Claiming that ISIS is “Saudi Arabian Wahhabi ideology writ large” or that “neo-con(sic) ideology” is Christian.
ISIS of course hate the Saudi Royal family with a passion that I seriously doubt you could possibly understand, don’t consider themselves Wahhabis but instead are Salafists and the version of Salafism they follow(contrary to the beliefs of ignorant westerners not all Salafists are radicals and quite a few are “quietists”) is drastically different than that of the Saudis.
As for the idea that Daniel Bell, the Podhoretzes, the Kristols, the Straussian students and the various other intellectual founders of the movement were Christian… Well, I’m not sure what to say because such a claim is so breathtakingly stupid.
I very much hope for your sake that you’ve never gotten angry or rolled your eyes at someone Who’s claimed Communism was “Jewish” or used phrases like “Jewish Bolshevism” because while their comments are stupid and bigoted, they’re on stronger grounds than your claim.
But the pool of ISIS recruits might act if they feel the West is maligning Islam. The rest of the Muslim world is seeing the atrocities and hopefully reacting in horror. But if we’re yelling, “Islam” with every punch we throw at ISIS, I think it could get them more recruits–especially the ones that feel Islam is the superior religion and anything contrary is blasphemous.
First of all, I did not call Ajami a neocon, I said he was the go to academic for neocons. Should I assume by your use of present tense you are not aware he is deceased?
Second, I said that, even as a non-scholar (a qualifier you acknowledge but then ignore later to cast aspersion on my post), that I could refute some of the claims of Haykel (in this article), not Ajami. Perhaps you should read for understanding instead of your following your usual template of implied insult.
I know what Ajami means. My degrees are in science and education. I am not fluent, but speak and understand some Arabic and Hebrew. I have spent time in the ME but not lived there. What is my prize for answering these questions?
Ibn, have you read the article? Do you agree with what Haykel says? I was really hoping for a thoughtful opinion and your reply is disappointing.
“Islam has been woven into the fabric of America since its founding”. OK, I get Obama wants to make American Muslims feel wanted but why make such demonstrably false statements? That I don’t get.
You get a pat on the back and a congratulations. Your comments were extremely stupid but you are not.
I’m a bit surprised at your comments “I am not fluent, but speak and understand some Arabic and Hebrew” because there is no universal Arabic language but many different dialects. As a rule most academics are more likely to say something like “I understand Modern Standard Arabic but if you put me among Cairo street vendors I’m lost”.
Such a statement does little to establish confidence in your knowledge of or ability to critique analysis of the Middle East. Which Arabic dialect do you speak and what degree is your fluency.
Also, I’ll confess to being a little surprised by your description that your degrees were in “science and education”. Most people I know who have degrees in “science” usually have degrees in something a bit more specific like “biology” or “physics”.
So, you think there was an “implied insult” in my comments.
Was there an insult, implied or otherwise in your claim that I should “read for understanding”?
If that was your intention it was quite stupid. Both Bernard Lewis, whom I had some admiration for before he went off the deep end, and Daniel Pipe, whom I despise, have vastly better claim to the title.
Neocons generally masturbate while reading Samuel Huntington(another contender for the title). Ajami, not so much.
Yes, you should. I didn’t realize he died less than a year ago though I realized he’d retired from public life for quite awhile.
He was a great man, a bit of a hero to myself and many other American Muslim nerds in school. Particularly those of us who were Shia who didn’t like being used as a political football by radicals of various political persuasions.
a very strange statement as excuse for him and his great errors since the lebanese civil war lasted almost the two decades and only resolves after interventions. Even more like the lebanon being true is a bad excuse.
Au contraire, it is a way I hear people even academics some through here say things, you are finding fault in the usual nit pick fashion.
it is also the fashion in which most of the arabes themselves will speak to our language.
WHat is your point in making posts like this? If you’re venting, fine: consider yourself well vented. But when your posts consist predominantly of patronizing, condescending sneering at people about their lack of credentials and careful distinctions between how stupid you think their arguments are and unconvincing disclaimers about how you’re not calling them stupid, you end up being singularly unpersuasive of whatever point you’re trying to make; indeed, the primary effect of this style of argument is to damage your own credibility.
Despite those attacks on your credibility, I do think you’ve got something useful and interesting to say on these subjects. Can I persuade you to focus on substantive claims and evidence, and to minimize the sneering at the lack of credentials of other posters?
Lebanon is an extremely tragic story which with some alterations could have been drastically different.
I personally believe that the major reason for the Lebanese Civil War was caused by and aggravated by “interventions” from outside forces, the Israelis, Jordanians, the Syrians, and if course the Palestinians(though I obviously have extreme sympathy for them).
I could be wrong, but I suspect you’d agree if you reflected on it.
You’re correct that the common people of Morocco, Iraq, and Palestine will all insist they speak Arabic and thanks to Al Jazeera and other media outlets(I’m trying to remember the name of the radio network Nasser set up) code switch without thinking about it, but western academics are usually more precise.
That said, you are correct, and those particular comments to Camille were obnoxious and unfair.
Camille,
I apologize for those comments as well as the implication you were being dishonest.
I assume you meant by that either Modern Standard Arabic or Arabic as spoken by Palestinians.
For the record, I don’t speak Arabic any more than I speak Greek.
I understand that. But in light of the political ramifications, I don’t see the benefit for us to equate ISIS with mainstream Islam. We alienate our Muslim allies, and mislead the uninformed or uncritical public sentiment in the west. My issue is with the last sentence, conferring equal legitimacy. Hayek then goes on to say:
First, this could read as a claim that ISIS is practicing the “truer” Islam. How many readers of this article will be knowledgable enough to think otherwise? If you think this isn’t happening, I suggest you read the comments section of the article, and other sites that discuss it.
Second, it is insulting to mainstream muslims, by suggesting they are apostates or hypocrites for not embracing the more radical tenets espoused by ISIS. The article does not mention the refutations by mainstream Muslim scholars that have been previously published. They do not consider ISIS to be cohesive or learned, as Hayek claims.
The article goes on to say:
Quoting Anjem Choudary as an example of the “debate” happening within the ranks of Muslims is misleading and again creates a false equivalence. Choudary is a radical who has little support, respect, or dialogue from mainstream Muslims. There is no “debate” occurring at all.
The problem is the article creates an idea of equal legitimacy, but ISIS does not. They are telling everyone who is or who is not a Muslim. Why would we grant them an equal legitimacy they do not acknowledge or reciprocate?
Why would Hayek make his claims without also referencing other Islamic scholars’ disagreements based on their interpretation of the texts and teachings?
As I said, the article makes some good points, and has some useful information, but I take issue with some of the ideas and claims it contains.
Thank You. I really appreciate it and no hard feelings. I’m used to your schtick by now.
I’m sorry I had to tell you about Ajami’s passing like that, and I wasn’t disparaging him as a person, but like it or not, his opinions were used by Cheney and Co. The article just brought back some bad memories about the runup to Iraq, and how the neocons used anything and anyone to push their agenda.
I know nothing about Hayek’s politics, but I was surprised by some of his statements in the Atlantic article. The article has been getting a lot of play in the right wing press, and I think a lot of people will read it as an excuse for military action and Islamophobia.
Not sure why you thought I was being dishonest; I didn’t think you or anyone else here would be interested in the specifics of my education or background, as it is not relevant to the OP. If it matters, my undergrad degrees are in applied science/nursing and biology, and my master’s is in earth science education. I learned Arabic from Yemenis, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Israelis so it’s a regional mix - I think of it as New York City Arabic as my accent gives my origins away wherever I am. Arabs are typically gracious and forgiving of grammar and pronunciation errors.
Again, I don’t think that qualifies me as an expert on anything, but I don’t think anyone needs to be an expert to question a popular magazine article on a message board. Even so, I am happy to be corrected and/or enlightened by you on this subject.
BTW, I despise Daniel Pipes as well, so we’ll always have that.
this perhaps is the most useful thinking, but it also tells you that there is a lesson that trying to understand the Khmers rouges from only understanding Marxism or even other of the contemporary marxist movements would have not given you good understanding of them.
