I Am A Dark Elf
More than any maulana, my morality is a by-product of a dark elf named Drizzt Do'Urden. Surely most do not know the name; nor can they be expected to. Drizzt is not a man. He is not even real. He is, in fact, the main character in R.A. Salvatore's legendary Fantasy Series for The Forgotten Realms.
Drizzt is Plato's allegory of the cave become elf. Drizzt is exile. Drizzt is immigration. Drizzt is assimilation. Drizzt is self-hate. Drizzt is victim of racism. Drizzt is brilliant. Drizzt is accomplishment. Drizzt is what Bigger Thomas wasn't; what Malcolm X was but for a moment; and what Muhammad is not permitted to be. Drizzt Do'Urden, the Dark Elf, the 'drow', is honor.
When I first read Drizzt in the Crystal Shard, defending his friends with his double scimitars, fighting pirates, trolls, orcs, and the nefarious assassin Artemis Entreri (he with the soul sucking dagger), I only saw Drizzt as a warrior. I remember it was my cousin's birthday at a mosque and we were supposed to be reading portions of the Quran in celebration. But I placed the Crystal Shard under the rehal (Quran Holder) and went seafaring with Drizzt and his friends: Cattie-Brie, the red haired archer; her adopted father Bruenor, a blacksmith dwarf; and Wulfgar, the Norse Barbarian, armed with the glorious warhammer, aegis-fang (crafted from Mithril). Yet the more I read of their brawling, their troll-killing, their dragon slaying, their unicorn saving, the more I realized (that I was a nerd), and that their fighting was just a metaphor — for righteous struggle. The point was not that I came to aspire to become an expert level fighter with dual scimitars (though that would be dope), but to fight in the cause of righteousness and good with such bravado, such belief, that others might call you a warrior. But there was far more to Drizzt that drew me to him — specifically, the mirroring of his personal history with mine. Oh yeah, I kid you not.
Drizzt grew up in the Underdark; an underworld city called Menzoberanzan, amidst the dark-elves, called the drow. The drow had once been serene forest-dwellers, but having lost their empire had been forced underground, where their skin turned the color of night. Their hair turned white. Their eyes turned lavendar. They shrank in size. They became evil and succumbed to the meanest of tribalism. Menzobaranzan came to worship a violent double-L named goddess, Lloth. Their city was organized by houses — which were ranked in power according to how many acknowledged killers each possessed. It was a place given to violence, tyranny and dogma. Drizzt was born to the ninth house, which by a stroke of breeding fortune, and much machination, was ready to topple (murder), many of the houses before it. Drizzt (and his father's) expertise at swordsmanship and stealth had set him up to be an instrumental component of the future plans of the Do'Urden house. But Drizzt could not come to commit one of the heinous deeds assigned to him. A little thing called morality sprang up in him. Not pity; plain honor. He was immediately exiled into the Underdark, where he was alone and preyed upon, until he finally resolved to leave the Underdark and come up to the outerworld despite the age old taboo of a dark elf not being welcome. During the time the drow had been pushed into the Underdark, great myths of their destructive powers, of their demonic fury, had spread in the world. They were feared and reviled and no one wanted them around, because no one believed they could be good.
When Drizzt emerged to the sun his skin couldn't bear it and he had to shield himself with layers of clothes. When he came upon people he was insulted. Others simply fled from him or plotted against him. Yet alone in a new world he withstood his adversaries and their simple-minded racism, and the rest he won over with his demeanor, intelligence and friendship. Still, he realized that he wouldn't find complete acceptance in the urban centers and he took to the far away mountains called The Spine of The World, where he was befriended by a grumpy old dwarf, his adopted daughter, and he began to live with the outcasts of the world.
In my eyes what always set Drizzt apart was the fact that he was not satisfied with a pacific life. He longed, even in a world which called him 'drow' as an insult, villified his entire race, and treated him spitefully, to be, putting it mildly, relevant. He learned their language and spoke it better. He traveled among them and learned their customs such that the ladies of Silverymoon invited him to their city. He shielded those that needed help and rose up defiantly against assassins — both of the body and spirit. He went to the Sylvan Elves, his ancient cousins, and helped them revitalize their forests (because Drizzt was a Ranger, and therefore, an environmentalist).
In short, Drizzt taught me all I needed to know to be an immigrant in a strange land. It cost me nothing monetary to befriend him. He waited for me at the library, ready to impart his wisdom — which wasn't theoretical or pedantic, like the sermons at the mosque. It was actual; manifested in behavior. A morality that was living, walking, talking.
Muslims love to recite hadith about Muhammad in order to teach youth the proper way of daily behavior and moral righteousness (while themselves abnegating from behaving duly). Such lessons usually begin cryptically with the assertion "that Muhammad was the walking Quran" and ending in an altogether disinterested youth. This has to do with two different problems.
The first is that Muhammad is not presented by way of literature. The hadith are the jurist's handmaiden; not the adolescents cup of tea. And the books of Sirah, those biographies of Muhammad, that do exist, never expose, or permit him, to have normalcy: no childhood, no flaws, no sadness. Muhammad is made into insan e kamil, the perfect man. Sure, but a hero that doesn't make him. A hero isn't he who begins or ends in perfection; a hero is simply he who struggles with life. In fact, a hero struggles with life more than the average man. As Camus said, we love literature because in literature the men find culmination. With the Prophet, his struggles are never appreciated; only his error-less actions are recited (which means he was a god and the entire premise of Islam is fucked). Permit me two examples of this. The first is from the Sirah. In Martin Ling's biography of Muhammad, which is some 40 or 50 chapters, Muhammad is married by the 5th or 6th! And probably two of those meager first few chapters are about the political landscape of Arabia. Pardon? What use does a 14 year old have for what happens to a grown Muhammad? In fact, all this does is enforce the idea that childhood is either irrelevant, or unworthy of treatment. This creates the condition for children to loathe their current state of childhood and aspire to be adults sooner than they are psychologically capable. They seek to do things to prove their adulthood. Stupid things. Their psyche is not adequately prepared to engage in politics, to discuss Islam, and it is no surprise that they are unable to resist when the oligarchs tell them that Islam is about killing infidels.
Those few pieces of literary trash that do exist in Arabic and Urdu detailing the childhood of the Prophet should be burnt. I'm all for burning boring books. These books start with the anecdote that when Muhammad was a child walking in the sun, a cloud perpetually hung over him to keep him cool. This is immediately followed by the anecdote that at the age of 8, two angels came down at night, cut open Muhammad's chest and washed his heart with milk from Paradise so that he became purified. This literature is so intent on demonstrating Muhammad's uniqueness that it makes him irrelevant. Muhammad comes to be someone who never told a lie. Well of course not! He had his damn heart washed by angels. A child's logic is exquisitely simple: since no milk has purified me, I don't have to stop lying. At an age when it is more important to know what explorations Muhammad had with the girls he hung out with, I came to see Muhammad as the goody two shoes who would tell on you in the schoolyard.
Many parents realize that their children have no interest in such literature, so out of obligation — "well, we have to do something Islamic" — they just put the youth in a room full of hadith collections. Why not? A hadith is a narration by Muhammad, right? Nevermind it is only a narration *ascribed* to Muhammad. But hey, if the youth is reading hadith it's like he is listening to Muhammad. Hell, podcast the damn hadith. Ah, but the problem occurs: the hadith are as complicated as American legal case-law, with as much diversity, error, and chaos. Hadith about being just are set along hadith relating to inheritance laws. Thanks for the lesson, I'm an expert at apportioning Islamic wills at the age of nine. One again the youth has to conclude that real living takes place as an adult and for a child, Muhammad again becomes, you guessed it: irrelevant.
Given all these problems was it any surprise that I opted to become a fan of a pointy eared purple eyed freak named Drizzt Do'Urden?
It was far easier to make and be friends with Drizzt than with Muhammad. So what if Drizzt didn't have a bleepin flying horse or couldn't take you to see God? Fact is, Drizzt was the better friend. You see, because when parents taught you about Muhammad, they made him a tool of their enforcement as well. First you were told to love Muhammad, and then, assuming you were willing to fake that, because you loved him you had to confess all the stuff you did wrong! And then, when you got beat up by your dad for admitting to peeking into the servant girl's shower, you had to take your punishment the way Muhammad proscribed it in the Quran: without saying so much as an 'uff' as you are beat. What kind of friend was this? First he led you to be beat up, and then you could not even cry? It is impossible for a child's friend to be the same person as the parents' law giver. There is a huge conflict of interest there that Muslims have not realized when it comes to raising children.
In conclusion, it is my suggestion that when you have children, give them Drizzt Do'Urden (and also Cadderly the Cleric — a cleric who talks to plants). Drizzt is moral and good and righteous and he knows how to negotiate a hostile world, and assmilate, and reject evil, and all this without having to theorize, or rhapsodize, or perform hermenutical gymanstics.
How is it that I am more moral than the next man? I read books that touched me.
As a fan of good pulp, who grew up on science fiction, I salute you. I never heard of that series, though — I’ll check it out, though perhaps too late. Thanks for an inspiring and intriguingly revealing essay.
Hi Eteraz,
Concering the idea that you realized that all of Drizzit’s fighting was metaphor for internal struggle;
I look forward to the day when, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them” means “Slay the infidels that you find inside yourselves.”
Pastorius said
“I look forward to the day when, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them” means “Slay the infidels that you find inside yourselves.” ”
I look forward to the day when Operation Iraqi Freedom means Freedom for Iraqis.
You have a lot of nerve criticizing Islam (out of context ) when you have made a pre-emptive strike on a land that posed no threat on lies and misled pretexts.
Where you from, Orange County?
Addressed to you Fox New Watching Zombies out there….
If you are going to draw attention to Islam’s violent tendencies, it’s unassociated, outlaw terrorists - please don’t beg the question.
Draw a comparison to Government Sponsored Terrorism which you call Compassionate Conservatism. And if you call Jihadists gov’t sponsored terrorists, than atleast explain how the majority of Americans VOTED IN their government sponsored terrorism.
America has killed far more innocent people than OBL’s terrorists could ever hope to kill. Please remember that and stop turning such a BLIND eye.
I support neither form of terrorism. But that is just me.
Thanks
“I read books that touched me” I like as well :)…what use is any piece of writing that does not excite neuronal connections. What benefit is a book that is not in your heart. Is one considered stone hearted if they cannot feel the pain and happiness of millions and yet is able to weep for the oddest things.
Salaam Dear Ali:
A very good essay on books that move us and teach us. However burning books that you find boring is not a good idea, unless you set youself up at the critic of all good taste. What you find boring, I may find wonderful, and visa versa. I prefer Frank Herbert’s Dune series to most of the crap passing itself off as science fiction nowadays. When will a book be written that moves us and has a fantasy element that is spiritual, without wars and swords and dark powers fighting the light. I really dislike that vision of the future, all endless struggles of men trying to be the Alpha male over and over and over. When does the pissing contest end and the race mature?
Allah know the Truth!
fantasy element that is spiritual?
i believe we call them ‘recreational drugs.’
seriously though: don’t worry. we won’t burn your book. it’s not boring.
MASTER OF THE JINN
by Irving Karchmar
amazon.com
Salaam alaikum Blake,
Hey, please step back a little. It doesn’t do our cause much good to be too eager to see offense in things people say to us (I refer to past posts and comments here too). Remember how the Prophet, peace be upon him, was calm with people who insulted him and our religion. It’s better to behave calmly and positively than to speak loudly, even in defense of Islam.
And peace be upon you and the mercy and blessings of God.
Peace Hannah
You are a good guide for yourself.
And best wishes
Blake
Salamaat,
Is our morality defined by what we read?
Just wondering out loud…
I loved Drizzit he helped me realize a few things about my situation as well. Sure it’s geeky but “them some good books”, I cut my teeth on the dragonlance series and remember the first time that a book made me cry. It’s nice to remember and be taught that humans can be noble and that sometimes the sacrifices of duty and honor
I know what you mean about the dry useless morality of religion. at some point after a thousand years it seems that dogma supercedes reason and religion becomes some kind of giant lemming race to the sea. I’m a bit worried since so many of the comments you have to plow thru are negative and I hope you remember to not get depressed by them.
People like you and Alhamedi over at “religious Police” give me hope that there is at least movement in the realm of theology among muslims and some hope that they can escape the death trap of nihlism.
I’m not one to critize a religion though, I’m gay and have had a pretty tough time with the christians I was born to, trying to come to terms with dogma versus intent, hope versus scripture. At some point you have to decide that regardless of how holy people might consider their own scriptures, I refuse to follow any of them that would condemn their fellow man or woman to a life that is less than equal or fair than their own.
Keep reading fiction! and remember to look for joy in the world around you, it’ll keep you going. Thanks for all your writings, I’ll pass them on.
I wasn’t criticizing all of Islam, Blake. I was only noting that the preaching of violent Jihad as a duty for all Muslims is not going to work in the long run. Jihad as a spiritual striving towards a closer understanding of God’s will is a better way to go. As I understand it, Muslims already believe in that form of Jihad. So, there should be no problem, right?
Pastorius said
I look forward to the day when, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them” means “Slay the infidels that you find inside yourselves.”
If I was out of line, please pardon me. It appeared to be a categorical and misrepresentation of Qur’anic verse.
One should, with manners and kindness of fellowship, always assume the best of people’s beliefs. Instead, Islam suffers a TREMENDOUS amount of misrepresentation and Americans are particularly intolerant due in part to the non-stop propaganda people see and hear through their ‘news’ sources.
Apparently you did not intend to be insensitive and I regret my assumption.
Blake,
No, I don’t believe all Muslims are bad, or that Islam can not be a force for good. In fact, I don’t know that much about Islam, nor do I concern myself that much with getting to know a lot about Islam.
By the same token, I would not bother getting to know much about Buddhism, and the way it is practiced in reality in countries like China.
I love the hippy-dippy American Buddhism, with all its peaceful sayings, and koans, and its emphasis on acceptance. But, I do not assume that that is the Buddhism of the people of Asia.
So, likewise, I do not assume that the Islam we see manifested as a geopolitcal movement is the Islam of the people of the Middle East.
However, I do concern myself with geopolitical issues, and, we must admit, there are whole countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria being three obvious ones) which are run by Wahabbists, and Salafists, and these countries are dangerous, and they are, in my opinion, not operating in a way which is good for Muslims, nor for the world.
Please understand that the reason I came in here with such a comment is because my only previous conversations with Eteraz have been on geopolitical issues with regards to the War on Terror, and with regards to how Islam can be wrested away from the evil governments, and brought into the hands of the people, to become the people’s Religion of Peace.
Dear Pastorius
Iran is not wahabbi or salafi. These are both Sunni fundamentalist movements. Iran is Shia. That is another kettle of fish altogether. Saudi Arabia and Syria are very different, even though one could say they are predominantly Arab. Iranians are not Arab.
So, they imporant lesson is not to make broad sweeping generalizations which betray us to other and cloud our own judgement.
The main point I think is the US is easily viewed by others in this region as a rogue state itself. Many people in the states you mention think the US is conducting terrorism.
They see very different news than we see here in the US. And Saudi Arabia has not INVADED and Occupied Canada or Mexico. So perspectives can change on the “War on Terrorism.” It is quite possible that WE are the villians in other’s eyes.
How do we change that? If you are concerned about how Peace can be wrestled from the Hands of Evil, start with the people making war now. Perhaps we can win “the hearts and minds” of the people we seek to get along with better if we show some diplomacy instead of threatening them with bombs and death.
I’m just thinking outloud here…
Pastorius Says:
Blake,
No, I don’t believe all Muslims are bad, or that Islam can not be a force for good. In fact, I don’t know that much about Islam, nor do I concern myself that much with getting to know a lot about Islam.
ps. Pastorius
I find your blog, http://www.cuanas.blogspot.com/, truly militant and terrifying. Gung ho does not really get me half the way there.
Nuke da I-ranians, Jihadis, Islamofacists.
Wouldn’t you describe yourself as a little finatical?
As usual, my instincts have led me well and I don’t believe I am conversing with a concerned world citizen who wants peace. I think I am reading the words of a absolutist who wants to exterminate all people who don’t agree with their political ideology and fall into subservience. Sort of a political BDSM advocate with higher stakes and bigger audiences than most clubs.
You condemn these people.
Can you condemn yourself?
Blake,
I have never advocated nuking Iran. I have advocated bombing the nuclear facilities.
Does that seem like a fanatical idea to you, considering that Ahmadinejad is threatening to nuke Israel.
Also, I take into consideration the recent “World Without Zionism” festival which took place in Iran. The famed artwork of the two balls (one with emblazoned with the American flag, and the other with the flag of Israel) in the hourglass, shows that Iran believes it will destroy America, before it destroys Israel. In addition, a high-ranking member of the Iranian government has boasted of how Iran has determined there are 29 soft spots in the West, which, if hit, would topple America.
In addition, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly indicated that America will be in big trouble if we so much as take Iran to the Security Council over the nuclear issue.
So, I guess we are in big trouble.
A wise state would heed these repeated warnings. A wise state, in my opinion, would destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. I also think, although I am not as sure on this, that it is probably a good idea to remove the Iranian regime. However, I don’t think America has the fight in us at this point.
So, am I a fanatic, or is Ahmadinejad the fanatic.
If you say we both are, then please tell me how we would make sure, SURE, that Iran does not aquire nukes, if we do not destroy the nuclear facilities.
So, am I a fanatic, or is Ahmadinejad the fanatic.(?)
The answer is clear. BOTH OF YOU are finatics. The difference, I think, is that Ahmadinejad knows he is playing a political rhetoric game. You don’t. You take these games to heart.
Do you think Iran or the world will continue to accept US pre-emptive strikes outside the bounds or legitimacy of the UN? Who will be next? Venezuela? ANYONE WHO DARES Criticize the US?
YES! You are a big finatic. And a voter and the US voters have a responsibility to keep peace or be considered terrorists. The whole world will be on one side and US/Israel on the other. This is politics and the US general public is being used and duped. Soldiers seem to be a disposable asset. Support our Troops my ass.
Political forces are very similar to physical forces. You can’t have a psycho legitimized on that side unless you have a equal psycho on this side being legitimized.
Why don’t you try to read between the lines and stop rushing to bomb and kill?
Just try it. That is all I ask.
So, a guy threatens us with nuclear annihilation, and we’re supposed to be rock sure that he doesn’t really mean it.
You say I am a fanatic, and I say, you are being foolish.
I suspect there is something more to your decision to believe that Ahmadinejad’s words are merely rhetoric. I don’t know what that would be, but maybe you just don’t like America much. Maybe you don’t much care if America sticks around.
By the way, where did you get the idea that I advocate nuking Iran?
You tell peolpe here that I do, and yet, I do not.
Should I start speculating as to what you advocate, and then state my speculation as truth?
Oh yes, and I have a question, since you have taken up the mantle of apologist for Ahmadinejad. Why is it the man must resort to “rhetoric” instead of simply saying what he means?
Is he deficient in some way?
I love America. I love it’s power and its simplicity and honesty and I love the will of the people to do good in the world. Something is getting in the way of all that lately.
It’s neocons I don’t like. Pretend friends who come to “dialogue” but privately advocate violence, hatred and fear. Shoot first and ask questions later. We are seeing what that is doing to Iraq and the US right now. “Mission Accomplished.” I don’t like neocons who use people to achieve wealth and security for a small minority. They use people like you.
I don’t like people who rush to judge others and turn a blind eye to their own problems.
America has a big problem. And it ain’t me.
The current plan on the drawing board is low-level nuke assault. the Sy Hersh story you run discusses that. Read your own posts.
Pre-emptive strike has KEPT IN the possibility of nuclear strike specifically AGAINST the suggestions of the military. The Bush admistration is a rogue group of neocons running the US into the ground for very high personal profit.
And if you support them, you are either in on the take or stupid.
Either way, it is bad news.
Ahmadinejad is a politician. I don’t support him. I understand his position.
You appear to be a little clueless. This I don’t understand.
This is not a Rambo movie. It is real life. People die.
Get off your high horse and start considering the consequences.
And if you want to be Rambo, remember this Rambo.
When you are pre-emptively striking the Nuclear sites in Iran, you lose the opposition in Iran to the Islamic dictatorship.
You also challenge Russia and China to take sides.
Since you are already getting your ass kicked by a rag-tag bunch of goons in Iraq, there is not much reason to think that a few countries that put their resources together can’t end Bush’s Administration a little early.
Frightening scenario.
What would YOU do in their place?
Blake,
In my post on the Sy Hersh piece from the New Yorker, I EXPLICITLY stated that I do not support hitting Iraq with nukes.
I just want to be clear about that.
As for your other opinions, you and I simply don’t agree. Simple as that. I’m not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me.
So, I’ll leave it at that.
Ok, let me apologize for the previous comment, and clarify. I understand, now, why you thought that I might advocate nuking Iran.
First, let me say that I don’t.
The article you refer to was called “Nuke Iran”. I often run articles with titles designed to get attention. In the article I start off by saying that I told my wife about Sy Hersh’s piece and she expressed that she thought it was ok to nuke Iran.
I then posed the question, “Since when is my wife more radical than I am?”
I guess that is not a very EXPLICIT way of saying I don’t support nuking Iran.
But, let me be clear, I don’t.
Sorry about that.
Nuclear weapons should only be used as retaliation, or in the face of a grave threat such as the world has never before seen.
I understood precisely but appreciate your clarification, nevertheless. You don’t advocate nuclear weapons being used in Iran, but our crazy whitehouse does.
That is a problem.
American people have to show the world that we have a conscience and we will not allow the Bush administration to ignore international laws, charters and treasties
and then DEMAND others to do obide by them.
America needs to earn its assumed role as a moral leader as well as military leader.
We have to demand a more internationally concerned and diplomatic government.
Hey, Eteraz.
I love this post and also Drizzt. I read about him and his panther this last winter (I am just not able to write its name ;) ). And I think we are all a bit like him. The characteristic that I like most of him is that he wants to change the world where he lives although it’s a bit impossible.
And Blake, I know Pastorius since long ago -we are colleagues at IBA with Ali also-. I can tell you that he is no fanatic and I find hime one of the most reasonable persons in my blogging acquaintance.
The problem with Iran, I am afraid, is that there is no possibility of having a peaceful world with someone who is menacing one day and the next with “wiping off the map”, “killing”, “extermining”, etc, one of its neighbours. What is more, as Ahmadenijad thinks that the Mahdi is coming just tomorrow or the next week to impose Islamic justice, he is not going to be very worried about killing any one -or any number of people-. So the problem here is: do you have any proof that this man is not going to fulfill all his menaces?
Remember that Hitler was also a politician and no one nearly faced him till it was too late. Oh, and remember also Iran has the third more powerful army in the Muslim countries (before, only Turkey and Egypt) but that any of them have nuclear weapons.
Aren’t you really a bit worried about him?
I cannot see Ahmandenijad as an equivalent to Bush: firstly, the elections in both countries have nothing to do as in Iran, you have to pass the exam by the “Supreme Council” of the Mullahs; secondly, in Iran public opinion has a very reduced power, while in USA, happens just the contrary. And lastly, and most important of all: Iran does not fulfil any Human Rights while in USa, the Human Rights are contained in its constitution.
Lastly, as a Spanish, I have been listening to a lot of opinions about the Iraqi war, always referring to it as illegitimate, unjust and illegal. From my point of view, just reading the UN’s Resolution 1441, it’s very easy to support the invasion, as it said that if Saddam did not proved the destruction of his arsenal, he would have to face important consequences. A) He did not proved its destruction, b) the sanctions were NOT functioning, as Saddam enriched himself with nearly $21.000 million and C) curiously, the countries who opposed the war were China -that is now killing and destroyng in South Sudan for its oil reserves, and I am not hearing anybody shout, “no more blood for oil”-, Russia -who looks like helped Saddam even giving him intelligence plans, and now is helping Iran and Hamas- and France -whose President is Chirac, most commonly known as Mr. Chirac-.
From my point of view, we have to demand more responsible Governments, that really unite themselves in the fight for freedom and for Human Rights for all. USA can have a lot of defects, but it has more moral leadership in the world, that the Americans think. And people who critisize it here, are normally supporters of Castro or Franco. Or, as our “beloved” President Zapatero, are very coherent: they support the use of nuclear energy for Iran BUT are going to dismantle all nuclear power stations in Spain with a cost of €15.000 million in a country as Spain that has a tremendous energetic dependance. That critizise Iraqi invasion BUT are anti-american because US Marines did not made us the ugly work of kicking Franco in the ass and end his dictatorship. So, from my point of view, do not merit too much credit at all.
Blueslord-Spanish Eowyn. (sorry for the long message)
Ehh, Chirac was more commonly known as “Mr Saddam”…. Ehem…
Hey, Spanish
Do Spanish football crowds still make monkey noises at black footballers?
Thanks for the vouch Anti-Jihad Pundit.
I enjoyed the Daniel Pipes quotes on your blog and reference to Islamic Evil and other “Neutral” non-finatic opinions.
It’s good to know there’s balance out there.
Thabet:
I do not like football, so I cannot tell you about this point. BUT the violence in football is something that has grown to a very great extent and against a lot of people, not only black players, but also other players and the public. Are there racists in Spain? Of course, as in all the rest of the world. Am I one of them? No, I am not. I think all humans are equal with all its consequences.
Blake:
So just because I read and post about Daniel Pipes I am not neutral? Just because I link a blog named Islamic Evil -if you read it you can see the author is writing about the evil in Islam, not that Islam is evil- I am not neutral?
I think to be neutral you have to read ALL sort of things, whatever they say and then form your own opnion, don`t you?
Let’s just say that Anti-Jihad Pundit suits you fine. Anti-Islam Pundit would probably work for the tone of your blopg as well.
I’ve read the last 5-10 posts. I think you have set a clear pattern.
Why play games? Let the truth be known. Than we don’t have to dance this dance.
I suppose one could call Daniel Pipes a Moderate Muslim if you are will to suspend all disbelief.
Whatever you say, AIP.
Sorry, AJP
Anti-Jihad Pundit writes on his blog:
Although I think not ALL Muslims can convert into suicide bombers, certainly the language of the Koram can provoke that some of them -a minority each day greater- can turn into suicide bombers.
and
There is a problem though: any part of the world where a Muslim sets foot becomes Dar-Al-Islam, so afterwards they can fight for it.
Robert from Hyscience has a very good post about this new sign of dhimmitude. He qoutes Daniel Pipes:
… jihad is “holy war.” Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.
So what you are saying is that the language of the Koran and the Tenet of Jihad compell Muslims to be terrorists.
Is that so?
No, NOT ALL MUSLIMS. BUT there are some of them -that is, a minority- that are not taking into account the momment in which the Koram was written and take it too literally. I mean, the concept of Jihad -holy war- can be considered normal in the moment in which Mohammed existed, but not now. I think that today the whole concept of Jihad should be understood ONLY as the Major Jihad, that is, a fight against self defects, a concept that appears in all religions.
As one day I wrote in IBA, that can only happen when Muslims in general realize that religion is a source of good power but also of bad one, and this last meaning can only be stopped by driving apart politics and religion. The extremist imams are just having a very good time because no one stops them.
An example:
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/04/17/alienated-from-islam/
That does not mean that ALL Muslims are dangerous terrorists or wannabees -as I have said-, and those are the ones who must be protected. Something that right now, having so much pain and fear to tell the truth, to confront the extremists, the MSM and the Governments are NOT doing.
If we all do not fight radical Islam, there are going to be some very important losers, apart from non-Muslims: the Muslims who are just peaceful, that reject religious fight and that want to live their faith as any other human being: in peace. We have seen it in the cartoons affair: Nasser vs. Akkari and Laban. Akkari was even joking about killing Nasser!
In the end, this is a fight for individual freedoms: for believing in God or in Gods, or not believing in anything, but in any case, because each of us, are sufficiently convinced about it, not because an imam, priest or whatever it’s called, tells you what to believe or how you have to live your life.
And, yes, I was struck by the behavour of Taheri-Azar. He is not what any of us would call a terrorist, before his acts, but he is. So the question is: when he swears that he is doing that because of the Koram, aren’t you a little bit concerned by that fact? That does not mean ALL Muslims are going to behave like him, BUT how many will and what are they going to do? Could the Muslims who were his fellows predict it or at least had an idea of what he was planning to do? If some of them did, why they did not tell it to the police or to the rest of the community? I mean, perhaps in this case there were no people in his secrets, BUT if that would have being the case, what would be the answer to these questions?
And by the way I am a woman ;).
Anti-Jihad Pundit writes on her blog….(apologies).
You don’t sound too extreme but you have made some rather hasty conclusions:
Islam is not a source for evil or oppression or even long pants.
It is a Revelation from God which alot of yahoos have gone nuts with. This is not Islam’s fault. This is not God’s fault. If you believe in God and you believe he sent the Prophet Mohammad, as I do, than you have to believe that all Good was intended and any bad result is a perversion or misunderstanding of Perfection.
This is quite normal. Lots of people think they can pick up the Qur’an, read and understand it just like the Prophet Mohammad was receiving it from God. Nah-uh! Nope! Just because someone has eyes and can read Arabic or English does not mean the Qur’an’s Message is laid out like a copy of USA Today.
People struggle their whole life to understand the Openning Sura. The Openning Verse of the Openning Sura.
Give God a little credit. S/He’s a mysterious Dude-ette.
So don’t be so sure because Al-Zarqawi reads the Koran some way and justfies his nutty actions some way that this is what the Qur’an was intended for. He could just a well be reading the Kama Sutra. Who knows? It would make as much sense to me.
And as long as you are concerned about Islamic Civilization, of which, I assume you are NOT a part, perhaps you could clean your own corner of the world up.
Being an object of admiration and even jealousy is far better than hatred. Extremists in the Islamic world don’t hate the West because it is better than them, they hate it because they feel oppressed by it.
She has no responsibility to clean anything up. By those rules no Muslim would be able to complain about anything. In particular complaining aboujt Israel seems contradictory if you accept the clean up all messes by other people in your own area first rule.. Clean up your own countries first. That’s silly. Especially if the person you are trying to shut up does not espouse the philosophy that leads to the trouble in that country. I’m sure she wasn’t espousing the philosophy that lead to the train explosions. Since Islam is responsible for the state of many of these Islamic countries it is more applicable to you than her. Don’t you see the connection with the draconian laws in Saudi Arabia and Islamic law?
Perhaps where oppression is defined as we have less and they have more. Then again you can stop making up reasons for them and instead listen to their retoric, which is based on the Qu’ran.
Blake says:
Then he says:
It’s quite clear he hates America, Americans and in particular the people of Orange County and people who watch Fox News.
He’s willing to lie to get his point across also:
Meanwhile he is the mouthpiece for Iran who have actually advocated the use of nukes on Israel. I’ve got news for you, Blake, the Whitehouse has not advocated using Nukes against Iran. Most of your claims on this thread were false. Like the idea that the press has been anti-Islamic. On the contrary it has been slanted very much the other direction.
Blake:
I understand how you feel, when you say that the Koram is manipulated, although Western civilization is not the culprit of that. I mean, ii’s not only Al-Zarqawi: there are clerics, people in the streets chanting “death to the Jews”, etc, while they point the Koram verses, such as “the stones will say: a Jew is behind me, come and kill him”.
It’s very curious than when Muslims have a problem they always blame others. Islamic countries are in general the opposite to freedom and the situation of women’s rights is a symptom of that. Muslims in general -and this is in general, that is why, people like Sandmonkey, Big Pharaoh, Omar from ITM or Freedom for Egyptians are so brilliant because of the contrast- do not acuse themselves of their own errors. I mean, the oil revenues would be sufficient to buil schools, hospitals, etc. But people like Saudi Princes, Ayatollahs and Yassir Arafat spend that money or international donations in very luxurious cars, houses, palaces, etc or in weapons and terror, depending on the person. I do not think that we, as Westerners, are culprits of that either.
In Europe when people were not “enchanted” with their Governments they outed them to have more freedom -with more or less sucess-. In Iran, for example, the revolution was just for the opposite. I am not an admirer of the Shah in any respect -I think he was a failure from the beginning-, but Khomeini, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, are even worse. The corruption is just the same (Ahmadinajad discovered that nearly $10.000 million of oil reveneus were “lost” in the previous years), freedom is even less respected and the Governement is just a religious oligarghy. I think that is the real difference between the West and, in this case, the Islamic world that has nothing to do with jihad.
And by the way, I am concerned by the Islamic Civilization, even if I am not a part of it. Not only because it can affect ME personally, BUT because as I consider all human as equal beings, I cannot stand quiet when people are discriminated because of their sex, their religion -as happens in nearly ALL Islamic countries- or whatever. This is a very small world and every thing that happens in it, is affecting us.
Brian:
Thanks. I couldn’t have expressed it better myself.
Brian
I have nothing to say to you -
To both of you:
You are reason’s shame and a clear lie.
I only waste my time.
Believe it or not…excerpt from
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war
to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-08
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.
There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.
A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”
But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.
Complete article
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
Blake:
I haven’t been able to answer you before this moment, but I see that you haven’t answered me, you only have regretted to read my comments. So, I just regret myself having lost my own time answering you and as a result I am not going to continue this conversation.
Hate mongering and myopic rants are not a conversation
They are simply an admission of weakness.
Clear your head and try to find some balance to your wacky ideas.
How is it that I am more moral than the next man? I read books that touched me.
Usually that happens in childhood. Much more rarely in adulthood. But I felt that way when I read “Life of Pi.” Have you read it?
It’s about a boy who loves God so much he tries to worship with every religion in sight, to the consternation of the Christian and Hindu priests and the Muslim Imam. (This is in India. The book was written by a Canadian.) Then his family is shipwrecked with their small zoo and he ends up alone in a lifeboat with a 450-pound Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.
I completely identified with him as I have just spent over 30 years in a small vessel (my little apartment) with a large predator.
[...] I Am a Dark ElfUnwilling Self-Negation [...]
Dude, They didnt all have lavender eyes, just Drizzt!!! Pay attention to the book
THey all have red eyes except drizzt.
Really enjoyed the post, Ali. Thanks. All I can say is: you chose well.
Blake, you preach these things but do not walk them, and so demean the very ideals you espouse. The Dark Elf series is, fortunately, available at the local library. Give it a read some time….
Ali Eteraz, Moriquendi
Ali Eteraz: “More than any maulana, my morality is a by-product of a dark elf named Drizzt Do’Urden…..” If get that reference, you really ought to read this (just ignore the comments section, which serves…
I read the story of Drizzt about 20 years ago. I had almost forgotten that series. I will have to revisit them and the DragonLance lore. Drizzt was definately one of my favorites. He was the anti-hero hero. He wasn’t the perfect hero like many others. He had his faults but he had the strength to admit them and to overcome them. He never made excuses, never blamed the circumstances and never settled for half-assed.
Good choice, Ali.
ClareNancy
Ali Eteraz, you might want to check out the show Sleeper Cell (first season’s out on DVD). Darwyn has a lot in common with Drizzt.
“Being an object of admiration and even jealousy is far better than hatred. Extremists in the Islamic world don’t hate the West because it is better than them, they hate it because they feel oppressed by it.”
There have been a great many assertions in this thread which are made without evidence, because the poster believes that it is just so. It would be very difficult to provide evidence one way or the other, for who but God knows what is in the hearts of men. Does it really matter if the terrorists do what they do because they feel oppressed by the West or because they are jealous of the West’s manifest successes in this world?
I suppose that it does, but there is little point in arguing over things of which we are not certain, and little point in hating someone for not sharing a belief of which we are ourselves cannot be certain. There is a good deal of arrogance involved in assuming what lies in the hearts of men, whether you assume good of them or assume evil of them.
I think it is enough to judge people’s actions, and leave the judging of hearts up to God.
But, I will say this. Mohammed was not, by his own admission, a prophet like the other prophets of God. By his own admission, he did not come working miracles, and when asked for a sign he did not give one save to say that Koran was a miracle. If your Faith and therefore obedience is given to Mohammed’s revelation and his laws, then it must be first and foremost (if it is really a Faith that you’ve tested and tempered at all) because of the miracle of the Koran.
But there is another miracle which Islam claims and which has long been the basis of faith of many of the Islamic peoples of the world. Mohammed promised a great victory to his followers no matter how poorly the odds appear, and history attests that they recieved a victory. This assertion I think will not get much argument from anyone. It is part of Islam’s tradition, and the rapid conquest of the world - by reason and the sword - is a part of the historical record and cannot be denied.
But there is this. It cannot as well be denied that it has been a very long time since Mohammed’s followers had anything like a real victory. From Tours onward, Mohammed’s followers - those claiming to be his followers at least - have been defeated time and again by forces from the west and the east, and thier territory rolled back until at one point there was scarcely to be found an unconquered Islamic country in the whole world.
It seems to me that if your faith is based in the assurance of victory, that long centuries of defeat, humiliation, and yes, even oppression must be particularly damaging to one’s soul. How is it that if God is with you, that anyone stands against you? How is it that the prophet of God can promise victory, and yet no victory is forth coming and you are left to chew the dregs of hollow acts of violence and murder.
No, I don’t think that it is certain why people do what they do, but I think it is too early and too arrogant to rule jealousy out.
Interesting post Celebrim,
I am not going to plunge too deep into it, especially because I don’t evaluate religions in terms of the history of military conflicts. It may be an aspect, but is not the definition.
But one thing really struck out: your facts. Tours started the era of Muslim defeats? I guess you don’t remember 1389 when the Ottomans waxed the Serbs; or 1453 when they waxed Constantinople by an act of military maneuvers that makes one think of Patton (in one night they built an eleven mile long road all of wood, then greased it with cow fat and dragged their ships from the Black Sea into the Medditerranean by morning). Muslims also stopped the glorious Golden Horde of the Mongols — which neither the Russians nor Eastern Europeans were able to do. This happened in Egypt by the Mamelukes. Sure, go right ahead defining Islam as nothing more than a war machine. But at least have the decency to learn some military history.
“Sure, go right ahead defining Islam as nothing more than a war machine.”
I don’t believe that I did anything like that. Nor do I evaluate religions in terms of the success of thier military conquests. Any more than I evaluate the quality of a hero by his prowess at arms, to make a strawman of your interesting essay.
All religions are defined by a core belief in something. For Christians it is the belief in the ressurected Christ. You can believe in many different things, and argue over many points of debatable doctrine, but if you don’t believe in that you aren’t really a Christian and probably won’t commit yourself to believing in the religion the way someone who does believe in that miracle believes in it. The risen Christ as an event and as a continuing belief is what creates Christianity. In the same fashion, a book and an Empire creates Islam. This isn’t even contriversial. The Saudia Arabian fluff peice that aired on American public television was entitled, “Islam: Empire of Faith”. I’m not telling anyone how to see the religion, least of all you. If you disagree that Islam is a Book and an Empire, then say so and why.
I was merely introducing the idea that of the two foundations of Faith Islam offers its believers, one of them is a Book and the other is the promise of victory most evidently fulfilled in the lifetime of Mohammeds first followers.
I’m very much aware that Tours does not mark the high water mark of Islamic conquest in the East, and of the military ingenuity of the Ottomans, and of the defeat of the Mongols by the Mamelukes.
But bringing all of that up misses the point.
The point is that from some conceptions of what it means to be Islamic (internal conceptions, nothing I or anyone else is forcing on the religion), Tours should have never happened in the first place - much less the series of subsequent defeats with rather dwarf even the august military achievements you mentioned. Tours does indeed start the ‘era of defeats’, in that before that it’s not easy to point to one, but after that it’s not hard at all. The Mamelukes had much success against the Golden Horde, but how did Baghdad fare? It’s not much of a miracle if you only win some of the time and only for ordinary reasons. Again, “If God is with you, how could anyone thwart you?” If indeed God is in your Hizb, how manifest should be your victories? In fact, the implication of your huffy rejection of my claim that Tours starts the era of Islamic military defeats, is the tacit admission that a little further on in history we can reach an era where there is pretty much nothing but defeats. But that is not what I meant.
Tours in archetype of everything that comes after represents a psychological crisis of faith at minimum on par with that experienced by a Christian when he discovers after his salvation that he still is capable of sin (or a Fundamentalist Christian has when he first discovers the Bible in error). Tours starts the problem. Indeed the problem is comparitively greater, because the assurance of righteousness in his followers is not a bedrock belief of Christianity (else, why Judas?). Depending on what a Moslem believes in, it is equivalent to finding the bones of Christ.
Crises of faith, especially crises that call into question the foundation of the Faith - as it does in the case of a Fundamentalist Christian whose faith is based solely on a belief in the bible as The Word of God - require large psychological responces from the believer. What I’m suggesting is simply that it is not unreasonable to suggest that the militant extremists of Islam may be motivated by a poor responce to the crisis of Faith resulting from observing the relative impoverishment and weekness of Dar Al Islam to just about everyone else.
I am not suggesting that it need provoke poor reponces in anyone or even that it represents an insurmountable difficulty with the Faith.
And, its a rather pitiful jab to ask me to learn some military history. I’d be careful about lording the superiority of your knowledge over someone you don’t know. It may well be that you know more than I do (but it may well be the reverse), but whether you do or not, most people who know me - and that includes more than the average share of grognards - would say that I have sufficient knowledge in the subject of military history.
I don’t agree on a number of counts.
The bedrock of your assertion is that the core of being Muslim is to obey the Quran and to believe in the promise of victory.
I think you have expressed the core of being a Political Islamist. To them, obedience to the Quran necessitates a political expansion of Islam as well. They further argue — and have quite successfully sold the idea — that Islam and Politics are one and the same. I think you are buying into that. I don’t blame you. Many, many Muslims have bought into it as well.
Which is unfortunate. Islamic history is replete with examples of Muslims who do not believe that Islam is as much a mode of governance as it is a code of ethics. The Ottomans were a primary example. They dichotomized Sharia Law from Qanun, the Sultan’s Law. Until 1979, Shias believed in a demarcation between religion and politics. Khomeini’s idea of Vilayat e Faqih upturned that. Still, Shias object to it. In fact, if you were reading Pajamas Media recently you might have seen the video of a populist Ayatollah in Iran who wants to separate the Sharia from the Government. You’d think he’d be called a reformist or a secularist. No, he is called a traditionalist. Pakistan, to this day, retains a huge group of believers who are almost apathetic towards politics and do not really object to which ideological covering their nation wears: they were OK with secularists like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and they were OK with Islamists like Zia ul Haq.
You have to keep in mind that 18th century Enlightenment thinkers read a separation of Church and State **back** into Christian history (by relying on the render unto Caesar theme). The Christians before them would have **never** accepted such a distinction. I encourage you to look at the Locke versus Filmore debate. In other words, the idea that a Christian would accept that the political governance would not be caught up in advancing Christian interests is a relatively new phenomenon (and it is still with us to a large extent).
You are reading 20th century biases back into history. I like your biases. I agree with them. I am a fan of Liberalism.
I just don’t think it is honest to read these biases back into periods of history that neither knew or cared a whit about them. Not only that, but I think to continue to insist on it, is particularly dishonest.
Celeb,
Might I, speaking directly to your post, add that if you want to talk about the crisis of faith i.e. — whose side is God on if God promised victory to Muslims — started not with Tours, but with the death of the Prophet and the subsequent civil war in which the Muslim community found itself immediately thereafter. Three of the first four Caliphs were killed by Muslims. Each side believed that God was on their side. Yes, Muslims like to say that God is on their side, all religions do that; but Muslims are also conspicuously aware that often it is hard to claim God on your side even amongst Muslims. Religion and God, as Burke said, are pre-texts for the basers human vices, like greed, avarice, and hatred. And as he said, the wise men concern themselvess with the baser vices, without getting caught up in the pre-texts. I do not defend the “History” (with a capital H) of anything, and I am not about to start now.
“I think you have expressed the core of being a Political Islamist.”
Yes.
“To them, obedience to the Quran necessitates a political expansion of Islam as well.”
Yes.
“They further argue — and have quite successfully sold the idea — that Islam and Politics are one and the same.”
Yes.
“I think you are buying into that.”
No, I’m not. I’m merely relating what you just related to me, only when I say it you (rather understandably) see it as an attack on your person and beliefs, hense, the need to claim that I ‘buy into it’.
“I don’t blame you. Many, many Muslims have bought into it as well.”
Good, then we are in agreement. As I said, I am not imposing my views of Islam on this argument. I am relating the internal views of what is probably the majority of Muslims in the world, though very likely not the majority of Muslims in say, the United States or even Morraco or Indonesia. Though, in the latter two cases, its an open question whether the ‘political Islam’ view will gain ascendance in the near future.
“Which is unfortunate. Islamic history is replete with examples of Muslims who do not believe that Islam is as much a mode of governance as it is a code of ethics.”
Very much so. If you read what I wrote again, you’ll note that I did not argue that faith in the Empire was the core of Islamic belief. I argued that it had become core to many peoples Islamic belief, and that the failure of the Empire to obtain what they believe is its promise represents as serious crisis of faith for them.
I’m glad you are aware that this crisis is not a new phenomenom in the history of Islam. It is, like it or not, not for nothing that Islam gives to English the word ‘assassination’ (as well as the word ‘admiral’, ‘chemistry’, and the names of all the stars, yes, I know). What I find most ironic in the pronouncements of people like Osama Bin Ladin who want to ‘restore the Caliphate’ (and with it the Golden Age before the problem of getting defeated became so manifest), is that is in my opinion it savages such as himself who brought to an end the fabled golden age of Islam in the first place by murdering the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scholars and ministers as scape goats. The Golden Age he longs for is not one he would have been welcome in.
“I just don’t think it is honest to read these biases back into periods of history that neither knew or cared a whit about them. Not only that, but I think to continue to insist on it, is particularly dishonest.”
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, but I hope by that you don’t mean that the problem of ‘political Islam’ is something new to the 20th century.
As far as Christianity goes, one of the big differences between it and the other Abrahamic faiths is that Christianity doesn’t have a body of civic law. The rise and creation of Christian nations, political institutions, and eventually armies is not anticipated by its body of scripture, which means that the entire body of Christian political thought is divorsed from its cannon text and for that matter no one seriously pursued the subject until centuries after the religion’s founding. It just didn’t come up.
So, I think it is somewhat to strong of a claim to suggest “that Christians before them would have **never** accepted such a distinction.” and the claim that the separation of Church and State in the West was based solely on the ‘render unto Caesar’ passage betrays a real lack of experience with Christian texts. Moreover, strictly speaking, the Church and State were separate in theory even under the height of the Catholic church’s secular power in the middle ages. There was always both an Emporer and a Pope, always two parallel institutions, in theory (though rarely in practice) governing two aspects of life. There was always a tension between the power of the State and of the Church, the one checking the other or gaining ascendancy over the other as the case may be. (I assume you’ve studied Western civilization and know this.) The blurring is an artifact of Bishops and other ‘princes of the Church’ ended up getting folded into the secular governance via fuedal allegiances and wearing two hats as it were. But the real complete blurring of the lines (at least in the West) doesn’t come until the creation of the Anglican church in England, with the state and the church embodied in one man. When the founders spoke of ’separating Church and State’, they weren’t speaking primarily of the problem of Catholicism, with which few of them had had direct experience. The were speaking of a much more real and present unification of the two which did not need philosophical abstraction, and which represented Christian intolerance for religious expression at one of its most brutal points. But the Enlightenment was hardly the first time that overstepping of the Church’s authority into secular matters had been challenged.
But the situation in Islam is very different, precisely because Mohammed ruled as a political leader within his own lifetime and the issue of a civic body of law is - like it or not - completely entwined in Islam’s sacred text, as you yourself say:
“…but the problem occurs: the hadith are as complicated as American legal case-law, with as much diversity, error, and chaos. Hadith about being just are set along hadith relating to inheritance laws. Thanks for the lesson, I’m an expert at apportioning Islamic wills at the age of nine.”
You are speaking of the Hadith’s, but its not a contriversial assertion that the Koran devotes a similar portion of the text to civic laws. So, I would argue, that the reason that political Islam is so easy to sell to Moslems, is that its not that unreasonable to find it in the text. It’s there. It’s easy to find. It requires more thought to see it as something else, as you see Drizzt’s swordmanship, than it does to understand the passage in the most obvious way. Something has to be done with all those passages about civic law. Does Arabic have a word which means ’secular’? The role of religion in one’s civic life is always a question a religion has to deal with, but its a much bigger issue for Islam than it is for Christianity because its not a difficult or large part of the text of Christianity. In fact, the difficulties presented by the role of Christianity in civic life largely stem from the silence the text has on the question of proper Christian governance rather than the reverse.
“Might I, speaking directly to your post, add that if you want to talk about the crisis of faith i.e. — whose side is God on if God promised victory to Muslims — started not with Tours, but with the death of the Prophet and the subsequent civil war in which the Muslim community found itself immediately thereafter. Three of the first four Caliphs were killed by Muslims.”
Precisely.
But, as an explanation for dealing with the crisis of faith, I hope you can see how this is not very satisfying to someone inured to believe in the Empire of Faith, and whose morality rests largely in the belief of the just, brave, and glorious conquest and the justly and rightously governed Empire that resulted and who longs for those glory days of flashing scimitars, charges into the teeth of battle against overwhelming odds, clear enemies and clear victories, and a cause both noble and just. Surely you can relate? How easy is the reflex when challenged on that Empire’s weaknesses and limitations, to respond with a defence of the glories of centuries past - even for someone as self-reflective as yourself? To argue that the problem begins not at Tours but rather at the death of the Prophet himself, is to take the gloss off that Empire, to tarnish one of the few things some angsty Islamic kid can feel ownership of. True or not, if this is your crisis of faith, your first implus is not going to be to claim that the Empire of Faith was rotten to begin with and should serve as the model for all that is right and good in the world (any more than it serves as a good model for all that is evil in the world, which some here would seem to have).
No, I think for the Islamists - then and now - the crisis begins at Tours, even if the root of the problem goes earlier, they aren’t going to see it.
I’m going to respond to # 59 first. I think you may be trying to read your version of the crisis into the Islamist world. Yes, they have a long history. Yes, they appeal to the glorious past. However, what I have found, in my reading, and in my personal experience, is that the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 is a far greater spur than anything else. It allows them a tangible ‘moment’ at which ‘it’ all ‘crashed.’ In other words, you might be giving them more credit than is due. Perhaps the more historically aware among them might think as deeply as you, but not the average Islamist. The Ottoman Empire plays a huge pscyhological impact. It is the only of the Muslim Caliphates to ever be dubbed — by Muslims itself — as “Empire” and it still colors how Muslims (and non-Muslims) think of as Caliphate. I mean, just think about it: it was around for close to 800 years. That is almost three times as long as the United States! 1924 is also far more an effective rallying cry than “Remember Tours!” Why? Because after Tours there were numerous huge victories. After 1924 there aren’t any. Plus the fact that it was brought down 1) by the British (representatives of the West) and from an inside secular ‘traitor’ allows the Islamists to appeal to their two bogeymen: West & Secularism.
Beautifully written and all too relevant for our times.
About A Boy - new movie on http://www.dvdipodmovies.com
ya Drizzts awesome! R.A. Salvatores the best author ever! yes drizzt is bit like everyone isnt he?
If you’re going to compare Drizzt to religion, then you should keep facts Faerun’s straight. For example, Wulfgar is not Norse, the drow are not tribalistic and were chased underground by other elves for their dedication to an evil diety, not because they lost an empire. Drow’s common eyecolor is red, both infrared and using the normal spectrum, but Drizzt are lavender, both infrared and regular. Something sounds very inaccurate in your summary of his life in the Underdark, especially the rumors filtering to the above world part. Skipping a bit forwards, he was not accepted by the ladies of Silverymoon, but by the Lady of Silverymoon, Lady Alustriel. Drizzt has had brief encounters with the Sylvan folk, most notably in his raid on a moon elf village, on his journey back to Menzoberranzan when he encountered Tarathiel, and all throughout the last two books of the Hunter’s Blades. He never aids in revitalizing their forests.
From this article it seems that you have only read Homeland, The Crystal Shard, and The Halfling’s Gem. If you have read the entire series, barring Transitions, then I must say you need to reread it and take notes.
These highly critical comments are not in any way due to the religious aspects of this article. I think it’s quite fine to compare Drizzt to feelings of foreign adaptation especially in times as these. But butchering such a great character’s history as Drizzt Do’Urden’s, is simply unacceptable.
I agree whole heartedly, personaly i think everyone should have a look at at least the icewind dale series, if not all of them, just to see what an honorable character truely looks like.
Lucky the Shadow
P.S. Dual scimitars rock, just sayin’…
Wow. I am impressed by what I’ve read in both blog and responses. Everyone seems to go out of their way not to insult, but to observe. It seems we all are saying the same thing, just coming at it from different directions. Yeah, violence is wrong against anyone. Honor and understanding should win out, though often it does not. And Blake, Americans voted in the government we thought would keep us safe from another 9/11. And it has. The world chooses to send the USA to take care of problems they don’t have the gonads to take care of themselves, and then criticizes us for it. I personally support isolationism. Let the world take care of themselves. Quit sucking us dry of both money and the blood of our young men and then bitching about us. I would prefer a big fat tax refund as opposed to helping the ungrateful assholes who have been given the gift of freedom and self government instead of a brutal regime who kills their own people for entertainment. But oh yeah, most of the common Iraqi people appreciate not having to fear their own life because of their shitty government. Check out how many turned out to vote in the Iraqi elections in spite of the threat to their own life just showing up. Maybe your big bleeding heart should see the other side of the coin. And Zeke, I don’t support being judgemental on anyone. I’ve used my own share of bad judgement and have enough regrets of my own stupidity to understand that others have to live their life in a way that makes sense to them; not how I see it. I would probably be called “Christian”, although I prefer to be called a follower of Jesus. I don’t hold to titles, only works. Good works that should be given selflessly. See what the other guy needs and try to provide it. I’m sorry for your parents. As all Muslims aren’t Jihadists, all “Christians” aren’t judgemental. We should try to avoid lumping people into catagories, and as Martin Luther King said “judge based on content of charecter, not color of skin”, and for that matter, any other reason. I don’t know that I support the lifestyle, I just know neither do I condemn it. I don’t have the right. Only the ONE true God has the right of judgement. And back to the original subject of the article, Drizzt does live the honorable life I speak of. He helps those who cannot successfully help themselves, but who have innocence on their side. I am currently reading the entire series for the third time. Fighting evil where we find it is our moral obligation. Evil is the persecution of the innocent for personal gain or satisfaction. I am not an eloquent person and don’t often write comments, so I ask anyone reading this response to cut me the benefit of the doubt; I’d love to see a world at peace within ourselves and in general, but to me that means helping those who can’t escape tyrrany themselves. I live in a country where I don’t have to fear being persecuted for my beliefs and if I am, those who persecute have to answer for it. Protection for the helpless and innocent. It doesn’t always work, but I pray some day it might for all the world. Who we help should be based on the most helpless of the society, not those in power who want to cling to their own self interest. Or who are simply too lazy to get off their ass and help themselves. If you can contribute, do it. That way the truly helpless can receive the help they need. In the words of John Lennon, love IS the answer, when tendered with compassion.