has been taken down by the Washington Post, but it is available at Balkinization.
There is also some interesting discussion of it at the Wes Clark "Securing America" website. More here.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Why I'm a Clarkie
Top ten reasons why I supported Wes Clark for president in 2004 and will support him again in 2008 (crossposted at Clark Community Network)
10. He's got policies I agree with.
From affirmative action to the war in Iraq, General Clark articulates well the positions I hold dear, even when they are controversial. When other Democrats came out for a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal I had grave misgivings. I'm not a vet, but I know enough military history to know that setting a deadline for withdrawal is equivalent to handing the country over to civil war and/or terrorists. General Clark was able to explain that to other Democrats, and get them to accept it, much better than I could. And of course he was against the war to begin with, he's just savvy enough to realize that once the war starts the situation is different.
9. I trust him to handle novel situations.
Politics in a republic (and this is still a republic more than a democracy) is not so much about the people choosing the policies directly as it is about choosing office holders we trust to make the decisions for us. I trust General Clark to make those decisions far more than I trust any other Democrat likely to run for president. Bush isn't even in the running there.
8. He's a centrist
This may sound strange coming from a former DSA socialist, but times have changed. The country doesn't need another polarizing figure, from the left or the right, in the midst of two wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - don't buy that Bush bull about it being one big GWOT or G-SAVE or whatever they're calling it now). We need someone who can pull us together while we confront our enemies abroad.
7. He knows a lot about foreign affairs.
He's lived overseas, he's fought overseas, he's worked with foreign leaders. This is an exceptionally erudite presidential candidate with exceptional theoretical and practical grasp of foreign affairs. In today's increasingly interconnected, globalized world that's more important than most Americans realize. I live overseas and it's very important to me.
6. He understands long term issues like global warming.
He's not just narrowly focused on military or even diplomatic aspects of national security. He realizes that securing our life together on this planet concerns the environment just as much as it does our military. He's not afraid to pick the best minds in the world to get the best advice and he's got the brains to understand what the problems are and what the possible solutions are.
5. He's not afraid to dump his supporters if he has to.
This may sound strange coming from someone who put his name on the original Draft Clark website, but it didn't faze me that General Clark dumped the founders of the Draft Clark movement and picked up the best available advisers from the failed campaigns of other Democrat candidates, especially Bob Graham, A good leader needs to get the best people he can. I've had enough of loyalty and cronyism to last me a lifetime from the son-of-a-Bush administration occupying the White House now. Abe Lincoln appointed his Republican rivals to his cabinet, and even a Democrat as Secretary of War, because they were the best people he could get. I hope General Clark appoints his rivals, and even honest Republicans, to his cabinet. If he ever appoints me to anything I plan to ask him why he thinks I am qualified. He better have a convincing answer, but I'm sure he will. I trust him that much.
4. He's not a politician.
This is part of being a general, I suppose. They're the only other types we elect as presidents. Other politicians come out of state houses and make a big deal about not being Washington insiders, but they're local politicians just aching to get into the big leagues. They've been bought and are beholden to local special interests in a way real outsiders like General Clark are not.
The press jumped on a lot of General Clark's early misstatements in the 2004 presidential race, but to me they simply proved that he was really being honest and taking positions that he thought were best, consequences be damned. He's shown that same ability to learn quickly in his campaign, and overcame his rough start. In 2008 he'll be more than ready.
3. He's really smart.
Clark was a Rhodes scholar, and can think on his feet. He's obviously extremely intelligent, and his knowledge base isn't limited to military affairs. He's informed himself about economics, social policy and other matters, and what's most important in these changing times, he's shown that he is a very fast learner.
2. He's not afraid of people with brains.
This is a bit of a corollary with number 2, but it's not the same thing. Everyone thinks FDR was really smart because he had all these brilliant ideas. He didn't really come up with those ideas, though. He had a "brains trust" to feed him ideas. They were flattered to be around the president and he really enjoyed being around brilliant people and being stimulated by them. The results were great.
I am not one of those who thinks W is dumb. I think he's dyslexic. He can't read, so he is short on information. He knows people think he's dumb, so he resents well-read, intelligent people. His disdain for such people shows through. Anti-intellectuals love him for it, but he deprives himself of the best thinking in the nation and the world. Two heads are better than one, and there is no leader anywhere in the world or anywhere in history who doesn't need to get the best advice he can, from the best people available. Bush isn't getting it and I think Clark would.
and the number one reason I support Clark is:
1. He's a general.
I've been shouting for a general since getting sick of watching all the sleazy Republicans at the 1976 Republican national convention. "POLITICIANS ARE ALL CROOKS!" I shouted "WE SHOULD HAVE A MILITARY PRESIDENT!"
"Wha, what are you saying?" a friend gasped.
"OH SHUT UP!" I said "WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY PRESIDENTS, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER! AND SOME OF 'EM WERE PRETTY GOOD!"
"Hey, what's the matter with you?" other friends chimed in "What? Are you against Andy Jackson now?"
"Oh." the guy calmed down. "Oh yeah. What about Grant?"
Well, he had us there. Being a general doesn't always guarantee a great president, but that just brings us back to all the other points.
So what am I hoping to get out of a Clark administration? More funding for foreign language and area studies for one thing. Even Republicans in the military have been in favor of that. The military were the only thing that saved NDEA Title VI FLAS funding during the Reagan years, and McCain was the only one of the final four in the 2000 race who talked about "English plus" (one of my pet issues.) I expect even more support for it from President Clark when he moves into the White House in 2009.
10. He's got policies I agree with.
From affirmative action to the war in Iraq, General Clark articulates well the positions I hold dear, even when they are controversial. When other Democrats came out for a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal I had grave misgivings. I'm not a vet, but I know enough military history to know that setting a deadline for withdrawal is equivalent to handing the country over to civil war and/or terrorists. General Clark was able to explain that to other Democrats, and get them to accept it, much better than I could. And of course he was against the war to begin with, he's just savvy enough to realize that once the war starts the situation is different.
9. I trust him to handle novel situations.
Politics in a republic (and this is still a republic more than a democracy) is not so much about the people choosing the policies directly as it is about choosing office holders we trust to make the decisions for us. I trust General Clark to make those decisions far more than I trust any other Democrat likely to run for president. Bush isn't even in the running there.
8. He's a centrist
This may sound strange coming from a former DSA socialist, but times have changed. The country doesn't need another polarizing figure, from the left or the right, in the midst of two wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - don't buy that Bush bull about it being one big GWOT or G-SAVE or whatever they're calling it now). We need someone who can pull us together while we confront our enemies abroad.
7. He knows a lot about foreign affairs.
He's lived overseas, he's fought overseas, he's worked with foreign leaders. This is an exceptionally erudite presidential candidate with exceptional theoretical and practical grasp of foreign affairs. In today's increasingly interconnected, globalized world that's more important than most Americans realize. I live overseas and it's very important to me.
6. He understands long term issues like global warming.
He's not just narrowly focused on military or even diplomatic aspects of national security. He realizes that securing our life together on this planet concerns the environment just as much as it does our military. He's not afraid to pick the best minds in the world to get the best advice and he's got the brains to understand what the problems are and what the possible solutions are.
5. He's not afraid to dump his supporters if he has to.
This may sound strange coming from someone who put his name on the original Draft Clark website, but it didn't faze me that General Clark dumped the founders of the Draft Clark movement and picked up the best available advisers from the failed campaigns of other Democrat candidates, especially Bob Graham, A good leader needs to get the best people he can. I've had enough of loyalty and cronyism to last me a lifetime from the son-of-a-Bush administration occupying the White House now. Abe Lincoln appointed his Republican rivals to his cabinet, and even a Democrat as Secretary of War, because they were the best people he could get. I hope General Clark appoints his rivals, and even honest Republicans, to his cabinet. If he ever appoints me to anything I plan to ask him why he thinks I am qualified. He better have a convincing answer, but I'm sure he will. I trust him that much.
4. He's not a politician.
This is part of being a general, I suppose. They're the only other types we elect as presidents. Other politicians come out of state houses and make a big deal about not being Washington insiders, but they're local politicians just aching to get into the big leagues. They've been bought and are beholden to local special interests in a way real outsiders like General Clark are not.
The press jumped on a lot of General Clark's early misstatements in the 2004 presidential race, but to me they simply proved that he was really being honest and taking positions that he thought were best, consequences be damned. He's shown that same ability to learn quickly in his campaign, and overcame his rough start. In 2008 he'll be more than ready.
3. He's really smart.
Clark was a Rhodes scholar, and can think on his feet. He's obviously extremely intelligent, and his knowledge base isn't limited to military affairs. He's informed himself about economics, social policy and other matters, and what's most important in these changing times, he's shown that he is a very fast learner.
2. He's not afraid of people with brains.
This is a bit of a corollary with number 2, but it's not the same thing. Everyone thinks FDR was really smart because he had all these brilliant ideas. He didn't really come up with those ideas, though. He had a "brains trust" to feed him ideas. They were flattered to be around the president and he really enjoyed being around brilliant people and being stimulated by them. The results were great.
I am not one of those who thinks W is dumb. I think he's dyslexic. He can't read, so he is short on information. He knows people think he's dumb, so he resents well-read, intelligent people. His disdain for such people shows through. Anti-intellectuals love him for it, but he deprives himself of the best thinking in the nation and the world. Two heads are better than one, and there is no leader anywhere in the world or anywhere in history who doesn't need to get the best advice he can, from the best people available. Bush isn't getting it and I think Clark would.
and the number one reason I support Clark is:
1. He's a general.
I've been shouting for a general since getting sick of watching all the sleazy Republicans at the 1976 Republican national convention. "POLITICIANS ARE ALL CROOKS!" I shouted "WE SHOULD HAVE A MILITARY PRESIDENT!"
"Wha, what are you saying?" a friend gasped.
"OH SHUT UP!" I said "WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY PRESIDENTS, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER! AND SOME OF 'EM WERE PRETTY GOOD!"
"Hey, what's the matter with you?" other friends chimed in "What? Are you against Andy Jackson now?"
"Oh." the guy calmed down. "Oh yeah. What about Grant?"
Well, he had us there. Being a general doesn't always guarantee a great president, but that just brings us back to all the other points.
So what am I hoping to get out of a Clark administration? More funding for foreign language and area studies for one thing. Even Republicans in the military have been in favor of that. The military were the only thing that saved NDEA Title VI FLAS funding during the Reagan years, and McCain was the only one of the final four in the 2000 race who talked about "English plus" (one of my pet issues.) I expect even more support for it from President Clark when he moves into the White House in 2009.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
St. Vladimir Lenin
Why won't Lenin rot? The Bolsheviks wouldn't let him.
Russians Divided on Lenin Burial — Poll
Part of Russia's "dual faith" (the syncretic survivals of paganism in the Russian Orthodox Church) has been belief in the uncorruptibility of the relics of saints. In other words, the remains of truly holy people can't rot.
The Bolsheviki pickled Lenin by some still secret techniques, put his corpse on display, then ordered Russians to file slowly past his remains. This would convince Russians that Lenin was in fact the most holy of holy men that Holy Mother Russia had ever produced. So much for scientific socialism!
Isn't it time for everyone to admit that Lenin was neither saint nor devil incarnate, but simply another human being, who had his faults and his virtues, who shuffled off this mortal coil as we all have or will? He is not here in the flesh anymore. Maybe he has ceased to exist, maybe he is in a place of reward or punishment, but the conspicuous display of his pickled corpse does not serve any purpose, useful or not, in the 21st century.
At the very least, the Communist Party should stop trying to exploit ignorant superstitious Russians. As education spreads there should be fewer and fewer of them in the future.
Russians Divided on Lenin Burial — Poll
Part of Russia's "dual faith" (the syncretic survivals of paganism in the Russian Orthodox Church) has been belief in the uncorruptibility of the relics of saints. In other words, the remains of truly holy people can't rot.
The Bolsheviki pickled Lenin by some still secret techniques, put his corpse on display, then ordered Russians to file slowly past his remains. This would convince Russians that Lenin was in fact the most holy of holy men that Holy Mother Russia had ever produced. So much for scientific socialism!
Isn't it time for everyone to admit that Lenin was neither saint nor devil incarnate, but simply another human being, who had his faults and his virtues, who shuffled off this mortal coil as we all have or will? He is not here in the flesh anymore. Maybe he has ceased to exist, maybe he is in a place of reward or punishment, but the conspicuous display of his pickled corpse does not serve any purpose, useful or not, in the 21st century.
At the very least, the Communist Party should stop trying to exploit ignorant superstitious Russians. As education spreads there should be fewer and fewer of them in the future.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Everyone who loves America
should listen to this talk now!
Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, a man of impeccable experience in the military, diplomatic and academic worlds, analyzes what is going wrong with US national security policy and what we have to do to fix it. Everyone should listen to this man, because he has some extremely important things to say.
Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, a man of impeccable experience in the military, diplomatic and academic worlds, analyzes what is going wrong with US national security policy and what we have to do to fix it. Everyone should listen to this man, because he has some extremely important things to say.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Islamic Puritanism
I'm not going to get involved in the argument over whether the latest Al-Qa'ida letter is fake. I am going to use the opportunity to point out a strong similarity between so-called "Islamic Fundamentalism" and Puritanism.
from Reuters:
"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and critic of the U.S. war against terrorism, also said the letter appeared authentic.
"Scheuer said the letter's admission of setbacks were typical of al Qaeda. "They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.""
Nowadays Americans tend to think of "Puritan" as a synonym for prude, and focus on such negative aspects of the movement as witchcraft trials, but in fact the Puritans were heavily involved in the growth of Parliamentary supremacy and eventually democracy in the English speaking world.
What they didn't give us is the one positive tradition that most American history texts that students get attribute to them. I'm speaking of religious tolerance. It didn't come from Massachusetts. It came from Rhode Island, where refugees from Puritanism fled.
The parallels, for better or worse, between Puritanism and modern Islamic extremism could easily be stretched too far, but they do exist. Religious people, "people of faith" if you will, have been trying for centuries to come to terms with the modern world. It has been rough. Islamic civilization is starting, in its own way, to go through a process that western Christian civilization has been going through, too.
from Reuters:
"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and critic of the U.S. war against terrorism, also said the letter appeared authentic.
"Scheuer said the letter's admission of setbacks were typical of al Qaeda. "They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.""
Nowadays Americans tend to think of "Puritan" as a synonym for prude, and focus on such negative aspects of the movement as witchcraft trials, but in fact the Puritans were heavily involved in the growth of Parliamentary supremacy and eventually democracy in the English speaking world.
What they didn't give us is the one positive tradition that most American history texts that students get attribute to them. I'm speaking of religious tolerance. It didn't come from Massachusetts. It came from Rhode Island, where refugees from Puritanism fled.
The parallels, for better or worse, between Puritanism and modern Islamic extremism could easily be stretched too far, but they do exist. Religious people, "people of faith" if you will, have been trying for centuries to come to terms with the modern world. It has been rough. Islamic civilization is starting, in its own way, to go through a process that western Christian civilization has been going through, too.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
President violates Constitution
from the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12: "President Bush sought again today to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, and he said that Ms. Miers's religion was pertinent to the overall discussion about her."
The US Constitution says (Article VI, Clause 3): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]
Conservatives and Fundamentalists complained that liberals were trying to apply a religious litmus test against Roberts, and one Senator (anyone remember which one?) pointed out that they were accusing him of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Now these same Conservatives and Fundamentalists are trying to apply a religious test for the civil office of the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think Jesus talked about hypocrites so much because he knew what his followers would turn into. Muhammad talked about them a lot, too. I don't consider myself a follower of Muhammad, and I don't know if he was just echoing Jesus on this, but both their religions are full of hypocrites. We just happen to have more "Christian" hypocrites in the United States.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12: "President Bush sought again today to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, and he said that Ms. Miers's religion was pertinent to the overall discussion about her."
The US Constitution says (Article VI, Clause 3): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]
Conservatives and Fundamentalists complained that liberals were trying to apply a religious litmus test against Roberts, and one Senator (anyone remember which one?) pointed out that they were accusing him of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Now these same Conservatives and Fundamentalists are trying to apply a religious test for the civil office of the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think Jesus talked about hypocrites so much because he knew what his followers would turn into. Muhammad talked about them a lot, too. I don't consider myself a follower of Muhammad, and I don't know if he was just echoing Jesus on this, but both their religions are full of hypocrites. We just happen to have more "Christian" hypocrites in the United States.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
John Conyers and Harper's magazine
"Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The wrongs exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily for those) but specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act."
It's not paranoia, it's well documented in respectable, serious sources. Read about it here.
It's not paranoia, it's well documented in respectable, serious sources. Read about it here.
Who ARE these guys, anyway?
Here's an analysis from the BBC:
"The insurgency has no single spokesman, nor any shared long-term aim. Where some groups, for instance, are fighting for a Sunni Muslim caliphate, others foresee a Shia theocracy for Iraq."
"The insurgency has no single spokesman, nor any shared long-term aim. Where some groups, for instance, are fighting for a Sunni Muslim caliphate, others foresee a Shia theocracy for Iraq."
Saturday, October 08, 2005
European terrorists graduating from Iraq
From France's top antiterrorist Investigating Magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguiere:
"Today, antiterrorist suspects are eyeing a new generation of radicals who have been born and bred in Europe -- or have spent a large part of their lives living on the continent."
"Islamic extremists are returning to France from Iraq's battlegrounds with the skills and desire to carry out attacks in Europe, a top anti-terror judge said Thursday - warning that Europe needs a better-coordinated effort to face the threat."
more here:
and here:
"Today, antiterrorist suspects are eyeing a new generation of radicals who have been born and bred in Europe -- or have spent a large part of their lives living on the continent."
"Islamic extremists are returning to France from Iraq's battlegrounds with the skills and desire to carry out attacks in Europe, a top anti-terror judge said Thursday - warning that Europe needs a better-coordinated effort to face the threat."
more here:
and here:
Thursday, October 06, 2005
my conservative side
I am a liberal, ex-Socialist in fact, but I have always had a number of opinions that could better be described as conservative. Like most people, I have an individualistic mix of opinions that change over time.
I've been amused in the past few years at how many of my conservative ideas have become liberal. I believe in a balanced budget. Not each and every year, of course. I'm enough of a Keynesian (and was even as a Socialist) to know that counter-cyclical spending works both ways. You run a deficit to prime the pump in a recession, and you run a surplus in a boom, but if it doesn't balance out in the long run you have to print money to cover the defecit, and that causes inflation, or worse, stagflation. And I'm old enough to remember the curse of stagflation in the 1970's, and the misery index.
I believe in a strong defense, and I've always been anti-Communist (if you don't understand how a Socialist could be anti-Communist, please read about the Socialist International).
Now I find that the conservative Republican party activists don't believe in a balanced budget and think we can borrow money from the Red Chinese Communists finance their tax cuts. Think about this. Self-styled conservatives are mortgaging their own country to the Red Chinese Communists to buy votes. Well, some of these conservatives are really neo-Confederates who make little secret of their hatred for the United States, but most of them loudly criticize the patriotism of anyone who questions their suicidal fiscal and monetary policies, and their friendship with Communists who make no secret of the fact that they hate our system and our way of life. When Reagan was mortgaging the country to buy votes he at least borrowed the money from the Germans and the Japanese, democratic countries who are our friends.
And don't even get me started on how this Bush administration ignored the threat from bin Ladin, bungled (at best) the search for him and instead focused American anger and our military on an unrelated dictator who was no threat to us. But I've already written about that. And I'll write about it again. I just wanted to write about something else.
I've been amused in the past few years at how many of my conservative ideas have become liberal. I believe in a balanced budget. Not each and every year, of course. I'm enough of a Keynesian (and was even as a Socialist) to know that counter-cyclical spending works both ways. You run a deficit to prime the pump in a recession, and you run a surplus in a boom, but if it doesn't balance out in the long run you have to print money to cover the defecit, and that causes inflation, or worse, stagflation. And I'm old enough to remember the curse of stagflation in the 1970's, and the misery index.
I believe in a strong defense, and I've always been anti-Communist (if you don't understand how a Socialist could be anti-Communist, please read about the Socialist International).
Now I find that the conservative Republican party activists don't believe in a balanced budget and think we can borrow money from the Red Chinese Communists finance their tax cuts. Think about this. Self-styled conservatives are mortgaging their own country to the Red Chinese Communists to buy votes. Well, some of these conservatives are really neo-Confederates who make little secret of their hatred for the United States, but most of them loudly criticize the patriotism of anyone who questions their suicidal fiscal and monetary policies, and their friendship with Communists who make no secret of the fact that they hate our system and our way of life. When Reagan was mortgaging the country to buy votes he at least borrowed the money from the Germans and the Japanese, democratic countries who are our friends.
And don't even get me started on how this Bush administration ignored the threat from bin Ladin, bungled (at best) the search for him and instead focused American anger and our military on an unrelated dictator who was no threat to us. But I've already written about that. And I'll write about it again. I just wanted to write about something else.
Jihad and Crusade
There's a long debate about the meaning of the Arabic word "jihad". Most of us know it as "holy war" although there are many other meanings.
Some have criticized those who want to put emphasis on the more nuanced, modernist, or Sufic meanings of the word. This is legitimate, but there are other meanings, and sometimes they can be more valid. I remember something Bernard Lewis wrote about an old Orientalist joke that all Arabic words have at least 5 meanings: a dictionary meaning, its opposite, a meaning to do with horses, a meaning to do with camels, and (what did the other meaning have to do with? sex maybe? - serves me right for trying to tell an old Orientalist joke on a blog. Never mind, sorry, let's just get back to my point.)
Anyway, the inherent vagueness of Arabic vocabulary, which makes the language so excellent for poetry, is a problem here. Arabic speakers are often expert at using deliberate ambiguity, and in fact that is easy to do in the language. What did any particular Arabic speaker mean by "jihad"? Perhaps they themselves weren't sure.
Another example would be the Qur'anic justification for jihad, the phrase "fitnah ashaddan min al-qatl" or "Fitna is worse than slaughter." What is fitnah? Some define it as dissent, and Muslim rulers have used this to justify capital punishment for dissidents. Other define it as oppression, and use it as a justification for social revolution. Others define it as intolerance, and combine it with the other Qur'anic phrase, "la ikrah fi'ddiin" (no compulsion in religion) as a call to religious tolerance. It may be damning with faint praise to call Islam one of the most tolerant religions of the Middle Ages, but it is still a historical fact that it was tolerant.
There are even Muslim pacifists who define fitna as nothing. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not going to tell them they are heretics. I do know enough Arabic to know that the problems inherent in semantics are doubly problematic in that language. It ain't easy learning Arabic, although I wish I had time to learn more these days.
A good parallel in English to the problem of defining "jihad" in Arabic would be the word "crusade". Historically, as with the historic meaning of the word "jihad", it meant "holy war", specifically a war called by the Pope to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. Today it has a wider range of meanings, including calls for moral reform. The similar evolution of the word "jihad" should be apparent to anyone.
But this is not meant just to exonerate Muslims from their using a deliberate, sometimes disingenuous, ambiguity. It means they must themselves give understanding if they expect to get it. When President Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York and called for a crusade against terror, Muslims and others jumped on him for insensitivity. Maybe so, and I certainly wouldn't want this interpreted as support of Bush, or even his faux pas, but if Muslims demand that others respect their ambiguity when they use the word "jihad" they must be prepared to extend a similar respect to the similar ambiguities in the word "crusade".
After all, Thomas Aquinas's theory of "just war" actually owed a lot to Muslim philosophers' theories of jihad. We all have more in common than many of us are inclined to believe, much less respect.
Some have criticized those who want to put emphasis on the more nuanced, modernist, or Sufic meanings of the word. This is legitimate, but there are other meanings, and sometimes they can be more valid. I remember something Bernard Lewis wrote about an old Orientalist joke that all Arabic words have at least 5 meanings: a dictionary meaning, its opposite, a meaning to do with horses, a meaning to do with camels, and (what did the other meaning have to do with? sex maybe? - serves me right for trying to tell an old Orientalist joke on a blog. Never mind, sorry, let's just get back to my point.)
Anyway, the inherent vagueness of Arabic vocabulary, which makes the language so excellent for poetry, is a problem here. Arabic speakers are often expert at using deliberate ambiguity, and in fact that is easy to do in the language. What did any particular Arabic speaker mean by "jihad"? Perhaps they themselves weren't sure.
Another example would be the Qur'anic justification for jihad, the phrase "fitnah ashaddan min al-qatl" or "Fitna is worse than slaughter." What is fitnah? Some define it as dissent, and Muslim rulers have used this to justify capital punishment for dissidents. Other define it as oppression, and use it as a justification for social revolution. Others define it as intolerance, and combine it with the other Qur'anic phrase, "la ikrah fi'ddiin" (no compulsion in religion) as a call to religious tolerance. It may be damning with faint praise to call Islam one of the most tolerant religions of the Middle Ages, but it is still a historical fact that it was tolerant.
There are even Muslim pacifists who define fitna as nothing. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not going to tell them they are heretics. I do know enough Arabic to know that the problems inherent in semantics are doubly problematic in that language. It ain't easy learning Arabic, although I wish I had time to learn more these days.
A good parallel in English to the problem of defining "jihad" in Arabic would be the word "crusade". Historically, as with the historic meaning of the word "jihad", it meant "holy war", specifically a war called by the Pope to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. Today it has a wider range of meanings, including calls for moral reform. The similar evolution of the word "jihad" should be apparent to anyone.
But this is not meant just to exonerate Muslims from their using a deliberate, sometimes disingenuous, ambiguity. It means they must themselves give understanding if they expect to get it. When President Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York and called for a crusade against terror, Muslims and others jumped on him for insensitivity. Maybe so, and I certainly wouldn't want this interpreted as support of Bush, or even his faux pas, but if Muslims demand that others respect their ambiguity when they use the word "jihad" they must be prepared to extend a similar respect to the similar ambiguities in the word "crusade".
After all, Thomas Aquinas's theory of "just war" actually owed a lot to Muslim philosophers' theories of jihad. We all have more in common than many of us are inclined to believe, much less respect.
I've been away
and I've been thinking about this blog.
I've been a little taken aback at how monomaniacally it's been obsessed with security. Part of that may be that it's what I am least able to talk about under my name. I need this anonymity, and the chance to vent, if only to myself, about it. Furthermore, If I post about other topics there's more chance of outing me.
But it does give a sense of unbalance.
I will continue to post about security.
But I'll try to post more about other things, too.
I've been a little taken aback at how monomaniacally it's been obsessed with security. Part of that may be that it's what I am least able to talk about under my name. I need this anonymity, and the chance to vent, if only to myself, about it. Furthermore, If I post about other topics there's more chance of outing me.
But it does give a sense of unbalance.
I will continue to post about security.
But I'll try to post more about other things, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)