I‘m pretty lukewarm on Thomas Friedman overall but he’s built quite a franchise on turning a good phrase or 2 and he does occasionally deliver some solid bits. Lately, in a media environment where every other article about Islam involves beheading, suicide bombs or sharia, he’s been doing a great job of recognizing the important & emerging pockets of liberalism in Muslim society writ large. In Iraq, for example, he recently noted an important reversal of the usual storyline for what happens to an intellectual who violates Arab society’s norms –
Here’s a story you don’t see very often. Iraq’s highest court told the Iraqi Parliament last Monday that it had no right to strip one of its members of immunity so he could be prosecuted for an alleged crime: visiting Israel for a seminar on counterterrorism. The Iraqi justices said the Sunni lawmaker, Mithal al-Alusi, had committed no crime and told the Parliament to back off.
Combatting Islamophobia His Own Way…
That’s not all. The Iraqi newspaper Al-Umma al-Iraqiyya carried an open letter signed by 400 Iraqi intellectuals, both Kurdish and Arab, defending Alusi. That takes a lot of courage and a lot of press freedom. I can’t imagine any other Arab country today where independent judges would tell the government it could not prosecute a parliamentarian for visiting Israel — and intellectuals would openly defend him in the press.
More stories like this & I believe Islamophobia worldwide would be taken down a notch or two. Towards the same end, Friedman has a great column this week about the Indian Muslim community’s response to the Mumbai attackers & how it contrasts with too many Arab Muslims –
All nine [of the Mumbai attackers] are still in the morgue because the leadership of India’s Muslim community has called them by their real name — “murderers” not “martyrs” — and is refusing to allow them to be buried in the main Muslim cemetery of Mumbai, the 7.5-acre Bada Kabrastan graveyard, run by the Muslim Jama Masjid Trust.
“People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim,” Hanif Nalkhande, a spokesman for the trust, told The Times of London. Eventually, one assumes, they will have to be buried, but the Mumbai Muslims remain defiant.
To be sure, Mumbai’s Muslims are a vulnerable minority in a predominantly Hindu country. Nevertheless, their in-your-face defiance of the Islamist terrorists stands out. It stands out against a dismal landscape of predominantly Sunni Muslim suicide murderers who have attacked civilians in mosques and markets — from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan — but who have been treated by mainstream Arab media, like Al Jazeera, or by extremist Islamist spiritual leaders and Web sites, as “martyrs” whose actions deserve praise.
The symbolic gesture is interesting on many levels. In our politically correct world, a lot of social commentary first focuses on identifying majorities vis 脙聽 vis minorities (or rich vs poor, white vs non-white, west vs. the rest, bank vs subprime borrower, etc.). The all too common implication being that the powerless aren’t entirely responsible for their “bad” behavior because circumstances created by the powerful made them do it.
 |
|
There is no truth, only competing agendas…. |
The problem is that at the extreme, this makes all standards of behavior & intent relative. To leverage Lenin’s classic formulation, determining right vs. wrong becomes first a question of “who? whom?” rather than “what.” Many of the “yes.. but’s” when talking about the cartoon rioters, for ex., rather explicitly hedged between Who/Whom (Westerners did something to Islam) and What (fighting Free Speech). Some rap lyrics can go platinum coming from the right mouth or be a hate crime coming from the wrong one.
Heck, depending on how deeply one buys into Who/Whom, the idea that Friedman – clearly non-desi and non-Muslim – should praise (i.e. judge) Desi Muslims might even be insulting.
However, what the Mumbai terror attacks remind us is that even in our multi-cultural, tolerant ideal world, we still ultimately require some universals (e.g. “don’t shoot up hotel guests”) that society must “intolerantly” judge & enforce regardless of Who/Whom. Friedman’s piece comes from this vein when it recognizes universals, that minorities still exercise volition, and are often a more proximate variable than anything the majority can do.
And so despite umpteen transgressions against them, the Muslim minority of India isn’t quietly rationalizing that somehow the Hindu majority “made” these terrorists do their deeds. They’re instead expressly disavowing the Mumbai 9. The result is an important step for the minority to productively and peacefully continue to engage the majority in common society –
When a culture and a faith community delegitimizes this kind of behavior, openly, loudly and consistently, it is more important than metal detectors or extra police. Religion and culture are the most important sources of restraint in a society.
It is why so few, if any, Indian Muslims are known to have joined Al Qaeda. And it is why, as outrageously expensive and as uncertain the outcome, trying to build decent, pluralistic societies in places like Iraq is not as crazy as it seems. It takes a village, and without Arab-Muslim societies where the villagers feel ownership over their lives and empowered to take on their own extremists — militarily and ideologically — this trend will not go away.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
As Friedman notes, the message it sends other Muslims is as important as the message it sends other Indians. As I argued with Yeh Hum Naheen, disaffected young men are a fact of life in every society on the planet. What determines where they land on the long continuum from schoolyard punk to international terrorist is the social narrative they draw their “juice” from. Given Islam’s traditional insistence on a clean, expedient burial, 9 bodies rotting in a morgue for nearly 3 months is a pretty graphic signal to aspiring copycats. Far from being hailed as martyrs, future terrorists are being told that Desi Muslims consider them chumps.
Besides Godhra, care to elaborate unprovoked Hindu, or majoritarian, transgressions against the Muslim minority?
True enough — Bush being called a chimp is considered witty, but Obama being called a chimp is called racist.
While the decision by the Muslim group in Bombay to refuse burial to the terrorists is to be lauded, its effects are entirely local. Given the poor response of local authorities to handling the attack, it was another demonstration that while India’s state apparatus is proving increasingly ineffectual in meeting the needs of its people, independent civic organizations are stepping in. This was a way of saying, “Our police could not protect us, but we’ll make sure that these men do not get a proper burial in our country.” I don’t see how Friedman can make the leap to apply Bombay to the Arab world.
Although the majority of the world’s Muslims are non-Arab, it is generally Arab concerns that predominate the debate when it comes to Islam. I do not expect Arabs to look towards India as an example on how to handle the role of religion, because quite understandably, how Arabs deal with Islam is shaped largely by local concerns.
The same can apply to Sec’y Clinton’s trip to Indonesia. Well-intentioned, but uninformed commentators said that by paying a visit to the world’s largest Muslim nation, the U.S. is signaling a new approach to the Muslim world. Actually, the U.S. and Indonesia have increasingly warm ties – due to U.S. help after the tsunami in 2004, when the U.S. did extraordinary aid relief in Aceh. Among the other 3 nations that immediately responded to that disaster – India, Japan, and Australia – the Muslim world was largely absent from the scene. So, while the average Indonesian may object to U.S. policy in the Middle East, American policy towards SE Asia is much more balanced.
Vinod,
Desi = Indian?! On a south-asian blog? Thanks – we non-south-asians owe you one!
Friedman’s analysis falls short by not pointing out the root cause of tolerance in Indian muslims (as compared to their co-religionists in neighbouring countries). But he’s writing for a liberal newspaper, so he cannot say things which could sound sympathetic to the majority. He, too, needs to look out for his job during these difficult times!
M. Nam
Thanks for the article review, and your perspective.
I don’t think he has to worry about money, I remember reading somewhere that he married into one of the richest families in the country.
After being butchered in Bombay during the 1992 riots (see Slumdog Millionaire for details) maybe they are just afraid.
To avoid confusion, the above comment was in jest. However, on a more serious note, I do wonder whether this action by the Indian Muslims is a result of the success of Indian pluralism or a CYA stunt. I also dont think that comparing the reaction of a minority to reactions of their co-religionists who are in majority in other nations is a useful comparison. The better comparison is to compare the reaction of the Indian Muslims to Muslims in UK, USA or Spain to terrorist attacks in those countries.
I wish we could vote Vinod off of Sepia Mutiny.
I think what you said is probably the truth.
7 脗路 Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
hilarious! 馃檪
The fact that you can make bad arguments “at the extreme” of a line of reasoning does not make the line of reasoning itself wrong.
Dick Cheney’s 1% doctrine does not negate the logic of justified self defence anymore than Roy’s shrill essays negate opposition to bigotry. I mean, I love chocolate, but that doesn’t mean I think it is logical to turn into this.
You know who would be a good source of info on Indian Muslims? Indian Muslims.
Seems more like “Thanks a-holes” action.
Is there any link between Thomas Friedman and India. He is getting linked to Desi’s here and there. I am wondering where he get all this Desi info’s.
Friedman as usual is indulging in blah..blah..blah..
To put things in context, Hindus in Pakistan demonstrated against the ban on Jamaat-Ud-Dawa. 馃檪 If you are a minority, it is essential that you make some gestures. that’s what we are seeing in India now.
I’d admit a real change if people start accepting (and even welcoming) Taslima Nasreen / Salman Rushdie and start questioning (and maybe ridiculing) various aspects of the religion.
9 脗路 noname said
“noname” is clearly “who/whom” in spirit but not in name 馃槈
not even in saudi arabia, dubai, mumbai, tokyo, newyork is that possible.
Muslims don’t get water and electricty in Tokyo 24/7. I have to be honest I was not aware of that. Hopefully CJIR will do something about that.
I’d admit a real change if people start accepting (and even welcoming) Taslima Nasreen / Salman Rushdie and start questioning (and maybe ridiculing) various aspects of the religion.
people will question when they have bread on the table. a primitive society on the margins of subsistence is always going to turn to spooks & the communitarian capital which religion confers upon participants. IOW, free markets = free minds 馃檪
I’d admit a real change if people start accepting (and even welcoming) Taslima Nasreen / Salman Rushdie and start questioning (and maybe ridiculing) various aspects of the religion.
This might take more then a few days for the change to start. Give or take a few hundred years.
noname said
I wish we could vote Vinod off of Sepia Mutiny.
‘Noname’ does not speak for all of us Vinod. My friends and I (all liberals) think they are well written and thought-provoking.
That could explain the Indian scenario. But aren’t the Arabs far better on the economic scale?.
16 脗路 vinod said
i chuckled at that. especially because i had smiled when i read…
i am sure some goatbeard out in zilla deoband is beating his chest right now at the betrayal. 馃檪
Saudi Arabia is a free market, so is Israel. Texas as well. Don’t see a lot of free minds thereabouts.
In the opposite direction, free minds exist among the poorest in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the tribal areas of India, in Bolivia and Chile. Every revolution has came from free minds at the “margins of subsistence”.
Breadline economics has almost nothing to do with the radicalisation of Muslims. It has everything to do with Saudi power politics and propaganda.
PS to noname: I only comment on Vinod’s and Anna’s posts now, and occasionally Amardeep’s. If there is a vote, I would support voting off most of the others.
interesting post. I usually find Freidman fairly offensive. Maybe he’s turning away from Judith Milleresque writing and doing a little more research and less neo-con influenced opining. Also, he’s probably focusing on India since, according to Robert Fisk, no one in Lebanon wants to talk to him anymore- he’s pissed them all off so. On a related note, however undiscovered by Freidman this is, check out Irshad Manji’s writings and position on an enlightened, more worldy interpretation of Islam (or so it seems)
A voice of reason: http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090206&fname=mohib&sid=1
It took less than 40 for most consequential olde tyme segregationists to accept that they were wrong. You still have the latent prejudices but the worst of it is over and the rest is slowly fading out.
Why does Razib who has hiw own websites sh*t on Sepia Mutiny?
This is still being thought through:
If you’re serious about this, it is not multi-culturalism and tolerance vs. universalism – the challenge is the construction of a universal set of guidelines (rather than norms) that accept and involve notions of difference and the particular. The reason for this is that if we appreciate social analysis, analytical and emotional/personal beliefs have to be reconciled through some kind of process – whether internal or social.
To take your example, suppose there was a group of Al Qaeda members staying in a place you can rent out on a nightly basis in Northwestern Pakistan and the U.S. sent an unmanned predator drone to bomb them. I think you would be okay with violating your “don’t shoot up hotel guests” norm.
Some obvious contestations even if you dismiss the extreme relativist one is a) the situation doesn’t meet the definitions of the human rights norm like “hotel” and “guest” b) No! The situation is entirely different or c) that there are overriding circumstnaces (e.g. preventing OTHER “worse” human rights violations) which justify violating the stated rule.
But this then goes back to the question of who will decide what the definitions will be and how a final conclusion will be formed (on an individual level, in a particular group of friends, in a school, in a society with a well developed media industry, in a city, etc. etc. etc.) And then consider that all of these processes might be happening simultaneously and interacting with one another and involve power relationships, and you get a sense of even from a seemingly simple statement like “don’t shoot up hotel guests” you can easily go back into…social analysis of power to understand what it means and then consult yourself and see how you feel and think about that.
So the point is not that the initial rule was a bad one, but that the brain needs to navigate back and forth and ultimately try to come to an internal consensus as well as engage in a social process to establish a “What” that can be reconcile with its conception of “Who/Whom.” As a result, it’s best not to pose them as either/ors but to try and establish universals that are not stark black and white norms but guidelines on both fronts that can help us move forward, again, if this is something we really care about.
Has anyone ever read the entire comment written by Dr.Amonymous (including Dr.Amonymus)?? 馃檪
If the above mentioned honorables were a group of political or social activists, who were not involved in plotting or executing murders to further their objectives, sure,bombing them would be an outrage similar in nature to the Mumbai incidents. If they were violent mass murderers of an international scope, as enemy combatants in an asymmetric warfare they are fair game, the only grey area being the violation of sovereignty of their harbouring country (but that is another story).One universal that we could draw from this hypothetical scenario is “don’t accept international terrorists as your hotel guests”
Just remember that the British preached “divide and conquer.” We were all one at once and lived peacefully. I hope everyone remembers Gandhi.
29 脗路 RC said
I’ll try to put in word counts for you in the future 馃槈 (WC 12)
30 脗路 Lupus Solitarius said
Okay, even if we grant everything you’ve said about what the norm should be (which many people would probably take issue with), this still poses the problem that there are differing conceptions on whom to apply the label “international terrorist” to and what the process is for deciding that as well as its meaning.
So it’s not the norm that was the point, but how norms interact with the process of forming norms (social relations) – just trying thinking about something you disagree wtih – for example, should you apply the same wage and labor standards to Bangladeshi garment factories that you do to American garment factories? Or do you have to take something else into account, and if so, how do you decide what that is?
I read Amardeep’s and vinod’s posts.Thought provokin. of course,Anna’s trivial posts too(heh, Annamol, chumma ).I try not to comment on others’
mr. friendman, that is such BS.
the mainstream has never labelled them as “martyrs”. dayshatgard, terrorists – are the words you’ll hear in the news reports as well.
apart from that. this high praise on the indian muslim reaction is hogwash too. you touch the point that about there being a muslim minority in a hindu majority country. and then go on to praise the difference in their reaction. they have no choice..no body would like to be seen owning up their bodies.
anyway. its not like there are funeral processions for terrorists in the arab/muslim world. some of you might point to hamas etc. but they’re all political leaders with a lot of pull in the public arena. just as, when bush eventually passes away, there’ll be thousands who’ll turn out to pay their last respects.
when we say there are root causes that must be addressed. that isnt synonomous with justifying terrorism ..all we’re saying is, there’s no smoke without a fire.
30 脗路 Lupus Solitarius said
who is an international terrorist?
30 脗路 Lupus Solitarius said
is domestic scope ok? where do we draw the boundaries? (outside of gujarat, of course)
why doesn’t friedman open a mcdonald’s (no sausages!) in mecca? running with a dell of course? i wonder if he has a prius theory associated with his latest bathroom break companion?
Thanks for that great NYPost article, I remember reading his last one, best take on da oozing moustache! No wonder the NYT share costs less than the paper!
No points for your dialectics, though. While I accept that the hotel guest thing is Vinod driving under Friedman influence, the larger point about the distinctive Indian Muslim reaction to Mumbai is a valid one.
christians live in all parts of the world,christanity has the highest number of followers,living in pakistan if a christian in pakistan kills someone,should i belive that the one living in USA or wherever else will do the same?will i bracket them all as murderers!more importantly should i?
the majority of muslim ummah worldwide has been crying itself hoarse over stupid terrorist attacks and suicide bombers,a minority of muslims hails them as martyrs and the world chooses to ignore the majority and lend an ear to the minority!be it those terrorists in Bombay or those in US or in Pakistan,they sure take the focus off of important freedom struggles like Kashmir(i am not saying Kashmir is a part of Pakistan,i think the poor thing should be left alone if it thinks it can survive!)and unlawful occupation in palestine….
its like being a muslim ensures that you will get your life messed up by total strangers and be clueless as to what you have done to invite such contempt and dirty looks..in your free world there is enough place for the likes of salman rushdie and taslima nasreen who have absolutely no regard or respect for something that any person of any religion holds near and dear to his heart,it’s ok to trash and shit about religions but it is an offence to claim that the holocaust didn’t happen,racism is an offence,sexual discrimination is an offence ,i mean who decides what constitutes an offence??i suppose the people offended have the right to that,don’t they?so when the whole of muslim world CLAIMS that it is OFFENDED by the cartoons or pathetic crap that is passed off as literature and highly rewarded(salman rushdie and taslima nasreen area prime examples)do you not hear?or is it voluntary deafness then?
well atleast i wouldn’t go out on a limb and praise people who like messing with other people purely because it might bring fame or money and if you are a lucky dog then knighthood as well!!how can something that creates so many riots and bad blood be right??but yes as the two jokers/hate mongers have been so highly rewarded we must automatically assume that the rest of the muslim world is plain stupid for being offended!when you ignore the pleas,they become screams and then follows a blood bath that isn’t in the favor of humanity atleast!muslims like us know of better ways to combat such unfairness,we write about it,speak about it but that is because we can!you please go into a village in iraq and tell a 13 year old boy why his house was bombarded,women raped and parents killed infront of his eyes and assure him that he will never get out of this shit hole then hand him over to some fanatic who obviously works for some political party ,and you have made a perfect recipe for a suicide bomber!and when he blows up a railway station or airport then roll eyes and say muslims are intolerant! this is OUR world not yours or mine,the aggressor and the aggrieved both belong here,if there’s a problem with it then we all are responsible for it!pointing fingers isn’t going to help that is if helping is what you intend to do!
hmm,so much for the preaching and sorry for the terribly long post,i got a lil carried away i suppose!
If you’re serious in your question, the answer is, it is decided through reason/rationality–see, e.g., J.S. Mill, J. Rawls, R. Nozick.
see, i gots me no problem if you make up some cartoons to start a good ol’ fashion burnin’ and merrymaking’, but call salman rushdie’s writing crap and i will stick a footwa up your ass. got it?
this is true, but the answer is not to threaten taslima or salman with murder. or even that two bit mediocrity geert wilders, for that matter.
not sure what larger point you’re referring to, or what you think i am contradicting. can you elaborate?
what happens to the kashmiri and jammu hindus and ladakhi buddhists in an independent kashmir? an indian kashmir has a future for hindus, muslims, and buddhists. an independent or pakistani kashmir (not a particularly attractive option given pakistan’s current trajectory) does not…just ask the pandits: http://www.iakf.org/main/
just out of curiosity have you actually read anything by nasreen or rushdie? do you now what lajja was actually about? (again, i know tone doesn’t translate very well when written, so def not being confrontational here, just politely curious)
second, i definitely understand the religious sentiment behind the reaction to the cartoons–but that does not justify what happened in europe. in contrast, i thought the matter was handled well by all parties in the united states (media did not print out of respect, and protestors were nonviolent). nevertheless, there can be no justification for violent rectification of any perceived insult. a company printed images of sacred hindu symbols and deities on a toilet seat! how should hindus have reacted? the fact remains that the matter was corrected through nonviolent protest (and i presume,in the glorious american tradition, litigation ;))and that’s what should have happened in europe. it may take time, but the appropriate approach would be to educate people calmly why such and such a thing would be so exceedingly insulting.
LOL–false on at least two counts (1) it’s not good not to print and (2) Harper’s Magazine (among others) did print them in the U.S. Where have you been living, in a cave?
didn’t realize harper’s printed it, and “LOL” i never said it’s good to curtail speech–so false on at least one count. i agree with mill. the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. moreover, i think the banning of literature and art is wrong for whatever reasong. what i did say was all things considered it was handled well in the u.s. i don’t know of any violent incidents? do you? if so, please come out of your cave and educate the rest of us
Yes, that’s why your initial celebration of
shows a tendency towards a dhimmi-attitude, which is pretty pathetic if you’re a follower of liberalism/Mill.
Really? So you’ve never had a smoke alarm go off just because your food was overcooked? Anyone who has ever tried to start a fire from scratch knows that this just aint true. If you don’t build it right or if your tinder is too damp you will get a lot of smoke coming off the kindling without any sort of useful flame.
Smoke means it’s worth checking to see if there is a fire, but it doesn’t necessarily mean there MUST be a fire there. It could just be that some jackass is furiously banging rocks together. A great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing.
dhimmitude? dude, do you actually read the main body of any post? or do you just cherry pick? i questioned the first poster about rushdie and nasreen because what happened to them was wrong. people should not be threatened and assaulted (as nasreen was in hyderabad) over literature. and lajja, btw, is about hindus being oppressed in bangladesh. not something a dhimmi would bring up now, huh? second i most certainly support voltaire’s maxim.
third, i didn’t celebrate the fact that the cartoons weren’t printed. all i said was, politically, the matter was handled well. when geraldo was giving away american positions in afghanistan and people decried it, was it a just attempt at limiting speech? yes, cause the moron was putting people in danger. all i’m saying is that sometimes you don’t have to be a douche just cause you’re allowed to be a douche, and there’s no need to print here. that said, people may disagree with the the editors at harper’s, but they should defend to the…well you know the rest…
Nonviolent protest is dhimmi?
I didn’t mean to misrepresent you–and I haven’t been trying to–so, sorry if I (inadvertently) did–I was mainly riffing off your use of the term “respect,” which I don’t think has any normative force here. You gotta go w/ free speech, or, not.