The New Republic

Another terrible title. There was nothing really about Hasan (thankfully) in your posting. I got no beef with you commenting on what Obama said yesterday, but don't act so surprised when he repeats the oft quoted assertion that the purpose of the major religions is not to kill ones fellow man. Here in my area of Oaxaca there was an influx of Arabs in the late 1800's early 1900's. I have no idea if they were Christian or Muslim, nor do I quite no what happened to them (I am sure some left and some assimilated). I have a number of students with Arabic names, like Abjuljamith, etc. At first I thought they were a byproduct of the moors in Spain, but was told these names are due to the Arabs who resided in this area. Beyond this, they had no negative, only a positive impact on this area. I do know though that Muslims have migrated to many countries without bringing the "fiery passions and hatreds from the old country with them" which is a loaded statement at best. I doubt you would say the same about the Italians. But I suppose you wouldn't because A. That kind of speech against Italians went out about 100 years ago, and B. if you did, some Italian would very have some very choice words to say to you.

- blackton

November 11, 2009 at 11:37am

Marty, I liked Obama's speech and have been telling people to listen to it. I thought it was tough on Islamic terrorism and even heard a note of anger mixed in with the usually rhetorically reassuring Obama. Ironically, much of what you said above was said or implied by Obama himself. Say what you will, I believe that this even will be a turning point in the way we think about Islamic Jihadists even if people won't say so out loud right now.

- jacksondyer

November 11, 2009 at 1:00pm

Blackton should get to know the Arabs of Oaxaca, both old-timers and new immigrants, before he imagines what they think and do. Religion does kill. Especially Islam. Let's not evade the historical evidence. Islam, much more so than any other religion, preaches contempt for and violence against others. Heed all the bigoted/important sheiks and imams who now have the internet and the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite channels at their disposal. See Memri.Org for video clips. Major Hasan is a hero in the Muslim world. Our addiction to oil has revived Islam. Our consequent military interventions in the Muslim world have further aroused their opposition. Saudi Arabia and Iran spend billions spreading their Word, their polygamy and pedophilia, their burqas, their automatic death sentence for apostates, their hatred and violence. They finance most of the madrassas around the world. That imposing mosque in my New Jersey town could not have been built by our poor Arab and Pakistani immigrants. Saudi money must have supplemented the local "collection plate". Maybe I, too, should investigate and not imagine. Regarding Major Hasan's atrocity, have we heard any regrets, apologies, condolences, or agonizing self-appraisals from the Islamic community?

- amidut

November 11, 2009 at 2:17pm

I completely agree with your assessment of Obama's speech Jackson.

- WandreyCer

November 11, 2009 at 2:51pm

amidut, there are no Arabs of Oaxaca now, at least none that I know of, this was 150 years ago. I have no idea how the know what they thought except from the historical record. I take exception only to the line of Marty about taking fiery passions and hatreds from the old country with them. Are some cultures more demonstrative and passionate, of course, but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Is English reserve and coldness all that much to be admired? That said I absolutely agree our addiction to oil is the worst Goddamned thing in the world. I don't think it has revived Islam, it just made a bunch of backward people who have no good reason to be rich, rich. As I have said on another thread, we have had no real problems with Turkey, they have been a steadfast ally of ours. Attaturk was a progressive reformer and he was a Muslim. If it were Turkey that had the oil we would be having none of these problems. The rot is primarily in Arab Islamic culture and is infecting other ones as well. Oil has given these people the trappings of wealth without any understanding how to attain it. I don't intend to sound anti-Arab, just that right now there is a cancer in their culture, as there was in China during the Cultural revolution, in Serbia last decade, in the US during the civil war, and in the South for a century afterwards. We need a World War type attitude towards breaking our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. If we are going to go into hock, might as well be for that. Jackson, I had that turning point when palestinians started strapping bombs to their backs and blowing up buses full of schoolchildren. It is funny, when I lived in China and talked to the Chinese about the Cultural revolution, they said it was as though the whole country had gone mad. It was that honest appraisal which has allowed them to make progress. The only hope for the Arabs is if they make an honest appraisal of themselves. Our hope is to no longer finance their delusions.

- blackton

November 11, 2009 at 3:00pm

"Certainly, the trek of Muslims to England and France, to the Netherlands and Belgium, to Norway and Spain has the essence of jihad about it." Certainly? "essence of jihad?" Turkish muslims were recruited to and primarily emigrated to Germany for economic opportunity. They were treated like second class citizens, and yes, some of them subsequently have heard the message of Jihad, but Marty's blanket claim above does gross disservice to the vast majority of those immigrants. Pretty much the same is true about Pakistanis in England, and Northern Africans in France. I know of no evidence that large numbers of Muslims from anywhere emigrated to Europe with the idea in mind of taking over Europe in Jihad. That their economic and cultural isolation once they got there convinced a measurable subset to radicalism, I buy, but to paint the entire emigration with this brush is the sort of rank racism that a Zionist of all people should avoid.

- sdemuth

November 11, 2009 at 3:05pm

blackton, "...when I lived in China and talked to the Chinese about the Cultural revolution, they said it was as though the whole country had gone mad. It was that honest appraisal which has allowed them to make progress." That's an incisive observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong - I defer to blackton's personal knowledge of and experience in China - but it seems to me that the Cultural Revolution was the product of faith-based reasoning, rather than rationality. Faith-based reasoning, by definition, doesn't have to meet the test of objective logic or rationality. For the Chinese to have been able to express, frame and conclude that the Cultural Revolution was an entire country's descent into madness required as a precondition the ability and willingness to reject faith-based reasoning, otherwise it would have been impossible to have an honest (i.e. a rational) appraisal. That required a counterrevolution against the Cultural Revolution. Where's the contemporary secular counterrevolution within Islam? Even Turkey seems to be dialing back the clock.

- malahat

November 11, 2009 at 3:41pm

Let me add my agreement with jackson. (And also with blackton.) What Marty doesn't seem to understand, at least if we are to accept his self-indulgent headline as part of his text, is that when people make the commonplace assertion that "no faith justifies X," the speaker is not making the claim that Marty argues against, that religious doctrines never demand bad acts. Rather, the speaker of that banality is asserting two things: 1. Faith that demands bad acts is not legitimate faith, and does not deserve the respect otherwise accorded in American society to matters of conscience; and 2. Even if a particular religious doctrine demands bad acts, that fact does not justify the performance of those acts. Both implicit arguments have been cornerstones of American religious pluralism. They form the basis of colonial and early republican American acceptance of Jews, for example, as in President Washington's letter to the Touro Synagogue. So when President Obama says, "No faith justifies murder," he is not defending Islam to the rest of us. He is warning Muslims of the limits of American religious toleration.

- rhubarbs

November 11, 2009 at 5:30pm

As to the speech by Obama, I thought it was good, but not great. Take, for example, this passage: In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans. If he is going for contrast it should be: In an age of selfishness, they embody selflessness. In an era of division, they call upon us to unify (come together is fine, but perhaps unify is a better choice since it is more concise). In a time of cynicism, they remind us of the greatness of our ideals. (ok, this could be better, but who we are as Americans is weak). Still, the man knows how to write. In our age of dumbassification, it gives me hope.

- blackton

November 11, 2009 at 7:20pm

Thank you rhubarbs. Precisely. But it is not just the headline. In the first sentence of text, Marty says "the president assured us that religion does not kill." The President said no such thing. He did not say that people do not kill in the name of religion or that religious fanaticism does not lead people to kill. He said that no faith JUSTIFIES killing. Does Marty disagree with that statement? Surely not.

- dhurtado

November 11, 2009 at 8:40pm

Alas, the proper words came to me only after I had published my comment. Marty treats "faith does not justify murder" as a descriptive statement when in fact it is obviously a normative statement.

- rhubarbs

November 11, 2009 at 9:25pm

Here are parts of the speech: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next. These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we're working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for." and then "We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way. We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes. We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God. We're a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That's who we are as a people." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-memorial-service-fort-hood It's obvious to me that Obama is dedicated to fighting Islamic terrorism whatever its source.

- jacksondyer

November 11, 2009 at 10:33pm

Interesting, and timely with regard to this ongoing conversation, in today's Los Angeles Times print edition an Op-Ed piece co-authored by Judith Miller, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor, and David Samuels, a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine, titled "Our enemy is not Islam -- it's extremists/ The U.S. response should be zero tolerance for political cultists who try to achieve their goals through violence." Link to article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-miller12-2009nov12,0,3225293,print.story The authors argue a position that is essentially congruent with mine, fyi. I think it worth a quick read.

- Tgossard

November 12, 2009 at 12:48pm

I agree with much of the above, but one would think that if Islamic, and especially Arab culture were to engage in honest self-criticism, it would have happened by now. Alas, not now and probably not ever.

- butchie b

November 12, 2009 at 1:19pm

Here's a link that may be of interest to a Christopher Hitchens Slate article from 2007 on the topic of the interminable rage of militant Islamists, who just aren't into self-criticism. http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/

- malahat

November 12, 2009 at 2:38pm

Evidently, no faith is without its religious extremists preaching murder. Here is today's episode:

JERUSALEM -- A Jewish-American extremist charged Thursday with shooting to death two Palestinians and trying to kill others with explosive devices and poison said he had no regrets and was sure God approved of his actions. As Jack Teitel walked, smiling, into the courtroom, he raised his manacled hands and flashed a "V for victory" sign at news cameras.

- ndmackenzie

November 12, 2009 at 2:44pm

"The Middle East In Perspective: An Interview With Bernard Lewis" The issue of Islamicist fanaticism to Islam is not simple as this interview shows: http://www.mcalvany.com/podcast/?p=104

- jacksondyer

November 12, 2009 at 3:12pm

Leave it to mackenzie (the other george walton) to try and link everything to Jews. What he didn't say is that the murderer is being tried in the Jewish State by a court of law and may get a life sentence if he is convicted.

- jacksondyer

November 12, 2009 at 3:15pm

"Leave it to mackenzie (the other george walton)" They (N and D) are not "The other george walton". They are the other two sides of a georgian triangle. Mackenzie is Jew baiter. An antisemite without the courage of an antisemite's convictions.

- noga1

November 12, 2009 at 3:26pm

When was the last time a Palestinian terrorist was tried in a Palestinian court for murdering Jewish kids? If I remember correctly, such a Palestinian is feted as national hero.

- noga1

November 12, 2009 at 3:28pm

Evidently, no faith is without its religious extremists preaching murder. Here is today's second episode:

Just weeks after the arrest of alleged Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel, a West Bank rabbi on Monday released a book giving Jews permission to kill Gentiles who threaten Israel. Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book "The King's Torah" that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation. ... "It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."

- ndmackenzie

November 12, 2009 at 7:15pm

"...even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation." http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Memorial/2001/Shalhevet%20Tehiya%20Pass

- noga1

November 12, 2009 at 7:29pm

"There were children's voices coming from the wreckage of the bus yesterday. As witnesses to the latest suicide bombing in Israel, in which 11 people died, rushed to the charred remains on Mexico Street, they heard the young crying for their mothers. And there were children among the dead, four of them. An eight-year-old boy, Ilan Friedman, was on the bus with his grandmother, 67. Both were killed. Two children aged 13 died. So did Michael Sharansky, 16, and his mother. Half of the 49 people wounded were younger than 18, hospital officials said. There were schoolbooks lying in the road beside the remains of the bus, as well as sandwiches the children were taking to school. This was the bus you would target if you wanted to kill children. Bus number 20 calls at four schools on its route. And the time the suicide bomber struck was the time you would choose if you wanted to kill children: 7.15am local time, when they were on their way to school." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/children-killed-in-israel-suicide-bomb-609255.html