fact is to commit a basic error in historical understanding. It is why the US military occupation of Iraq is actually a negative for any "war on terror." Nor do I believe that democratization, even if it is possible, is going to end terrorism in and of itself. You want to end terrorism? End unjust military occupations. By all means have Syria conduct an orderly withdrawal from Lebanon if that is what the Lebanese public wants. But Israel needs to withdraw from the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria, as well. The Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank must be ended. The Russian scorched earth policy in Chechnya needs to stop. Some just disposition of the Kashmir issue must be attained, and Indian enormities against Kashmiri Muslims must stop. The US needs to conduct an orderly and complete withdrawal from Iraq. And when all these military occupations end, there is some hope for a vast decrease in terrorism. People need a sense of autonomy and dignity, and occupation produces helplessness and humiliation. Humiliation is what causes terrorism.

P.S. For those who think that terrorism by Muslims is somehow unique, note a point that Cole makes: That is, frustrated Zionists not getting their way behaved in ways difficult to distinguish from frustrated Muslim nationalists who didn't get their way. The same could be said of many other non-Muslim insurgencies. For instance, the non-Muslim Tamil Tigers were using suicide bombings long before any Muslim group became known for doing so. For information on the Zionist campaign against the British that Cole references, see Irgun and Lehi (Stern Gang)

dumb media tricks

For some reason, this just rubbed me the wrong way:

One exchange centered on the thoughts of a Muslim who enters a U.S. court and sees a carving of the Ten Commandments on the wall. "Imagine the Buddhist or Muslim who walks into the Supreme Court. He will realize this is not his government," Mr. Chemerinsky said. "I thought that Muslims accept the Ten Commandments," Justice Scalia said. "No, your honor, they don't," Mr. Chemerinsky responded. However, in an editorial published yesterday, Arsalan Iftikhar, the national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said, "The Quran, Islam's revealed text, contains injunctions similar to all the commandments."

It's presented like these two viewpoints are equally valid as to what Islam is about. Wouldn't a practicing Muslim know better than some random non-Muslim lawyer about that? And in any case, whether or not the Quran contains certain statements is a matter of objective fact. They're either there, or they aren't. Look them up and then report on what you find. Don't treat it like it's an "opinion" that the statements are there. Next: Some say that the sky is blue. However, others disagree.

quote of the day

Retired admiral John D. Hutson:

But even if you are right and it doesn't make any difference to the enemy one way or the other, why shouldn't we take the high road even if we do it unilaterally? It's who we are. It's who we have been, or strived to be, for generations. The United States has been a strong, unwavering advocate for human rights and the rule of law for as long as you and I have been alive. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that just because we are in a battle with some terrible people. In fact, in a war like this, when we are tempted to respond in kind, we must hold ever more dearly to the values that make us Americans. Torture, or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" conduct, are not part of our national character.

(via Intel Dump). This is similar to things I've said for both Muslims:

It makes me depressed and angry when I see Muslims who commit wrongs to further their causes. They should remember that any victory they might gain in the world that was not by means that God has allowed will be made void by God on Judgment Day, and that is no victory at all but the ultimate loss. The only way to gain true victory is to obey the limits that God has set. Even if a people have been wronged, they need to seek restitution in the right way and not commit further wrongs themselves.

and Americans:

Whenever a Muslim complains about things like this, the common reaction is "Muslims did such-and-such thing that's even worse". First, this attitude doesn't really make sense. It's OK to do something wrong, because other people do worse things? That's the standard we judge by now, "at least we're not worse than those people we hate"? No, if we aim to be a good people, we should have certain objective standards that we hold to, no matter what other people are doing. If disrespecting someone's place of worship is wrong, then it's always wrong, it doesn't become OK because it's Americans doing it, or because some other people are doing something worse. If it's wrong, we shouldn't be doing it, period.