Anyway, here's one of the reactions. I think this quote sums it up nicely.
quote: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
Of COURSE we're Tolerant! We'll tolerate anything! But if you talk bad about us WE WILL KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Ayup.
Pix
(edit: tinyurl ftw)
[ September 15, 2006, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It freaks me out that so many vocal Muslims act like schoolyard bullies. "If you say something bad about me, I'm going to hurt you!" Doesn't it reflect poorly on the religion when leaders act like angry children?
I'm sure that there are a whole lot of reasonable, mature, non-violent Muslims, but the impression that I keep getting is that there are a whole lot of irrational, childish, violent Muslims as well.
Sure, people don't like it when others say bad things about them. A lot of Catholics were upset by Dan Brown's writings, but to the best of my knowledge, no priests called for his death or threatened violence because of what he wrote.
I have a hard time understanding the kind of attitude that is so quick to take offense and use violence as a solution.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Try reading up on what happened to Rushdie when he wrote "The Satanic Verses"
But to be fair I think Rushdie took alot of cheapshots at Islam, but STILL!
As for Mohammed using the sword to promote islam, my intial reacion is, "Well..yeah, he did, does anybody dispute this?" But I am going to read up on it a bit more to see if this is a shallow view.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Holy Cow! I thought they removed the Fatwa back when Rushdie came out of hiding. Seriously, who behaves that way? It's a freakin' book people!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Did anyone read the Pope's statements? It was equatable to saying "Christianity was great until (insert favorite prophet here) screwed it up by introducing evil ideas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Did anyone read the Pope's statements? It was equatable to saying "Christianity was great until (insert favorite prophet here) screwed it up by introducing evil ideas.
CNN's acount that I read was sorta vague. Sounded like he was saying Islam does not advocate violence and yet Mohammed used violence to spread Islam. I admitedly need to read more on the matter.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Your link makes my browser stretchy.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
The one quote from a 14th century emperor that Benedict used was rather inflamatory I'll admit:
"The emperors words: ’Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"
However, the reaction to the whole thing basically just proves the violence point.
While no religion is perfect, there is no other religion (or at least a significant portion of it's population)in the world today that reacts as violently to simple criticism. Yes, much of the violence associated with Islam is probably more attributable to secular tribalism, and a large portion of the Muslim world holds itself to the ideals of peace. However, it must also be accepted that some aspects of the religion also lend themselves to violence, and are currently doing so.
The Pope definately meant to push some buttons, but the types of responses he's getting from those buttons are exactly the kind that reinforce his point.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The Human Target -- frankly, that's BS.
Here Is the entire lecture by the Pope, English Translation.
He was talking about completely different topic and brought up the 14th century idea for a reason completely OTHER than to take a jab at Islam.
In looking at it, he probably could've made his point just as well without quoting that exchange, but it was not in the context of comparing Islam to "the true faith" or anything like that.
His comment is only offensive when taken out of context. And that even requires that his complete sentence not be quoted.
To be honest, I think he was dumb to have even brought it up. It seems like such a tangent to his main point and not really necessary to the topic. But I don't see anything belligerent there.
Also, I'm not at all a "fan" of this pope. I don't have a lot of trust in him as a builder. I think he's going to cause problems for the Church because he seems tone-deaf to the human condition and much, much too academic in his public persona.
But on this, he didn't do anything really bad. He needs better "handlers," perhaps, to review his remarks ahead of time, but other than that...really a big non-issue.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think he was trying to push buttons. He was using a quote from a book he'd recently read to launch into his discussion about reason and the nature of God. I think he was being an academic, excited about this 14th century text he'd just read, and not thinking about modern-day reactions at all. Which was kind of dumb.
If he made the decision to bring Islam into the discussion at all he should have clarified whether or not (hopefully not) he agrees with the assertion that the only things Mohammed brought that were new were evil and inhuman. If he was not going to address the claim made in such a controversial quote, he shouldn't have used it for a side point.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's hardly accidental, or tangential to his purpose.
quote:...Pope Benedict...deemed it a "mistake" to omit Europe's Christian roots in the European Union constitution, calling Europe a "cultural continent, not a geographical one" whose roots are Christian. And used the same argument to explain why Turkey...should not be a member of the European Union, warning that Turkey could "try to set up a cultural continent with neighboring Arab countries and become the protagonist of a culture with its own identity."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Really? Have you read his actual remarks? If you've got a link to them, I'd like to see the full context.
I'm really not a big papal apologist, but every word the man says publicly is available in full online. It just seems silly to post secondary sources when we can read what he actually said and then comment on it.
I'm also not sure I'd be quick to believe an exclusionary motive on his part when calling Europeans to return to their Christian roots. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Again, let's look at what he actually said.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This BBC article does a pretty good job of putting the original statements in context too.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm sad that he apologized. Really.
Not that maybe, as you said, he could have made his point without having used the quote.
But that this gives validation to those who had an outcry, unfounded.
If an Islamic leader had made such a statement regarding Christianity, I doubt seriously we would ever see any type of apology. And we would allow him to say it because of our beliefs in free speech.
Yet because the Pope said something that they chose to take offensively and out of context, he is backed into a corner and forced to apologize.
Sounds like a double standard to me.
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We make people have to apologize all the time (notably elected officials), free speech has nothing to do with it. Other popes have apologized from time to time as well over issues that involved a lot of public pressure. Also, there is nothing unfounded about many of the complaints. Most of the reactions I've seen by Islamic scholars have been tempered and accurate -- for instance, one specifically stated he saw the message the pope was going for, and there was nothing wrong with it, but that there was something wrong with the way the pope went about saying it.
Imagine if some extremely prominent international political figure -- say, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or the President of the United States -- made a speech to make a point about political liberty in which he read a quotation that, in addition to having material relevant to political liberty, said the pope was a the anti-christ. Ignoring the fact he would never make such a bad move, if he did, he would apologize shortly after at the vast public outcry against the quotation.
Those who say the pope's apology is not enough are reacting for unfounded reasons, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm glad he apologized. Because, having read the whole speech, I believe that he made a mistake in the way he used that quote and therefore apologizing was the right thing to do.
Whether or not someone else would have done it, or been pressured to do it is completely beside the point, and not doing the right thing because some other hypothetical leader may or may not have been reacted to in the same way would be petty.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Y'know, Catholicism was pretty violent at one time.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Y'know, Catholicism was pretty violent at one time.
-pH
And they have apologized for it, does Islam do the same thing?
I am glad the Pope apologized in the way he has. What I am reading as a response are Muslims saying, "Thats not good enough!"
Don't see alot of attempts at mutual understanding from the other side.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Poor Pope speaks truth and the truth that is called a lie is proven as true.
Yah, that's seriously messed up. Catholicism was pretty violent in the past, but they realized how bad it was, they apologized as a religion, and they don't support crusades and witch burnings any more.
Once prominent Islamic clerics stop sanctioning killing people for perceived insults, we can put them in the same category, past offenses. Right now, there are still millions of dollars of reward money to kill Rushdie, and people are firebombing buildings. Not cool at all. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Honestly, I don't think the most offensive part of the comment was the violence part. It was that the only new things that Islam has contributed are evil and inhuman.
Imagine a prominant Jewish leader had said "The only new idea Christianity contributed to world religions was to change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday." That's not even a morally objectionable thing, but it totally discounts everything else the religion teaches and stands for.
The question for me is not whether Isalm (or Christianity) has taught violence, it's whether the whole of the religion can be reduced to nothing but that. Therefore I think the people refering to the quote as a true statement are being shortsighted and wrong.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yes, and that represents every single Muslim on the face of the earth.
ETA: This was not in response to dkw but to the derogatory comments lumping all Muslims into one category of people. I'm getting really tired of it. It's not appropriate when we lump all blacks or all whites into categories and assign them certain behaviors. Americans don't like it when people say things like "All Americans are rude and arrogant." I could give a huge list of things which are inappropriate and bigoted. Some of those things are happening in this thread. It's tiring.
Not all Muslims have the same beliefs or attitudes. Is that really so hard to understand?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I heard that a British Muslim group has formally accepted the Pope's apology, lest people believe that the "entire muslim world" is rioting over this.
edit: I was posting while quidscribis was. This is not in response to her post. It just looked odd to me after reading them together.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah. You think its the truth, airmanfour, that Islam has brought nothing but evil and inhuman things? That was the part Muslims most objected to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That link to India Times tried to install something on my computer....
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Quote from the Mujahedeen Shura Council (not the nicest people, I know):
quote: We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion or the sword.
Do they NOT see the irony? Or perhaps they in fact like the labels being associated with them, and everything else is just violent posturing.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees the religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.
"We are expecting the authorities to unilaterally cancel this visit. The pope's coming to Turkey isn't going to foment the uniting of civilizations, but a clash of civilizations," he said.
The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.
The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws, among them obstruction of freedom of belief, encouraging discrimination based on religion, and inciting religious hatred.
A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.
Someone please reassure me that these are just crazy people making noise.
You expect somewhat widespread acting like bullying children in some parts of the Muslim world, but I've always pictured Turkey as being more civilized than this.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, so I say they want to take over the world and....
quote: Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world,
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: ETA: This was not in response to dkw but to the derogatory comments lumping all Muslims into one category of people. I'm getting really tired of it. It's not appropriate when we lump all blacks or all whites into categories and assign them certain behaviors. Americans don't like it when people say things like "All Americans are rude and arrogant." I could give a huge list of things which are inappropriate and bigoted. Some of those things are happening in this thread. It's tiring.
Not all Muslims have the same beliefs or attitudes. Is that really so hard to understand?
Just a quick note, you're probably being a bit unnecessarily obtuse. When most people say that "X people are Y". They don't mean that every single person in group X is precisely Y. For example, if I said "My relatives are nice." It means that the majority of my relatives are nice, but it does not discount my cousin fifth removed from being a complete ass.
In this situation, when people say "Americans are rude and arrogant." It doesn't mean they think that every American from Asimov to Washington is rude and arrogant. It just means they don't want to be bothered with going through "on the whole with a set of 300 million Americans, their average rudeness and arrogance level is 1.5 standard deviations above the world median."
All that some people are saying is that they believe that *on average* Muslims are more violent, reactionary , and guillible than the average person. I'd happen to agree and I do not see why that is particularly offensive.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The irony would be humorous, if it weren't so frightening.
"How dare you slander us by saying our religion is dangerous and spread by the sword? We will attack you and burn your buildings for this insult!"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the ironic things is that they fire-bombed an Anglican church. Bunch of ignorant bigots.
[ September 18, 2006, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not entirely comfortable saying this-I'm not sure how I feel about the question occurring to me, to be honest-but I've asked myself a question a couple of times reading this thread:
What does it say about Hatrack as a community, when in a situation like this, some of us-me once or twice-are criticizing the Pope for what was said? Wondering whether or not it was a mistake or a foolish thing to say?
Because, you know, I'm beginning to think that if Islam in general, throughout the world, is composed of believers and governments who will become so violent and threatening when their religion is criticized...it's right to criticize them.
Edit: Come to think of it I'm not sure if I have criticized the Pope's phrasing here on Hatrack. I have thought to myself and others, though, that the choice of words was quite dumb.
[ September 20, 2006, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'd like a bit of clarification on Catholic doctrine. Is the Pope supposed to be infallible? I've heard his position described as "the Vicar of Christ". What exactly does that mean, and what exactly are the ramifications for someone so close to God issuing an apology?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's my understanding that the Pope is sometimes infallible, but only when he speaks quite specifically. This has almost never (possibly never, I'm not sure) happened before, someone else with better knowledge will come along.
I can guarantee you, however, that this quote and speech was not one of the times when the Pope was supposed to be infallible.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I believe in another thread it was mentioned that he's spoken infallibly twice in the history of the church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
blacwolve is correct. Twice. Both on the subject of Mary.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are various levels of authority that the Pope can speak from. The highest, established as dogma by the the Vatican I ecumenical council in 1870, is known as ex cathedra, meaning from the office - literally "from the chair". The conditions for such as statement are, if I remember correctly, that the Pope has to be speaking consciously from his office as Pope about matters of faith and/or morals to define things as definitive and binding for the whole church.
Depending on how strictly you apply these rules, there can be different numbers of statements considered ex cathedra.
There's the two everyone (who accepts Papal infallibility) accepts are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. Since doctrince of Papal infallibility is not to have been considered as created, but rather more like just codified, in 1870, statements made prior to this (such as the Immaculate Conception one from 1854) can be considered ex cathedra.
Since 1870, there's only been one statement made that is accepted as consciously ex cathedra, the aforementioned Assumption of Mary one. The Immaculate Conception one was pretty much designed to fit the still up for debate dogma. The rest people may consider infallible (and I should note that there are other paths to infallibility besides the papal one) predate these statements.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the Pope's first response was kind of funny, basically saying "I'm sorry you're upset." Which isn't really an apology at all, which I'm glad for.
I don't think he should apologize. PC be damned. If the Muslim world had responded with quiet outrage (such a thing IS possible), I imagine they'd either have a lot more support for their anger, or a lot of people second guessing previously concieved notions of Muslim culture.
Does this bring us back to an old argument? How much responsibility do faithful Muslims have to deal with their radical elements?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yeah. You think its the truth, airmanfour, that Islam has brought nothing but evil and inhuman things? That was the part Muslims most objected to.
Islam, for a time, brought civility and science to an ignorant world. No-one can say that Islam has brought only negative things to humanity. And the Pope hasn't either. But. That doesn't mean the opportunity to use the Koran in a violent way doesn't exist.
I'm glad people are talking about this. I'm not happy that people haven't read what was actually said, or are trying to imagine what's going through a group of angry peoples' heads.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did Islam do that, or did Arabs/Persians?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Muslim Arabs and Persians?
Speaking of Immaculate Conception, I was surprised to learn recently (either from a TV show [CSI?] or movie) that the Immaculate Conception dogma refers to Mary's conception. I always thought it referred to Jesus' conception, a common mistake. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A Muslim realist/moderate speaks out about the pope's remarks. According to Fark.com, Hasyim Muzadi is the head of Indonesia's largest Muslim organization.
quote: [Nadhlatul Ulama chairman] Hasyim Muzadi said the regret was "enough" and further resentment from the Muslims would only justify the pope's statement. "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true," he said.
google cache of The Jarkarta Post Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's my question Morbo.
What did their religion have to do with it?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Everybody hates the muslims and I know from experience that many Hatrackers seem to feel the same way, or at least share some ideals. It seems to me that its all the older leaders who are spreading these hateful comments to the younger people. I mean, the young muslims in the Middle East dont really necessarily have much to call their own right? Many countries' govts are pretty restricting and even their own religon tells them what they can and cannot do. Yet they call their religon their own, and maybe for a lot of people its their only possession. So when people start dissing Islam (the Pope especially I mean wtf??) of course they are gonna get mad. And while it seems ironic at first, its true. Of course they're gonna get angry. And in societies where people follow their religon down to the last letter its not surprising that highly regarded religous figures are gonna instill their followers with anger against us. I'm not trying to sympathize with them, but I think we should take a step back and look at it from as much of an objective angle as we can. I mean this is a time of change, especially in the Middle East, with the conflict in Isreal and Iraq and whatnot. Often during times of change people get caught up in it, and they don't think clearly. Its like this whole radical Muslim thing is like one big rock concert and everyone is just wilen out, not really thinking. I mean these dudes is like teenagers and stuff, they're going through a lot of stuff, not just religon. I mean when you guys were in high school you got caught up in fads and stuff. (dont tell me you didnt because its irrelevent.) Maybe this radical Islamic thing just started off as a fad, but it got out of control. I mean anger spreads like wildfire in some places, especially the Middle East (france too but thats another thread). And when young people and that type of brainwashing anger mix, the results not gonna be pretty, regardless of religon they are. All this combined with the fact that practically the whole Middle East thinks that our Western Culture, makes it pretty obvious that this type of stuff is going to happen. Its like the Crusades all over again. The Pope tells them to do something, and people get caught up in it. They get caught up in the movement and the result is basically whats going on now. Its just with bombs and crap instead of just swords and shields. Except the Crusades lasted for well over a hundred years. Theres no telling how long this movement will last, hopefully not long. In my opinion its pretty dumb of us to ask for an apology WHILE the movement is still going on. I mean, did we apologize during the Crusades. No. They won't either and many people will take it as an offence if we even asked for an apology. In their minds we're in the wrong not them. Simply stereotyping this conflict or resorting to irony is pointless if you ask me.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Soap - Wow. That was the silliest thing I've read this week. But it's to be expected.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
War means never having to say you're sorry?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The big difference between Jihad and Crusade, is that only the Pope can call for a Crusade, where as every Imam and his brother can issue a fatwaa and allow a Jihad.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*singing* "I don't want her you can have her she's to fatwah for me.."
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
A Jihad is just a "work of God", generally used by the world at large as a militant term, but meant pretty much solely in a religious sense. "Crusade" on the other hand is completely militant. I don't think they should be compared.
Any Muslim cleric can issue a fatwah, but only his adherents are bound by it, and since the options are so varied, a fatwah can be relevent to only a couple of people. Some of them are really mundane, too. Which foot to enter a room with and whatnot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The media should really do a better job of unearthing the peace driven fatwaas then, all I ever hear about is the latest Imam to declare holy war against Westerners, and now apparently Christians in general.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some of the Fatwahs against Hizbollah's attacks on Israel made the news.
However, most Fatwahs against violence don't make the news for the same reason most areas without violence don't usually make the news -- they aren't part of 'coups and earthquakes'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I do remember the reports of the fatawa against Hezbollah.
But we're living in a world where peace is becoming more rare than violence in that part of the world. Then again, I'm working under the assumption that the media knows what "responsible journalism" means.
On another note, clerics and scholars in Pakistan are calling for the Pope to be removed. Guess it's time to beef up security around the Pope Mobile.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Responsible journalism does not mean reporting everything that happens in the proportion it happens in. I mean, could you imagine it if 98% of every news program were devoted to the day-to-day things that make up 98% of peoples' lives (warning: 98% statistic completely made up )
I too would like to see certain things reported more, but its hard to fault journalists for generally reporting things that are more exciting and generate more interest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you took the reverse of my point, either that, or it's your assumption that the grand majority of fatawa are made in favor of peace, love and understanding, and the media only reports the crazed 2% that involve death chants and call for war against the West.
You don't think it's a little irresponsible to represent a Muslim world where all you ever hear about is the latest declared Jihad against the West, and nothing about peace movements or for that matter anything approaching sanity? Other than the backlash against Hezbollah during the Lebanon conflict, I've barely heard a peep out of the major news outlets, at least not without digging to find it, about fatawas of anything approaching a favorable nature to the West.
I don't expect proportionality, heck, I don't even HOPE for it, and not even sure I want it. But responsible journalism does mean covering two sides of an issue doesn't it? I want to hear the other side of the story. Do you even care anymore when you hear that Imam So and So has declared Jihad against whoever in the West and for the Crescent to fly over the Vatican? It's not exciting, it generates no interest, because it's been the same old story thrown in our faces for the last five years, at least.
Exiciting news, that generates interest would be hearing that no, in fact, not everyone over there hates us and wants us dead. And that I believe, would be responsible journalism, instead of the kind of journalism that perpetuates a stereotype, and a non-existant status quo for the sake of sensationalism.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
I'm sure that there are a whole lot of reasonable, mature, non-violent Muslims, but the impression that I keep getting is that there are a whole lot of irrational, childish, violent Muslims as well.
I know this is from the first page, but I am gonna respond to it anyway.
It occurs to me that this is not as much an observation of the disposition of Muslims, as on the nature of the religion and/or, the culture surrounding Islam.
When you think about it, this above statment about there being mature AND childish elements is pretty applicable to all people, but we are talking about Muslims for a reason. This is because the discussion is about religion, and on that score, (maybe!) "judeo-Christian" or American/European cultural values generally dispose us toward a different stance in an argument. We are living in a land (most of us) which was settled by a certain belief set and has grown out of that- so we experience the middle aspects of our culture and aren't frightened by them; they are harmless.
When you think about it, that feeling: "Hey buddy.. your taking yourself a little too seriously," is something you get with alot of groups, or the most extreme elements of all groups. These elements are also the most vocal, and the ones we are most likely to hear. Coming from the "other" side, the Islamic countries, of which in the west there are none, we hear the most extreme messages. Partly a function of our own news apparatus (bleeds it leads, etc), this feeling you are always getting, that extremist muslims are suspiciously spotlighted, leads some people to believe that Islam is generally "more extreme" than Christianity or Judaism or whatever else people believe- the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. I think though, that Muslims in the middle of their own world of Muslims are likely to feel about the same way if they look at some of the more 'enthusiastic' and missionary of the Christian literature.
For instance, the Islamic tradition of studious record keeping a millenium ago is responsible for preserving a number of the great works of the West, including Plato and Aristotle, as well as Plotinus and Horace iirc. Muslims would be perfectly justified in being alarmed by the fact that it was Christian scholars, following and creating Christian doctrine, who essentially tried to erase two thousand years of literary tradition during the dark ages, and recreate the western world out of the ashes of our divergent histories. It was the classics preserved in Arabic that saved science, classicism, architecture and literary criticism from losing the entirety of their western past. Given that history, as well as the crusades, and our own outspoken extreme factions, I don't think it would be hard for the middle east to feel similarly towards us as you describe feeling towards them.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right, because both is informed more by a limited view (either that of the very recent or that of the historically removed) than I would want to use to base judgements on. What I do know is that what I learn about "the situation" from major news sources, CNN along with Fox news, NBC and others, is that I am not being shown what it is not in someone's decided interest to show me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The notion of carrying both sides of an issue is a tricky one. For one thing, some other authority declaring fatwahs of peace aren't really 'the other side' of osama bin ladin declaring fatwahs of war; frequently the people issuing the peace fatwahs are completely unrelated to bin ladin, beyond sharing a religion and sometimes a vague region of the globe.
Now, if it was some report about the nature of Islam, sure, but when its some report about OBL issuing a fatwah saying to kill Americans, the 'other side' isn't a fatwah by some other authority saying 'offer succor to strangers', its US officials.
To address some more specific points in my post: I took your post for exactly what it was, and tried to point out some complications in the assumption that 'responsible journalism' would necessarily include more mentions of peaceful fatwah. I also don't think 98% (or whatever) of fatwahs are about peace and love, but I bet about 98% of them are about mundane, everyday things. They're similar to some sorts of rabbinical statements in Judaism.
I can assure you that most things news stations are airing do generate interest. TV news in particular involves incredibly fine-grained attention to viewership numbers, and if a certain sort of segment isn't carrying the viewership, it gets cut (with a few exceptions for things the ownership cares about, but even those get run at off hours).
This isn't to say there aren't venues. CNN World Report will show just about anything a (non-US) local TV station sends to them (I took a journalism class with a former producer for the show, and they didn't reject a single clip while he was there, sometimes editing for time but never for content). CNN will show hours of footage about peaceful fatwahs if other stations send enough clips in. But even World Report pretty much runs on CNNI, which is largely a station for establishing reputation, not viewership.
There are serious issues with how news is reported, but there are much biggers issues with the general understanding of those problems. There isn't some long list of things that if the news would only cover them coverage would be 'responsible' (and no, I'm not saying you're saying this, I'm starting with a common attitude). There are complicated concerns regarding process, interest, responsibility to various stakeholders, et cetera. For instance, I can nigh guarantee you that if CNN started counterpointing every instance of Islamic militancy with peaceful Islamic statements, other news would be crowded out and their viewership would drop (those are two largely separate effects, not a causal ordering, btw).
And as pointed out before, instances of peaceful Islamic statements aren't really 'the other side' of militant Islamic statements, so that prescription doesn't seem to work, either. I mean, when some Christian group bombs an abortion clinic, we don't expect the news to cut to a random church four states over holding a food drive for the homeless in order to show both sides of Christianity.
Should the set of news being reported be modified? Yes. Are journalists painfully aware of the need? Generally, yes. Is there any good way to do it without introducing new problems? Not that anybody has found. The process of reporting news has changed significantly with time, and each new approach has had major strengths and weaknesses, but none has led to reporting that presents a view of the world not inviting bias among the viewership. It may be that no such approach (or any close approximation) exists.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Neither here nor there but OBL can't issue fatawa, he has to get an Imam to do it.
And I know that OBL isn't the same thing as good Muslims who'd probably just prefer to be left alone, as well as actively oppose him. But are you suggesting the entire viewership of the United States is that geopolitically aware of the situation?
I assure you, they aren't. If they were, I'd withdraw my protest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm certainly not suggesting that, and I don't see anything in my posts along those lines.
Oh alright, you were just assuming that I didn't know what I as talking about, which considering how this discussion has been going, I really don't see how you could surmise.
What OBL thinks, and what IS, are usually two different things. He isn't an Imam, he can't issue fatawa. He can issue editorials and call them fatawa, but that doesn't make them so. If his crazy followers look at it like it is a fatwa, that's their business, but it still doesn't make it so. I can issue an encyclical, and maybe convince a couple hundred or thousand people tha it IS an encyclical, but that still doesn't make it one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Imam-hood is not something that an established institution conveys. In a real sense, OBL would be an Imam if a lot of his followers thought he was (and perhaps he had apprenticed under an Imam, which would be easy enough for him to meet). IIRC, he (and his followers) actually considers himself a sheik, which would also give him the authority to issue fatwahs in his brand of Islam.
The only thing I've been assuming you didn't know about are the challenges associated with providing responsible journalism, particularly on this issue. You've also demonstrated you weren't aware of the typical composition of fatwahs, but I did not assume that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering you just said it's an open ended thing, I wasn't aware there WAS anything "typical" about it.
Back in the early 90's, according to the 9-11 Commission Report, Osama specifically waited to find an Imam to issue a fatwah that he could use as a banner for his intentions.
The plural is fatawa, btw.
And we disagree on what responsible journalism means, unless you hold the keys to singular definitions for everything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, but I have had the odd high level journalism classes with extensive discussions on the subject, and I have tried to discuss the complicatedness of the issue, while you have not responded to my points on that issue at all. I might not hold the keys to singular definitions for everything (as I don't acknowledge such things exist), but I am aware of much of the scholarship and many of the practical developments in the area.
By typical compositions of fatawa, I mean that they're mostly mundane. There doesn't need to be a typical fatawa for there to be a typical composition of a set of fatawa. Similarly, all the atoms in an object might be in many disparate places, but it can still mostly be in one general location.
Also, I have just searched the entire 9/11 commission report for the word imam (which appears several times) and the word fatwa (which appeared many more times), and found no mention of that assertion regarding OBL wanting to find an Imam. They specifically mention that OBL issued the first fatwa without on his own perceived authority. Could you point me to where in the report it mentions him seeking an imam to co-issue a fatwa?
Additionally, the report specifically mentions at least one fatwa issued not by imams, but sheikhs, so it would seem one doesn't need to be an imam to issue fatawa (or if we're being fussy about plurals, fat?wa).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Haha, calling me fussy? YOU?
Don't have anything approaching the energy to search through the 9/11 report right now, I've only read the first few hundred pages of it, but I'll get back to you on that if this thread doesn't disappear before I get the chance.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)