Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Admiral Yi]

I thought we were talking day-to-day social interaction.
....

That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.

Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.

Do people introduce their friends as moderate Muslims at cocktail parties?  I agree, that's boneheaded.  The overwhelming majority of the time I read or hear the term it's in reference to some Muslim organization head or this or that influential imam.

Friedman's dichotomy was that the past two decades have been ones 'in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny'.  He then has a list of examples.  The other answer is that the Americans want to keep Muslims down.  Now I think neither's the case and the first is shockingly naive and the latter too selective a view of American foreign policy.

The first is not shockingly naive, it's empirical.  Put help to Muslims in the numerator, put all foreign adventures in the denominator, it's a high percentage.

But the problem is that for you to buy into Friedman's redemptive narrative Muslims have not only to care about their brethren many miles and cultures away in Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia and Indonesia but also to forget their brethren in Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

No, I accept Friedman's point as rebuttal of the Muslim narrative that the US is working to fuck Muslims.  I don't demand that Muslims in Saudi Arabia care about Bosnians, but since they profess to care then it's worthwhile to point out based on their own assumptions their conclusions are wrong.

[Valmy]

How could any movement that has Robespierre and Marat as founding fathers be intolerant?

[Sheilbh]

The first is not shockingly naive, it's empirical.  Put help to Muslims in the numerator, put all foreign adventures in the denominator, it's a high percentage.

So US foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims'?  I think the naivete comes from ignoring any possibility of American national interest.

No, I accept Friedman's point as rebuttal of the Muslim narrative that the US is working to fuck Muslims.  I don't demand that Muslims in Saudi Arabia care about Bosnians, but since they profess to care then it's worthwhile to point out based on their own assumptions their conclusions are wrong.

Okay, but why shouldn't the Muslim in Bosnia then care that Saudis are kept under a US-backed, deeply oppressive and unpleasant regime?

[Iormlund]

That doesn't explain why she should be first introduced or understood as a Muslim and a moderate one at that.

If she's wearing a Hijab she's deliberately introducing herself as a Muslim.

[Admiral Yi]

So US foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims'?  I think the naivete comes from ignoring any possibility of American national interest.

And do you think the inclusion of American interests in the equation (which seem pretty sparse in places like Bosnia anyway) somehow weakens the rebuttal of the "fuck all Muslims" narrative? 

Okay, but why shouldn't the Muslim in Bosnia then care that Saudis are kept under a US-backed, deeply oppressive and unpleasant regime?

The Bosnian Muslim can care about anything he wants to.  But if he professes to oppose US backing (whatever that means) of Saudi Arabia because he favors democratic liberalization, then I expect his arguments to be consistent with those principles.  Likewise if he favors a more truly Muslim state in SA.

[Sheilbh]

And do you think the inclusion of American interests in the equation (which seem pretty sparse in places like Bosnia anyway) somehow weakens the rebuttal of the "fuck all Muslims" narrative? 

I think it makes the idea that American foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims' less feasible.

The Bosnian Muslim can care about anything he wants to.  But if he professes to oppose US backing (whatever that means) of Saudi Arabia because he favors democratic liberalization, then I expect his arguments to be consistent with those principles.  Likewise if he favors a more truly Muslim state in SA.

But we're not talking about principles.  We're talking about 'rescuing Muslims' or keeping Muslims down.  So the opposition on Saudi would be because the US is supporting a regime that keeps Muslims down and a common feeling for those Muslims, just as much as opposition to Milosevic by the US rescued Muslims and, again, a common feeling.

[Neil]

Surely if the goal is integration into British society there has to be a point where someone isn't a 'moderate Muslim' or 'black' or 'gay' but that they're British.

The goal isn't really integration into British society.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it makes the idea that American foreign policy has been 'largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims' less feasible.

Yes Shelf, if your interpretation of Friedman is correct, that he believes the organizing principle of US foreign policy in the 90s was to help Muslims whenever and whereever possible, then Friedman is an imbecile.

But we're not talking about principles.  We're talking about 'rescuing Muslims' or keeping Muslims down.  So the opposition on Saudi would be because the US is supporting a regime that keeps Muslims down and a common feeling for those Muslims, just as much as opposition to Milosevic by the US rescued Muslims and, again, a common feeling.

We ended up talking about principles.  If our Bosnian is angry about keeping Muslims down, then I also want him to be thankful for pulling Muslims up.

[Sheilbh]

Yes Shelf, if your interpretation of Friedman is correct, that he believes the organizing principle of US foreign policy in the 90s was to help Muslims whenever and whereever possible, then Friedman is an imbecile.

That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.

[Admiral Yi]

That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.

I think we've already been over these points.

[grumbler]

That wasn't my argument - though, hyperbole aside, I don't understand how else you can interpret 'US foreign policy was largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny' - my argument was that he's depending on a pan-Islamic view of the world from Muslims in response to the US's good policies but, presumably, would rather they didn't think pan-Islamically about the rest.

I think you are reversing his actual argument:  that he would wish for the same pan-Islamic reaction to the god the US has done for Muslims as we see for the bad.  He isn't trying to wish away the bad at all (he mentions some of it), just to point out that, on balance, he thinks the good far outweighs the bad.

[Sheilbh]

I think you are reversing his actual argument:  that he would wish for the same pan-Islamic reaction to the god the US has done for Muslims as we see for the bad.  He isn't trying to wish away the bad at all (he mentions some of it), just to point out that, on balance, he thinks the good far outweighs the bad.

I see what you mean.

My view is that pan-Islamism's a relatively recent development practically speaking (that is popular sentiment away from official rhetoric) and that so far I'm not convinced that it's been a very good one.  I think we should focus on the very local.  So I'd rather the Bosnian didn't notice Saudi and if that means the Saudi ignores Bosnia then it's worth it.

[grumbler]

I see what you mean.

My view is that pan-Islamism's a relatively recent development practically speaking (that is popular sentiment away from official rhetoric) and that so far I'm not convinced that it's been a very good one.  I think we should focus on the very local.  So I'd rather the Bosnian didn't notice Saudi and if that means the Saudi ignores Bosnia then it's worth it.

I agree that Friedman is simplifying to the verge of uselessness, but I think that we have to recognize that there is a "narrative" that is much as he describes and which is accepted by a large number of Muslims.  What we would rather is beside the point.

[Sheilbh]

I agree that Friedman is simplifying to the verge of uselessness, but I think that we have to recognize that there is a "narrative" that is much as he describes and which is accepted by a large number of Muslims.  What we would rather is beside the point.

I agree.  But I suppose that I think the way to counter that argument isn't to encourage the thinking behind it by saying look at what we did over there, but to focus relentlessly on the local.  So in Bosnia talk about Bosnia; in Pakistan talk about the earthquake and US aid that's spent on education and so on.

Generally I just really dislike Friedman

[grumbler]

I agree.  But I suppose that I think the way to counter that argument isn't to encourage the thinking behind it by saying look at what we did over there, but to focus relentlessly on the local.  So in Bosnia talk about Bosnia; in Pakistan talk about the earthquake and US aid that's spent on education and so on.

Agree.    The "narrative" isn't about logic and cannot be countered on its terms; it has to be countered, as you say, at the local level.  When local Muslims see that their own experiences are counter to what "the narrative" tells them, the narrative will lose its power.

Generally I just really dislike Friedman

He stimulates conversation, so i don't mind him.