It would be even more salutary if terrorists, once exterminated, were wrapped in pigskin and thrown on the nearest convenient garbage dump. That's the sort of respect the bodies of such scum deserve.

Or perhaps revive the ancient practise of the gibbet. Maybe even, in that case, omitting to execute them first. Let the vultures and the ravens do our job for us.

As for the Jama Masjid Trust's actions; taqqiya.

Fletcher,

How do you know it's taqqiya? Isn't their response exactly the kind of thing we want from the (allegedly-mythical) Moderate Muslims?

Fletcher,

That slur -- taqqiya -- doesn't even make sense here unless you believe the Trust is under threat of death if they bury the terrorists. I have little doubt the threat emanates from the other direction.

Good for them.

From the Trust: "People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."

Bullshit. Islam is founded on that sort of crime and it's all over the Koran. The taqqiya is in an Islamic organisation trying to make us believe it isn't so.

"Moderate Muslims" ≡ "Muslims who haven't won yet".

PD,

I hope by saying "slur" you aren't trying to imply that the concept of taqqiya doesn't exist or anything.

I have no problem calling out the likes of Tariq Ramadan (or even Rashid Khalidi when he says one thing to Amerecan audiences and something different to Middle eastern ones) by calling what they do taqqiya.

But I do object to Fletcher just assuming that any time a Muslim group does "the right thing" that it's gotta be dissimulation on their part.

Your logic is infallible. The Muslims that do nothing in the face of jihad extremism are collaborators. Those who do are collaborators practicing deception.

And these jihadists are innovators. Their work is not supported by the Koran. The Koran speaks of warfare, not children strapped with explosives, lone gunmen spraying the marketplace with bullets and killing Muslims.

kirk, I don't deny the concept of taqqiya exists, but in Fletcher Christian's usage it amounts to little more than Muslims are liars. I personaly see very little constructive use of the term.

PD Shaw's note re: the tautological logic is apt. It is possible for people to do the right thing honestly, and if your logic doesn't allow for that possibility then it is flawed.

I'll ad that there are apparently a number of instances of Indian Muslim families refusing the bodies of terrorist relatives who have been killed. A public cemetery saying no to people they do not know is commendable. It's another step up when you refuse to bury your own relative.

I support and encourage both responses.

And if the authorities wish to wrap the unclaimed bodies in pigskin and cremate them after that, I'd have no issue with it. If they're not real Muslims, as we are often assured, then there can't be a problem.

I don't know whether it is done deliberately or not, but the misrepresentation of taqqiya is a very clever way of being able to claim insincerity on the part of any muslim whenever it is convenient. All Muslims are killers and any muslim who denies this is practicing taqqiya.
So what happens when a muslim claims he is practicing taqqiya? hmmmmmmm. Now that's a dilemma for you. (wasn't it Spock who used that paradox?)

Kirk, I'd be very interested to know of any examples you can point me too of Khalidi saying different things to different audiences. I wasn't aware that he was much of a public speaker. I thought he was more of a writer.

PD, sounds like we're pretty much on the same page.

And I'll say to both you and Joe, that given the decentralized nature of Islam this is about as good as we're going to get in terms of "Muslim Excommunication".

I don't see anywhere that the cemetery folks are pulling a CAIR and claiming that we are insulting Islam.

Mark,

Rashid Khalidi is Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University (not a name I would care to have associated with my professional career, but there it is.) As such, yes he does quite a bit of public speaking.

My only direct experience is on the English-speaking American end, and I found him a very charming and reasonable person; not at all coming across as anti-Israel, but rather saying stuff like, "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East [said w/o the slightest hint of sarcasm or disapproving body language] and I think we ought to hold them to the same standards as we do our own country."

For the Arabic side, you might start with his Wikipedia article and peruse the links from there.

(not a name I would care to have associated with my professional career, but there it is.)

Since you used the singular form, please tell us: were you referring to Edward Said, or Columbia University?

Something else to keep in mind is that Islam isn't a monolithic religion, but is composed of many different sects: Zeyad of Healing Iraq put it well at the end of this post back in '04. By way of analogy, you could also claim that the Army of God(USA) is representative of the pro-life movement, and therefore that any condemnation of them is just the anti-abortion groups putting on a good face for the public while holding something else entirely in their hearts. In the end, it boils down to an ad hominem fallacy: the person is XYZ, therefore ipso facto anything they say is automatically suspicious.

#13: Against that, please recall that a great deal of argumentation on real world topics is not necessarily served well by forcing Aristotle on it. For example, the Law of the Excluded Middle is great when you are dealing strictly with propositional calculus and formal logic.

In the real world, things are often much less clear, and propositions are, too.

"Consider the source" is not inherently invalid when attempting such reasoning, though as you point out its overapplication can lead to error.

"Why is this person telling me this?" is a valid part of argumentation, rhetoric and analysis.

#12: Said, of course. Sorry, it was ambiguous I guess.

I find it interesting that the West has apparently sprouted so many folks with a sufficiently deep understanding of Islam that they needn't be bothered with the notion of sects or schools, and can safely assume that anyone willing to entertain the possibility of a liberal vanguard (let alone a liberal-tolerant majority) in the Ummah are apologists of the Cole/Armstrong ilk. Let's not complicate things. And in one sense they have a point. As Kaldun proposed, the Quoran is not a very well written book... so it's full of contradictions for the same reason that the typical elementary school essay is full of contradictions. The ability to read "original intent" from a text requires writers of the calibre of Jefferson, Locke, or Madison. It's possible that apologists and detractors alike are simply reading too much into the writings of the nearly-illiterate.

And our new president, who will soon be enjoying convenient 24-hour access to Tomahawk missiles, sez:

Asked if India had the right to "take out" high-value targets inside Pakistan with or without the permission of Islamabad, as he espousing in regard to the U.S. under his presidency, he said: "I think that sovereign nations, obviously, have a right to protect themselves. Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now."

"Present!"

Kirk,

Thank you for the info, but I do know who Khalidi is. In fact, I've met him a few times. My question remains the same: Do you know of any instances in which he said one thing to Americans, but another to MiddleEasterners? I think that was the charge you made, suggesting that to do so was a form of practicing taqqiya (which it isn't unless he said what he said in order to protect his life.). I'm not even sure that Khalidi is muslim.

mark,

Did you miss where I wrote:

"For the Arabic side, you might start with his Wikipedia article and peruse the links from there."

Kirk,

No, I didn't miss that. But a) there are no links there that support your claim; b) I'm interested in knowing which instances you had in mind when you made the claim.

In fact, those who disagree with Khalidi's opinions disagree with the ones he has expressed in English in his writings. I see no evidence of him falsely representing himself, nor--other than yours--any accusations of him ever doing so.

This attack and its roots in Pakistan once again spotlight a gaping hole in our current international conception of sovereignty. Israel has been fighting this fight for a while, and we've reaped our own sorrows in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The issue is that we have decided philosophically that sovereignty is equal to lines on a map, and that is how our international law is composed.

The modern notion of sovereignty was largely invented to make war less likely. The idea of disputed regions becomes invalid and theoretically wars stop being fought once a region is internationally recognized to belong to someone else.

But now a loophole is being exploited. Chronic violence is being planned, trained for, and executed from supposedly sovereign nations that then disavow responsibility. There is plenty of hand-wringing but precious little consequence. Reprisal becomes problematic in the name of sacrosanct sovereignty.

But that stands the entire notion on its head. Sovereignty as a principle requires that you control your territory and have a monopoly on the use of force. At least when it comes to chronic inability to control your people (one offs don't really apply, if a terrorist group struck the US from Canada for instance).

If you don't have the ability to prevent 'your' territory from being used as a launching pad for war against someone else, you can scarcely still claim its your land and legally free from reprisals. Heck, we have laws that if somebody mows your lawn long enough you can lose your right to your property. We're talking about people launching terrorist campaigns from 'sovereign' territory.

Logically, the idea of sovereignty provides exactly 2 options. Either you ARE in control of the land in which case you are guilty of abetting the attack, and hence have conducted an act of war. OR you are not in control in which case you cannot claim sovereignty, the aggrieved party can treat the region as a breakaway republic committing an act of war as an independent entity.

What we can't allow, and what we have allowed, is this gray area where nations can turn a blind eye to the acts of its citizens and then claim sovereignty as a shield against reprisal. That is a recipe for an even larger breakdown in international order, and probably regional war of a scope we haven't seen since WW2.

If i were India, i would give Pakistan those two options. Either keep claim to the land and hand over this list of terrorist chiefs operating and training in Pakistan apparently under the aegis of the intelligence agency, or declare the areas in question break away and either deal with them or somebody else will.

#6 from PD Shaw at 7:53 pm on Dec 02, 2008
Your logic is infallible. The Muslims that do nothing in the face of jihad extremism are collaborators. Those who do are collaborators practicing deception.

And these jihadists are innovators. Their work is not supported by the Koran. The Koran speaks of warfare, not children strapped with explosives, lone gunmen spraying the marketplace with bullets and killing Muslims.

The same sort of logic can be found in Mein Kampf. A book that I highly recommend in these times for anyone that adheres to simplistic ways to Perceive and deal with "problems".

#17 from Glen Wishard at 7:03 am on Dec 03, 2008

And our new president, who will soon be enjoying convenient 24-hour access to Tomahawk missiles, sez:

Asked if India had the right to "take out" high-value targets inside Pakistan with or without the permission of Islamabad, as he espousing in regard to the U.S. under his presidency, he said: "I think that sovereign nations, obviously, have a right to protect themselves. Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now."
"Present!"

Talk about going off half cocked. This comment makes no sense to me. What would you want him to say? We would help the Indians level the place?

Shouldn't we all be Georgians first?

#21 from Mark Buehner at 5:13 pm on Dec 03, 2008

And then? you have no rights that you cannot police. the First part of your argument holds water, Pakistan is a failed state that has forfeited its sovreignity in many areas because it cannot police its claims of sovereignty.

The second part, well India can point out the obvious, but what can it do? Attack those areas and police its right to self defense? Yeah, it can do that but is this sort of policing worth the cost, which could be a nuclear attack on India. Part of one's ability to police one's rights is the cost of that policing. I am not sure that India can afford the cost of attacks on Pakistan. This situation can only be solved diplomatically, with pressure on Pakistan coming from throughout the world.

"The second part, well India can point out the obvious, but what can it do?"

They could pressure Pakistan with the threat of war to at least dismantle whatever form of state support/protection the terrorist camps are receiving. They can arm unhappy tribals and play a little goose for the gander. They can target

"Attack those areas and police its right to self defense? Yeah, it can do that but is this sort of policing worth the cost, which could be a nuclear attack on India."

A conventional attack would be pretty much out of the question, I agree. But that isn't the only option. Brinkmanship is a time honored tradition of MAD, and right now Pakistan is violating one of the tenants of MAD already by conducting a low intensity war against India's homeland. That makes it MORE likely to lead to nuclear war at some point (imagine if Pakistani backed terrorists blew up the Indian Parliament). Coddling whats left of Pakistan is more likely to lead to war.

Seems like a good reason to keep nukes away from rogue nations though huh?

"This situation can only be solved diplomatically, with pressure on Pakistan coming from throughout the world."

What sort of pressure would induce Pakistan to do anything serious, and how likely is that pressure in any event? How do you 'pressure' Pakistan into controlling areas it can't control? If recent history is any guide we will end up providing them resources allegedly to do it, which they wont. Or we starve them and certainly that won't help them accomplish anything.

Mark:

"Westphalian sovereignty" is a principle that has only really been applied in North and South American, and has rarely had more than passing relevance anywhere else. The entire history of eastern and central europe, the caucuses, and the Middle East involves the systematic abrogation of sovereignty in order to achieve the gains and ends sought by the great powers, sometimes in the interest of "human rights" and sometimes just for the sake of empire building. So that whole notion of sovereignty has never been upheld to any great degree and the fact that it's now being challenged isn't any big break with history. The crux of the matter is the extent to which individual sovereignty, not national sovereignty, is honored... and that requires something like a Bill of Rights with associated institutions. It might be a good idea to establish a kind of "club" composed only of countries that maintain such Lockean institutions, just to hold out an example.

And just to be clear, national sovereignty is the cause, not the cure for, war. It virtually defines what war is, as the antithesis of civil peace.

Mark Buehner (#21)

I'd agree with you, if the Mumbay attacks were what it seems, but unfortunately in these cases generally it does not happen.

NHRC seeks Sadhvi report, ATS chief gets death threat

Malegaon blasts: Lt-Col Purohit held

Hindu group behind Malegaon blast: Police

Mumbai's antiterrorist chief Hemant Karkare, already threatened, was killed during the Mumbai attack... an operation from the Hindu far right to cover up his murder?

In your comment (#21) you forgot, or maybe not, the only European terrorist group still in action: ETA. Based in France since the 1960's, ETA kills Spaniards at both sides of the border. I know the case of ETA and I know that there are powerful economically people in Spain that support ETA, and that ETA has removed annoying for them figures from the Spanish political and economic life.

States (maybe not Lebanon, but in general) are sovereign on their own territory, the ones who are not soverign are their peoples.

Well, you asked....

Khalidi 1

Khalidi 2

Khalidi 3

Khalidi 4

Khalidi 5

Barry, thanks for following good URL hygiene (no bare URLs). That's greatly appreciated.

However, I'm moved to make two strong suggestions:

1) Please take some time to include readable text, providing some information related to the thread and the links. A series of five links with little or no substance presented in line is at risk of being treated as linkspam: deleted out of hand.

2) Direct reference to the person being spoken to, rather than the generic pronoun "you", or possibly including the post # being responded to, is also a good idea. I know I didn't ask you a darned thing on this thread. :) It might be obvious to you who you meant by "you", but that only makes one of us.