Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

November 13, 2005 10:11 PM

Five questions non-Muslims would like answered.
posted by lupus_yonderboy (138 comments total)

Well, it's good that bigots like this are getting a nice podium in the LA Times. I guess someone has to give them space and air time?
posted by xmutex at 10:20 PM on November 13, 2005

(1) Why are you so quiet?

Well...

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

Yeah.
posted by loquax at 10:20 PM on November 13, 2005

Next week in the Times, "Why do you mormons insist on being polygamous?"
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:23 PM on November 13, 2005

Can I add a couple for non-Christians?

Why are Christian States so violent. In the Twentieth Century the Christian States fought amongst themselves killing in, WWI, 18 million and in WII some 50million (with perhaps 10million of these deaths occuring in non-Christian countries).

Why did Christian countries feel they needed to invent Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons and Nuclear Weapons?

And one for White Christian States.

Why are White Christian Countries constantly invading non-Christian countries? Since the 15th Century White Christian countries have engaged in killing people very regularly. Even today, when the violence seems to be reducing, a White Christian State launched an invasion, based on distorting the facts, of a country on the other side of the world.
posted by sien at 10:23 PM on November 13, 2005

The answers are:

1) No
2) No
3) D
4) 42
5) Todd Loken
posted by Balisong at 10:24 PM on November 13, 2005

A question for us non-blacks. Why are you guys always rapping about shooting people?
posted by xmutex at 10:25 PM on November 13, 2005

Hmm, I think we'll find only question 3) is ameniable to a reasonable answer. The others will only garner examples of other people's bad behavior.
posted by scheptech at 10:27 PM on November 13, 2005

Scheptech: I'm supposed to believe that Mali is more "free" than Turkey? What does "free" mean, then? #3 is the most BS of all the questions.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:29 PM on November 13, 2005

Reactionary drivel. Yeah it's a religion that's stuck in the 15th century but its beliefs are not uniformly held.

However I have to say the fact that that LA Times would print this suggests we're headed for a franker public debate about whether Islam has a place inside a pluralistic society like North America and Europe.

That, or the LA Times is a rag.
posted by capilano at 10:31 PM on November 13, 2005

I think they're all fair questions (as questions about christianity would be). I don't think there's much of an answer to most of them that would surprise anyone, but I don't really see bigotry there, nor claims that christians are superior to muslims. For that matter, is it not a sociologically fair question to ask why so much rap music is about shooting people?
posted by loquax at 10:33 PM on November 13, 2005

Q: What's up with Islam?

A:Islam is a particularly bellicose for modern religion, or Islam is particularly not modern for a bellicose religion.
posted by I Foody at 10:36 PM on November 13, 2005

Why are these questions "reactionary drivel" from a "bigot"?
posted by twsf at 10:36 PM on November 13, 2005

Free probably means representational government of some description. Jordan, as a monarchy for example, would be considered non-free? Although I must say, seeing the Jordanian King on TV recently makes me wonder if that isn't a better way to select leaders as compared to the results obtained by a certain very large democracy in 2004.
posted by scheptech at 10:36 PM on November 13, 2005

(6) You're allied with those horrible homosexuals, aren't you?!
posted by homunculus at 10:39 PM on November 13, 2005

Well, it's good that bigots like this are getting a nice podium in the LA Times.

I guess they had some free space.
posted by homunculus at 10:45 PM on November 13, 2005

(6) Give us your oil!

Oh wait, that's not a question...
posted by mullacc at 10:49 PM on November 13, 2005

racist bullshit.
posted by newton at 10:53 PM on November 13, 2005

racist bullshit.

Racist?
posted by loquax at 10:56 PM on November 13, 2005

Yeah, it's not racist, but it is bullshit.
posted by dazed_one at 11:01 PM on November 13, 2005

For any good MeFite that wants to whip him/herself up some extra fury, here's a link to Dennis Prager's columns on townhall.com (Prager is the author of the LA Times piece and hosts a radio show).
posted by mullacc at 11:05 PM on November 13, 2005

Why is bullshit to ask these questions?
posted by dydecker at 11:08 PM on November 13, 2005

What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands.

What a ridiculously simplistic take on the issues in the I/P conflict. And the normal "Well, this is what *I've* seen" questions apply as well: How hard is this person looking for thoughtful Muslim perspectives? What media outlets is this person paying attention to? How big a role do this person's prejudices play in determining what they have or haven't "seen" about the conflict? Etc. This kind of oh-so-heartfelt but extremely short-sighted essay became cliche long ago.

Still, there are points worth considering underneath the simplicity. I'm not sure anyone can *totally* dismiss it as "racist bullshit," although there seems to be a hefty amount of bullshit present that I'd guess has at least a few racist roots.
posted by mediareport at 11:10 PM on November 13, 2005

I have to ask: What is it about this that is racist?

These are reasonable questions -- from observation, there hasn't been much in the way of a unified Muslim answer to the atrocities committed in its name that haven't had some undertone of blame. Which is not to say there hasn't been any at all, just that it has been somewhat muted.

I would suggest that those of you that are viewing this questioning as "racist bullshit" and attacking the person who is looking for understanding are very much part of a problem. Not this particular one, but certainly a problem.

This writer is not demonstrating bigotry -- he's demonstrating confusion at what appears to be a fundamental disconnect between the avowed philosophy of Islam and the actions of not only the most extreme of its adherents, but also the thick part of the bell curve. These are reasonable things to ask.

They are not bigotry.
posted by ChrisR at 11:11 PM on November 13, 2005

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

This is easily the stupidest of the five.
posted by wakko at 11:12 PM on November 13, 2005

I also like how the author addresses the entire Muslim world as one unified body. How fucking quaint!
posted by wakko at 11:14 PM on November 13, 2005

wakko: This is easily the stupidest of the five.

Why is that? What is it about the Palestinian nation that makes it a stupid question to ask?

I've wondered it -- I don't believe that Islam has a lock on fanatical violence (viz: Oklahoma, Ireland) so it does suggest the question, don't you think?
posted by ChrisR at 11:15 PM on November 13, 2005

there hasn't been much in the way of a unified Muslim answer

Yeah, why hasn't the Muslim Pope said anything? Or the Archmullah of Cantebury?
posted by bunglin jones at 11:17 PM on November 13, 2005

Thick part of what bell curve, Chris? Have you been conducting a survey of my Muslim neighbors? Why haven't the people at my favorite Pakistani restaurant, Tasty Curry, issued a public fatwa against Al-Zarqawi? I must view them with suspicion evermore.

Dennis Prager is dumb.
posted by johngoren at 11:18 PM on November 13, 2005

wakko nailed it why it's bigotry. It puts the guilt for all violent actions of any Muslim on the heads of the entire community and claims that they need to answer for they are guilty. This is intolerance. It is bigotry. It is also the mark of someone who probably failed a critical thinking course.
posted by xmutex at 11:19 PM on November 13, 2005

I am genuinely disappointed that none of the spleen venters seems interested in responding to the many questioners who have asked the sincere question why they feel the LA Times column was "racist" or "bigoted"...
posted by twsf at 11:19 PM on November 13, 2005

A question for us non-blacks. Why are you guys always rapping about shooting people?"

Fortunately I was not sipping my coffee while reading this.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:23 PM on November 13, 2005

Question 31.
Why don't you devote your entire existence to making insecure Christian Americans feel better? Why do you insist on taking care of your families, having fun and doing work?
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:24 PM on November 13, 2005

Maybe nobody responded because they are loaded rhetorical questions? Or maybe they already experienced this thread on LGF or Fark?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:24 PM on November 13, 2005

I'm sorry -- is that debate?

Ad hominem attacks against someone that asks questions like this do not obviate the need to have them answered. There is a lot to be said for actually responding to them, assuming that a response is possible.

I'll admit, this discussion is unlikely to go anywhere; on one side we have the knee-jerk "Anything that questions Islam is racist" folks, and on the other, well, we have actual racist folks.

And in the middle we have people like this writer, who give all indications of wanting to understand the problem, asking questions that could lead to a clearer understanding thereof, and being shouted down as bigots.

johngoren, I invite you to aggregate post-attack interviews with prominent figures in all cultures involved. Seriously. I'll admit, I don't track every news source out there, so I might have missed the magic one, but every single one I've read has followed the general trend of "Well, of course we condemn these actions, but... [insert justification here]." Again, not a complete sample, but statistically speaking, these are the voices that I'm hearing. And that he's hearing. Which is the whole gist of the article -- These people are the ones who speak out. Where are the unequivocating voices condemning these actions?
posted by ChrisR at 11:25 PM on November 13, 2005

Ok, that was five questions, not thirty. Um, blame my brain.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:26 PM on November 13, 2005

Just the facts ma'am.
posted by Joeforking at 11:29 PM on November 13, 2005

there hasn't been much in the way of a unified Muslim answer

Where have you looked?
posted by mediareport at 11:33 PM on November 13, 2005

(asking for a "unified" answer from any religion is ridiculous, of course)
posted by mediareport at 11:34 PM on November 13, 2005

mediareport, when 14 women are gunned down in a fit of mysogynistic rage, reaction is pretty close to unanimous.

When Pat Robertson says that God is punishing the USA for allowing gay marriage, condemnation is nigh universal, from the middle of the road of all religions.

In the north american culture, the middle of the political field vocally condemns the actions of the extremists among themselves. See, again, Tim McVeigh.

So why is it that this unanimity isn't visible there?

The thing is... I don't want to get into condeming Islam, here. I think the questions asked are good ones, and should be spoken out loud and discussed openly, without the assaults upon the writer just for having the temerity to ask them.

That's my main issue with the responses so far. Can't you see how insane this is?
posted by ChrisR at 11:42 PM on November 13, 2005

Some possible answers...

(1) Why are you so quiet?

Because most Muslims live in countries that are not free. Because many Muslims feel like they are under attack and don't feel like getting involved one way or the other. Because the actions of Chechan rebels or Afghan tribal leaders have little to do with Moroccans, or Indonesians or Bosniaks, religion or not. Because there is no unified Muslim voice (just like there is no unified Christian or Jewish voice).

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

Because the Palestinian Christians are unlikely to belong to Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad. Because, if as asserted, other religions are persecuted, it's unlikey using Christians to suicide bomb would be desirable.

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

Because, among other things, there was no reformation in Islam like there was in Christianity, separating church from state. Because this makes it convenient for authoritarians to rule, religious or not. Because there is no modern tradition of freedom and/or democracy. Because of past colonial misrule.

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Because there are a billion Muslims, and a select group are really into taking the Koran literally. Because some people are just crazy, like David Koresh, or Jim Jones, or the Rev. Moon. Because the governments of Muslim countries are often bullied by the religious authorities into allowing it to happen. Because of tradition and local custom, quite independent of Islam.

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Because most of those countries are crummy anyways, and persecution of other religions is probably the least vile thing that some of them do. Because the communists did it too. Because it's an effective way to suppress dissent and unify power in a central source.
posted by loquax at 11:44 PM on November 13, 2005

I am SO angry about this post..........well i will be when i click it.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:05 AM on November 14, 2005

Taken at a literal, discrete level, these aren't bigoted questions - they're only questions after all, right? But look at the article as a public work and the "neutrality" becomes very questionable indeed. If the writer really wanted those questions answered - if he really wanted those answers to be made public for the information of non-Muslims, he'd have gone to some, you know, ACTUAL FUCKING MUSLIMS, asked THEM and reported their answers. Either The Times is hoping to run a series of to-and-fro articles about Islam (possible - I have no idea what the publication's politics are) or they're happy to present a series of loaded, mildly inflammatory questions which can only add to the raft of "...and another thing" complaints that bigots rattle off when they talk about Islam. Maybe it's an old-fashioned way of thinking, but it seems to me that when journals and newspapers genuinely think that there are questions that need answering, they try to find somebody who can answer them.
That's why the questions aren't bigoted, but the way in which they're presented very well may be.
posted by bunglin jones at 12:12 AM on November 14, 2005

Didn't we have a thread a while ago about Muslim leaders issuing fatwas against violence and terrorism? I'm too lazy to look through metafilter past, but google comes up with two big instances...

U.S. Muslim Scholars Issue Edict Against Terrorism


(French) Muslim Group Issues Fatwa Against Violence
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 12:22 AM on November 14, 2005

but I don't really see bigotry there

this is pretty telling, but we kind of knew that already. anyway keep moderating the thread, it's going great.
posted by matteo at 12:27 AM on November 14, 2005

I forgot: a bit of background on the "writer". from Wikipedia:

Prager is a champion of conservative political causes and an advocate for a conservative interpretation of Judeo-Christian values. He supports the Republican party, and it is his stated belief that God intervened to make George W. Bush president.
(...)
He charges that many powerful American institutions are dominated by "the secular left" (among which he includes universities, trial lawyers, labor unions, the ACLU, and most large newspapers and television networks). These institutions, according to Prager, attack or misrepresent the greatness of the American Judeo-Christian tradition,
(...)
Prager argues for "American exceptionalism," the position that the United States is morally superior to other nations.
(...)
...Prager is an outspoken supporter of the conservative Christian movement in the US.
(...)
Prager has taken up several causes to preserve references to God and the Ten Commandments in public facilities such as schools, parks, and courthouses. In 2004, he spearheaded an unsuccessful movement to protect the official seal of the County of Los Angeles from being redesigned in such a way as to remove a small Christian cross from its imagery after the ACLU complained that the cross on the official seal implied government endorsement of religion, in violation of the US Constitution.

and loquax, his work can usually be found on WorldNetDaily. knock yourself out
posted by matteo at 12:40 AM on November 14, 2005

One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists.

While "...six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified."
posted by Mutant at 12:41 AM on November 14, 2005

Because the actions of Chechan rebels or Afghan tribal leaders have little to do with Moroccans, or Indonesians or Bosniaks, religion or not.

This is worth repeating. Iran, Iraq and Turkey are all different. Pakistan and Indonesia are different. Egypt, Libya and Qatar are different.

Asking why 'of all muslim majority countries x, why are only x-1 democratic' is a primitive question from a political theory standpoint. It's not ridiculous or bigoted, it's just simplistic. A more comprehensive analyis is required. Think economics, think history, think geography. Compare african nations to arab nations to south asian nations. Back to school for you, Sir.
posted by Firas at 12:43 AM on November 14, 2005 [1 favorite]

The bigotry and racism is there, but it's subtle (well, for Prader anyway). For example, at one point Prader says:

While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them.

You agree with his main point: "killing is bad," then go on to think "they prayed while doing it therefore their religion is bad" and "we were just trying to help!". Which results in your own personal (probably subconcious) reaction, "geez those Muslims are bad!"

Now, I don't endorse snatching 9-to-5ers and lopping off their heads, but maybe the "terrorists" don't see themselves as such, but rather feel they are ridding their land of persons whom they consider invaders. The fact that so few Muslim countries are "free" (whatever that means in his own personal dictionary) indicates that perhaps the only methods they know are what I would call guerilla tactics, not "terrorist" tactics. It's not like they can demonstrate in the streets with signs saying "Yankees go Home" and expect an "atta boy" from their own repressive regimes.

Insert comment here about how Americans invented such tactics in the Revolutionary War. And how the British probably called us "terrorists" or the 18th c. equivalent, and we called ourselves "freedom fighters" or "minute men."
posted by MiHail at 12:52 AM on November 14, 2005

Doesn't the fact that one has to "look," and then perhaps "find" "big instances" of muslims sticking their heads out against setting off bombs at weddings, etc, say something?
posted by shoos at 12:57 AM on November 14, 2005

Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities.

On June 16, 2002, 58 intellectuals and public figures took out a full-page ad in Al-Quds (a Palestinian daily) condemning suicide bombing. There have been other such noteworthy incidents (perhaps the writer should've been looking, rather than praying). But on the whole it is not an entirely illegitimate question to ask, considering the proliferation of leftist peacenik groups in Israel. I don't blame the Palestinian left, since protest and dissidence is to some extent a luxury not afforded to an occupied people, but it is a fair question to level at more affluent Arab nations who could have taken a more active role in fostering peace in the region.

As for the rest, I endorse loquax's answers more-or-less wholeheartedly.
posted by ori at 12:57 AM on November 14, 2005

leftist peacenik groups in Israel.

they might even be hippies and longhairs, as well!
posted by matteo at 1:04 AM on November 14, 2005

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

"freedom" is a middle-class luxury; historical contingencies (Ottoman Empire dominating MENA), NA itself pretty much a colonial shithole, the Islamic band in SE Asia similarly colonized and exploited; plus a billion Chinese would indicate to the thinking person that "a free country" is a tough state of affairs to attain to, requiring several independent factors to line up right for it to be achieved.

I was curious who this "Freedom House" organization is, and dug up this:

Chairman: Woolsey (arch neo-con)
Chairman Emeritus: Kampelman (CPD, hawk)
Secretary: Adelman (neo-con of "cakewalk" fame)
Kirkpatrick: old-school neocon
Quayle
Anthony Lake (Clinton NSA)
Bill Richardson (gag)

yet another Scaife-funded wank factory apparently.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:06 AM on November 14, 2005

The radio station on which this guy has his show, KRLA, has billboards up around LA that say, "Liberals might not like it."

To which I will hereafter respond, "ya think?"
posted by Uccellina at 1:13 AM on November 14, 2005

And no, I don't know why that came out all in bold.
posted by Uccellina at 1:14 AM on November 14, 2005

[Islam is] a religion that's stuck in the 15th century

This is a trait that many religions share.

To add to what others have said, this commentary is bulljive because the author is not really interested in getting answers to these questions. His intent is make sly claims without coming out and stating them baldly (when he might theoretically have to back them up with facts). Rhetorically, these questions serve the same purpose as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This article is an act of demagoguery by a known demagogue, intent on casting the blame for terrorist groups and terrorism on a religion that he doesn't like.
posted by moonbiter at 1:22 AM on November 14, 2005

Not an answer, specifically, but the government of Austria is sponsoring a conference in Vienna on relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Right now -- 14 to 16 November.

Maybe Prager could go to Vienna and do some reporting.
posted by dhartung at 1:25 AM on November 14, 2005

In short, this article is a variant of the "So how'd you come out on that morals charge?" joke as you exit the elevator.
posted by MiHail at 1:49 AM on November 14, 2005

Well, I've always looked to our talk-radio pundits for well-reasoned and well-articulated ideas.
posted by 235w103 at 2:57 AM on November 14, 2005

I choose my radio station based on how angry it'll get liberals. Take that, you leftist bastards!
posted by graventy at 3:38 AM on November 14, 2005

Hi, I'm the unified voice of Islam and I'm here to answer the five questions! bet you didn't think you'd be so lucky did you? Here it goes:

(1) Why are you so quiet?
Because we're too busy beating our wives in the privacy of our homes.

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
Because we killed them all.

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
Because it's not a Muslim country, you fool.

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Because we run out of other excuses.

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
Because we're bored.

There! That was easy! Hope you're you happy now. If you need more unexpected answers, just ask.
posted by funambulist at 4:25 AM on November 14, 2005

1. Plenty of Islamic scholars have gone on the record as saying that if you murder innocents, even in the name of jihad, you will not get you collect your 76 virgins at the take-out window. Perhaps the better question is, "Why haven't I heard about the vocal anti-violent Muslims on my favorite television or radio stations?" The answer is pretty simple: Because that would disrupt a worldview the powers that be would like to foist on you.

2. Loaded question. Why weren't any of the Irish terrorists Muslim? Why weren't any of the Palestinian terrorists Buddhist? Because there are a shitload more Muslim Palestinians, and the terrorist support structure in the region tends to recruit through religious channels.

3. Talk about begging the question. Please, oh pretty-please, define "free country."

4. Because it's a nice rally-point. Why are so many terrorist actions attributed to "al-Qaeda" when the infrastructure of the movement is decimated? Because it carries a shitload more weight to say "I killed this woman for Allah" than it does to say "I killed this woman because she broke my heart and cheated on me with my brother."

5. I dunno. Why do "free" countries persecute certain religions. Why do Muslims have a higher chance of getting illegally searched in the U.S.? Because the world's a shitty, racist place no matter where you go.

And what loquax said.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:28 AM on November 14, 2005

Oh sorry I forgot to expand a little on question 5, which is obviously the most relevant one:

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
Because we're bored. And we are horrible people. And you should kill us all already.
posted by funambulist at 4:28 AM on November 14, 2005

We should be happy people are asking questions, regardless of where they come from or the ignorance they might imply. Too often debate here starts from blustered assertions -- in this case that Islam is, has been, and always will be a violent religion (the Christopher Hitchens angle).

And if there is any group that need to learn how to start asking the right questions it's the talk show crowd. So rather than carping on the asking of the questions, why not try to answer?

And then compose five questions we non-right-wing-non-talk-show-host listeners would like answered.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 4:39 AM on November 14, 2005

Doesn't the fact that one has to "look," and then perhaps "find" "big instances" of muslims sticking their heads out against setting off bombs at weddings, etc, say something?


Yes. It says that Fox News (amongst others) is pretty rubbish at reporting events that don't tally with neocon talking points.
posted by talitha_kumi at 4:45 AM on November 14, 2005

Good job to loquax.
Usually, when I'm confronted with something as stupid as this article, I freeze up, shocked into paralysis while I try to parse the idiocy. I usually can't wrap my mind around the drivel-content AND try to understand the viewpoint and mentality of the person who wrote it. It's like trying to eat a whole elephant made of stupid. Where do I start? How do I tackle this?
It's just too much.
posted by Jon-o at 5:30 AM on November 14, 2005 [2 favorites]

It's just another volley in the civil war between fundamentalists, that's all.
posted by gimonca at 5:31 AM on November 14, 2005

As a good liberal, I have to denounce these questions as "racist" or some other vague, negative "ist." Muslims are generally the underdog, so they are above reproach. Anything they do is justified and any, ANY critique of the religion is wrong. Of course, they can't seem to stop blowing innocent people up, but that is somehow your fault, not theirs.

If you cite recent muslim-authored atrocities, it will only make me scream "TIM MCVEIGH! ERIC RUDOLPH!" with my fingers in my ears. Muslims Good/Amerikkka Bad!

I'm seriously at the end of my fucking rope. I don't know who to stand with anymore. Right wingers are greedy, dumb and superstitious; leftists are cultural relevist pussies who can only react and make shitty analogies. You all suck and I hate you. Can't you fucking see when it's wrong to take sides? It's wrong for the west to exploit people and it's wrong to respond with killing.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:40 AM on November 14, 2005

Dennis Prager is either a moron or demagogue (both?). Either way, I can't give much credence to a publication that would print this kind of drivel.
posted by blendor at 5:41 AM on November 14, 2005

One question the non-religious would like answered:

Why all this misery over ancient fairy tales?
posted by mortisimo at 5:48 AM on November 14, 2005

He also states there are no Christian terrorist groups, I guess the Crusades don't count. Too old? How about the groups that bomb abortion clinics?

This guy isn't even worth the time to comment on. Unless you share his shallow, narrow-view of the world, you can find a hundred reasons to shoot down all of his "questions".
posted by inthe80s at 5:58 AM on November 14, 2005

If it wasn't for Mayor Curley, we'd all be supporting terrorists and religious nuts! Thank you Mayor Curley for opening our eyes to this little known reality that killing is wrong. Thank you! salaam! Curley akbar!

Who needs to go read boring history books when you can reduce everything to easy talking points really.

So, next question to rack our brains on for the purpose of saving civilisation: does Islam suck or what?
posted by funambulist at 6:32 AM on November 14, 2005

No matter how much I google, I can't figure out whether Dennis Prager beats his wife or not. I guess I'll just have to assume that he does.
posted by ftrain at 6:38 AM on November 14, 2005

and loquax, his work can usually be found on WorldNetDaily. knock yourself out

Matteo: Fair enough. I didn't know anything about the guy. After reading his other stuff, it seems like he's not exactly asking these questions in good faith. It still doesn't make these questions invalid, just leading and simplistic, for the most part.
posted by loquax at 6:40 AM on November 14, 2005

George Habash, Palestinian Christian, longtime leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:47 AM on November 14, 2005

Ad hominem attacks against someone that asks questions like this do not obviate the need to have them answered. There is a lot to be said for actually responding to them, assuming that a response is possible.

ChrisR: If someone asked "How come all you black people are always rapping about shooting people? And howcome there's no Black outrage about this?" That's obviously not a serious question that needs answering.

The questions in the essay are the same. Anyway, let me try to address the questions.

1) Maybe they're not quiet, it's just that this douche just hasn't been paying attention

2) Define "Terrorist"? If the PLO is terrorist, then there are definetly Christians involved. Yasser Arifat's wife was Christian, is that 'involved'?

3) Who knows?

4) Who knows?

5) This question might actualy be making a good point.

But the rest of the questions were either unanswerable or rhetorical questions based only on the authors ignorance.


Doesn't the fact that one has to "look," and then perhaps "find" "big instances" of muslims sticking their heads out against setting off bombs at weddings, etc, say something?

Yes, it says that you can't know anything without doing at least a little research. WTF? Do you expect all the worlds Muslims to come by your doorstep and personally apologize to you? If so, why aren’t you walking around Iraq right now apologizing to every single person for Abu Gareb?
posted by delmoi at 6:48 AM on November 14, 2005

Some interesting comments and answers by a Muslim sister (I think) in response to a "Muslim in distress" in America.
posted by loquax at 6:57 AM on November 14, 2005

If I earnestly wanted answers to these questions I’d probably do some exploration into the environments - political, social, economic - that those folks were in.
As opposed to asking the “Why haven’t you stopped beating your wife?” sort of thing and y’know, publishing it.
I suspect delving into those complexities in print would prove more enlightening than a bunch of “Why didn’t you leave New Orleans if you knew a hurricane was coming?” obfuscations. Of course, that’s with the assumption that the author intends to spread information and understanding as opposed to advancing a position.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 AM on November 14, 2005

delmoi writes "ChrisR: If someone asked 'How come all you black people are always rapping about shooting people? And howcome there's no Black outrage about this?' That's obviously not a serious question that needs answering."

I don't agree that the analogy is valid. None of those questions were asking "Why are you all killers" or anything of the kind, but rather, "what are the reasonings of Muslims that allow them not to vehemently distance themselves from the perpetrators of these actions?"

As loquax says above, it's probable that the author's motives were less than stellar in asking these questions. Nonetheless, as has also been said elsewhere, at least he's asking, not telling.
posted by ChrisR at 7:09 AM on November 14, 2005

asking is telling in some cases
posted by blue_beetle at 7:36 AM on November 14, 2005

"(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians."

To amplify atchafalaya, they forgot about the non-Islamist semi-Marxist "national liberationists" like PLFP, PFLP-GC, DFLP and the infamous Black September. Look 'em up: not only are they "secular", Christians (or people of Christian background anyway) are rather prominent. Those groups were doing terrorism when the Hamasids were in diapers. Where do you think the Jihadis learned it all?
posted by davy at 7:40 AM on November 14, 2005

I think its fair to ask if Islam is a worse religion than other religions. I think its fair to look at a religion and find the things about a religion that make people who belive in that religion more inclined to behave a certain way.

Judaism isn't really a peaceful religion, Purim and Passover are pretty violent in what they celebrate, but its not an aggressive religeon because converting others has never really been an important part of Judaism because Judaism is for Jews.

Christianity's teachings are pretty peaceful but in practice it's been a violent religion because of its claim to the exclusivity of its correctness and its elevating the stakes of the game past life and death.

Hinduism's caste system is not merely a cultural idiosyncrasy but a consequence (though not a necessary one) of the idea of promotion between lives.

Religions do have effects on peoples behavior. A religion can be practiced in such a way that its effects are amplified, muted, or distorted but just because there are other factors at play I don't think its reasonable to say that religion is just an excuse for things people would do anyway. Religion is probably one of the chief motivators of violence behind economic interests but probably alongside nationalism and xenophobia. Certain religions are more likely to be violent than others.
posted by I Foody at 7:43 AM on November 14, 2005

Doesn't the fact that one has to "look," and then perhaps "find" "big instances" of muslims sticking their heads out against setting off bombs at weddings, etc, say something?

Same applies for the nonsense, until very recently, that Bush and company have been up to over the last 6 years (at least in the mainstream.)

Personally, I haven't had to look for instances, big or otherwise, of muslims "sticking their heads out" against setting off bombs anywhere. Happens frequently, as in everytime something occurs. If this bloke had any knowledge of specifically Muslim countries in the Middle East, he'd know that widespread condemnation of terrorists has been common. The terrorists staged a lot of attacks in their "own" countries for years, with the ridiculous notion that their cause would incite sympathy with the general populace to overthrow their corrupt governments. Problem was, people had little sympathy for those who regularly disrupted their lives and blew them or their relatives up, on occassion.

Not seeing this much in the States for example, says volumes about the mainstream press. However, regular documentaries aired on PBS and other public broadcast venues are more than happy to present such material.

Let's ask broad, ignorant, general questions that clearly insult the intelligence of a 12 year-old and sweep everyone in the U.S.A. under a massive umbrella. It's fun. That is is publicy published in a major U.S. newspaper is simply astounding.

1. Why are you so quiet?

Who are "you?" This sort of question begs a counter response in the vein of why are you so hyprocritical? Here are a list of our concerns, which may be an explanation for why their are terrorists but giving an explanation doesn't mean we endorse or justify terrorist behaviour. Think of people who steal food. Some of the do it because, gasp, they're starving. Indeed, our responses open up a dialog about root causes. Well actually, they never do since you ignore them. Instead, you'd just like to keep everything status quo, which will do nothing to eliminate this problem.

Furthermore, why have you engaged in a war that has conveniently worked to create more terrorists? Why do you deny that this is the case? How far divorced are you from reality? Why can you weild weapons and we can't?

2. Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

Why aren't the Irish terrorists Scientoligists? Oh wait, there isn't a massive history in the region that pits the British protestants against scientoligists. You simply must be entirely and completely unfamiliar with common elements in conflict, of which religious tension and territorial disputes often play a large part, the world over. Please attend some history courses and perhaps a critical thinking course.

3. Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

What do you mean by free? Is it simply elected officials? Is there a large Muslim population in communist countries like China, Cuba, or many other dictatorships in South America? Are you implying that Islam is incompatible with democracy? What about all these other non-democratic states where say Christianity is the main religion amongst the people? What about the fact that the U.S. democracy was established upon the separation of church and state? What about the history of your and other western democracies imperialist and selfish presence in the Middle East, not to mention Africa and other areas. Are you entirely unfamiliar with history? Must be. Again, go to school.

4. Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Because throughout history, the present day, and no doubt the future, atrocities have been consistently committed in the name of noble causes or religion. Again, try to familiarize yourself, at least in passing, with history. Your ignorance is astounding. It's wonderful that you're willing to show your ignornance and perhaps, rid yourself of it. However, many of us a very surprised that a supposed professional gets child-level questions in article published by a major, supposedly reasonable and mature, U.S. news outlet. How did this occur? Is this a sign that the public education system in the United States is indeed, very, very poor?

5. Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Oh my. Let's see. Because countries that do not separate religion from the state often follow the sentiment that their religion is the one true religion and tend to view others as outsiders at best or abominations at worse. My lord, you really need to get yourself education. Why do other countries that are not "Muslim" persecute other religions? Why do Christians in the U.S. denounce gays in the U.S? Etc.

This bloke may not be insidious and underhanded, but he is clearly extremely ignorant and doesn't realize it. How did the editors of this publication fail to see that?

As a non-Muslim, I don't want to know the answers to any of these questions. Of course, asking questions is one of the best ways to eliminate our lack of knowledge. However, I don't believe these questions were asked to do that since the answers are so obvious to anyone with a decent education and knowledge of history and culture. We can only assume this bloke has neither. Let's see if there is follow-up to this grade-school level dialog.
posted by juiceCake at 7:44 AM on November 14, 2005

ChrisR: So, you'd prefer "How come you black people aren't constantly denouncing violence in rap?"

Do you really not get why these are loaded questions? I mean, Loquax, usually on the more conservative side of MeFi (as right as Canada lets him get), gave a pretty decent summary. I might quibble with it here or there, but it's both reasonable and pretty fucking common knowledge. To argue from ignorance, as Prader's doing, is dishonest and that's what raised hackles. (Leaving alone that another one of the articles of his that was linked to, where he talks about the similarities between homos and terrorists, invokes Tocqueville in a way that makes me very doubtful Prader has read him. While Tocqueville believes that the US is a unique combination of Puritans and Enlightenment, he doesn't necessarily think that this is good and warns against a mental tyranny enforced through society if religion is allowed to gain the upper hand. Tocqueville's prescription for America requires a high level of internal tension between religion and society, and equality and aristrocracy.)

Mayor Curley: Watch out, the straw man is getting away! Hit him again! Hit him again!
posted by klangklangston at 7:46 AM on November 14, 2005

Mein Gott, dhoyt/jenleigh/etc has been banned (albeit without public notice for some strange reason) and we're still getting this crap? "Blacks: why are you such thugs!" "Jews: What's up with the usury and the world domination!" The "questions" in the linked article are so stupid and asked in such bad faith that I'm impressed people have been able to take them seriously enough to answer; I was bracing myself to take on the stupidest (Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?), but fortunately atchafalaya and davy saved me the trouble.

This isn't about "political correctness," this is about blind bigotry and ignorance. And yes, I think we can all agree suicide bombers are bad. Shall we move on to a more promising subject, like mushrooms?
posted by languagehat at 7:54 AM on November 14, 2005

Meh, I think this is a bad post since it is a single link op/ed piece. The idea could have been presented in more balanced way that could have created a better discussion. As it is, it does smack of the "why do you beat your wives?" kind of question that doesn't begin a very fruitful discussion because the well is poisoned by the framing--although loquax, as he consistently does, did an admirable job of trying to bring forth a measured dialogue.

I don't find it suprising in the least to see people condemn this article as somehow racist, wrong, etc. while the "Are Chrisitians evil?" thread from a few days back was not condemned by the same people. I would hope that people could see they are both poor sources for discussion as any dialogue is stillborn do to the source.

That being said, I just wanted to say that Mayor Curley made this thread:

As a good liberal, I have to denounce these questions as "racist" or some other vague, negative "ist." Muslims are generally the underdog, so they are above reproach. Anything they do is justified and any, ANY critique of the religion is wrong. Of course, they can't seem to stop blowing innocent people up, but that is somehow your fault, not theirs.

If you cite recent muslim-authored atrocities, it will only make me scream "TIM MCVEIGH! ERIC RUDOLPH!" with my fingers in my ears. Muslims Good/Amerikkka Bad!

I'm seriously at the end of my fucking rope. I don't know who to stand with anymore. Right wingers are greedy, dumb and superstitious; leftists are cultural relevist pussies who can only react and make shitty analogies. You all suck and I hate you. Can't you fucking see when it's wrong to take sides? It's wrong for the west to exploit people and it's wrong to respond with killing.
posted by dios at 7:56 AM on November 14, 2005

What languagehat said, because it was better than mine.
posted by dios at 7:57 AM on November 14, 2005

dhoyt/jenleigh/etc has been banned (albeit without public notice for some strange reason)

I missed this on first read......

WHAT? More info please! I hadn't heard this or seen this. Any links to provide background?
posted by dios at 7:59 AM on November 14, 2005

Part of the problem in understanding is this:

For the extremists' justification purposes the worlds billion Muslims are one people.

For any other purpose, such as explaining what the mainstream thinks, they are not.

So, while someone is speaking for the extremists, no one speaks for the mainstream and the mainstream barely feel a need to explain the extremist since they so obviously (to themselves) don't condone their specific actions.

And, the moderate majority clergy themselves find it difficult to back away from it all because the overall situation just simply supports their basic world view of Muslim good, everyone else bad - with the bad predictably reaping what they sow: bad. In other words, in big picture terms, what more can be said about it really?
posted by scheptech at 8:03 AM on November 14, 2005

posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:17 AM on November 14, 2005

When did the Muslim community get together and for some grand unified entity? I must have missed that.

When did the poor French kids rioting in France suddenly become Muslim rioters? (They can't just be poor and french, they are coloured after all. And their parents probably go to Mosques. The horror.)

Do we really need to LGF stuff posted here? It'd be nice if it wasn't. This guy sounds as ignorant as some of the people in this thread. Get your heads out of your asses. Or don't.

Fear the Mosolem! Fear the Mohammedean. Fear them! They hate your freedom. Or something.

Fuck.
posted by chunking express at 8:27 AM on November 14, 2005

Do we really need to LGF stuff posted here?

I agree. How about we ban Kos stuff, too? Same shit; different end point.
posted by dios at 8:31 AM on November 14, 2005

Here is another stupid thread I stumbled upon recently at 37signals of all places. LGF is really speading its wings or something. Is the mainstream opinion in the US so biggoted? Islam is the new Communism.
posted by chunking express at 8:32 AM on November 14, 2005

Dios, I agree. I hate to see stupid shit from KoS as well. This isn't a well thought article. It's ignorant. As others have mentioned you could make a similiar set of loaded questions about any other group or demographic.

(Oh and I meant to link to this: France at Night. My bad.)
posted by chunking express at 8:33 AM on November 14, 2005

Dios, have you read the fascist, racist (and scary) stuff posted to LGF?
posted by drstrangelove at 8:34 AM on November 14, 2005

funambulist

If it wasn't for Mayor Curley, we'd all be supporting terrorists and religious nuts! Thank you Mayor Curley for opening our eyes to this little known reality that killing is wrong. Thank you! salaam! Curley akbar!

So, I'm being simplistic, but if you had to pick a side it's with the non-western killers instead of the western ones?

klangklangston

Mayor Curley: Watch out, the straw man is getting away! Hit him again! Hit him again!

Pretty vague, but this is Metafilter and you used the term "straw man." So you must feel that you showed me real good.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:35 AM on November 14, 2005

So that coverage of people marching in Jordan that I saw, where they were protesting the hotel bombings that happened in Amman last week... those weren't Muslims? I could have sworn that Jordan has a Muslim majority and that the people marching were against blowing things up, or at least wanted answers as to why such a thing happened.
posted by mikeh at 8:44 AM on November 14, 2005

I think that this Prager guy is being unproductively inflammatory, but there should also be some accountability on the part of Muslims who are, in fact, peaceful. However I think that looking for denouncements in US media is ridiculous because we are not a country with a Muslim majority and the few groups that issue statements are likely to get drowned out in media coverage. There are at least ten times as many Pragers near me as there are peaceful Muslims. If he wants to see people who are shocked and angry about these attacks, maybe he should watch al Jazeera.

I also think that acting the hero in MeFi threads by rushing in after a hundred comments of partisan sniping and declaring both sides useless is getting almost as old as the partisan sniping.
posted by mikeh at 8:56 AM on November 14, 2005

Curley, anarchism awaits you. We don't like either "side"!

And I Foody, the Indian caste system is the consequence (though not a necessary one) of milennia of foreign conquest and/or class oppression. Calling it "Hindu" obfuscates as much as it explains: it's like saying witch-hunting and fag-hating are the consequences (though not necessary ones) of "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior". (Right, LH?)
posted by davy at 9:13 AM on November 14, 2005

Right, davy!
posted by languagehat at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2005

"Judaism isn't really a peaceful religion, Purim and Passover are pretty violent in what they celebrate"

Remember those news clips of Palestinians dancing in the streets when their enemy got smote by Scuds? I await enlightenment as to the fundamental moral differences herein.

Mind you I'd think something was missing in a Holocaust survivor who wasn't at least tempted to dance a gleeful jig hearing what "revenge" the Red Army wreaked on the Germans and their friends as they "liberated" eastern Europe, but I'd be a bit icked out if someone tried to say that kind of schaudenfreude was a Good Thing morally speaking. "Morale" and "morality", like "human" and "humane", parted ways quite a while ago, as I'm sure languagehat could explain.
posted by davy at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2005

One crucial difference between Muslims and the west is that Christianity didn't inherit the mantle of government until after Constantine. Muhammad governed in his lifetime. So Muslims tend to look back six hundred years to what they see as an ideal form of religious government. I think that underlines one part of the problem we may have with getting the Islamic world to see western-style democracy as the solution. It's not their historical ideal.
posted by atchafalaya at 9:23 AM on November 14, 2005

Neat! The attacks ad hominem are fast and furious. I'm sure that this is basically bigots calling other people bigots, because let's face it, ad hominem attackers are bigots. They are "persons obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices". In this case, they are bigoted about asking poorly structured questions about cultural differences. Also, throw in some "antibigot bigotry" which is also fun.

Whenever anyone asks a question and people start shooting their mouths off about who asked what, why, and what kind of person asks a question like that, and then mention bigotry, pretty much those jokers (many appear here) are the poster persons for bigotry. Sweet.

I think the answer, by the way, was identified by the League of Arab Nations. The problem is a lack of education. Education promotes free speech, promotes non-violent problem solving, promotes tolerance, promotes equality, promotes peace.
posted by ewkpates at 9:27 AM on November 14, 2005

Somebody said something about rap?
posted by loquax at 9:42 AM on November 14, 2005

Dear christians - why shouldn't I kick your fucking teeth out of your head?
posted by 2sheets at 9:51 AM on November 14, 2005

Thanks for the Slate link, xauqol.
posted by yerfatma at 9:56 AM on November 14, 2005

Dear christians - why shouldn't I kick your fucking teeth out of your head?

Oh dear me: discourse in the 21st century is so edgy.
posted by yerfatma at 9:56 AM on November 14, 2005

I think it should be uaxloq, mayerfat.
posted by loquax at 10:04 AM on November 14, 2005

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

As atchafalaya and davy have pointed out, this is just wrong. It wasn't until the last couple of decades that Hamas and other Islamist groups have become dominant in Palestinian politics; one reason they weren't so important before is that a number of prominent Palestinian leaders were Christian. George Habash (Greek Orthodox) is probably the most well-known. From Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Habash was forced to flee Palestine in 1948, after the State of Israel was established there, and earned a medical degree at the American University in Beirut, Lebanon. In the early 1950s he was active in the “Youth of Vengeance” group, which advocated violent attacks on traditional Arab governments. Habash founded the militant PFLP after his goal to liberate Palestine through Arab unity proved unrealistic following the Arab defeat by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. Under the leadership of Habash, the PFLP staged several airplane hijackings, including the abduction of three Western passenger jets to a Jordanian airstrip in September 1970. These activities destabilized the Jordanian monarchy and triggered King Hussein's crackdown on Palestinian guerrillas operating in Jordan. A bloody civil war followed, in which the PFLP and other guerrillas were driven from the country.
posted by russilwvong at 10:09 AM on November 14, 2005

Then too, "the other side" had their own terrorists too, who did their own "9/11" analog.
posted by davy at 12:55 PM on November 14, 2005

So, I'm being simplistic, but if you had to pick a side it's with the non-western killers instead of the western ones?

But of course! that's exactly what I meant, Mayor Curley, I'm so glad you are so perceptive! well done!

And yes, I'll always pick the Killers, cos at least they don't suck as much as the Bravery. Oh am I not so witty.

There, you want intelligent discourse based on such intelligent premises and brilliantly defined alternatives, you got it.
posted by funambulist at 12:55 PM on November 14, 2005

MALI!



Wild to live in landlocked country with just a single river. Twice the size of Texas with half the population. CIA says:

Mali is among the poorest countries in the world, with 65% of its land area desert or semidesert and with a highly unequal distribution of income. Economic activity is largely confined to the riverine area irrigated by the Niger. About 10% of the population is nomadic and some 80% of the labor force is engaged in farming and fishing. ... $900 per-capita GDP ... Poverty rate: 64% average; 30% of the total population living in urban areas; 70% of the total population living in rural areas)

But they're FREE!
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:00 PM on November 14, 2005

Q. How come all your leaders and fundementalists are utter nutjobs?

A. Which side are we talking about again?
posted by Sparx at 1:01 PM on November 14, 2005

I would say that witch burning and fag hating are ,to a certain extent, consequences of christianity the idea of burning the witch to save the soul presupposes that there is something more horrible than being burned alive that the soul needs saving from, lots of religions don't have that concept in them. The fag hating is pretty explicit in leviticus what with calling for death. Homosexuality isn't a universal taboo.

Maybe I totally failed to make my point about Judaism because you certainly missed the point I was trying to make. Religions contain specific stories and ideas and a overriding cosmology. Judaism has very violent stories but in spite of this it isn't an aggressive religion because it has a cosmology that's pretty compatible with people believing other things. So that well christianity has non violent stories (turn the other cheek) it has a cosmology that is conducive to violence where Judaism has comparably violent stories but it isn't nearly as conducive to violence.

Maybe your right about Hinduism, I really don't know but it still makes sense to me and there are shit loads of peoples that were occupied for a really long time and they don't have a caste system, so I don't see how that's a better explanation for a caste system.
posted by I Foody at 1:36 PM on November 14, 2005

"So, I'm being simplistic, but if you had to pick a side it's with the non-western killers instead of the western ones?"

So... if you had to endorse torture, it'd be CIA-sponsored torture?
But wait, you'e Mayor Curley and this is Metafilter, so you think that your loaded questions are worth responding to?
posted by klangklangston at 1:53 PM on November 14, 2005

Venturing answers:

1. Apart from the fact that Muslim world is as diverse and heterogenous as the Christian world, and countless Muslims have protested and condemned acts of violence in the name of Islam, another reason is that many among us consider 'terrorism' (which includes suicide bombing), a legitimate response to domination and oppression by more militarily-sophisticated forces. Suicide bombing in Israel will end the day Israel allows Palestinians to establish a conventional army. We reject the spurious, self-serving and new-fangled distinction between warfare by an army and warfare by 'unlawful' combatants. For if we did not, we would have sat back and never become independent states. And frankly, had 18th century Americans done the same, nor would the United States today be independent. Terror, like much else, is in the eye of the beholder. For an Israeli, terror may result from a bombing on a bus, while for a Palestinian terror may result from an Israeli tank bombing a home in the Occupied territories.

2. There are Christian Palestinians who have been labelled terrorists, so the question (as mentioned above) is bullshit. However, if the question is why are so few Christians suicide bombers, the answer is that the groups promoting suicide bombing have declared that they wish to establish an Islamic state, and have alienated Palestinian Christians. It is possible (and likely) that they simply recruit amongst their own, and not because, as is insinuated, that there is something inherently 'Islamic' and, thereby, 'unChristian', about suicide bombing. Much has been written about this. The Tamil Tigers are a good example, as were Christian Crusaders.

3. I took a look at Freedom House's 2005 list, and saw one other Muslim majority country listed as 'Free'. The other one is Senegal. This further demonstrates the author's bad faith. I also question why a country like Bangladesh is not dubbed 'Free'. What repression goes on there that does not occur in India, its neighbor, that is deemed free. To answer the question, though, one major reason that these countries are not free (esp. the ones in the Middle East), is that they have regimes propped up mainly by Washington, D.C. Also, can the author name one 'Confucian' country that is 'Free'? Does that mean that Confucianism and Freedom are incompatible? I could go on, but enough has been said in response to this insinuation already.

4. Ask those who commit those atrocities, not the readers of the L.A. Times. I suspect, though, that those who justify any form of violence in the name of religion do it to grant themselves legitimacy. Islam allows (as do the other monotheistic faiths) violence in the interest of self-defense. Many of those accused of committing atrocities, view themselves as merely responding to atrocities committed against them.

5. Because they are autocratic. The commonality between states engaging in religious persecution is that they tend be autocratic (the former Communist nations, the PRC, and so forth), not that they are religious. However, I'd like this author to define religious persecution. To my mind, the fact that Mormons or Muslims (for that matter) cannot engage in polygamous marriages is a form of persecution. So is the fact that Native Americans cannot smoke peyote. That French students cannot wear ostentatiously religious symbols to school could also be construed as persecution. Those are restrictions on the freedom to practice one's religion--analagous to the example given by the author in reference to Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the Organization of Islamic Countries website has a link to a report about the persecution of Muslims in Europe. One could read that assertion and conclude that Christians are anti-Muslim or Muslim-persecuting zealots. Need I also mention the Holocaust? European laws against Jews practicing any trade other than usury? Jews being kept out of most corporate firms in New York, until a few decades ago? Women too?

It strikes me as so strange that Americans don't know their own history. The Civil Rights movement is very recent. It is just beginning in France. However, the 'West' has an attitude of moral superiority as though it has a monopoly on freedom. All Muslim countries are very young nations. Give them 200 years too, and maybe they'll grant women the right to vote and be more secular-humanist in nature.
posted by Azaadistani at 2:27 PM on November 14, 2005

In regards to free countries, I'd argue this. The U.S. in its post-colonial politics has tended to prioritize favorable trade and military relationships over local freedoms. This is where I think Christopher Hitchens really looses touch with reality in his support of a militaristic crusade for democracy in the Middle East, run by the same people who were so successful at bringing democracy to Latin America.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:07 PM on November 14, 2005

So... if you had to endorse torture, it'd be CIA-sponsored torture?

No, I simply refuse to endorse torture. But you're a thinly veiled apologist for one type of violence-- you don't want any discussion that might lead to the conclusion that it's bad.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:16 PM on November 14, 2005

One thing, KirkJob, we're talking about a relatively short period of time for a group of countries which did not see much development for a substantial period of time...

Let's check back in on development and freedom and economy in the Middle East in about 50 years. I would imagine that the levantine and N. African states, at least, will have come a very long way in that period. The oil-rich states may actually have more problems because of their economic depdency on a single source.
posted by cell divide at 3:19 PM on November 14, 2005

Mayor, now, seriously, in all honesty, do you really think everyone who finds this LA article a joke is not really clued in to the violence of terrorism?

Bit of a voice in the wilderness complex, no?
posted by funambulist at 5:01 PM on November 14, 2005

I still want to know if Prager still believes the crap he wrote in the first link which I posted. Was that just for the election, or from the heart?
posted by homunculus at 7:03 PM on November 14, 2005

Well, you know, it doesn't do to totally dismiss those questions as recationary drivel. Because you have to be right-on to the point of being completely blinkered not to notice that Islam sucks humungous quantities of rancid excrement. Islamic societies really are pretty oppressive. Islam really is thoroughly sexist and illiberal. Islam really is a pile of rank, ignorant peasant nonsense. The Koran reall is a shocking shower of gibbering ass gravy.

But in the interests of fairness I do feel we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism are too.
posted by Decani at 7:07 PM on November 14, 2005 [1 favorite]

Why aren't there more Palestinian suicide bombers? Was that the question? Probably because the Palestinian Christians have so few members to spare.

If they're on it, they could use Mr. Prager's column to call attention to their plight.
posted by judlew at 7:17 PM on November 14, 2005

The Civil Rights movement is very recent. It is just beginning in France.

What do you mean by that? Did you never hear of the French Revolution?
posted by Summer at 6:48 AM on November 15, 2005

Why are these questions "reactionary drivel" from a "bigot"?

To me, it's because of how the q's are framed. The author is very passive/aggressively sitting back and demanding that "peacable Muslims" explain it all. The way I see it, no one owes anyone an explanation. If the author of that article really wants answers, he (she?) can go to the damn library or Muslim community center or wherever and find them himself.
posted by scratch at 6:58 AM on November 15, 2005

Thanks, Azaadistani.

However, the 'West' has an attitude of moral superiority as though it has a monopoly on freedom.

The tradition of individual freedom in the West does go back a long way, actually; see the Greco-Persian Wars. Herodotus contrasts the Greek armies (comprised of individuals) with the Persian armies (comprised of the subjects of the Persian emperor).
posted by russilwvong at 12:06 PM on November 15, 2005

Why specialize to Islam? Much of the "point" of any successful religion is to make it easy to kill people, as those were the religions which survived. Believers, even the nice ones, suck for propogating such a tool for killing people.

Chinese religions like buddism are a special case due to a far longer time being civilized.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:17 PM on November 15, 2005

Much of the "point" of any successful religion is to make it easy to kill people, as those were the religions which survived.

Please.
posted by loquax at 1:48 PM on November 15, 2005

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

There are several explanations for this (some of them placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the hapless populace of Muslim nations), but one major reason is that the West has put a lot of money and effort into thwarting democracies in Muslim countries (particularly the oil rich nations of of the Middle East) by supporting dictatorships that tow the line, and using covert means to overthrow democratically elected governments that put the welfare of their own people above the interests of the West (see CIA operations in Iran during Mossadegh's administration).

This guy should write a questionaire asking the (Christian) American public to answer for all of their gov't's brutal acts throughout the 20th century
posted by Devils Slide at 2:01 PM on November 15, 2005

The tradition of individual freedom in the West does go back a long way, actually; see the Greco-Persian Wars. Herodotus contrasts the Greek armies (comprised of individuals) with the Persian armies (comprised of the subjects of the Persian emperor).

Dude, Herodotus was a Greek. Not exactly an objective viewpoint. We're only beginning to come to terms with the systematic bias introduced into our understanding of ancient Persia by the fact that we've relied on Greek sources from the beginning. I was just reading a review of a new book on exactly that subject; if I find it again, I'll cite it here. In the meantime, I'll remind you that the Greek passion for freedom began and ended with themselves (much like that of the Puritans who came to the New World so they could oppress others instead of being oppressed)—their whole economy was based on slavery, and they had no compunction about oppressing, enslaving, and killing foreigners. If you're talking about free male Greeks with enough property to vote, yeah, life wasn't too bad. But the same was probably true of Persians.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on November 15, 2005

languagehat to the rescue once again!

One of my SN's is "Otanes" -- a Persian general of the Aechemenid period -- who was probably the first to advocate democracy for Iran (at least according to Herodotus). Much later, Mani became the world's first socialist or communist ideologist, but that's a different story. The following passage shows that Greek historians such as Herodotus were indeed fallible (also note the use of the "th" sound in old Persian, as you pointed out):

"Otanes (Old Persian Utâna): Persian nobleman, one of the seven conspirators who killed the Magian usurper Gaumâta and helped Darius I the Great become king (29 September 522 BCE). Several years later, he added the Greek island Samos to the Achaemenid empire.
In March 522, a Magian named Gaumâta seized power in the Achaemenid empire, claiming to be the brother of the legitimate king Cambyses, Smerdis. Gaumâta could do this, because Smerdis had been killed secretly. Immediately, Cambyses advanced to the usurper, but he died before he reached Persia; the false Smerdis was able to rule for several months.

According to the Greek researcher Herodotus, Otanes, the brother of the mother of Cambyses and the real Smerdis, was the first to become suspicious of the false Smerdis. From his daughter Phaedymia, who was married to the king, he learned that Smerdis was in reality a Magian. On hearing this news, Otanes invited Aspathines and Gobryas to discuss the usurpation. Together, they decided to invite three other conspirators: Hydarnes, Intaphrenes and Megabyzus. They were still making plans, when Darius arrived and sided with them. He convinced the seven to strike immediately and not to wait, as Otanes had proposed. On 29 September 522 BCE, the seven killed the false Smerdis.

That Otanes was involved in the killing of Gaumâta is confirmed by another source, the Behistun inscription. This inscription also tells us the name of Otanes' father, which was Thukhra. Herodotus is mistaken when he calls him Pharnaspes, but is is possible to rescue him by accepting the hypothesis that Thukra was a nickname ('redhead').

Herodotus tells us that after the murder, the seven men discussed the future constitution of Persia. Otanes said that Persia ought to be a democracy; Megabyzus argued for an oligarchy and Darius said that monarchy was the best kind of rule. The other four noblemen sided with him, and Darius became king. Herodotus stresses that this discussion really took place. Probably, he has misunderstood a debate about the future of Persia: was it to be a centralized monarchy (which it became) or was it to be a loosely organized federation (as it had been)?

When it was decided that Persia was to be a monarchy and Darius was to be its king, Otanes choose to stay aloof of it and receive special rights:

To this day, the family of Otanes continues to be the only free family in Persia, and submits to the king only so far as the members of it may choose. They are bound, however, to observe the law like anyone else.
[Herodotus, Histories 3.83]
That is, at least, Herodotus' story. But there may be more than meets the eye..."
posted by Devils Slide at 4:32 PM on November 15, 2005

Rebuttal by Juan Cole.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:50 PM on November 15, 2005

Dude, Herodotus was a Greek. Not exactly an objective viewpoint. We're only beginning to come to terms with the systematic bias introduced into our understanding of ancient Persia by the fact that we've relied on Greek sources from the beginning. I was just reading a review of a new book on exactly that subject; if I find it again, I'll cite it here.

That'd be great. I didn't realize that our understanding of ancient Persia was so heavily dependent on Greek sources. Surely there were Persian historians?

In the meantime, I'll remind you that the Greek passion for freedom began and ended with themselves...—their whole economy was based on slavery, and they had no compunction about oppressing, enslaving, and killing foreigners.

Of course. I wouldn't praise them for their observance of human rights. But as far as I know, autocracy was the norm in the ancient world, and Greece was a major exception. (Not that I'm an expert on ancient history; this is just a layman's view.)

Here's the story of Otanes, Megabyzus, and Darius, as recounted by Herodotus.
posted by russilwvong at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2005

There are several explanations for this (some of them placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the hapless populace of Muslim nations), but one major reason is that the West has put a lot of money and effort into thwarting democracies in Muslim countries (particularly the oil rich nations of the Middle East) by supporting dictatorships that toe the line, and using covert means to overthrow democratically elected governments that put the welfare of their own people above the interests of the West (see CIA operations in Iran during Mossadegh's administration).

Agreed, but I'd like to point out that covert operations can only overthrow a government if there's already strong support within the society for its overthrow. The US could overthrow Mossadegh, because there were a lot of people opposed to him already; but they couldn't overthrow Khomeini. See Zachary Karabell's Architects of Intervention for some discussion of this.

It also seems to me that there's something wrong with Prager's question: it's assuming that all countries should be free, and if a country isn't free, there's something wrong with its people. I don't think that's the case at all. To me, good government and democracy are two different things: it's possible to have a democratically elected government which governs badly (India's democracy is inspiring in many ways, but it's got a lot of problems), and it's possible to have an autocracy which provides good government (e.g. Singapore). Also, autocracy is the historic norm. Modern democracy is more like a 200-year-old experiment.
posted by russilwvong at 12:52 PM on November 16, 2005

Surely there were Persian historians?

Nope, there weren't any historians anywhere. The Greeks invented what we think of as history (from the same Greek word as story), which not only got them revered for their genius, it enabled them to impose their perspective on the future. We have to deduce things about other people from archeology and the like, which while more objective isn't nearly as satisfactory to our story-loving brains. We'd rather have a good story than a hard fact any day.
posted by languagehat at 3:08 PM on November 16, 2005

Nope, there weren't any historians anywhere.

Huh. Not even ancient China? I did a quick search and found Sima Qian. Another search and I found the Records of Ardashir. Of course these may not qualify as what we think of as history (e.g. assessing facts, excluding myths and legends).
posted by russilwvong at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2005

Sima Qian (aka Ssu-ma Ch'ien) was a great historian; he was also centuries after Herodotus. The Records of Ardashir are even later. I thought it was clear that I meant there weren't any other historians at that time.
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on November 17, 2005

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your original comment; I thought that you meant there weren't any historians outside Greece in ancient times (i.e. prior to the medieval period). So there were historians (or at least some form of historical records) in ancient Persia, just not as far back as the Greco-Persian wars.

Looking at the Internet Ancient History Sourcebook page for Persia, all the sources for the Achaemenid period appear to be Greek.

Guess we've gotten quite a bit off the original topic, but it's been illuminating for me. Thanks for setting me straight!
posted by russilwvong at 9:33 AM on November 17, 2005

Hey, this was much more fun and enlightening than the original topic!
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on November 17, 2005