Letters to the Editor
-
Difference Without a Distinction
Let's see now: "Islamic terrorist" and "Islamic fascist" are incorrect terms, for both grammatical and discriminatory reasons. But isn't "Islamic," in fact, an adjective? That is, "Islamic" modifies the nouns "terrorist" and "fascist," by distinguishing a variety of terrorist and fascist from other varieties? And this construction is somehow grammatically inaccurate? To see how this adjective tars all "Muslims" (a noun) as terrorists is actively to be looking for insult when an objective description is meant.
These terms came into use when commentators were struggling to describe a new, pan-national variety of terrorism with Islam as its common thread. I've never interpreted either phrase as a slam against all Muslims, only the asshole Muslims that practice terrorism and fascism. (Make no mistake, some Muslims do promote fascism, in the sense of believing a certain identity is superior to other identities, which should be stamped out.) Muslims who commit terrorism themselves claim to be doing it in the name of Islam -- they are self-identifying as Islamic terrorists.
In fact, contrary to the confused professor's rant, the term "Jewish Terrorist" was widely used to refer to Jewish settlers who adopted terrorist tactics to attack British installations in pre-Israel Palestine.
What about "Islamofascism," a coinage often associated with Christopher Hitchens? Would that be okay with the dim(me) professor? Must be, because he calls Daniel Pipes an "Islamophobe" in the article. Or is Pipes more properly a "Muslim phobe," i.e., one who fears Muslims? Please, Professor Cole, enlighten us as to the proper grammatical construction here.
How did this man get tenure, and why does Salon keep posting his dumbass (or is it dumbassed?) opinions?
-
To-may-to, to-mah-to
No worries, Tina :) I get called Nauman all the time, too…
A couple of points:
1. You write : “I would replace ‘moderate Muslim’ with ‘Third generation, secularized, usually elite, culturally-identified-only Muslims’. Unweildy, but more accurate.” I think that may be painting me and those like me with too broad a brush. I’m first generation (born in Pakistan, moved to the U.S. when I was a child), more pluralistic than secular (in that I believe that the essential universal ethics of all the great spiritual traditions should inform our society), hardly elite (a student and working stiff like most), and not only culturally-identified as Muslim, as I do believe in the message of Islam and I pray, fast, give zakat, etc. Believe it or not, one can be Muslim and not buy into the absolutist interpretation of Islam put forth by Wahhabis and their ilk. If you read Islamic history, you’ll see that conflict between the Mutazilites and the ‘Ashirites in the 8th century C.E. framed the debate about the nature of the Qur’an and how it should be interpreted. This debate still rages on.
2. Your point is well-taken that average Muslim in the Mid East or Africa or Asia is so mired in poverty, illiteracy, and anti-Western propaganda, that he/she easily falls prey to the more absolutist Wahhabi mindset (especially since the Saudis fund so many of these Wahhabi groups, schools, and charities around the Muslim world). It is incumbent on the Western and Eastern Muslims of means who espouse a more pluralistic and loving interpretation of Islam to roll up our sleeves and address the bread and butter concerns of the poor majority in order to get our message heard. It doesn’t help that most Muslim countries that are not decadent monarchies are run by dictators who suppress democratic movements (Mubarak, Musharraf, etc.) and manipulate the extremists to direct their anger at the ‘West’ instead of at their own corrupt governments.
-
Juan Cole misleads you
Juan builds a flimsy argument depicting Republicans as bigots.
Rather than swallow juan's view, read what Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Asst. Attorney General Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. had to say about race, religion, and American principles.
The statements were made two days after 911, when everyone was still angry, sad, confused, or scared.
The statements made by these men defy juan's fairy tale.
By the way, they are Republicans.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/dojstatements.html
juan's full of it.
-
For those of you who do not get how stupid IslamoFascist is
Why don't you try on JudeoNazism for size?
If you are ok with the word IslamoFascist, then you should have no problem with the word JudeoNazism.
Nothing offensive here to either side, right?
Some might argue even that one term is more accurate than the other based on historical and behavioral/political grounds.
Using perjorative terms designed to insult and disparage another group of people so we can justify killing them and taking their stuff just shows how far we have advanced as a species.
-
@ tina schrier
Yellow Dog got a star?
For what? For not knowing squat? There are lots of poor Hindus in the world, but where is their anti-Western rhetoric?
Surely you've read about how India became an independent country and the man responsible for that independence.
There are Christian Arabs (a few). Why have they been totally absent from the Jihad against the West?
It's a good question, but if you look at the historical motivations for the current "jihad against the west," it's Saudi Arabia letting US troops in for the first Gulf War, and Israel. Christians are not really parties to either of these conflicts.
-
Naufal
you are correct and like you say you have an uphill battle in your communities because of political repression if nothing else.
However, in my critique to Lexsali I presented a concern that some Muslims were presenting one face to angry Westereners, but another in their community which was not nearly so critical.
Do you think anti-Muslim bigotry from outsiders plays some role in ensuring that Muslims in the U.S. bury their differences for the sake of self-preservation? Or is this an inevitable manifestation of the concept of Ummah? Do you think this is a good thing?
If either is the case how do moderates or reformers make their case without seeming like traitors?
These are good faith questions, really. Americans of course are never going to be attacked and overcome by Islamic fundies, so that shouldn't be a fear. But we can see already the implications within the Muslim community; Sufi beliefs and traditions getting trampled by Wahabis or Deobandis being but one famous example.
Just wondering how moderates envision reform taking place--if they are really envisioning it how do they bring it about?
Because right now, really, I almost feel like it's a publicity or talking point, for all the reform you see in the masajids. Most moderates seem to express their moderation by simply staying away (you don't; is this common where you live?).
I think that's leaving the field open to the fundies, but that's just my opinion.
Really these are good faith questions