Lumping diverse people into one box harms U.S. national security interests. First, as Khanna points out, it reinforces the “archaic Islamist fantasies” of Osama bin Laden and other global terror groups. The United States really shouldn’t be in the business of doing the intellectual heavy lifting of its enemies.
Exactly. Every time you use the phrase "The Muslim World" you're implicitly conceding an argument that has not been won. Don't let Islamists call it "their" "world" - which ownership is what the phrase connotes.
I'll go one further and say that all of the following usages should cease:
The Arab World. Do we speak of "the White world"? What we call "the Arab world" contains a lot of places with significant numbers of non-Arabs. Should they be expelled for being non-Arab in the supposedly "Arab" world? Or second-class citizens? No and no. The real answer is that it's not "the Arab world" in the first place. Races don't get to own/operate their own exclusive "worlds". Or they do, but we have a name for it when it happens....
"Muslim Country". What the heck is a "Muslim Country"? A country in which a majority of the people are Muslims? So what? There are plenty of countries in which the majority of people are Christian, but we don't call them "Christian Countries". This usage tacitly plays into the hands of people who would like to think that the moment they get 50%+1 of the country converted to [Religion X] - or even if they merely seize the reins of government from a minority position - some sort of switch is flipped and it immediately becomes a "[Religion X] Country". Why would we concede that at all?
Arab Land. Is the land "Arab"? What does that even mean? This plays into racialist cleansing ideology. (If it's "Arab Land" then one presumes non-Arabs don't belong on it at all, in any capacity, at least not without the say-so of "Arabs"....) In reality there's just land, and certainly some land is controlled by governments that are majority Arab. But that doesn't make it "Arab" land.
All of these tiny, innocuous-seeming, conventionally-used phrases actually embody complex arguments about human organization, governance, and ownership that (a) are controversial if not downright evil, (b) have not been won or even argued successfully at all by the people who would like their implications to gain widespread acceptance, and indeed (c) feed and serve only the ideology of our enemies.
I wish we'd stop conceding these arguments a priori.
18 comments:
Sonic Charmer,
I may be mistaken, but I think you would agree that it is accurate to call Iran and Saudi Arabia "Muslim countries" considering they follow strict Sharia law.
Other than that, I get your point, and agree with it at about a 90% level.
When you say "they" follow strict Sharia law, you are referring to the edicts issued by the governing cliques of those countries. This doesn't mean that 100% of the *people* in those countries "follow strict Sharia law", or even are Muslims in any sense (though clearly the vast majority are).
But by accepting the governing cliques' implicit claims that theirs is a "Muslim Country" on their say-so, you are writing any potential dissenters who exist out of existence. I'm sure they like and appreciate that.
But is that really a good idea for an infidel? :-)
p.s. when I wrote "I'm sure they like and appreciate that", "they" refers to "the governing cliques".
So, SC, what you are saying is that it is a mistake to believe, or at the very least, to concede tp tyrannical governments, the idea that they are at all legitimate. Even if they have a hold on power, and have had such a hold for a long time.
And, you believe it is a mistake to concede such power, even in the case of Saudi Arabia, where polls show that, were there to be free elections held, the people would elect an even more radical Sharia-cult than already exists.
How do you feel about calling the Gaza Territory a legitimate Sharia/Muslim country. They elected Hamas. I don't know if you could get a more definitive case of the will of the herd/people than that.
Of course, they have no Constitution protecting Human Rights. As you and I have discussed, I have never believed that mere voting makes what we call "Democracy", which is, in truth, a Democratic Republic protected by a Constitution which stipulates the classic Human Rights. And, even more so, I only really believe in such a Constitution if those "Human Rights are set in stone, so that the government can not take them away at a whim.
Sorry, but this article fails spectacularly on so many levels. Israel is 'the Jewish state' and I have no problem with identifying it as such. America, while it may be swirling the bottom of the bowl for the moment, was and is a Democracy whose roots are Christian.
If Yglesias wants to criticize the categorization of people, places and ideas, he should start with the left who has foisted upon us the political terminology not rooted in any reality (19th century French politics) which has been wielded like a sword in order to divide us. They never refer to themselves as left wing, but the word right wing is so often used to smear and accuse anyone not of their political persuasion.
Does the Ummah use specific terms to describe nations that are not Muslim? 'Deed they do!
Dar el Harb....the house of War
Dar es Salaam....the house of Submission.
If Yglesias wants to make us use nondescript whatever sorts of terminology to unoffend, he should tell it to the Ummah.
Pastorius,
'Legitimacy' as such is not exactly what I'm talking about here. I may believe this or that government, with ideology X, is 'legitimate' (whatever that means) but that doesn't mean I have to concede that the country is an "X Country".
As an example, I'm sure we all (well, most? ;) agree the current government of the United States is perfectly legitimate. But that doesn't mean the United States ought to be called a "Democratic-Party Country". But that is precisely analogous to what people do when they call such-and-such country a "Muslim Country" due to the ideology of the rulers. Make sense?
re: Gaza, minor point - my understanding is that the Gaza territory is not a "country" at all, per se. Anyway, the fact that they elected Hamas just means they elected Hamas. Again, see: Americans electing Democrats.
jau jau,
I was wondering if someone would bring up Israel and I agree it is problematic for my argument. One point I would make is that 'Jewish' serves as both a religion and a nationality, which complicates things. One might call Israel 'the Jewish state' on the same basis that one might call, oh I don't know, France 'the French state'. "Muslim" however is not a nationality.
re: America being "a Democracy", well okay, but that's not analogous to calling a country a "Muslim Country". "Democracy", unlike "Muslim", merely describes a form of government/constitution and nothing more. My issue is with terminology connoting unanimity in religion or culture; the majority of Americans would probably self-identify as Christian, but we do not call America a "Christian Country", and rightly so, and that is my point.
best
SC,
I guess your argument would hold water, for me, if one of these Sharia-states ever actually voted for a non-Sharia/Muslim government.
I don't think that's gonna happen.
By the way, you have no problem calling China a Communist State, do you?
The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia are never going to "vote" for a non-sharia gov't doesn't convince me I'm wrong the way it convinces you. Remember my original point was that by accepting these categories you write dissenting minorities out of existence. Perhaps it's just the case that 90% of Iranians buy into the whole concept of extreme Muslim-oriented governance, but what about the other 10%? (or if you disagree with my #'s, pick your own) Why write them out of existence? As Infidels we shouldn't want to do this for two reasons:
1. simple considerations of freedom and individuality, obviously.
2. we have an interest in driving a wedge between any dissenters in those societies, and the mainstream, and expanding/empowering the former group however possible. Conceding these states to be "Muslim States", as if it is something ingrained, set in stone, and laid down by God that the states should be "Muslim", goes against this goal, I'm sure you can see.
re: China,
Actually I don't think China is a "Communist State" at this point in any sense other than nominal (i.e. it's ruled by a clique that calls itself "the Communist Party"). I think it's an autocracy, that has (like us) a mixed economy with a heavy dose of cronyist socialism. But again: even if I agreed it was a "Communist State", that would be a description involving a *government type*. "Muslim" is not a government type.
Actually, I'm half wrong about that, right? Our enemies *do* consider "Muslim" to be a government type, and a religion, and a nationality, and a culture, and a way of life, all wrapped up in one. But I don't have to respect their wishes in that regard or acknowledge their sweeping totalist view of what "Muslim" should represent and effect in the real world, which is perhaps the real point here.
I believe I have an interest in denying the reality of the nationhood of "Islam", and so I shall.
best
It's funny how often you and I diverge in opinion and then I bring up the subject of Christian persecution to back myself up.
If China is not still adhering to the Communist Doctrine, then why do they arrest and torture Christians. Why is it illegal to bring Bibles into China?
As you will remember, you and I have gone around on the subject of Iraq, and this is always my end argument. I say, we accomplished very little in Iraq, and the evidence for that is that Christians have had to flee the country for their lives.
YOu say, well, at least Hussein is not there. That's a good point.
And yes, China is not a strict Communist state anymore. They have integrated Capitalism into their system, but only in so far as it furthers the goals of the Communists who run the country.
As I understand it, China is a series of large corporations who are given capitalistic autonomy in service of the larger state goals.
I could be wrong.
Anyway, I understand your larger point, and the strategy behind it. It makes sense to me, even though there is another sense in which it flies in the face of reality.
IMHO
Thought you'd appreciate this:
Atlas Shrugs quotes the Asia Times today:
The Asia Times said Obama made a mistake by speaking in Cairo. “Why should the president of the United States address the ‘Muslim world?,” it asked. “What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the ‘Christian world’? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk."
“To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration," the paper stated, "and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”
If China is not still adhering to the Communist Doctrine, then why do they arrest and torture Christians. Why is it illegal to bring Bibles into China?
I'm confused. Is the implication here that only Communists could oppress Christians and the only people who oppress Christians are Communists?
Anyway, I understand your larger point, and the strategy behind it. It makes sense to me, even though there is another sense in which it flies in the face of reality.
The funny part is that I agree with you 100% :-) What I'm saying makes sense on one level, and yet on another level it flies in the face of reality. I can't argue with that at all.
P.S. The Asia Times quote expresses my thoughts exactly.
SC,
You're funny. I know you know what I mean when I say that it is Communist doctrine to oppress Christians.
Why don't you tell me how many countries Christians are actually oppressed in.
Really, dude, it's pretty much just Communist countries and "Muslim" countries (How about that, I put it in quotes so you'd feel better).
If you know of any others, please tell me.
I read Voices of the Martyrs. That's where I get my info.
I guess maybe I should give a tighter definition of oppression. So, here goes;
arrested for preaching the Gospel, for distributing Bibles, for professing their Faith, tortured, killed, forced to flee for their lives ...
Christians suffer light oppression in many countries, to be sure. And, by the way, Christians are, to some extent, oppressed by the MSM here in the USA. But, I think it is at such a low-level that I generally don't complain about it. We are free to worship and profess our Faith here without fear of arrest, torture or death.
I guess I was just thinking that the Roman Empire - the canonical, and first, not to mention Biblical example of a nation that oppressed Christians - would have been quite amused to discover that you think this made them Communists :-)
See my point? Where does the phrase 'thrown to the lions' come from, was it Commies who did that? Who, then?
Also, there are cases of Christians being persecuted in places like Iraq, as (I believe) you have pointed out to me in the past. Is Iraq Communist? ;-)
Like I said, there are two groups of people who commonly persecute Christians these days; Communists and Muslims.
Post a Comment