Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs: torture destroys our humanity

darulharb

darulharb — 2003-03-11T11:02:49-08:00

Wow, you're using four-letter words again. So what was so offensive about my last post, exactly? Or is this the prerogative reserved exclusively for you (and it's usually - and unsurprisingly - Israel that merits such passion)?

Ikram

Ikram — 2003-03-11T11:53:48-08:00

Darulharb (can I call you Mr.Harb --same as my Member of Parliament, though I doubt you're of Lebanese origin), the author of a blog always has privileges that commentors don't. This isn't an unbiased vehicle for journalism, it's a personal site. The owner of the blog can do whatever he or she wants, whether consistent or not.

As for Israel, this blog doesn't dwell on Israel, you do.

Should you have an interest in Islamic law, Islam in America, or Paralegal studies, there is a great deal to learn here. Otherwise, what are you trying to gain from the blog and the comments dialogue?

Al-Munaqabah

Al-Munaqabah — 2003-03-11T14:28:33-08:00

Darulharb, your last comment used considerably more vulgar language than a single swear word, as well as making personal attacks on other people who have commented here. Had you left my other visitors alone, I might have left your comment alone.

If you weren't so busy trying to see hypocrisy and evil motives behind everything I do you would realize that there's a world of difference between the crude tone of your comment that I deleted and the blog entry that I wrote (if you followed a couple of the links you would realize that I was quoting Jim Henley).

Finally, I am really baffled why you mention Israel. My post and the links in it are about the al-Qa'ida suspect Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and therefore the countries involved are Pakistan and the United States. If I meant to make a comment about Israel, I would do so. In fact, I do find Israel's use of torture offensive, just as I do Pakistan's. However, Pakistan's was the only one I chose to provide a condemnation of at this time.

ken

ken — 2003-03-12T19:37:23-08:00

I see my last comment never saw the light of day as a real post.
I find it very interesting that Islam condemns torture and terrorism. There must be a very, very large number of Muslims who go out of their way to ignore the Koran's teachings. Islam has more sponsors of torture and terrorism than the rest of the world combined. Interestingly enough I see quotes from various Imam's, Mullah's etc., on an almost daily basis, promoting those very acts that Islam supposedly prohibits.
My question is; If this really is not Islam, when are the real, religious practitioners' of the faith going to stand up and condem this type of activity?
I know, a deranged mullah will do it occasionally but that doesn't count. Why do I see one condemnation for each 10000 proclamations supporting it?
Ken

Al-Munaqabah

Al-Munaqabah — 2003-03-12T20:17:49-08:00

Ken, I do not have control over any person other than myself. I can only speak out for the truth as I know and understand it, and hope that others will listen.

You spend a lot of time going to places like LGF that provide only one side of the story, then you complain that you never hear the other side. Just as it is my obligation to present that other side, it is also your obligation to seek it out if you desire to discover the truth. Just as I can't compel bad Muslims to listen to me, neither can I compel you to listen to me. You have to be willing to take that step yourself.

I hope that this is your reason for continuing to visit my blog despite the fact that you disparage just about everything I say and call it not good enough. I am sorry that you are not willing to work with me to improve things in the Muslim world in however small a way, that you simply come here to stand in condemnation.

I am also sorry that you seem to dwell so much on the faults of Muslims. Perhaps Muslims have more and worse faults than other groups of people, but it is disingenous to act like all bad in the world is due to Islam and Muslims. Maybe you don't believe that, but because you never admit that there is any fault in your own side or in the groups that you suport, it makes you appear rather one-sided.

Joel

Joel — 2003-03-13T01:18:05-08:00

Alas. It seems that some of us who strive to promote human rights dwell on faults while others use what we uncover to belittle their enemies. They don't seem to see that the problem is the faults, regardless of who is committing them. It's a kind of insurance that they take out in the likely event that they, themselves, commit similar or worse faults. Or a veil, more opaque than any preventing their eyes from looking upon Muslim women -- whose purpose is not the preservation of dignity, but redirection.

They are as common criminals not wanting to be caught. Through the School of the Americas and other programs, the United States has promoted the use of torture around the world, in many Islamic countries as well as Christian and Jewish.

My response to any one who twists the screws on a human hand or denies a human mouth its proper sustenance or causes a human lungs to fill with water is the same. I don't care if you are Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, or the holiest man or woman on the planet: I will speak on behalf of the suffering against torture. Stopping torture, wherever it occurs is my object.

When we descend to the level of namecalling and, worse, of supporting an administration which promotes the disintegration of the Bill of Rights, we aren't dealing with the faults we claim to abhor: we are making them a fixture.

ken

ken — 2003-03-13T12:28:41-08:00

I don't pretend that there are not faults on all sides, least of all the side that I currently represent. I make this statement because I don't accept, for example, that because I am protestant, catholic, muslim, that the position of other protestant, catholic, muslim advocates is appropriate just because their faith matches mine.
I actually spend more time on your weblog than on Little Green Footballs and much more on many diverse sites. I am not looking for what is said as much as the consistency of the logic supporting the comments.
Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, I have found that arguments presented by those favoring military intervention in Afganistan, Iraq, North Korea, etc. are far more substantive than those of the opposition.
I believe that all of the available evidence supports the effort to root out terrorist groups AND states as quickly and efficiently as possible. These people do not only ignore the conventions of modern society but are actively pursuing the destruction of that society. I don't want my children and grandchildren inhabiting a "war-zone-planet-earth".
We are at a crossroads. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back. We may already be too late but that is no reason not to try!
The bin laden's and hussein's of the world do not understand anything but force. If Ghandi had tried his nonviolent approach against any other county than Britain (or the US at that time) he would not only have been unsuccessful, he would have been dead at a much earlier age, In most of the middle eastern countries he would have been tortured and murdered within moments.
How do you deal with these people without using force?
I have been searching the proposals of all the "peace-at-any-price" crowd for that one simple answer. So far it has eluded me.
That is the question I have been trying to get you to answer without success. Unfortunately, quoting various religious authorities doesn't really deal with todays very real problems.
By the way, I appreciate the fact that you did not support or attempt to make excuses for the behavior of other Muslims. You are right, you are responsible for your own behavior and not that of the others. It would be very nice if some of the radicals approached the religion in the same way.
Ken

Al-Munaqabah

Al-Munaqabah — 2003-03-13T14:44:16-08:00

Thank you, Ken. That is one of the most reasonable comments you've posted to my blog.

I have stated this time and again. I am not opposed to the use of force in itself. I am opposed to the use of force in Iraq because I believe the consequences of doing so will be worse than the consequences of not doing so.

And as I know I've also stated before, I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do know when I see my country doing something I believe is wrong, and I feel a moral obligation to speak up about why I believe it is wrong.

I encourage you to keep reading more and more widely. Not all liberal bloggers are alike. We have different reasons for opposing the war and different answers to it. In particular, I encourage you to visit Jonathan Edelstein's blog. He's somewhat more conservative than I am so he may be more to your liking, and he has a very active comments section and would be glad to answer any questions or challenges you put to him.

Finally, I will just say this. I try at all times to speak the truth of what I believe and to follow what I believe to be the most morally correct position. You may disagree with my beliefs, but I hope that you have at least always found me to be honest about what they are.

ken

ken — 2003-03-13T20:18:48-08:00

Not believing in war is fine, but as I stated previously, what alternative do you offer?
The French demand that we never do anything, other countries think that waiting 12 years is not nearly sufficient time. Others really (?) believe that putting inspectors in will solve the problem. I find this argument more than mildly ludicrous because..........
1. Mr. Blix spent many years in Iraq inspecting for nuclear weapons and declared the county clear of them. Oops, an entire program was unearthed after this clearance.
2. North Korea spent 8 years under inspectors and a promise not to develop nuclear weapons. Oops! They took the money they were getting to drop the program and used it to build the program instead of feeding their people.
So, again, I am trying to get you to think, what is the alternative?
If you can come up with a solution that achieves the desired goal without removing husein by force please present it.
Handwringing and doing nothing is the worst possible alternative.
If there are large numbers of deaths in this war it will be because husein is killing his own people. Every day we wait will result in more Iraqui deaths not less.
Every day we wait will result in more environmental devastation, not less.
By the way there is a relatively simple answer to resolve the matter without war but it is the peace proponents that make this impossible.
What is your solution?
Ken

Al-Munaqabah

Al-Munaqabah — 2003-03-13T20:29:55-08:00

Ken, will you please JUST READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN??? I don't like to shout, but you're driving me up the wall. I have tried so many times to explain my position, to explain why I believe what I believe, to state what I know and what I don't know. And you keep coming back and posting the same thing over and over again. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

I posted a link in my last comment. Please visit Jonathan's blog or any of the others on my blogroll. Ask them your questions too. It should be beyond obvious by now that I don't have the answers you're looking for.