Law professor Karima Bennoune has an important op-ed in the New York Times today that should be required reading for all those who think that Muslims are somehow different from “you and me” and actually enjoy living under a tyrannical regime as long as its diktats are justified by a twisted reading of Sharia law. Based on her interviews with Malians fleeing the Islamists who have taken over the northern part of the country, Bennoune shows it just isn’t so–tyranny is unpopular no matter how it is packaged and justified. As she notes:
First, the fundamentalists banned music in a country with one of the richest musical traditions in the world. Last July, they stoned an unmarried couple for adultery. The woman, a mother of two, had been buried up to her waist in a hole before a group of men pelted her to death with rocks. And in October the Islamist occupiers began compiling lists of unmarried mothers.
Even holy places are not safe. These self-styled “defenders of the faith” demolished the tombs of local Sufi saints in the fabled city of Timbuktu.
Such draconian decrees are hardly popular with ordinary Malians who practice a tolerant brand of Islam. Bennoune quotes the acting principal of a coed high school “who had been attending public punishments to document the atrocities. This meant repeatedly watching his fellow citizens get flogged. He has seen what it looks like when a ‘convict’ has his foot sawed off. Close to tears, he said: ‘No one can stand it, but it is imposed on us. Those of us who attend, we cry.’ ”
Such sentiments are hardly surprising to anyone who has ever visited Afghanistan or Iraq’s Anbar Province–two more places where a harsh brand of Salafism was once imposed at gunpoint. In both places the people turned against the self-proclaimed religious enforcers of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq, respectively. Now in Mali they are happy to turn against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups, provided the French army protects them from the terrorists’ retribution.
The only way that such extremists can gain power is at gunpoint–something that is unfortunately easy to do in countries such as post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, post-Taliban Afghanistan, and post-coup Mali where the security services are weak to nonexistent and social order is breaking down. In such circumstances Islamists can at least claim that they are restoring law and order. But when the people see what their “law and order” consists of, they invariably recoil and pray that someone will rescue them from these theocratic tyrants.
"They should not be permitted to employ mounts like the Muslims. They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers. They must under no circumstance ride horses because of the noble character of this animal. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and God's enemies.' [A verse of the Qu'ran makes a good support for a law. Verses may even be torn out of their context.] n n"They should not be permitted to take Muslims into their service because God has glorified the people of Islam. He has given them His aid and has given them a guarantee by these words [Qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely God will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.' Now this is just what is happening today, for their servants are Muslims taken from among men of a mature age or from those who are still young. This is one of the greatest scandals to which the guardians of authority must put an end. It is wrong to greet them even with a simple 'how-do-you-do'; to serve them, even for wages, at the baths or in what relates to their riding animals; and it is forbidden to accept anything from their hand, for that would be an act of debasement by the faithful. They are forbidden while going through the streets to ape the manners of the Muslims, and still less those of the cities of the religion. They shall only walk single-file, and in narrow lanes they must withdraw even more into the most cramped part of the road. n n"One may read that which follows in Bukhari and Muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]: 'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a Muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers. They should under no circumstances acquire Muslim slaves, white or black. Therefore they should get rid of the slaves which they now have for the), have no right to own them. If one of their slaves who was formerly an infidel, becomes a Muslim, he shall be removed from them, and his master, willingly or unwillingly, shall be compelled to sell him and to accept the price for him. n na fatwa, incorporating koranic instruction and Pact of Omar n nread the whole thing at the url
"that should be required reading for all those who think that Muslims are somehow different from “you and me” and actually enjoy living under a tyrannical regime as long as its diktats are justified by a twisted reading of Sharia law." Hmm. Straw man, I think. I don't know that many people think that Muslims enjoy living under a tyrannical regime of any kind. But it is possible that some people, perhaps because of religious beliefs, are more likely to accept levels of governmental control that others would not. It also possible that some people who do not like the experience of tyranny in their own neighborhood are less likely than others to be concerned about it happening elsewhere, especially if it is justified by Sharia law. And these same people might be more willing to excuse acts of terror in the name of their religion. But, yeah, when they are bitten by the snake, the experience turns out to be unpleasant.
you have no evidence that Muslims in Mali who detest AQIM do so because it is their hide and not the infidel that is being detached from their feet. The very data point that these are Muslims with co-ed schools might be a tip-off here. As the in-group self-perception sheds ascetic puritanism, so too the charge of hate against the outsider.
I wasn't necessarily talking about Mali – about which I admittedly know next to nothing. I think Boot's statement was a bit too general, that's all. He does say "Muslims", not "Malian Muslims". nHaving said that, your response is a good one, and serves as a reminder that such as I said above maybe too cavalier.
"In 1772 a Muslim scholar…." n nJeez, that's waaaaay before the Russian Orthodox church fomented pogroms against the Jews and another Christian nation killed 6 million Jews.
nothing has changed n nthat is islam n nbid'ah is a no no
As a Jew I am accustomed to people reading back the Talmud and Tanach to prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that Jews wish to do this and do that–and it isn't just the problem of textual distortion it is the text worship, the elevation of a text outside the context of the human community in which this text lives.
where do you hang out? stromfront? n nYou don;t have to read the koran to see how muslim treat non muslims in their power n nyou must be blind and deaf as well as in denial n nyou keep asserting "as a Jew"…….so what? n njust like the moslams here keep talking about 'our' country…. n nas if
As an American I place the threat of Islam hijacking America and kicking the rest of us off our horse saddles somewhere behind the threat of interplanetary collision with a comet. As a Jew I was taught in Sunday school to be wary of folks who proclaimed that "All A are B" .And that we are here for purposes other than defending ourselves from our enemies or killing them three out of four seasons. As a supporter of Israel I think Israel has more than enough to handle dealing with its Islamic enemies without taking on its Islamic allies (as Jordan).
(4) If entering a room or class where my co-workers or teacher are non-Muslims and I enter in silence and not even say "good morning" I would come across as unsociable. I mean if I was in a group of people sitting in a room, and a co-worker comes in and sits down without any form of greeting, I would feel that this co-worker is unfriendly. And my own experience showed me that by being good to people and treating them well and being sociable with them makes them friendly towards me and they treat me well, even those who were initially formal become more relaxed with me. n n(5) Finally the Hadeeth also says that if we meet the non-Muslims on the road, we should make them walk in the narrow path. My own feeling is that this contradicts the just and righteous nature of Islam and its teachings. Which makes me feel that the Hadeeth is about those non-Muslims who are not good with Muslims. n n
the answer: n(…) nFinally, we conclude that it is forbidden for a Muslim in a Muslim country to greet Kuffars first for the Hadith mentioned before. n nIf a Muslim is in a non-Muslim territory then he may greet them first to avoid suspected harms n nand to show them his courteous behavior to attract them towards Islam. n nBut it is better to use other expressions of greeting other than al-Salaam Alaikum.. n ngoogle: "greeting a non muslim " see what every single muslim web site teaches today! n nyou will learn all sorts a methods to lie to your non muslim neighbors, to pretend you are friendly n nmost people have no idea, and in fact will not believe, the petty, pervasive malignant contempt islam teaches for all non muslims
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
finally a post that demonstrates your competence and awesome intellect and totally explains your profound understanding of the issue discussed n nbrilliantly summed up in one word….. n n"duh"
you're correct. I think you're a joke. summed up in one word: asperger's. but bevakashah more suras and hadith. perhaps in between the pages you could throw in snow advisories for the mid-Atlantic states. the book of mormon. recipes. gun catalogues.
Sorry to disagree, Besht but I'm with Charleston. First of all, there are credible polls indicating that ordinary Muslims are in sympathy with Muslim terrorism and the forcible spread of sharia. Secondly, I recall hearing Boot's argument about Mali and Jihadis applied to Vietnam and the Communists. Foreign troops are seen by the populace at large as exactly that–foreign. Jihadi insurgents, like communist insurgents, are seen as nationalists and unifiers.
feel free to disagree. My take is that coeeducational high schools are an indicator of moderation. Fundamentalists segregate the sexes. Determinative? No, but an article in which people express rage against Islamists is proof of their support for Islamists how exactly? Wer'e dealing with the article we have here. Maybe it's false but if its true how do you stretch it to fit charleston's one-size-fits-all explanation for Muslim behavior: if they say they hate us, they hate us. If they are polite, they hate us, but they're hiding it.
you keep insisting: n n" how do you stretch it to fit charleston's one-size-fits-all explanation for Muslim behavior: if they say they hate us, they hate us. If they are polite, they hate us, but they're hiding it." n nguess it is too much to expect you to be capable of comprehending that this is not MY one-size-fits- all explanation, rather I am showing you what muslims write and how muslims think. n nI am sure even you realize, and MEMRI shows us, how muslims say one thing to the western media, and quite another thing to the arab/muslim audience. n nYou do understand that much? Or do you? n nAnyway, it is very obvious you are in a hysterical state of denial, lashing out at me, presenting truthful information that is challenging your delusional status, and I am becoming concerned for your mental health. n n(btw, I got the post you deleted here, by email…….wash out your potty mouth)
If Muslims don't want to live under theocratic tyrannical regimes; why, when given the chance, do they tend to vote in hard-line Islamists? For example Hamas in Gaza? Or Islamist type governments in Egypt or Tunisia after the Arab Spring? I don't really buy this "moderate" Muslim stuff. "Moderate" compared to what?
you must be islamophobe bigot, to ask such an intelligent question
In general, I agree with your conclusion that our definition of 'moderate" may not apply to the Muslim world, but I don't think it is fair to condemn, say, the Egyptians for voting for the Muslim Brotherhood. What other organized parties were there to vote for? I consider myself a neocon, but the critics have a point when they suggest that elections might not always be the best way of perpetuating democracy in countries that have only experienced authoritarianism. It isn't just Muslim countries that have had a difficult time making that transition – some Eastern European countries have only slowly slipped their way (or are still slipping) up that steep slope.
Mubarak was a crypto-Islamist who did everything to oppose the development of "democracy". nThat is why there was no other option but MBs and Salafists. But hopefully the opponents of the MBs & Salafists: the seculars & Coptics will fight for their rights.
Hopefully, but we just had an election in this mature democracy in which one incompetent,extremist Party, because of money and superb organization, was able to present the other as extremist while also getting its sheep to the polls in large enough numbers to win reelection. If the American people can be played so easily, one shudders for the prospects of those newly introduced to representative government, who have absolutely no understanding of its complexities and have spent generations in societies built upon factionalism.
Up until the collapse of the government in Mali, one of the leading candidates for president of the nation was Yeah Samake, a successful mayor who is a graduate of a US university. That university is Brigham Young University, and Samake is a Mormon. The fact that he garnered wide popular support means that many Malians are more tolerant of religious diversity than the more extreme Muslims who dominate in the insurgent areas in the north.
"The only way that such extremists can gain power is at gunpoint"– n nwell if that's true, then the whole thing's solved! n nall we have to do is pass international laws restricting the kinds of guns that radical Islamic extremists are allowed to have and the maximum number of bullets allowed in their clips. n nwhat? n
Enter text right here!I stand with Charleston on Moslem behaviou because, simply, this is how they behave! No more need be said!
The defenders of Islam will tell us that this has nothing to do with Islam,but it has everything to do with Islam. The idiots leading the Western world dig their head deep in the sand out of fear of having to face up to reality. Furthermore every "tolerant" Muslim is a potential target of the extremists including Islamists. Just look at what happens in the EU: Londonistan, Malmo, Brussels etc… nExtremists Muslim organizations are working to overturn western societies with the assistance of many liberals and leftists hate for the right.
It is painful to see these animals destory this African country. Nevertheless, I would like to see the French leave. Why are they there? They are the only Western country there!
If you ask progressive or peaceful Muslims, do they want to live under radical Muslim’s rules? They are probably going to say no. However, do they ever fully accepted foreign help to get rid of radical rules? Afghanistan is a full prove if it. Brits, Russians, and now America are being engaging there for centuries trying to substitute radical Islam with something else. It might all come from us westerners don’t understanding the culture, the religion, the history, or the evolution of those societies. The radicals, as one of your other responders pointed, are viewed as unifiers and everybody else are traitors or infidels. The radicals know what they fight for and are willing to die for it and it is one strong advantage.