Comments on: Victory, of a Sort http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/ "If not now, when?" Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:25:15 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: eatbees http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1603 eatbees Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:50:45 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1603 @Hashmat — I'm glad you say the question of "who is Muslim" is a hard one, because just as not everyone can be Muslim, it's also true that some people (Zarqawi is an extreme case) define Muslim much too narrowly. There is a wide range of interpretation of what is permissible and what is not. Just as in other religions, there are those who take a very strict view of the Qur'an and insist that nothing has changed across the centuries, while there are those who focus on the "spirit" of Islam. I am one who focuses on the "spirit." (I don't think you'll call me a Muslim, but I hope you'll consider me a sympathizer.) From reading the Qur'an, it is clear that anyone will go to Paradise who believes in Allah, His Prophets, His Angels, His Books, and the Last Day. Why? Because it says so. From that, I think it is possible to argue that we are free to "follow the rules" or not, and the judgment is between us and Allah. I would gladly take Allah's judgment over that of a human, because I know that Allah will take everything into account (what in court are called "extenuating circumstances") and is ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim. We can get into a long theological discussion, but frankly, while Islam clearly forbids certain behavior, no one is perfect and so there must be room for "imperfect Muslims" or there would be no Muslims at all! I believe that the heart of Islam, as with any religion, is tolerance. I have no problem seeing Islam exist in the modern world where drinking, or gays, or sexy clothes are tolerated. Islam is in the heart of each person, and a "sinner" can be a believer more than someone who does all the prayers but is corrupt in his heart. So, I don't agree with you on this one, I don't think Islam is "a case of take it or leave it." In fact, I think it's a process, a spiritual path. We are always getting closer to the goal but can never say "I made it — no more work to do." Can we as humans say which of us is furthest along the path? Can we see in others' hearts? The Qur'an cautions us many times that we cannot know what Allah knows. So how can we judge who is "really" Muslim and who is not? About modernity, I understand your point of view and I've heard it before, but I don't agree that "all modernity has is a complex against religion." America for example is one of the most religious nations on Earth — frankly, too religious for my taste! Humans have never given up looking for the spiritual, and a big part of the inspiration for the Enlightenment was a need to free the belief of the individual from the chains of dogma. My experience in Morocco tells me that the Islamic world too has its share of "spiritual chains." About science, saying that homosexuality is genetic is not a moral judgment, any more than saying cancer is genetic, which is also true. (To be more accurate about it, both genetics and the environment come into play.) I will tell you as clearly as I can that I have no problem accepting the evidence of reality in place of belief. If belief conflicts with evidence, then belief is wrong. There is something called the scientific method, they don't just make this stuff up. Bush got us into the war in Iraq, and we are still in it, because he puts belief ahead of reality and refuses to change his mind. As we can see, that turns people into criminals or makes them crazy, which is not a good way to run a society. @Hashmat — I’m glad you say the question of “who is Muslim” is a hard one, because just as not everyone can be Muslim, it’s also true that some people (Zarqawi is an extreme case) define Muslim much too narrowly. There is a wide range of interpretation of what is permissible and what is not. Just as in other religions, there are those who take a very strict view of the Qur’an and insist that nothing has changed across the centuries, while there are those who focus on the “spirit” of Islam.

I am one who focuses on the “spirit.” (I don’t think you’ll call me a Muslim, but I hope you’ll consider me a sympathizer.) From reading the Qur’an, it is clear that anyone will go to Paradise who believes in Allah, His Prophets, His Angels, His Books, and the Last Day. Why? Because it says so. From that, I think it is possible to argue that we are free to “follow the rules” or not, and the judgment is between us and Allah. I would gladly take Allah’s judgment over that of a human, because I know that Allah will take everything into account (what in court are called “extenuating circumstances”) and is ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim.

We can get into a long theological discussion, but frankly, while Islam clearly forbids certain behavior, no one is perfect and so there must be room for “imperfect Muslims” or there would be no Muslims at all! I believe that the heart of Islam, as with any religion, is tolerance. I have no problem seeing Islam exist in the modern world where drinking, or gays, or sexy clothes are tolerated. Islam is in the heart of each person, and a “sinner” can be a believer more than someone who does all the prayers but is corrupt in his heart.

So, I don’t agree with you on this one, I don’t think Islam is “a case of take it or leave it.” In fact, I think it’s a process, a spiritual path. We are always getting closer to the goal but can never say “I made it — no more work to do.” Can we as humans say which of us is furthest along the path? Can we see in others’ hearts? The Qur’an cautions us many times that we cannot know what Allah knows. So how can we judge who is “really” Muslim and who is not?

About modernity, I understand your point of view and I’ve heard it before, but I don’t agree that “all modernity has is a complex against religion.” America for example is one of the most religious nations on Earth — frankly, too religious for my taste! Humans have never given up looking for the spiritual, and a big part of the inspiration for the Enlightenment was a need to free the belief of the individual from the chains of dogma. My experience in Morocco tells me that the Islamic world too has its share of “spiritual chains.”

About science, saying that homosexuality is genetic is not a moral judgment, any more than saying cancer is genetic, which is also true. (To be more accurate about it, both genetics and the environment come into play.) I will tell you as clearly as I can that I have no problem accepting the evidence of reality in place of belief. If belief conflicts with evidence, then belief is wrong. There is something called the scientific method, they don’t just make this stuff up. Bush got us into the war in Iraq, and we are still in it, because he puts belief ahead of reality and refuses to change his mind. As we can see, that turns people into criminals or makes them crazy, which is not a good way to run a society.

]]> By: Hashmat Moslih http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1575 Hashmat Moslih Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:18:05 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1575 eatbees- first of all there is a need in defining who is a Muslim. this is a question that i find very difficult to work with and yet i realize it is a very important one. you see, if i were to say A is a communist who believes in privet ownership of land and factories he also happen to believe that Marx and Lenin as well as Trotsky and not to forget Moe all had it wrong. would you say that my analysis of A being a communist is correct? or if i were to say B is a capitalist and believes that no one should have the right to privet ownership, would you still regard B as a capitalist? on the other hand anyone who claim to be a Muslim regardless of their action and beliefs is regarded as a Muslim! On the issue of tolerating homosexuals or for that mater fornicators adulterers child molesters and etc are all condemned by Islam and Muslims have no choice but to accept that, not accepting is a sin that puts one outside of the fold of Islam. Now weather this is right or wrong is a different mater but the fact is, this is Islam. There is no compulsion in religion and certainly it is not a Buffet where you pick and chose what you like to have, in Islam one does not get to pick and chose another words Islam is not a liberal democracy. It is a case of take it or leave it. Those who say -but we do pick and chose and we can pick and chose, I say, surly you can do what you like, just like the person who says I am a Republican and believe in Monarchy. No one can make him not to believe in such a theory. But the question remains- is that person a Republican? Bush says he loves humanity and freedom! On the issue of being modern and modernity = transparency I would disagree. The Arab world needs to become technological and develop its primary industries to a point of self sufficiency, this would give it the tool for prosperity but the culture to prosperity requires a just mentality a mentality of humility and piety which would function at the individual level. At the structural level power must to be decentralized and local governments must be given more power. Modernity has its roots in enlightenment which was more of a reaction to church and Christianity. Modernity is a bi product of that allergy it has no moral heart, all modernity has is a complex against religion, it tries to distance itself from religion as much as possible and that is why in modernity everything goes, it is an all round entertainer like a colorful clown attractive to child like mentalities of goodness, however, with the difference that the children's mentality of goodness is out of innocence and developing. Modernity = arrogance, it is a path that will take you to become America. Is America transparent on issues when it matter to be transparent? What is the point of fact finding committees when those committees are established after crimes are committed. The war criminals who gun downed women and children in Haditha , what happened to them? Where is Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang? Modernity means might is right the rest of it is just a struggle to the top. (remember that it was Modernity with its "scientific objective truth” and the age of pure reason that brought about the Doctors "scientific objective” research which concluded that being a Homosexual is a genetic things. Would you accept if Doctors did another "scientific objective” research concluding that being a pedophile is also a genetic thing?) You mentioned that those jokes were amongst the people of Morocco all he did was to bring them to the magazine. Well, Islam does not belong to the Moroccans, you can make fun of your king as much as you like. You can make a hole in your privet boat but not in a one that belongs to all. I am sure there are jokes regarding women should they be publish? If a woman magazine published jokes on husbands beating their wives would it make it okay? I wonder what would BBC, CNN and FOX would do? And where would modernity be? eatbees-
first of all there is a need in defining who is a Muslim. this is a question that i find very difficult to work with and yet i realize it is a very important one. you see, if i were to say A is a communist who believes in privet ownership of land and factories he also happen to believe that Marx and Lenin as well as Trotsky and not to forget Moe all had it wrong. would you say that my analysis of A being a communist is correct? or if i were to say B is a capitalist and believes that no one should have the right to privet ownership, would you still regard B as a capitalist? on the other hand anyone who claim to be a Muslim regardless of their action and beliefs is regarded as a Muslim!
On the issue of tolerating homosexuals or for that mater fornicators adulterers child molesters and etc are all condemned by Islam and Muslims have no choice but to accept that, not accepting is a sin that puts one outside of the fold of Islam. Now weather this is right or wrong is a different mater but the fact is, this is Islam. There is no compulsion in religion and certainly it is not a Buffet where you pick and chose what you like to have, in Islam one does not get to pick and chose another words Islam is not a liberal democracy. It is a case of take it or leave it. Those who say -but we do pick and chose and we can pick and chose, I say, surly you can do what you like, just like the person who says I am a Republican and believe in Monarchy. No one can make him not to believe in such a theory. But the question remains- is that person a Republican? Bush says he loves humanity and freedom!

On the issue of being modern and modernity = transparency I would disagree. The Arab world needs to become technological and develop its primary industries to a point of self sufficiency, this would give it the tool for prosperity but the culture to prosperity requires a just mentality a mentality of humility and piety which would function at the individual level. At the structural level power must to be decentralized and local governments must be given more power.
Modernity has its roots in enlightenment which was more of a reaction to church and Christianity. Modernity is a bi product of that allergy it has no moral heart, all modernity has is a complex against religion, it tries to distance itself from religion as much as possible and that is why in modernity everything goes, it is an all round entertainer like a colorful clown attractive to child like mentalities of goodness, however, with the difference that the children’s mentality of goodness is out of innocence and developing.
Modernity = arrogance, it is a path that will take you to become America. Is America transparent on issues when it matter to be transparent? What is the point of fact finding committees when those committees are established after crimes are committed. The war criminals who gun downed women and children in Haditha , what happened to them? Where is Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang? Modernity means might is right the rest of it is just a struggle to the top. (remember that it was Modernity with its “scientific objective truth” and the age of pure reason that brought about the Doctors “scientific objective” research which concluded that being a Homosexual is a genetic things. Would you accept if Doctors did another “scientific objective” research concluding that being a pedophile is also a genetic thing?)
You mentioned that those jokes were amongst the people of Morocco all he did was to bring them to the magazine. Well, Islam does not belong to the Moroccans, you can make fun of your king as much as you like. You can make a hole in your privet boat but not in a one that belongs to all. I am sure there are jokes regarding women should they be publish? If a woman magazine published jokes on husbands beating their wives would it make it okay? I wonder what would BBC, CNN and FOX would do? And where would modernity be?

]]> By: eatbees http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1446 eatbees Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:39:11 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1446 @Hashmat — I think I understand where you're coming from, and I will be the first to join you in defending Muslims against those who demonize them as the "other." I will also defend gays, Jews, women or poor people against those who demonize them as the "other." Indeed the whole point of this blog is to show that Muslims are not the "other" and the West is not the "other" but we all share the same space, the same rights and responsibilities as human beings, the same intelligence! That said, I think your argument falls apart for the simple reason that the jokes Nichane published are told by Moroccans (i.e. Muslims) for other Moroccans (i.e. Muslims). Nichane didn't invent anything, these jokes and others like them have been part of Moroccan culture for centuries. Their "sin" was to bring what had been private into the open. I would argue that this is the price of being a modern society, which Morocco aspires to be. Modernity = transparency and that means a certain vulgarization of the public discourse. That's a huge subject in itself! So the question here isn't non-Muslims mocking Muslims, but rather, Moroccan Muslims making fun of themselves. When Jewish comedians make fun of Jewish culture, or when African Americans "use the N word," this is <i>not</i> the same thing as when someone from outside the community does the same thing out of hate. So while I understand your sensitivity about people who see Muslims as inferior, or illogical, or as nothing but "beards and veils," that isn't what is happening here. @Hashmat — I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I will be the first to join you in defending Muslims against those who demonize them as the “other.” I will also defend gays, Jews, women or poor people against those who demonize them as the “other.” Indeed the whole point of this blog is to show that Muslims are not the “other” and the West is not the “other” but we all share the same space, the same rights and responsibilities as human beings, the same intelligence!

That said, I think your argument falls apart for the simple reason that the jokes Nichane published are told by Moroccans (i.e. Muslims) for other Moroccans (i.e. Muslims). Nichane didn’t invent anything, these jokes and others like them have been part of Moroccan culture for centuries. Their “sin” was to bring what had been private into the open. I would argue that this is the price of being a modern society, which Morocco aspires to be. Modernity = transparency and that means a certain vulgarization of the public discourse. That’s a huge subject in itself!

So the question here isn’t non-Muslims mocking Muslims, but rather, Moroccan Muslims making fun of themselves. When Jewish comedians make fun of Jewish culture, or when African Americans “use the N word,” this is not the same thing as when someone from outside the community does the same thing out of hate. So while I understand your sensitivity about people who see Muslims as inferior, or illogical, or as nothing but “beards and veils,” that isn’t what is happening here.

]]> By: Hashmat Moslih http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1434 Hashmat Moslih Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:55:40 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1434 "freedom of speech" really means the right to attack. So please expect the right to defense too. It all begins with "demonizing” the "other” and to do so you must first ridicule and trivialize it, make it not worthy of life and death. People take and find comfort in things, be it tangible objects or an ideas, the more they find it comforting the more they hold it dear, it reaches to a point where one find meaning through that thing and they are ready to die for it. So when one find the thing of the other not comforting, they try to say it is not worthy of admiration and it should not be held dearly to die for. (remember dying for something is a level in the many levels of how much something is dear for you) And the best way to illustrate its unworthiness it is turned into jokes.(jokes also need to be categorized as neutral and non neutral which again depends on ones opinion) They do not realize that the issue for others is very important, or some times they do realize but would like to cause pain, so they make fun of it and claim the right to free speech. This creates conflict. The role of the government has been in theory to bring about harmony, that which the majority agree upon says democracy. Freedom of speech ferments the seeds of action that is where the fear comes from. This the reason why you should not make jokes about the jews, because it will lead to a state of mind where a jew is seen unworthy and killing 8 million would be of no consequence. This is happening to the Muslims today. The blood of a Muslim, depending on how much he is practicing, goes down in price. A Muslim is a illogical dogmatic person often with a beard and their women cover their heads with a towel. They must be of an inferior genetic pool, if not, how could they believe so dearly to some thing so wrong, so lets fire our logic guided missiles of "freedom of speech” at them in order to free them or perhaps free ourselves of them, they are illogical and therefore pose a threat to our logical way! “freedom of speech” really means the right to attack. So please expect the right to defense too.
It all begins with “demonizing” the “other” and to do so you must first ridicule and trivialize it, make it not worthy of life and death. People take and find comfort in things, be it tangible objects or an ideas, the more they find it comforting the more they hold it dear, it reaches to a point where one find meaning through that thing and they are ready to die for it. So when one find the thing of the other not comforting, they try to say it is not worthy of admiration and it should not be held dearly to die for. (remember dying for something is a level in the many levels of how much something is dear for you) And the best way to illustrate its unworthiness it is turned into jokes.(jokes also need to be categorized as neutral and non neutral which again depends on ones opinion) They do not realize that the issue for others is very important, or some times they do realize but would like to cause pain, so they make fun of it and claim the right to free speech. This creates conflict. The role of the government has been in theory to bring about harmony, that which the majority agree upon says democracy. Freedom of speech ferments the seeds of action that is where the fear comes from. This the reason why you should not make jokes about the jews, because it will lead to a state of mind where a jew is seen unworthy and killing 8 million would be of no consequence. This is happening to the Muslims today. The blood of a Muslim, depending on how much he is practicing, goes down in price. A Muslim is a illogical dogmatic person often with a beard and their women cover their heads with a towel. They must be of an inferior genetic pool, if not, how could they believe so dearly to some thing so wrong, so lets fire our logic guided missiles of “freedom of speech” at them in order to free them or perhaps free ourselves of them, they are illogical and therefore pose a threat to our logical way!

]]> By: eatbees http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1370 eatbees Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:28:48 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1370 Let's not trip over it then! (or stop to eat it—whatever one does with a milk sop). Let’s not trip over it then! (or stop to eat it—whatever one does with a milk sop).

]]> By: Cat In Rabat http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1369 Cat In Rabat Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:11:18 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1369 Well said but perhaps this is more of a victory for bloggers than for journalism in Morocco. It feels like a milk sop thrown in everyone's path. Well said but perhaps this is more of a victory for bloggers than for journalism in Morocco. It feels like a milk sop thrown in everyone’s path.

]]> By: eatbees http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1347 eatbees Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:22:25 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1347 To those who think we shouldn't be celebrating: I admit it, maybe "celebrate" the right word. But I'm an optimist by nature. If I didn't think blogging could make a difference, I wouldn't be doing it. I was inspired by the way bloggers turned public opinion around in America, and quite possibly helped the Democrats to win control of Congress two months ago. When no one else came to the defense of Nichane, bloggers did. The story began to get more circulation, not just in Morocco but worldwide. This must have played some role in the government moderating its stance, so that we got a less-than-worst-case-scenario yesterday. In no way do I think that Morocco's problems are now solved! This case does nothing for press freedom or an independent judiciary. Maybe, as some suggest, it was even a step backward. And let's be clear, Driss and Sanaa should never have been brought to trial at all! But why are we squabbling over whether the glass is half empty or half full? There are many more "good fights" still ahead :) To those who think we shouldn’t be celebrating:

I admit it, maybe “celebrate” the right word. But I’m an optimist by nature. If I didn’t think blogging could make a difference, I wouldn’t be doing it. I was inspired by the way bloggers turned public opinion around in America, and quite possibly helped the Democrats to win control of Congress two months ago.

When no one else came to the defense of Nichane, bloggers did. The story began to get more circulation, not just in Morocco but worldwide. This must have played some role in the government moderating its stance, so that we got a less-than-worst-case-scenario yesterday.

In no way do I think that Morocco’s problems are now solved! This case does nothing for press freedom or an independent judiciary. Maybe, as some suggest, it was even a step backward. And let’s be clear, Driss and Sanaa should never have been brought to trial at all! But why are we squabbling over whether the glass is half empty or half full? There are many more “good fights” still ahead :)

]]> By: Cat In Rabat http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1346 Cat In Rabat Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:54:56 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1346 I have to reiterate Ibn Kafka's comments. I have to reiterate Ibn Kafka’s comments.

]]> By: Myrtus http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1345 Myrtus Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:51:16 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1345 A collection sounds great! I'd personally vote for Larbi to do it, but I'll be happy to do it myself if no one else wants to take on the resposibility. Eetbees, you are great company indeed! :D And BTW centrists and libertarians do usually agree on many things, it is on matters of government where most of their disagreements occur, no? A collection sounds great! I’d personally vote for Larbi to do it, but I’ll be happy to do it myself if no one else wants to take on the resposibility.

Eetbees, you are great company indeed! :D

And BTW centrists and libertarians do usually agree on many things, it is on matters of government where most of their disagreements occur, no?

]]> By: nichani http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/comment-page-1/#comment-1344 nichani Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:48:58 +0000 http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/01/15/victory-of-a-sort/#comment-1344 yes it's me ! well thank you too sir !! yes it’s me !
well thank you too sir !!

]]>