[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:06:29 -0000
To an extent yes, but I think that the defnition of miltant matters. If, as I
believe it to be, the definition concerns the notion of extremism, then a
militant islamic is an islamist. If, however, it concerns the use or possession
of miltary capabilities, then a militant islamic need not be a religious
extremist.
If it is the miltary notion, and this is the understanding of western leaders,
then we're in real trouble. To take a few examples, both Pakistan and Indonesia
are islamic and have a military capability. Are they therefore militant
islamics and if so should they be considered targets of this notional war such
people.
Converesely, if indeed we (or Lawrence and his cohorts), are talking about
religious extremism when the term militant islamic is used, then Saddam -
however bad he was - could not be considered part of that group.
Of course, all this muttering on my part won't matter if Lawrence can clarify
the matter.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
Splitting hairs. It seems to me that a fairly central question of this
non-dialogue has to do with the use of "Islamic" and "Islamist".
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of
Europe
Date: 1/22/2007 12:39:32 P.M. Central Standard Time
From: sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent on:
Here's the quote in context:
"I went all through this misunderstanding with Irene. I said the Baathist
were Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they are Islamics. The threat
isn’t just from religious Militants. Baathism was intended to achieve
Pan-Arabism, bringing all the Arab nations under one head. It was begun by
Nassar who was assassinated. Saddam liked the idea as well. He was just as
much of a threat with his Pan-Arabism as Khomeini was with his religious
revolution. They both wanted the same thing, and then they fought."
Argument or not, it certainly sounds to me as though it was intended to be a
logical inference. I think what's needed is a definition of 'militant', does it
mean an indivdual or group with miltary capability, or does it mean an
individual or group with extreme views.
My understanding of militant islamics has always been of the latter; an
islamic whose view of the religion is extreme. I doubt that Saddam's version of
Islam was at all extreme. I doubt it was very seroius at all. Conversely,
Lawrence's version of the term suggests to me that it concerns an individual or
a group with a military capability.
Perhaps he could clarify.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
No, that doesn’t count. It was a mere statement of the obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:50 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
'“Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant, Therefore Saddam was Islamic
militant,” wasn’t an argument. It isn’t the argument he fancies it is.
He claims I made that argument, but it doesn’t sound like me and he doesn’t
have it in quotes. I know it isn’t an argument; so why would I claim it is?
I do recall asserting (and note that an assertion isn’t an argument) that
Saddam Hussein was an Islamic Militant. I recall that several people seemed to
get confused when I wrote that thinking I was saying he was an Islamist
Militant rather than an Islamic Militant. But I wasn’t saying that. Whether
everyone understood that I wasn’t saying that, isn’t clear to me.'
This is Lawrence on 9th January in a reply to Andreas in the thread
entitled 'A Genuinely Useful Idea':
"I said the Baathist were Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they
are Islamics."
Does this count?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
I used to get paid for doing this. People would submit something to me
for editing and expect me to change a word here or there or tell them in a word
what was wrong with what they wrote. I learned that just doesn’t work.
I’d say, leave it with me, and then I’d rewrite it. Virtually everything
is an argument. We need to have clearly in mind what our objective is and then
build (describe it in our text) the evidence to support that objective. You
need to approve this change to the C-17? It is a good change because X. It
isn’t acceptable to leave the airplane as it is because of Y. The argument
needs to be arranged just so, and if the Customer doesn’t buy the change it
shouldn’t be because anything in the argument was unclear, unsupported,
invalid or false.
So let’s ask, what is Andreas’ objective? We read his note and
can’t tell immediately what it is. He seems to want to show that something
I’ve said is wrong, but I say so much I don’t recognize it in his words and
I’m not sufficiently ambitious to go back through my notes to try and figure
out what he means. He produces something he seems to fancy is a syllogism but
it isn’t one. As I wrote, but as he, and apparently Ursula, didn’t
understand, what he wrote, namely “Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant,
Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant,” wasn’t an argument. It isn’t the
argument he fancies it is. He claims I made that argument, but it doesn’t
sound like me and he doesn’t have it in quotes. I know it isn’t an
argument; so why would I claim it is? I do recall asserting (and note that an
assertion isn’t an argument) that Saddam Hussein was an Islamic Militant. I
recall that several people seemed to get confused when I wrote that thinking I
was saying he was an Islamist Militant rather than an Islamic Militant. But I
wasn’t saying that. Whether everyone understood that I wasn’t saying that,
isn’t clear to me.
Getting back to what Andreas has written, after he puts my assertion in
the form of an argument he asks “Where is the error? You’re not checking
if the definitions apply.”
What does that mean? What error? What definitions? The fact that
Saddam Hussein was an Islamic Militant is a simple statement of fact. It
isn’t an error. It doesn’t require the checking of definitions. Saddam
was the most Militant leader in the Islamic world for many years. That is well
known. It doesn’t need to be argued and I didn’t argue it. I merely
observed what he was, an Islamic Militant.
I’ll go on. He writes, “2) You use the word ‘militant’ in two
senses: using a military against this neighbors and using a military against
the West. He fits the first sense, so you use that in the second sense. An
attack on Kuwait becomes an attack on Florida.”
Andreas is confused here. He thinks I’ve used the word militant in two
different ways. He thinks that if one directs one’s militancy away from ones
neighbor toward someone else, the sense of the word changes. Is this true?
No. “Militant” doesn’t change senses when one directs ones militancy
from one objective to another. Does a Jihadist become a Jihadist in a
different sense of the word if he has been attacking Afghan officials and moves
to Iraq to attack Iraqi officials? No. But is there some way to get some sort
of direction, some sort of sense out of what Andreas intends? If he were an
engineer who needed to come to some sort of agreement with me in order to get
his proposal submitted, I could brow-beat him until I got his intention out of
him, but there isn’t enough to work with here.
What Andreas does next is produce what he fancies is a true syllogism:
“A) Saddam was secular. B) Saddam was a military threat only to his
neighbors = Therefore Saddam was a secular military threat to his neighbors.”
Is this a syllogism? Well no. The conclusion is stated by its premises.
The conclusion isn’t inferred from the premises; it is a mere repetition of
the premises. Well, fine, but are his assertions correct? Not really.
Saddam had a secular government but his speeches were religious in nature. His
appeals to his people were couched in religion; so one shouldn’t go to far in
insisting upon his secularity. Nevertheless he didn’t have a Sharia-based
government; so in that sense Iraq was secular. Was Saddam a military threat
only to his neighbors? No, that isn’t true. He was also a threat to the US
who was allied to his neighbors. He was also a threat to any nation dependent
upon Middle Eastern Oil, China for example.
I did argue that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America’s allies. He
invaded Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s fear of
invasion by Saddam was what caused them to invite the US into Saudi Arabian
territory. Also he believed in Pan-Arabism. Not only was Pan-Arabism part of
the Baathist political philosophy, but he voiced his desire in more personal
terms – as personal ambition. He wanted to lead such a Pan-Arabic force. He
believed it could become a major power right up there with the US, the EU and
China. And as we learned, Saddam was willing to take Military steps to achieve
his goals.
Between the time of the truce and the time of the resumption of the Gulf
War, Saddam’s militancy was also evidenced by a great number of attacks
against British and American over-flights.
The militancy of the Islamic leader called Saddam Hussein is scarcely
anything to argue over; so, following my own advice, I hope to desist.
Lawrence
.html
Other related posts:
