The case against Mizanur Rahman, where is the line between free speech and incitement to violence?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

I do see your point.  I don't take it to be defense or apology for terrorist methods.

[Mr Fixit]

Which leads me to another point: terrorism is best fought in the same vein as rampant crime, namely by looking at root causes and dealing with them first and foremost. Violence and crackdown may help in the short run, but the only way to truly combat this menace is by affording those who resort to terrorism opportunities to feel like their lives and their wishes matter, without resorting to blowing other people up.

That's why the current Western paradigm of dealing with the Middle East will never ever result in peace. Jihadism and Caliphate and Islamic state and all these nice things are symptoms of a much deeper problem. One does not fight illness by treating symptoms -- terrorism in this case -- but by looking long and hard into what led to the current state of affairs. And there the complicity of certain international players is horrendous. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

I don't think there is a clear or simple way to approach the problem of the Daesh or Salafi/Wahabism.  It's more than people are poor there is a religious and cultural element to the problems in the Middle-East.  If it were purely a poverty problem I don't believe we'd see middle and upper class Muslims fighing for the Daesh.  I don't know how to fight a religious belief that sincerely posits a right to kill and enslave those who oppose them without using "hard power".  

[Ramsay Gimp]

Scot, I'm still wondering why you seem to be open to the idea of criminalizing political advocacy now. I remember that you used to be a principled free speech guy

[maarsen]

Mr. Fixit,

I don't think there is a clear or simple way to approach the problem of the Daesh or Salafi/Wahabism.  It's more than people are poor there is a religious and cultural element to the problems in the Middle-East.  If it were purely a poverty problem I don't believe we'd see middle and upper class Muslims fighing for the Daesh.  I don't know how to fight a religious belief that sincerely posits a right to kill and enslave those who oppose them without using "hard power".  

The way to fight them is to laugh at them. 'So how's that caliphate thing going? Didn't the last one only last a few hundred years before the Mongols ripped the snot out of it? Call me when you have the track record democracies have. Why are you here rather than there if life is so much better there?' 

[Lord Mord]

For me this is a question of two principles: democracy and asymmetry.

As to the first, the leaders of France and of the United States are, at least apparently, democratically elected.  Consequently, they are our governments, and we own the things they do, whether we like all those things individually or not.  If we want the outcomes to change, we have to change what our leaders are doing, which may mean changing our leadership, which may require motivation.

As to the second, if you're locked in a death struggle with Achilles, you don't strike his chest and shoulders and legs.  If you're going to resist the United States, you don't charge headlong into the Army; you apply pressure to the most sensitive point that isn't well-protected.

It isn't especially moral, but if you want morality, get out of the war business.  Or prepare to lose.

[Crixus]

I wanted to share a few points (bear with me; I'm fairly muddled right now): 

1. I was reading Sam Harris who gives a lot of importance to intent (ironically, I remember this being a key principle of the Islam I was taught in school: intent over action). In that sense, he feels the intention of the West/US is essentially 'noble'; he echoes a phrase by Arundhati Roy: America the well-intentioned giant. This implies that the West has purely altruistic intentions at heart when it goes around bombing various countries or invading them.

I find this disingenuous for several reasons, one being that this seems to rely on taking everyone at their word (Harris mentions taking ISIS at their word which I agree with; however ISIS operates to bring down the entire system of civilisation; why then would they need to pay lip service to civilised ideals such as democracy?). We can clearly see that the countries opposing it/fighting it are bound by such limits; they need to frame their actions in a manner consistent with the ideals they propagate and that their citizens live by. Bush couldn't and didn't simply say, 'we need Iraq's oil so we're going in there' for instance ( though I suspect a large portion of his voter base would have cheered that statement). 

I disagree completely that the West invaded Iraq or interfered in the ME purely to bring democracy to the Muslims, There may have been elements of this, but there were other crucial factors based on self-interest. 

2. Therefore, there are genuine grievances among Muslims against the West: drone attacks, invasions, the destruction and collapse of functioning countries (Iraq may have been repressive and scary and economically sanctioned but it was a functioning country, not a morass of gangs and extremists and bombings). These are compounded, in my view, by a huge persecution/martyr complex amongst Muslims, and a penchant for conspiracy theories (at least in my country). Hence, everything is the West/US/Israel's fault. There is no desire to accept responsibility for or failures. Luckily, Pakistan is moving towards a hopeful direction since last year's Peshawar attack: not just fighting militants, but regulating hate speech in mosques, schools and madrassas (very slow but still, more than has been done in the past). But overall, I see this tendency too often amongst educated people as well. This us vs. them mentality is dangerous and seems to be growing, alas. 

 

3. The complete lack of reform and evolution of Islam is a genuine, and huge problem. Until this is tackled, the gap between secular societies and Muslim ones will only grow, and Muslims living abroad will continue to feel torn. I live in a country where I have to bite my tongue and refrain from sharing my atheist thoughts and beliefs, except with those closest to me. Anything I say or imply can be used to fuck me over by a certain rabid segment; still, as a 'Sunni' Punjabi I am lucky and have far more privilege here than a Christian woman, for instance. This is all inextricably linked to Islam in my view. 

4. Despite all this, Muslims are as diverse and varied as any other religion's followers and here, I speak from the experience of living in a Muslim country for 40 years. Despite all the claims bandied about regarding Islam being monolithic, people have differing views on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING (to the extent of arguing over whether one can wear nail polish while fasting and a myriad of other trivial and/or huge matters). People hardly discuss religion; they are private. People observe and practise but hardly ever impose opinions on others (yes I know, anecdotal yet there is some value to experience). They want to live their lives the way other human beings do. That is something that often gets lost in all this hysteria over a seething mass of brown fanatics. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Crixus,

Interesting, very interesting.  No faith is monolithic.  It will be as diverse as the number of people who claim to profess it.

[SeanF]

Which leads me to another point: terrorism is best fought in the same vein as rampant crime, namely by looking at root causes and dealing with them first and foremost. Violence and crackdown may help in the short run, but the only way to truly combat this menace is by affording those who resort to terrorism opportunities to feel like their lives and their wishes matter, without resorting to blowing other people up.

That's why the current Western paradigm of dealing with the Middle East will never ever result in peace. Jihadism and Caliphate and Islamic state and all these nice things are symptoms of a much deeper problem. One does not fight illness by treating symptoms -- terrorism in this case -- but by looking long and hard into what led to the current state of affairs. And there the complicity of certain international players is horrendous. 

Sometimes, there is nothing that one can reasonably offer to an opponent. Their demands are simply too unreasonable.

There is nothing that could reasonably have been offered to the Khmer Rouge, or Shining Path.  At a lesser level, it would not have been reasonable to transfer Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic, against the wishes of its inhabitants.  Peace with the IRA only became possible once the IRA were prepared to accept that Northern Ireland's destiny would be decided by its inhabitants.

At present, I think we're at a stage where there is nothing that can reasonably be offered to IS.  That may change in the future, but we're not at that point now.

[Mr Fixit]

Sometimes, there is nothing that one can reasonably offer to an opponent. Their demands are simply too unreasonable.

There is nothing that could reasonably have been offered to the Khmer Rouge, or Shining Path.  At a lesser level, it would not have been reasonable to transfer Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic, against the wishes of its inhabitants.  Peace with the IRA only became possible once the IRA were prepared to accept that Northern Ireland's destiny would be decided by its inhabitants.

At present, I think we're at a stage where there is nothing that can reasonably be offered to IS.  That may change in the future, but we're not at that point now.

I am no expert on Ireland, but do you think Irish economic miracle had anything to do with it? Once Ireland became a very prosperous and rich country, its people content and generally satisfied, it is only natural that more extreme elements slowly began to disappear. I'm not saying this is what happened, but to my untrained eye this certainly seems a plausible explanation.

With regards to Middle East, I find it equally plausible that the destruction of countries and functioning societies, foreign support for all kinds of unsavoury guys and general meddling in other peoples' affairs, as well as widespread feeling of helplessness and rage is what fuels terrorism. Before someone interjects, no, I don't think this is the sole reason, but it is one of the more important ones.

So, what to do from the perspective of an outsider? What can we do on our end? Stop involving ourselves in other peoples' business (and civil wars), stop supporting terrible regimes in the region for our own petty interests (and this goes for everyone, US, Russia, etc.), don't play on the card of Sunni-Shia divide (foreign enablers of Saudi-Iranian struggle bear a grave responsibility for the sectarian violence in the region), promote true democracy and self-determination, show genuine good will to resolve the Palestinian issue...

As I said, look at the root causes. There's much to be accomplished by some honest rethinking and retooling of our regional approach. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will be solved by these vile geopolitical games where foreign powers support a whole menagerie of organisations and governments lifted straight from Dungeon&Dragons Monster Manual in the name of "stability", "freedom", and other nice-sounding platitudes.

[peterbound]

I wanted to share a few points (bear with me; I'm fairly muddled right now): 

1. I was reading Sam Harris who gives a lot of importance to intent (ironically, I remember this being a key principle of the Islam I was taught in school: intent over action). In that sense, he feels the intention of the West/US is essentially 'noble'; he echoes a phrase by Arundhati Roy: America the well-intentioned giant. This implies that the West has purely altruistic intentions at heart when it goes around bombing various countries or invading them.

I find this disingenuous for several reasons, one being that this seems to rely on taking everyone at their word (Harris mentions taking ISIS at their word which I agree with; however ISIS operates to bring down the entire system of civilisation; why then would they need to pay lip service to civilised ideals such as democracy?). We can clearly see that the countries opposing it/fighting it are bound by such limits; they need to frame their actions in a manner consistent with the ideals they propagate and that their citizens live by. Bush couldn't and didn't simply say, 'we need Iraq's oil so we're going in there' for instance ( though I suspect a large portion of his voter base would have cheered that statement). 

I disagree completely that the West invaded Iraq or interfered in the ME purely to bring democracy to the Muslims, There may have been elements of this, but there were other crucial factors based on self-interest. 

2. Therefore, there are genuine grievances among Muslims against the West: drone attacks, invasions, the destruction and collapse of functioning countries (Iraq may have been repressive and scary and economically sanctioned but it was a functioning country, not a morass of gangs and extremists and bombings). These are compounded, in my view, by a huge persecution/martyr complex amongst Muslims, and a penchant for conspiracy theories (at least in my country). Hence, everything is the West/US/Israel's fault. There is no desire to accept responsibility for or failures. Luckily, Pakistan is moving towards a hopeful direction since last year's Peshawar attack: not just fighting militants, but regulating hate speech in mosques, schools and madrassas (very slow but still, more than has been done in the past). But overall, I see this tendency too often amongst educated people as well. This us vs. them mentality is dangerous and seems to be growing, alas. 

 

3. The complete lack of reform and evolution of Islam is a genuine, and huge problem. Until this is tackled, the gap between secular societies and Muslim ones will only grow, and Muslims living abroad will continue to feel torn. I live in a country where I have to bite my tongue and refrain from sharing my atheist thoughts and beliefs, except with those closest to me. Anything I say or imply can be used to fuck me over by a certain rabid segment; still, as a 'Sunni' Punjabi I am lucky and have far more privilege here than a Christian woman, for instance. This is all inextricably linked to Islam in my view. 

4. Despite all this, Muslims are as diverse and varied as any other religion's followers and here, I speak from the experience of living in a Muslim country for 40 years. Despite all the claims bandied about regarding Islam being monolithic, people have differing views on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING (to the extent of arguing over whether one can wear nail polish while fasting and a myriad of other trivial and/or huge matters). People hardly discuss religion; they are private. People observe and practise but hardly ever impose opinions on others (yes I know, anecdotal yet there is some value to experience). They want to live their lives the way other human beings do. That is something that often gets lost in all this hysteria over a seething mass of brown fanatics. 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions:

Think of your most moderate muslim friend, and try to channel them:

1. Do they believe that the words and laws of the Koran are the direct commandment from god?  And as such should be followed to the letter?

2.  Do they believe that the punishments for the laws and the social codes laid out int he Koran should be followed to the letter, based on the belief that the Koran and Hadith are the absolute truth?

3. Do they believe that the idea of islam is compatible with democracy?

 

Seriously, i'd like to know.  I enjoy hearing the other side of the story, and you seem to be well spoken on the matter.  Not trying to troll here, but I do believe that had things in history panned out differently (salt and rice kind of time line) we wouldn't have the democratic west we currently have, that Islam if allowed to grow unchecked would not allow for such a form of government to arise. 

 

[peterbound]

 ISIS can't do that because it doesn't have the capacity to do so. 

And what we are doing is trying to avoid that becoming a reality. Stopping this monster before it gets big enough to get out of it's current cage. You can understand how that would be a genuine fear for the West, or any to extreme muslim part of the world, right?

 

[Crixus]

Hi peterbound. I just shared this thread and your post specifically with my husband, my mum and my 2 best friends (both female; also they all identify as Muslim). Some fast and pray; some do either and some neither, hell, some drink and some don't. I would love to see anyone question their Muslim hood. The very idea is ludicrous where I live. We have several points we would like to make, not the least dealing with your apparent stereotypical perception of us. Thing is, we've been drinking and eating, and I would therefore appreciate your deferring this chat to tomorrow. Ps: I am not a scary Muslim terrorist (disclaimer required these days) 

[Crixus]

Also around here we don't question each other's religious fervour nor decide what is orthodox or right or proper or whatever: we honestly do not discuss this stuff. We've been subjected to enough of this divisional crap; the ordinary paki anyway. 

Tl;dr: your questions about moderate Muslims opinions on democracy etc are frankly insulting. 

[peterbound]

 

 

cool, maybe you shouldn't reply.  

I'll bow out of the conversation.  I'll never try to bridge the gap of understanding.  I've got to go cook a turkey anyways. 

also, be insulted, yet you didn't reply in a manner that suggested I was wrong. 

[karaddin]

Actually that's exactly how I'd read that. Your question assumes that Muslims cannot be moderate and secular, which would be rather insulting to one that was.

[Crixus]

Karaddin has the right of it. Thank you. It's preposterous how I (and Muslims everywhere) are asked to justify or defend themselves. Still, I shall answer, peterbound:

 

1. Most people I am close to identify as Muslim. My husband, mum, friends. They all drink. My best friend drinks, she also prays once a day (she says 5 is too much for her). She fasts. She also parties. A lot. My husband doesn't fast, or pray. He drinks, eats pork. Yet, he identifies as Muslim (I would absolutely love to see someone tell him he isn't one because he does X or does not do Y). They know my standing on religion perfectly well and they all feel (and practise accordingly) that we are meant to follow general principles (which include, shockingly enough, charity, and treating everyone equally: we were all taught that Islam means everyone stands as equal before God; yet another instance of there being, oh, I don't know, varying interpretations of a religion?! Who'dathunk?) The Quran? Some of us have read it in Arabic; some not at all; some in English. Most of us don't dwell on it much, if at all. We're busy working and living and just, being. This is how different we can be.

2. Our moral codes are NOT derived directly and/or solely from Islam. They are a product of our lives, education and experience. Also, we don't have Shariah here, nor do we want it. Religious parties, which experienced a brief resurgence after 9/11, are tiny and marginalised here. So the idea that we're all longing for hands being chopped off etc. is ludicrous and irrelevant. If we as a society don't follow such laws, then I think it clear we don't agree with such ideas.

3. Again, Pakistan is a (fragile) democracy. Many other Muslim countries are: Indonesia, Bangladesh etc. So it seems Islam can indeed function alongside democracy.

Last (and I  resent needing to write this): we are people. We have lives, loves, hopes and disappointments. My husband and I don't have kids out of choice (though according to Islam we should!) but most of my mates do and all they want is peace and security, so they can raise their kids as educated, good human beings.

You say you have lived all around the world. Well, I work with foreigners: British mostly. They mingle with the 'locals', they respect traditions and culture and yet they make great friends, and fit in just fine. Living in another country, if  one does so while mixing with the people there, leaves one with a deeper understanding and empathy for differences in my view. I'm sorry if this seems rude, but  it appears to me you view Muslims (if indeed you've lived among them) as essentially other. That is just wrong, if true. And not conducive to  bridging gaps. You have preconceived ideas that you are sort of thrusting on me--and that are literally the opposite of my reality.

I could  go on, perhaps ask Relic to vouch for my (and my people's) humanity as someone who knows me outside of here. But I think that would be far too much.

 

[baxus]

And what we are doing is trying to avoid that becoming a reality. Stopping this monster before it gets big enough to get out of it's current cage. You can understand how that would be a genuine fear for the West, or any to extreme muslim part of the world, right?

And doing that is fine and dandy. It's just that this whole "OMG, how dare they respond in any way" crap is getting really old, really fast.

Once again, I'm not trying to find excuses or saying what they did was ok, but you can only push people so far before they push back.

As for "genuine fears for the West" when Muslims are concerned, that's a load of crap! First of all, those fears are based on stereotypes and overwhelming paranoia that everyone "hates your freedom" and other bullshit like that.

[Crixus]

Baxus

Perfectly natural when you otherise Muslims to the degree peterbound seems to, at least from the sort of questions he asked me in response to a post that clearly mentioned the issues prevalent in Muslim countries and societies. I acknowledged problems and stated the need for vast reform, yet his response was simplistic to the point of being offensive: moderate Muslims by definition are those who don't interpret everything literally. So no, they don't take every syllable of the Quran literally (that's if they've even read it; again, MODERATE), they don't want Shariah and so on. Hell, even openly religious people where I live don't want that; people who push for Shariah usually land up in trouble in fact: http://paktribune.com/news/Maulana-Abdul-Aziz-not-allowed-to-take-out-rally-or-make-any-public-statements-275078.html

Otherising means you stop seeing that group as human, and are therefore unable to relate basic human desires and emotions to them (such as love, family, peace and so on, along with what you mention i.e. pushing back when pushed). These are universal human aspects, yet from peterbound's earlier post, I would infer he is unable to associate them with me/us/Muslims. 

[A wilding]

Thought I would revive this thread to point out that there is an interesting parallel between on the one hand Mizamur Rahman and his ilk, and on the other those right wing US politicians who might have influenced the latest US shooting spree.

Though perhaps it can't be pushed too far. No one seriously doubts that the Mizamur Rahmans are happy to see people going off to join Islamic State, but what the US politicians are trying to achieve is perhaps less clear.