[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:56:57 EST
Language, again. Where do you place the word "Islamisist" which was
floating about so freely a couple years ago?
Julie Krueger
Wanting words to actually *mean* something.
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The
de-islamization of Europe Date: 1/22/2007 2:25:13 P.M. Central Standard Time
From:
_sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
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@xxxxxxxx (mailto:JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx)
To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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_ (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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_ (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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:
