James Fallows and
Ta-Nehisi Coates both have great posts on the burgeoning controversy over Harvard honoring Marty Peretz, who has a
history of saying some pretty nakedly bigoted things. Coates' point, that one can be a bigot
and a great journalist is particularly well-taken (regardless of whether Peretz qualifies as a great journalist or not):
The notion that we must choose between the two, that one mitigates the other, that good people don't do deplorable things, that deplorable people don't do great things, emanates from our own inability to understand that bigotry is not strictly the preserve of orcs.
Not Harvard's finest hour, to be sure.
38 comments:
The problem, here, is that Peretz is not a racist. However, he does write things that are disagreeable, which is another matter.
One big problem on our side of the political aisle is that, rather than debate, we brand opponents. It is a foolish ideology and one reason why the left is in such disarray.
Please do not quote me some disagreeable comment from Peretz. I have read him for years. He says things that, were context to be removed entirely, might be called racist. But, the gist of his viewpoint is not racist and his comments are taken, most often, without reading the words that surround the supposed racist comment. Again, this makes the left, not Peretz, look bad in the long term.
So, deal with people's ideas and assertions. Claim they are wrong - with evidence and/or with logic. Assert that views, even if correct, go places we ought not travel. But, do not, taking this or that line from a comment, call people racists. That is disreputable.
And, I know that Peretz issued an apology. However, as he noted - and noted accurately - he was not attempting to say something racist. Unless you are also calling him a liar, then his denial of intent needs to be considered.
If I had accused Peretz of being intentionally racist, then I would have to take into account his denial of racist intent. But since I made no claims about intent (subjective intent being (a) notoriously difficult to decipher and (b) wildly overrated in terms of its probative value in ascertaining whether the content of a normative claim or position is bigoted), his disclaimer of racist intent is rather immaterial.
David,
So, you are concerned by Peretz saying things which, as we know, he did not intend to be understood as bigoted and, in fact, when read in context, are simply not bigoted. Yet, you assert that it is not Harvard's shining hour.
Consider: when you have a conversation and a person says something you find troubling, you can ask, "What did you mean by that?" and, of course, that person can explain. Perfectly awful sounding words often turn out not to mean nasty things.
The same, of course, is true on blogs. Peretz wrote something that, to anyone who can read, was a rhetorical question and was not racist or bigoted. Yet, the statement bothered people. He responded, explaining what he meant, which was not racist or bigoted, and apologizing for giving offense.
To you, it is not Harvard's shining hour. Why? Because Peretz used colorful language to express himself.
Since, Mr. Peretz did nothing wrong - other than use language that you would not use to express your thoughts - the problem here is what, exactly? Again, he said nothing bigoted. He merely used language that, taken out of context, could be interpreted to mean something he did not intend (and which, in context, was obviously not intended).
Come now, David. You must certainly realize that branding people is a disreputable approach, one that is favored by the fascistic right. Is that really the company you want to keep?
Even Peretz conceded that his First Amendment statement was morally wrong, and, insofar as it targeted a particular religious group for unique legal disability, was bigoted on face. And the "Muslim life is cheap", even as a descriptive claim, is very bigoted insofar as it paints the entire Muslim world with a ridiculously broad brush. Moreover, those statements barely scratch the surface of his bigoted statements. This was hardly a one-off.
David,
With due respect, the comment that "Muslim life is cheap" is not bigoted, on its face or otherwise. It expresses a thought which, read in the context of his short essay, made sense.
You have a tendency to think that statements can be understood without understanding their context. In a discussion about Islamic terrorism, noting that "Muslim life is cheap" tells the truth. In a statement about all Muslims, by contrast, it would be false. Understanding the difference is the difference between a scholar and a charlatan. Which do you want to be?
I read what Peretz said about the First Amendment. You are still misreading. He did not make a statement, He wrote a rhetorical question. And, Peretz stated afterwords that he did not intend that anyone ought lose first amendment rights. That ought to be the end of the matter.
Taking on the role of thought nanny is unbecoming. It makes you look bad, not Peretz. And, it tends to chill speech, which is not a good thing to do, most especially in these times when people need to examine and discuss ideas, not spend all their time worrying that someone will be upset. And, at this time in history, it is the Arab and Muslim and Jews, unfortunately, who are under the microscope. We can brand all with whom we disagree or, if we are smart, we can listen carefully and learn from thoughtful people, even if they, on occasion, say something which you would not say.
Anyone ever notice how the "context" of a statement is always cited as a way of removing it from the "context" of the society and history in which it is uttered?
joe,
And, the context here is what, exactly?
Widespread racial and religious prejudice.
joe,
So, unless you are making the essentialist, racist and bigoted comment that all Americans are racist and religiously intolerant, what your background, if we accept it means, is that there are racists and religiously intolerant Americans. But, of course, that does not tell us if any given American is a racist or religiously intolerant.
I might add: racism is not something unique to the US. Neither is religious intolerance. And, on religious intolerance, the US is miles ahead of any other country I know of, certainly ahead, by far, of any European country. So, I think your comment is, to say the least, overbroad.
In fact, if we are going to interpret things the way David and you tend to do, I would conclude that you may be a racist vis a vis Americans.
You're really going to cry Reverse Racism? Seriously?
joe,
You're really surprised that N. Friedman would cry Reverse Racism? Seriously?
Here are the words around the sentence for which Peretz was most criticized: "Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world? This world went into hysteria some months ago when the Mossad took out the Hamas head of its own Murder Inc.
"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse."
Which part of that is indicative that Peretz doesn't ACTUALLY consider it a "pretense" that Muslims are "worthy" of the privileges of the First Amendment?
As for the "Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims" statement, Peretz did not say "Muslim life is cheap *to Muslims*." That would be a sentence that specifically limits the sentiment to what he thinks Muslims believe. Rather, he declares it as a general truth that "Muslim life is cheap," and says that this is "especially" true for Muslims.
Peretz, even in his purported apology, did not back away from this statement, or say that it should have been written differently in order to express what he meant. He did not add some factualizing context to make it clear that he's making an observation of OTHERS' values, such as "The Muslim death count in Bosnia, Chechnya, Gujarat, Kashmir, and other places where non-Muslims kill Muslims shows that the non-Muslims hold Muslim life cheaply -- and the still-higher death count of Muslims killing Muslims shows that Muslims hold Muslim life especially cheaply."
He meant what he said, he said what he meant, and it's a bigoted thing to say -- unless you agree with Peretz's valuation that "Muslim life is cheap."
PG and joe,
I did not call joe a racist, reverse, straight or otherwise. You two do not know how to read. Note: I said that using the stupid definition that flies around this blog, he would be a racist.
As for PG's explanation of Peretz's statement, I do not think you know how to read. To note: the million or more Muslims killed by Muslims is why any rational person might state what Peretz stated. Remove that fact from mix and you might have something to say.
No, by the "stupid definition that flies around," it might be racism if all things were equal, which is not the case. Read some Tim Wise or something.
But joe, you are, with your statement in issue, effectively condemning a whole people as racist and religiously intolerant. On this website, that is called racism.
Here's a hint: in the real world, it is called making a generalization. Historians call it making an essentialist claim. Such claims are suspect, if intended to include everyone. But, in general speech, such claims are fine.
So, when you think that racism and religious intolerance applies to the understanding of anything said by an American - i.e., your comment about context -, you are doing pretty much the same thing that Mr. Peretz did with his comment that Muslim life is cheap. These are not racist comments. They are merely essentialist or generalized comments. They can, in context, be perfectly fine. Or, they can be nasty if, as in your case, the most likely meaning is essentialist. And, on the view bandied about here, that is racism, since you are condemning an entire people, the Americans - white and black and every other shade -, who, to you, are racist and religiously intolerant.
N. Friedman,
To note: the million or more Muslims killed by Muslims is why any rational person might state what Peretz stated.
Again, if Peretz's "Muslim life is cheap" statement was meant to refer *only* to how he thinks Muslims view one another, why did he say "especially to Muslims" rather than "only to Muslims"? You seem to be having the reading problem here -- or more likely, the "inability to defend what Peretz actually said" problem.
Moreover, if you think making a statement about all Americans would be understood by anyone else as "racist," you don't grasp the difference between race and nationality. It's a difference that, perhaps *especially* in America (a racially diverse nation of relatively-recent immigrants and their descendants), is pretty significant. It would explain a lot of your comments on this blog if you really don't understand how different it is to say that someone is likely to be/think a certain way due to their being of a particular race, versus their being/thinking a certain way due to their having either been born and raised in, or chosen to be a nationalized resident of, a particular country.
PG,
I understand perfectly well what Peretz said. As for what Muslims think of each other, we have examples in spades to support Peretz's statement.
The US, whether correctly or incorrectly (and I think incorrectly), invaded Iraq. The strategy of the insurgents was what? To kill somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 Iraqis. When Iraq invaded Iran, the result was the death of a million Muslims, with Islamist Iran doing things like using kids to clear land minds.
Moreover, there is that infamous Islamist saying - which comes from the early years of Islam's conquest of the Gulf region - that we love death as much as you love life.
There there are the kamakazi Jihadis who kill themselves and, without a care, whomever happens to be nearby. In most instances, the killed are Muslims.
Then, there are the Islamists of Sudan who, having killed first more than a million Christians and animists (in Southern Sudan), have turned on insufficiently Arabized Muslims in the Darfur region.
So, yes, Muslim life is very cheap and, quite clearly, that must be the view of a great many Muslims.
PG,
As for your comment about race, Muslims are not a race. So, calling what Peretz said racist is odd.
His comment may not be very kind but, based on what he wrote, it is essentially the truth - most especially for Islamists.
N. Friedman,
So by endorsing and repeating Peretz's wording -- that "Muslim life is cheap," not only in the view of Muslims but merely especially for Muslims -- you've decided to declare that you adopt this revolting view of Muslim life. OK then.
As for your comment about race, Muslims are not a race. So, calling what Peretz said racist is odd.
Which might be relevant if I'd ever said it was racist. If you can trouble yourself to read what I actually wrote, however, I said it was bigoted. One can be bigoted toward a religious group as well as toward a race. As, apparently, you and Peretz are.
PG,
Note that I provided evidence for my assertion about how Muslims - not all but a considerable subset - treat Muslim life. How is that a revolting view? I would really like to know, taking into consideration the evidence that I presented to support that statement.
Is it not Muslims blowing up Muslims in Iraq? Is it not Muslims who gave Muslim children, by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, keys to heaven and then told them to march through mine fields? Is it not Muslims who kill Muslims for being insufficiently Arabized in Darfur? Is it not Muslims who say that Muslims love death more than kafir love life? Do these facts have no bearing on determining how Muslims view Muslim life? As far as I see, PG, you are in denial.
N. Friedman,
I can't tell if you're having reading problems or you're in denial, so I'm going to try all-caps, which I usually abjure.
I have repeatedly stated that what is worst in Peretz's comment is his *endorsement* of the idea that Muslim life is cheap; he is saying that HE CONSIDERS IT CHEAP. By seconding his statement, you're saying that YOU ALSO CONSIDER IT CHEAP.
If what either of you actually meant is that by your observations, Muslims themselves consider Muslim life cheap, then you wouldn't go around saying, "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims." "Most notably" doesn't limit the preceding clause to Muslims; it says that the clause is *especially*, but not *exclusively*, true with regard to their view of the world. YOU ARE STATING YOURSELF TO BE AMONG THOSE WHO CONSIDER MUSLIM LIFE CHEAP.
If that's not actually what you or Peretz mean, then for God's sake learn to write what you do mean. At the moment, you both are saying that you are bigoted toward Muslims.
I have explained at length how one could make the statement "Muslim life is cheap" not bigoted, but instead a regretful description of how Muslims are treated, including by many of their fellow Muslims. You haven't said, "Oh yes, that's what Peretz and I actually meant." Instead, you keep pretending that you and Peretz have limited your claim to what Muslims think of each other.
You also alternate between making this as a general claim about Muslims, and saying that it's solely in the context of Islamic terrorists. You say this even though Peretz's whole damn essay was about because this was somehow the view of Imam Rauf and his followers (none of whom, to my knowledge, are Islamic terrorists), such a presumed view might be reason not to respect their First Amendment rights.
I copied and pasted the last two paragraphs of the essay. Peretz refers to the imam and his followers BY NAME in the sentence immediately following the one about cheap Muslim life. If they're not somehow part of the "context," then Peretz is too illiterate to be writing for TNR even though his ex bought it for him. Money =/= literary competence.
Incidentally, even Muslims who kill each other may not consider "Muslim life cheap." Someone who kills a person for a goal that the killer actually doesn't care much about is holding the deceased's life cheap. In contrast, if I kill someone in self-defense, I'm not holding his life cheap; I'm just holding it cheaper than my own, which I value rather highly.
To assume you can judge whether someone cares about something by a single action is a rhetorical ploy that one of my boyfriends pulled a great deal. "You don't care about X," he would complain, when in fact I did care about X, just not as much as Y. I cared very much that we spend the holidays together and that he not be uncomfortable at family gatherings, for example -- I just didn't care about those things enough to absent myself from such gatherings in order to fulfill both of those objectives.
Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them. Understanding this about Islamic terrorists, instead of just dehumanizing all Muslims (whether because you regard their lives as cheap or because you think of them as people who must hold their own lives cheaply), might be useful to you and Peretz.
N. Friedman,
I can't tell if you're having reading problems or you're in denial, so I'm going to try all-caps, which I usually abjure.
I have repeatedly stated that what is worst in Peretz's comment is his *endorsement* of the idea that Muslim life is cheap; he is saying that HE CONSIDERS IT CHEAP. By seconding his statement, you're saying that YOU ALSO CONSIDER IT CHEAP.
If what either of you actually meant is that by your observations, Muslims themselves consider Muslim life cheap, then you wouldn't go around saying, "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims." "Most notably" doesn't limit the preceding clause to Muslims; it says that the clause is *especially*, but not *exclusively*, true with regard to their view of the world. YOU ARE STATING YOURSELF TO BE AMONG THOSE WHO CONSIDER MUSLIM LIFE CHEAP.
If that's not actually what you or Peretz mean, then for God's sake learn to write what you do mean. At the moment, you both are saying that you are bigoted toward Muslims.
I have explained at length how one could make the statement "Muslim life is cheap" not bigoted, but instead a regretful description of how Muslims are treated, including by many of their fellow Muslims. You haven't said, "Oh yes, that's what Peretz and I actually meant." Instead, you keep pretending that you and Peretz have limited your claim to what Muslims think of each other.
You also alternate between making this as a general claim about Muslims, and saying that it's solely in the context of Islamic terrorists. You say this even though Peretz's whole damn essay was about because this was somehow the view of Imam Rauf and his followers (none of whom, to my knowledge, are Islamic terrorists), such a presumed view might be reason not to respect their First Amendment rights.
I copied and pasted the last two paragraphs of the essay. Peretz refers to the imam and his followers BY NAME in the sentence immediately following the one about cheap Muslim life. If they're not somehow part of the "context," then Peretz is too illiterate to be writing for TNR even though his ex bought it for him. Money =/= literary competence.
Incidentally, even Muslims who kill each other may not consider "Muslim life cheap." Someone who kills a person for a goal that the killer actually doesn't care much about is holding the deceased's life cheap. In contrast, if I kill someone in self-defense, I'm not holding his life cheap; I'm just holding it cheaper than my own, which I value rather highly.
To assume you can judge whether someone cares about something by a single action is a rhetorical ploy that one of my boyfriends pulled a great deal. "You don't care about X," he would complain, when in fact I did care about X, just not as much as Y. I cared very much that we spend the holidays together and that he not be uncomfortable at family gatherings, for example -- I just didn't care about those things enough to absent myself from such gatherings in order to fulfill both of those objectives.
Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them. Understanding this about Islamic terrorists, instead of just dehumanizing all Muslims (whether because you regard their lives as cheap or because you think of them as people who must hold their own lives cheaply), might be useful to you and Peretz.
N. Friedman,
I can't tell if you're having reading problems or you're in denial, so I'm going to try all-caps, which I usually abjure.
I have repeatedly stated that what is worst in Peretz's comment is his *endorsement* of the idea that Muslim life is cheap; he is saying that HE CONSIDERS IT CHEAP. By seconding his statement, you're saying that YOU ALSO CONSIDER IT CHEAP.
If what either of you actually meant is that by your observations, Muslims themselves consider Muslim life cheap, then you wouldn't go around saying, "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims." "Most notably" doesn't limit the preceding clause to Muslims; it says that the clause is *especially*, but not *exclusively*, true with regard to their view of the world. YOU ARE STATING YOURSELF TO BE AMONG THOSE WHO CONSIDER MUSLIM LIFE CHEAP.
If that's not actually what you or Peretz mean, then for God's sake learn to write what you do mean. At the moment, you both are saying that you are bigoted toward Muslims.
I have explained at length how one could make the statement "Muslim life is cheap" not bigoted, but instead a regretful description of how Muslims are treated, including by many of their fellow Muslims. You haven't said, "Oh yes, that's what Peretz and I actually meant." Instead, you keep pretending that you and Peretz have limited your claim to what Muslims think of each other.
You also alternate between making this as a general claim about Muslims, and saying that it's solely in the context of Islamic terrorists. You say this even though Peretz's whole damn essay was about because this was somehow the view of Imam Rauf and his followers (none of whom, to my knowledge, are Islamic terrorists), such a presumed view might be reason not to respect their First Amendment rights.
I copied and pasted the last two paragraphs of the essay. Peretz refers to the imam and his followers BY NAME in the sentence immediately following the one about cheap Muslim life. If they're not somehow part of the "context," then Peretz is too illiterate to be writing for TNR even though his ex bought it for him. Money =/= literary competence.
Incidentally, even Muslims who kill each other may not consider "Muslim life cheap." Someone who kills a person for a goal that the killer actually doesn't care much about is holding the deceased's life cheap. In contrast, if I kill someone in self-defense, I'm not holding his life cheap; I'm just holding it cheaper than my own, which I value rather highly.
To assume you can judge whether someone cares about something by a single action is a rhetorical ploy that one of my boyfriends pulled a great deal. "You don't care about X," he would complain, when in fact I did care about X, just not as much as Y. I cared very much that we spend the holidays together and that he not be uncomfortable at family gatherings, for example -- I just didn't care about those things enough to absent myself from such gatherings in order to fulfill both of those objectives.
Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them. Understanding this about Islamic terrorists, instead of just dehumanizing all Muslims (whether because you regard their lives as cheap or because you think of them as people who must hold their own lives cheaply), might be useful to you and Peretz.
N. Friedman,
I can't tell if you're having reading problems or you're in denial, so I'm going to try all-caps, which I usually abjure.
I have repeatedly stated that what is worst in Peretz's comment is his *endorsement* of the idea that Muslim life is cheap; he is saying that HE CONSIDERS IT CHEAP. By seconding his statement, you're saying that YOU ALSO CONSIDER IT CHEAP.
If what either of you actually meant is that by your observations, Muslims themselves consider Muslim life cheap, then you wouldn't go around saying, "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims." "Most notably" doesn't limit the preceding clause to Muslims; it says that the clause is *especially*, but not *exclusively*, true with regard to their view of the world. YOU ARE STATING YOURSELF TO BE AMONG THOSE WHO CONSIDER MUSLIM LIFE CHEAP.
If that's not actually what you or Peretz mean, then for God's sake learn to write what you do mean. At the moment, you both are saying that you are bigoted toward Muslims.
I have explained at length how one could make the statement "Muslim life is cheap" not bigoted, but instead a regretful description of how Muslims are treated, including by many of their fellow Muslims. You haven't said, "Oh yes, that's what Peretz and I actually meant." Instead, you keep pretending that you and Peretz have limited your claim to what Muslims think of each other.
You also alternate between making this as a general claim about Muslims, and saying that it's solely in the context of Islamic terrorists. You say this even though Peretz's whole damn essay was about because this was somehow the view of Imam Rauf and his followers (none of whom, to my knowledge, are Islamic terrorists), such a presumed view might be reason not to respect their First Amendment rights.
I copied and pasted the last two paragraphs of the essay. Peretz refers to the imam and his followers BY NAME in the sentence immediately following the one about cheap Muslim life. If they're not somehow part of the "context," then Peretz is too illiterate to be writing for TNR even though his ex bought it for him. Money =/= literary competence.
Incidentally, even Muslims who kill each other may not consider "Muslim life cheap." Someone who kills a person for a goal that the killer actually doesn't care much about is holding the deceased's life cheap. In contrast, if I kill someone in self-defense, I'm not holding his life cheap; I'm just holding it cheaper than my own, which I value rather highly.
To assume you can judge whether someone cares about something by a single action is a rhetorical ploy that one of my boyfriends pulled a great deal. "You don't care about X," he would complain, when in fact I did care about X, just not as much as Y. I cared very much that we spend the holidays together and that he not be uncomfortable at family gatherings, for example -- I just didn't care about those things enough to absent myself from such gatherings in order to fulfill both of those objectives.
Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them. Understanding this about Islamic terrorists, instead of just dehumanizing all Muslims (whether because you regard their lives as cheap or because you think of them as people who must hold their own lives cheaply), might be useful to you and Peretz.
PG,
You write: "Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them."
That's one interpretation. However, the bottom line, even on your view, is that Muslims who commit acts of or encourage terrorism view their cause as more important than their own lives and those of their victims. Or, in simple language, they treat Muslim life as if it were cheap.
You seem to think that I (or, perhaps, Mr. Peretz) relish in the observation that Muslim life is cheap. I, for one, think it awful, but true. And, I think a great many Muslims - most especially Islamists - believe the same thing, viewing their cause as important and their own lives as expendable, if Islam prevails. To quote the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (with reference to his own country), "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." I think that is pretty much, mutatis mutandis, what an Islamist believes and why there is so much violence associated with that movement - i.e. the cause is everything. People are nothing.
Another saying popular with the Islamists comes from Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, successor to Mohammad. He, through his general, sent a message to the commander of the Persian army and, more generally, the Persians, that, according to legend, read: "You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." Islamist put it more simply, "We love death more than you love life." That says it all.
For whatever reason, you think that my understanding of the reality of the Islamic regions is something in which I relish. In fact, I think just the opposite. I think that until the death cult of Islamism is defeated, the parade of violence directed against civilians, i.e., that which makes Muslim life cheap, will continue. That is not bigoted.
What is bigoted is the view that the death cult that has overwhelmed the Muslim regions ought not be harshly judged. The bigots here are people who are unwilling to examine closely and take seriously what the Islamist say and do. And, frankly, they treat Muslim life as cheap and make it cheap.
I also note: you have yet to address the evidence I have presented. Instead, you have shouted at me - i.e. wrote in upper case letters - your interpretation of Peretz's statement. I read his statement. I know what he had in mind. And, frankly, he was speaking of Islamists - which, based on the Imam Rauf's statements that have subsequently come to light, Rauf is either an Islamist or a fellow traveler for that movement.
You write: "Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them."
That's one interpretation. However, the bottom line, even on your view, is that Muslims who commit acts of or encourage terrorism view their cause as more important than their own lives and those of their victims. Or, in simple language, they treat Muslim life as if it were cheap.
You seem to think that I (or, perhaps, Mr. Peretz) relish in the observation that Muslim life is cheap. I, for one, think it awful, but true. And, I think a great many Muslims - most especially Islamists - believe the same thing, viewing their cause as important and their own lives as expendable, if Islam prevails. To quote the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (with reference to his own country), "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." I think that is pretty much, mutatis mutandis, what an Islamist believes and why there is so much violence associated with that movement - i.e. the cause is everything. People are nothing.
Another saying popular with the Islamists comes from Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, successor to Mohammad. He, through his general, sent a message to the commander of the Persian army and, more generally, the Persians, that, according to legend, read: "You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." Islamist put it more simply, "We love death more than you love life." That says it all.
For whatever reason, you think that my understanding of the reality of the Islamic regions is something in which I relish. In fact, I think just the opposite. I think that until the death cult of Islamism is defeated, the parade of violence directed against civilians, i.e., that which makes Muslim life cheap, will continue. That is not bigoted.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: "Islamic terrorists have been notable for their willingness to take their own lives in pursuit of their politico-religious goals. That they'd take other Muslims' lives as well therefore isn't necessarily a sign that they hold those lives cheaply, but rather that their goals are very high priorities for them."
That's one interpretation. However, the bottom line, even on your view, is that Muslims who commit acts of or encourage terrorism view their cause as more important than their own lives and those of their victims. Or, in simple language, they treat Muslim life as if it were cheap.
You seem to think that I (or, perhaps, Mr. Peretz) relish in the observation that Muslim life is cheap. I, for one, think it awful, but true. And, I think a great many Muslims - most especially Islamists - believe the same thing, viewing their cause as important and their own lives as expendable, if Islam prevails. To quote the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (with reference to his own country), "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." I think that is pretty much, mutatis mutandis, what an Islamist believes and why there is so much violence associated with that movement - i.e. the cause is everything. People are nothing.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED:
Another saying popular with the Islamists comes from Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, successor to Mohammad. He, through his general, sent a message to the commander of the Persian army and, more generally, the Persians, that, according to legend, read: "You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." Islamist put it more simply, "We love death more than you love life." That says it all.
For whatever reason, you think that my understanding of the reality of the Islamic regions is something in which I relish. In fact, I think just the opposite. I think that until the death cult of Islamism is defeated, the parade of violence directed against civilians, i.e., that which makes Muslim life cheap, will continue. That is not bigoted.
What is bigoted is the view that the death cult that has overwhelmed the Muslim regions ought not be harshly judged. The bigots here are people who are unwilling to examine closely and take seriously what the Islamist say and do. And, frankly, they treat Muslim life as cheap and make it cheap.
I also note: you have yet to address the evidence I have presented. Instead, you have shouted at me - i.e. wrote in upper case letters - your interpretation of Peretz's statement. I read his statement. I know what he had in mind. And, frankly, he was speaking of Islamists - which, based on the Imam Rauf's statements that have subsequently come to light, Rauf is either an Islamist or a fellow traveler for that movement.
I know what he had in mind.
Which is really what all this comes down to. Those of us without your special sympathetic access to the mind of Marty Peretz are unfortunately condemned to understand him through his words. And his words are vile. And you have endorsed them, and continue endorsing them, including by lumping Imam Rauf -- a man who has repeatedly condemned and never endorsed terrorism and violence in the name of Islam -- in with the Islamic terrorists.
PG,
But, Rauf has endorsed Iran's form of government and refuses to condemn Hamas - which means he does not oppose terrorism - and believes, as he wrote to the New York Times, in Israel's being destroyed and replaced, as he said more recently, by a single state. So, he is an Islamist, in my book.
And, Islamism includes the belief, as I see it, that life is cheap including Muslim life. You, however, have no argument. So, you call my comments vile. Pathetic display of intellectual immaturity. I have given you repeated opportunities to address my argument, which are backed by facts. Instead, you call the fact that Muslim life is, to Muslims, cheap vile.
Yes. It is vile. But, that does not mean it is not true.
PG,
By the way, the expression that life is cheap is common and used for a many places on Earth. It is used, in fact, by Muslims to describe life in the Palestinian territories, it is used by Iraqis to describe life in Iraq. Evidently, though, for a Westerner to say what a local in the third world says is to be vile.
It is used by people to describe life in Honduras. It is used to describe life in Tanzania.
Which is to say, I think you are, in a real sense, a racist. As the great historian Bernard Lewis wrote, there is a racism in the view, held by many in the West, that one does not judge vile acts by non-Westerners. As he would put it, it is like you think such people are animals, incapable of civilized behavior; and to point such things out is bad manners, as he would see it.
The reality, though, is that you have adopted that colonial form of racism, but cover it with a phony leftist veneer.
“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
I'm pretty sure I've already linked to this, too. The claim that Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative do not condemn Hamas is simply a lie, and it is a lie that has been pointed out, time and again.
David,
We have been through this before. Imam Rauf was asked about the matter on the radio and simply does not take the view that you and The New York Times think he takes. Even Wikipedia has information on this matter - see here:
During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Rauf declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the question, Rauf said, "Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."
In the actual interview, there was a substantial back and forth about the matter and Rauf pretty clearly showed his real views by what he was willing and what he was not willing to say. He is an Islamist.
So far as I can tell, his view on the radio is consistent with his view, as stated in his letter to The New York Times, that Israel should be destroyed - try getting out of that one, David - and his later expressed view that he believes in the one state solution for Israel.
Stop ignoring evidence you do not like. That is called being dissembling.
So, my suggestion to you is that you look at these things more carefully.
You're selectively quoting Rauf in that very interview, as the NYT link points out: Rauf specifically says that "Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it." And even if I took that to be ambiguous, the clarification on the website should be good enough for me, unless you think one garbled radio interview locks in someone's views forever.
David,
I do not take it to be good enough. I take him to be playing games with words, just like you are.
I would suggest you read what Islam expert Ibn Warraq writes - here and here. I have read several of his books and, frankly, he is as careful with evidence as anyone on this Earth. A professor friend of mine teaches his most recent book, Defending the West - a book I have read and which you should read -, which shows that Said's scholarship consisted primarily, to be blunt, of stringing together one lie after the next. He shows that the pattern of the West in the "Orient" was mixed, not solely a story of racism.
Ibn Warraq, who know more about Islam and Islamism and, most any other topic having to do with the Muslim regions - as well, I might add, about Western civilization - on his pinky nails than the entire staff of The New York Times knows altogether, thinks that Rauf is an Islamist and that the hemming and hawing is significant and that he is not remotely what he holds himself out to be and you think him to be. If you find someone of his caliber who disagrees - and, on the issue of Islamism, there are not many -, let me know. For now, I think his word counts a whole lot more than what you found in the dismally researched article you quote from The New York Times.
By the way, do you still agree with The New York Times that Rauf is a friend of Israel? Or, do you now concede that his letter to The New York Times, in which he hoped for Israel's demise, and the 2005 tape - you know, the one where he said he favors a one state solution -, represents his true views?
I find your position here to be laughable. We now have you, David, who said that you would oppose anyone who favors the one state solution, supporting a man who supports the one state solution. You are, frankly, not on the side of the angels. You are on the side of those who, following the logic of Edward Said, think that offering any serious criticism of Islamism is racism. It is not.
It is entirely the case that Muslim life is cheap. That is a terrible but true thing. To deny such things is to be living on another planet.
So we started with
In a discussion about Islamic terrorism, noting that "Muslim life is cheap" tells the truth. In a statement about all Muslims, by contrast, it would be false.
Now we've moved the goalposts from Islamic terrorism to those N. Friedman deems to be "Islamists." And what makes an Islamist? Any of these:
- Non-condemnation for deposing the shah of Iran and replacing him with a democratic Islamic state. (Really, you're going to argue the difference between *description* and *endorsement* of a factual state of affairs for yourself and Peretz, then claim that Rauf endorses the current Iranian regime? Really? Dude, the fact that you never actually source your statements doesn't mean the rest of us can't read National Review Online just as well as you can.)
- Refusal to condemn Hamas -- the political organization that controls access to the Gaza Strip -- by name after having made a general condemnation of terrorism and violence.
(As if it has not been treated as cheap by "enlightened" Westerners... such as Mr. Peretz, Hitchens, Goldberg, and the "pro-war left." To say nothing of the right, which rarely even bothers to claim enlightenment any more.)
joe,
While I am not privy to Ibn Warraq's opinions about the Iraq War, I am inclined, based on what he has written, to think (and, I am rather certain) he opposed it. His view would be, as I understand his thinking, that Ba'athism is not a root problem of the Arab Islamic regions; rather, the problem is the continued hold of Islamic clerics on the minds of average Muslims - something that the US presence in Iraq does nothing to address.
In any event, you may be correct - and, in fact, I agree with you (for a change) - that hawkish liberals were wrong to support the war in Iraq, although my reasoning is closer to that of Warraq (than to your logic), whom I think to be a fairly important scholar. That, however, does not make everything the hawks say wrong, anymore than it makes everything you say right.
I think you have a point that bringing war to Iraq certainly helps to make Muslim life cheap. However, it was cheap before the US did so, under the Ba'ath party. So, I think your point is not quite as strong as you think it to be.
In your list of the unenlightened, you can add the Obamaists, who, in the face of the Iranian election, took the disgrace move of siding with the Chas Freemans of the world, abandoning democracy for realpolitik. That is about as bad as it gets, in the unenlighted department.
Post a Comment