The Carnival of the Liberated
Dave Schuler
Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts of the week from Iraqi and Afghan bloggers. It has been very, very quiet in the Iraqi blogosphere. This week we have misperceptions, a blogiversary, a history of Jordan, and much, much more.
Sanjar makes an interesting case that NATO personnel are involved in trafficking in stolen goods and drugs.
Baghdad Connect paints a somewhat different picture of Iraqi Kurdistan than the one you may have been hearing.
Short version of Roads to Iraq's take on the recently-announced “Unity Accord”: it's a plot to interfere with pan-Arab nationalism.
Speaking of pan-Arab nationalism, Iraqi Konfused Kid has a post about the lousy treatment of Iraqis by Jordanians and emphasizes two points:
a) WE ARE ALL ARAB. and most importantly
b) ARABS BEAT THE S*** OUT OF EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME.
Hammorabi has a lengthy post on the decline of America that includes the following sentence which I'll quote here for your edification and enlightenment:
It is wrong for the USA to consider its war against terrorism as a war against Islam and Muslims. This will certainly hasten its decline and America will never ever win such a war.It is clear from the context that Hammorabi thinks that the U. S. is, indeed, waging war against Islam and Muslims.
Last of Iraqis catalogues the perceptions of his fellow Iraqis about Westerners.
neurotic iraqi wife reflects on her third blogiversary.
The Shaqawa posts a short history of Jordan.
I generally avoid linking to posts from ex-pats but I think you'll like Treasure of Baghdad's post, a great distillation of the immigrant experience in America.
Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.
When the USA is at war with a group that cites their religion as justification for their actions then I say Islam is at war with the USA.
Islam will never win such a war.
A is at war with C.
Therefore, all of B is at war with C?
And I say you're a buffoon. That "group that cites their religion as justification for their actions" is by no means all of Islam.
Millions of Muslims worldwide support jihad. You want to turn a blind eye to that? Go right ahead. They prefer it that way.
I harbor no ill will to Muslims that wish me, or others, no harm.
It's the millions of others I worry about.
If you were smart, which I doubt, you would too.
That alone is not much of an indictment. Jihad merely means, in the context of war, fighting deemed legitimate by Islamic principles. It would require analyzing the specific principles underlying these millions of Muslims' definitions of jihad. I bet you would be suprised to find out the number of Muslims who, like the deceased rector of al-Azhar in Egypt (a top Sunni juridical position), Mahmud Shaltut, believe that the only jihad legitimated by the Qur'an and Sunna is defense against aggression, a principle consistent with international secular and Christian conceptions of jus ad bellum. For a similar definition from an American Muslim jurist, see here. Accordingly, there are many Muslims who believe the US' war in Afghanistan is legitimate according to the principles of jihad.
And Martin has your measure, here.
I don't have a problem with this statement. I believe it pretty strongly, and I also don't believe we are engaged in a war against Islam and Muslims. If such was our goal, there would be a whole lot more dead Muslims.
It does though however raise a question to me of whether it is wrong to engage in behavior that Hammorabi, or other Muslims, regard as a war against Islam. Obviously taking their views into account is important, but it seems to me that it can't be determinative.
Bullshit. You just admitted that you see Islam -- not individual Muslims, but Islam -- as being at war with the USA:
If you don't want to be seen as a bigotted moron who draws no distinctions between the peaceful Muslims and the terrorists, then don't make bigotted, moronic, sweeping statements that draw no distinctions between the peaceful Muslims and the terrorists.
He's a very, very partisan Shi'ite. Perhaps that has something to do with it. I linked to the post more because I thought it was informative about a point of view than as a factual primer on Jordan.
I think the sheik speaks for the majority view in Islam.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.