And a Woman Shall Lead Us

[msmcghee]

From a great blog by Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

I've written many times of the need for moderate Muslims to take a stand against their reactionary brethren, and the need to support mass movements toward reform in the Islamic world. One of the key voices for reformation today is that of Irshad Manji. Born in Idi Amin's Uganda, Manji's family fled to Canada where she grew up. She is the author of The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith, a book that declares unequivocally:

"Not solely because of September 11, but more urgently because of it, we've got to end Islam's totalitarianism, particularly the gross human-rights violations against women and religious minorities. If ever there was a moment for an Islamic reformation, it's now."

Salman Rushdie has said in interviews that reform in the Muslim world will most likely be led by women, who understand the problem of Islam better than anyone else. With the rise of Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands, Azar Nafisi in Iran and now the US, Asra Nomani in India and now the US, and Asma Jehangir in Pakistan (among many others), this is proving prophetic. Their personal stories are immense, as is their courage. For speaking out against the barbarism of so much of the faith they were born into, they have each faced death threats, fatwas and assassination attempts.

Complete post at: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/and_a_woman_shall_lead_us.php#more

It's definitely worth a read.

[Lerkfish]

1. and who is there to reform Israel back towards moderation?

If one assumes Islam needs to be "fixed", then certainly Israel is in need of the same retrospection.

[cali]

I'm not sure

you can compare a nation to a religion and world view. The history of Islam and the West is a fascinating and complex one, not to mention long.

[Lerkfish]

3. valid point.

[idontwantaname]

6. i agree with Lerkfish

if you think about it, the muslim world has had its moments of moderation, though it may not always be in line of what the "west" wants.

i agree though that the state of israel today should be seen as an extreme conservative state which takes military action against others of different religion or ethnicity very lightly.

i would definitely like to see the arab nations develop and conform with less religious extremism and more "capitalistic" tendencies... however i would also like to see the state of israel tone down its religious extremism and nationalism too.

is this possible? we do not hesitate to criticize the arab nations... why stop there?

[msmcghee]

8. You don't have the most basic understanding . .

. . of morality.

The most basic rule of civilzation is that it is immoral (and illegal) to initiate the use of force against others - whether a person or a nation.

Without strict (and if necessary, violently forceful) enforcement of that rule there will be no civilization.

[idontwantaname]

9. i beg your pardon!

dont you shake the morality stick at me. ive read your posts which repeatedly justify attacks on non israeli civilians under the guise of defense... and now the threat of civilization.

---------------------------

in your post above you state contradictory statements:

"The most basic rule of civilzation is that it is immoral (and illegal) to initiate the use of force against others - whether a person or a nation.

Without strict (and violently forceful) enforcement of that rule there will be no civilization."

-----------------------------

in essence youre saying its "wrong to kill" unless you "need to kill" to enforce the rule that it is "wrong to kill".

[msmcghee]

10. I guess you never heard of WWII - look it up.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If you can't understand that simple reality then as I said - you have no understanding of basic morality.

It is based on the right of self defense that is basic to all rules of conduct between nations and people. The only people who don't recognize that rule are cowards, criminals and bullies.

".. and now the threat of civilization."

Keep it up and I'll have to threaten you with even more civilization. }(

[idontwantaname]

11. WWII has come and gone my friend

the state has not been under threat of collapse for some time now... in fact it has put and comtinues to put other states at risk of collapse. strange...

[msmcghee]

12. What does that possibly have to do with . .

. . the morality of self-defense, the topic under discussion?

:eyes:

[idontwantaname]

13. i belive the topic was about religious extremism and nationalism

its short--->

http://slingshothiphop.com/qt-trailr.html

[cali]

14. Actually not.

The post was about Islam. Interesting how it immediately became about Israel to some.

[idontwantaname]

15. of a muslim speaking out against religious extremism

i not only spoke of israel but of arab nations as well. i believe youll find post #7 and #8 is where the topic got derailed.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

23. sounds like an alien...a "zionist"

is a Zionist-free party... if there was any Zionism in the Respect Party they would be hunted down and kicked out. We have no time for Zionists."

Yvonne Ridley feb 16,2006

http://www.felixonline.co.uk/v2/article.php?id=2923


and people here wonder why israel feels like its "under attack" these are hardly part of the general "luny bin" Respect is supposed to be one of those "lefty, civil rights, touch feely type parties instead of the intolerent facist type that the above quote represents. (reminds me of ANSWER, they wouldnt let a friend of mine speak-his sin?...born in israel.)

i have to go comb my hair, i think one of my horns is peaking through

[Jim Sagle]

20. Oh, those pesky zionists!

[msmcghee]

21. A Zionist? Hardly.

I have one goal. It is to see the killing stop in the ME. The only way to do that is for the world to get extremely tough with those who start violent conflicts and who attack innocent civilians in neighboring states.

If there is any doubt in your mind over which side is starting violent conflicts and who is attacking innocent civilians in neighboring states - then you are either one of them or you are in serious denial.

Since the world is probably not going to get extremely tough with those who start violent conflicts and who attack innocent civilians in neighboring states - then it's up to Israel to do it alone. At least we in the US are providing logistical support - and almost all Dems politicians support that policy.

[msmcghee]

7. Some parts of that relationship are complex.

Others are rather simple.

A simple one is that Israel has never tried to use force against her enemies except in defense of the lives of her citizens and her borders.

Her enemies have repeatedly used force with the avowed purpose of killing Israeli citizens and destroying the state of Israel.

That means that anything Israel reasonably does to protect the lives of Israelis and her borders is legal under international law - and every use of force that her enemies apply against her is illegal.

This is according to all UN rules of conduct between nations. While the philosophy and history and psychology of the cultures is all interesting - I'd be more interested in discussing those things after Israel's enemies are stopped.

[cali]

19. Sorry, I can't agree

with that. Israel's actions in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon belie your statement that Israel has only acted in defense.

[pelsar]

22. actually its not that simplistic...

when does an offensive manuver = that of defense.

an example being in 73, israel crossed the canal and in effect threatened Cairo and the Egyptian 3rd army....those were offensive manuevers. However in the larger context of the 73, in which israel was clearly on the defensive. Tactical offense can in effect be defensive on a larger scale.

This latest war is also an example. Clearly israel was on the offensive tactically, but having Hizballa arm themselves to the tune of 12,000 missles actually put israel on the defensive. Israel for 6 years was on the defensive, not initiating attacks across the border, until the Hizballa attack and kidnapping. By returning to the intl border as israel is, it further emphises the larger picture that it was defensive in nature.

apply this now to gaza....by leaving gaza, israel put itself in defensive positions along the border which are under constant if not imprecise attacks. The "reinvasion/assult" though offensive tactically is essentially defensive as the IDF returns to its intl borders.

The essence of defense is " the belief that, if you dont attack us, we wont attack you". That holds true for Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Jordan


the westbank....ok, thats a mess of conflicting issues....i'll skip that for now.

[msmcghee]

2. Do you mean that Israel should . .

. . only defend the lives of her citizens moderately - so as not to make the people who are out to destroy Israel too mad?

[Lerkfish]

4. Do you think the present course is one of moderation?

[msmcghee]

5. You ask if I think the present course is one of moderation.

Yes, I do. If Israel had their act together Hizbollah would not exist today. I doubt Israel will make that mistake again.

But, addressing the deeper moral question, I would not require moderation of anyone who is defending the lives of their citizens against deadly attacks of those sworn to kill them and who have tried repeatedly in the past to do so.

If I did require such moderation from them then I should be willing to place myself between them and their enemies and provide all necessary protection.

Whoever stands in the path of sworn killers - either Israel or the UN - would be stupid to unnecessarily risk the lives of those they are protecting and their own lives if they used anything less than the maximum available force to stop them.

Those who stand on the sideless and claim that Israel is using "excessive" force in defending the lives of her citizens are either enemies of Israel or cowards - probably both.

[Lerkfish]

16. so to you, completely destroying Lebanon is moderation

destroying their infrastructure is moderation. Killing 1000 civilians is moderation. Targeting columns of fleeing refugess is moderation.
Ignoring calls for a ceasefire from the UN for nearly a month is moderation.

then, I pray we never see what you consider extremism.

[Englander]

24. You forgot to mention 'she's Osama's worst nightmare!!'.

Since that's Manji's catchphrase, n'all, no article about herself is complete without it.

I've written many times of the need for moderate Muslims to take a stand against their reactionary brethren, and the need to support mass movements toward reform in the Islamic world.

And who better to 'take a stand' against reactionary elements, than a reactionary bigot, in this
instance, that's Manji?