feh. little green footballs.

feh. little green footballs.

Typical response... doesn't matter if the story is true, LGF is not "politically correct" enough for this blog. ;-)

Typical response... doesn't matter if the story is true, LGF is not "politically correct" enough for this blog. ;-)

or, more accurately, it's not popular with some of this blog's READERS.

How come this does not elicit even more disgust?

When Isaac became a young boy, God spoke to Abraham and commanded him to take his son to Mount Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice to God. This was God’s test of Abraham’s faith. Abraham loved his son very much, but did not hesitate to follow God’s words for he was a man whose faith in God was strong. As Abraham and his son reached the place where the sacrifice was to be performed, Isaac said to his father, “Father, where is the lamb that is to be sacrificed?” Abraham replied, “My son, God will provide the lamb”.

It is not known how eventually Abraham told his son that he was to be the sacrifice, but Isaac courageously laid on the sacrificial place ready to be sacrificed for god.

If you imagine you're hearing things from the sky and nearly kill your kid, aren't you certifiable? what to do - The human brain is just irrational. What seems loony to one seems perfectly normal to another. it's always been like that and will always be like that.

Typical response... doesn't matter if the story is true, LGF is not "politically correct" enough for this blog. ;-)

The context the story is presented in is as important as the story itself, it matters that the stories on the site are specifically selected in order to reflect badly on muslims.

Its analogous to quoting a story found on a white supremist site like duke.org to do a post on jewish practices.

* white supremacist

duh : There are several interpretations to the Abraham-Isaac story. Those that rely on the original Hebrew of the story make very good sense too.

How come this does not elicit even more disgust?

Maybe it doesn't elicit any disgust because it a couple of thousand years old and is not a recent event like the event in Pakistan? Just a guess...

So Sepia mutiny has now stooped to the obsession of hates sites like LGF with 'Islamo Fascism'.
Wonder why Sepia mutineers were not discussing the 'fascism' behind the Sikh dude in Canada killing his daughter for dating a white guy or the honor killings by Hindus in UP. Even if these topics are discussed, they are never characterized as Islamo fascism or fascism or whatever is the flavor of the month at LGF.
In the LGF, Sepia Mutiny world of 'fascism', only criminal acts perpetrated by Muslims qualify for fascism.
Lovely.

duh:

i can't even commence explaining how many ways you've offended me on a day meant for calm and joy. since it's a sin to go to church while cursing another, i'll just emphatically state that your analogy blows because IT IS NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING.

I agree with Pankaj.
It is analogous to quoting stories (true stories though) about the shortcomings or criminal acts committed by Blacks or Jews from a KKK website.
I always thought the people who post stories here were better than this.

ANNA,
Are you now a party to quoting stories which identify muslim criminal acts and then generalize them as 'fascism' from hate websites like LGF ?

Aha/Vinod Da Man/ANDY:

Mind sticking with ONE handle? Makes it easier to follow your attempts at argument, thanks.

The context the story is presented in is as important as the story itself, it matters that the stories on the site are specifically selected in order to reflect badly on muslims.

The LGF posting linked to an Associated Press article on the killings. So are you saying AP is biased against Muslims ?

The context the story is presented in is as important as the story itself, it matters that the stories on the site are specifically selected in order to reflect badly on muslims.

The LGF posting linked to an Associated Press article on the killings. So are you saying AP is biased against Muslims ?

The context the story is presented in is as important as the story itself, it matters that the stories on the site are specifically selected in order to reflect badly on muslims.

Its analogous to quoting a story found on a white supremist site like duke.org to do a post on jewish practices.

1) muslims have caused problems in multiple countries. sikhs have certainly cranked up in the barbarism-quotient after going medieval on a offensive theater presentation, but i think they have a ways to go in matching muslims (they will never match muslims in absolute terms because they are small fry, but per capita barbarism is within reach, especially if they mobilize well).

2) some stories on white supremacist sites about jewish practices are correct. they simply put a particular spin on them. look in the letters of paul how he portrays circumcision, and note how christian apologists have exaggerated his comments to make circumcision seem like an unseemly and repulsive act. jews would not disagree that circumcision is part of their faith, but they would disagree with the interpretation. whether honor killings are fundamentally part of islam (i come close to being a nominalist on the question of what a religion is), i would submit that many muslims would argue that they are an unfortunate byproduct of a good thing about many muslim cultures, i.e., their emphasis on familial honor and female virtue. i have talked to my own cousins who wax on about the virtue of bangladeshi women, after telling me how they enjoyed fucking american women (i use the word "fucking" consciously to impart their tone). i have listened to a close friend recount with horror the approval his arab cousins (western educated) gave toward honor killings, at least as a necessary evil to preserve familial honor.

3) i object strongly to any analogy between anti-islamism and anti-semitism. the reason is that anti-semitism is generally connected an ethnic-racial bias in the modern (post-scientific) age. the objection by white supremacists is more to the jewish race and people than a specific set of beliefs. some anti-islamists are racist, but, for these anti-islamism is simply a subset of more generalized racism. but, many anti-islamists object to the ideology that is normative within the preponderance of modern islam. hatred of barbarism expressed in the name of the god of abraham should be no sin, and i am offended by the line some seem to be crossing in giving the imprimatur of fundamentalness of religious identity as they would racial or sexual identity. what god you bend the knee too is a choice, and the worship of some molochs should not be sanctioned by civilized folk.

oh, and merry christmas everyone!

well, this is a thoughtful xmas present. we spend the year trying to create a case for unity on this blog while half our readers smack their foreheads in disgust, because they feel that we shouldn't show solidarity with muslims when "it's muslims who are reponsible for london, 9/11 et al"...and now we're allegedly persecuting muslims by posting a link from LGF. i don't give a fuck what you think of LGF, i abhor the fact that many of you are willing to jump all over THAT vs focusing on the horrific slaughter of four girls, three of whom were mere children. FANTASTIC priorities, people.

read my lips: we don't love or hate muslims anymore than we love or hate christians or hindus. frankly, at this moment, i loathe a good lot of you. bah humbug, indeed. you want to quote (and by quote i mean poorly create analogies with) biblical parables which are meant to teach us about faith? how about a little faith in our intentions and efforts at this blog? to much to ask for? too bad, i'm not taking it (or anything else) back.

i abhor the fact that many of you are willing to jump all over THAT vs focusing on the horrific slaughter of four girls, three of whom were mere children.

come now, details, let's focus on the big picture, charles johnson is satan.

hey anna, ?, you have said you are a catholic, but syrian christians have eastern origins, so do you celebrate the eastern or western calender (december or january christmas). just talked to a guy today who is half greek and half armenian. he said armenians celebrate a different xmas than greeks, who celebrate a later one than the western church of course, so he celebrates 3 xmases! (and 3 easters)

Anna, calm down, please. I didn't intend to offend anyone at all, so my apologies if it appeared that way. You see it as a women's rights issue. But I saw it as an issue of child murder. The analogy may not appear apposite to you, it seems apposite from my point of view.

hey anna, ?, you have said you are a catholic, but syrian christians have eastern origins, so do you celebrate the eastern or western calender (december or january christmas).

i'm not catholic, i just flirt like one in my myriad plaid skirts, including the original box pleat i wore back at st. veronica's in south san francisco. "Mother mary don’t you know? She’s got eyes like marylin monroe." :D

it's not just you, a lot of people think i am. after attending catholic school for most of my life, i have weird attachments to certain "unorthodox" things: lighting candles in front of various saints for specific reasons, muttering requests to st. anthony (usually when i've lost my keys) and of course, the aforementioned pleated skirts...i also frequently mention (on my personal sites) my all-consuming devotion to st. patrick's cathedral in midtown, so i give good catholic. but, i'm orthodox. greek orthodox, to be precise. my parents are (more logically) indian orthodox. my father insisted that christmas was january 7th, so truth be told, i never really "feel it" on the 25th. :) january 7th i walk around with a fixed, slightly smug smile on my face while i celebrate the REAL christmas. ;)

You see it as a women's rights issue. But I saw it as an issue of child murder.

hm. well, the story seemed to imply they were killed because they were female, not because they were children. certainly children were killed, but then, so were mammals and pakistanis. the salient point was that the intent was to kill future women, not future mammals or pakistanis.

anna, apologies for the confusion, but you really should change your handle to ann_the_orthodox :) that sort of thing works for me....

no worries, RtA. love means never having to say you're sorry. ;)

I personally think Christmas is pagan- add me to your "loathe" list, Anna!

Or was I already on there?

Ooooh, good idea, Razib, I'm liking this too.. but you have the easiest one- athiest. If I really wanted to be specific, I could do "daycruz the malayalee pentecostal"

a bit wordy, though.. back to my three hour break at intel..

duh: I recommend a copy of Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. This will give you a philosophical approach to the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Bible.

As for this article, while it is truly horrible what happened to those girls(and we damned best be counting our blessings this Christmas), aren't acts like this pretty commonplace in certain rural parts of India and various other parts of South/Southwest/Southeast Asia? I mean, is this something endemic to the religion or is it a byproduct of a 2000+ year old culture(since Pakistan came out of India)?

daycruz.

what. what? WHAT did i do to deserve that comment?

anyway, i don't care if you think Christmas is pagan, i'll still wish you tidings of comfort and joy. i think birthdays are super special. why should Jesus Christ's be any less? i also think the whole "pentecostals can't wear jewelry" thing is silly. add me to YOUR loathe list-- probably no need, since it's ME who's apparently already there. :p

Anna, I don't think the no jewelry thing is silly- but I don't really care either way. I defend a woman's right to wear it though! You are not on my loathe list, no one at SM is. I love you reading you guys too much..

even if I get frustrated sometimes...

Oh and with as much exposure as SM is getting lately, Anna, you are gonna have to deal with a wide range of people online- this includes the obnoxious ones like myself.

While the year is ending, did you ever figure out what thendi means? Did you ask your mother like I told you to?

Merry Christmas y'all (I can't believe I said y'all)

I mean, is this something endemic to the religion or is it a byproduct of a 2000+ year old culture(since Pakistan came out of India)?

this sort of behavior is not uncommon in many cultures. it is not particular to islam, it simply is often exhibited within muslim cultures and religion is used to justify the behavior (whether "rightly" or "wrongly" is irrelevant in the broadest sense, though in practice religion can be used to argue against it). please see the recent movie pride and prejudice where the bennets worry about the stain that their young daughter will leave upon their family after she ran away with a soldier. or note the end of first knight where gwen is put on trial for adultery, the penalty of which is death.*

btw daycruz, i emailed you. you said you wanted to get in touch? was it a hot day in corvallis?

* this is actually not to generalize about 'western' culture. see albion's seed to read about how even-handed the puritans were in regards to adultery, or look at john calvin's own issues with the problem in his own family. women were not killed in these cases, so i am not making an easy equivalence. the daughter of augustus was exiled to an island, not killed, for her adulteries....

Shoot, Razib, I didn't see it- I'll go find it- it's probably in the spam folder or something..

Oh and with as much exposure as SM is getting lately, Anna, you are gonna have to deal with a wide range of people online- this includes the obnoxious ones like myself.

yeah, we've already gone through that delightful stit shorm of obnoxiousness, no worries.

Razib, thanks for the reply

I knew the attitudes toward women and marriage were pretty common. I was talking about such heinous acts of violence concerning said attitudes. I mean, damn, slashing his own daughter's throat, when she was sleeping no less. Makes you wonder if humanity has this much barbarity deep down and if we use religious dogma to justify our release of it.

1) muslims have caused problems in multiple countries. sikhs have certainly cranked up in the barbarism-quotient after going medieval on a offensive theater presentation, but i think they have a ways to go in matching muslims (they will never match muslims in absolute terms because they are small fry, but per capita barbarism is within reach, especially if they mobilize well).

The story itself had nothing to do with 'muslims causing problems in multiple countries'. It was about a Pakistani man who brutally murdered four of his daughters in a village in Pakistan.

The fact that you mention this confirms, my point about how the story being about vilifing muslims (read browns) as trouble makers and a threat to western civilization, rather than being about the tragic murders of four young women by their father.

Also judging by the comments on the LGF blog, the reactions that it has evoked are fear and anger as opposed to the sadness that one may expect from such a tragedy. Once more I see many parallels between the comments posted on LGF and the reactions to stories posted on white supremacist sites like amren.

3) i object strongly to any analogy between anti-islamism and anti-semitism. the reason is that anti-semitism is generally connected an ethnic-racial bias in the modern (post-scientific) age. the objection by white supremacists is more to the jewish race and people than a specific set of beliefs. some anti-islamists are racist, but, for these anti-islamism is simply a subset of more generalized racism. but, many anti-islamists object to the ideology that is normative within the preponderance of modern islam. hatred of barbarism expressed in the name of the god of abraham should be no sin, and i am offended by the line some seem to be crossing in giving the imprimatur of fundamentalness of religious identity as they would racial or sexual identity. what god you bend the knee too is a choice, and the worship of some molochs should not be sanctioned by civilized folk.

White supremacists think of everything in racial terms, but explicit white supremacism is no longer the norm America. Jews in America are not persecuted on a racial or ethnic basis. In modern day mainstream usage I would argue that the opposite is true. Anti-semitism has come to mean criticism of anything thats vaguely associated with the Jews. LGF itself frequently conflates anti-zionism with anti-semitism.

On the other hand the anti-islamism in mainstream America, post 9/11 is about fighting a racialized enemy rather than criticizing islamist beliefs (Saddam Hussein was hardly an islamist). This is why brown non-muslims running for office are attacked as terrorists and also why racial profiling of browns is considered justifiable. The fact that Islam is not an ethnic religion vis-a-vis Judaism is irrelevant, because it is viewed as such by the mainstream.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer it if the discussion was about the prepondance of extremists over moderates within the Islamic fold, but the discussion I have seen on LGF and elsewhere is rarely about that.

Makes you wonder if humanity has this much barbarity deep down and if we use religious dogma to justify our release of it.

people use religious dogma to justify anything. dogma can get awful flexible if interests are at play. anyway, yes, i think that people have a lot of innate potentional barbarity. though i am not surprised by the behavior of these men given the cultural context, i also do not think it particularly relevant to contextualize it in a fashion that makes it trivial and banal.

the fact that those innocent children were the victims here certainly makes this incident particularly gruesome and tragic. unfortunately such occurances are not limited to incidents in pakistan or india but are part of a global problem of violence against women. being hindu or muslim or christian has nothing to do with it.
a cursory google search or other research into this issue shows that while these *honor killings target everyone irrespective of color, caste, age or sex, the overwhelming majority of victims are women.

* it's disgusting to use a word like honor to describe something as disgustingly barbaric and inhumane as this.

The fact that you mention this confirms, my point about how the story being about vilifing muslims (read browns) as trouble makers and a threat to western civilization, rather than being about the tragic murders of four young women by their father.

men rape and murder women all the time. this story is, unfortunately, not novel in that context. it is salient because of its association with particular barbaric cultural mores. and yes, many muslims are a threat to western civilization. pakaj, you are fixated on LGF and you want to make this about that. that wasn't the point of vinod's post, it is common courtesy to give hat tips. perhaps we should regulate vinod's web reading, i don't know.

In modern day mainstream usage I would argue that the opposite is true. Anti-semitism has come to mean criticism of anything thats vaguely associated with the Jews.

well, i would agree with this, but it was not the definition of anti-semitism i was using above. i would argue that a lot of the crap that ADL claims as 'anti-semitic' isn't, but that's me.

The fact that Islam is not an ethnic religion vis-a-vis Judaism is irrelevant, because it is viewed as such by the mainstream.

yes, and it will remain so if one simply accepts the mainstream characterization. pragmatism is all well and good, but ignorance will never be abolished if we accept it on its own terms instead of trying to force a change. we must do both. attacking islam's barbaric face does not imply a concomitant acceptance of racism or bigotry. rejecting racism and bigotry does not imply acceptance of a religion which, as it is practiced in much of the world, is patently barbaric in its treatment of females and non-members. simple as that.

honor killings target everyone irrespective of color, caste, age or sex

some white lutheran men might be the object of honor killings, but i think i am safe in saying that the likelihood of being the object of such attacks is greater if you are a muslim woman in pakistan (or germany). this is not to say that most muslim women in pakistan are the objects of honor killings (they are alive). rather, their probability is far greater than a white lutheran man.

some white lutheran men might be the object of honor killings, but i think i am safe in saying that the likelihood of being the object of such attacks is greater if you are a muslim woman in pakistan (or germany). this is not to say that most muslim women in pakistan are the objects of honor killings (they are alive). rather, their probability is far greater than a white lutheran man.

which is what the words the overwhelming majority of victims are women and part of a global problem of violence against women meant. i didn't see the need to keep belaboring the "muslim" aspect since it's pretty obvious these things are common amongst hindus in india too. so there's no point clouding the issue with an irrelevant (in this context) discussion of religion.

which is what the words the overwhelming majority of victims are women and part of a global problem of violence against women meant. i didn't see the need to keep belaboring the "muslim" aspect since it's pretty obvious these things are common amongst hindus in india too. so there's no point clouding the issue with an irrelevant (in this context) discussion of religion.

this is what you said: honor killings target everyone irrespective of color, caste, age or sex, the overwhelming majority of victims are women yeah, sure.

while you're at it, take some writing classes too. maybe you'll learn to make a point in less than 2308400270328 words like the rest of the human race.

nice comeback. with all the verbiage i spout, couldn't you find a more incriminating quote?

im trying to keep it simple for your limited intelligence.

"limited intelligence" :)

This story, sensationalized or otherwise saddened me. On one side of the same earth, women are getting educated and are even running governments and in the other, crap like this is still happening. Didn't we have a story last month about that nutso Sikh man who tried to torture his daughter in law because he suspected her of having an affair?

This story is all the more heinous because it involved killing defenceless children. I hope someone can post a story about how this creature was punished.

Scarier still is that fact that I personally know women who have gone through beatings, abuse and forced marriages just because their ultra tradition-bound parents didn't understand the concept of 'love'. This story brought back memories of seeing bruises on the shoulder of a 17 year old girl friend who was beaten till the tennis racquet her father used broke. Why? Because she asked her mom if she has ever fallen in love and if marrying for love was such a bad thing. Disgusting..

I am not religious but stories like these make me want to pray to whatever powers there may be. If things like this still happen, has humanity progressed at all?

Stories like this are tough to deal with. For a start, LGF is no great source of news because whatever way you look at it, its dominated by xenophobic idiots with the intelligence and subtlety of a KKK gathering.

This story is clearly about a culture of women subjugation, and for that I believe liberals (incl myself) have to pick up such stories, confront them and talk about them. But we have to do that with the right assumptions.

As so typified by razib the atheist, such stories simply become a way to re-enforce their prejudices. LGF has made it a story because Muslims are showed in a bad light, they will never of course highlight a story where a Pakistani does something positive.

Such a stance doesn't help the people who it is supposed to - the opressed women. LGF readers don't really care about them, they possess a nice colonial mentality where these "uncivilised" brown people / Muslims (like they know the difference) are simply showing their barbarity. Who cares that Latinos, Sikhs, Muslims, Christian Africans etc engage in similar practices? There is a drum to bang dammit!

So I don't buy the LGF agenda. Any approach here should not be about villifying a religion or a whole society of people, but rather trying to support women groups in Pakistan and worldwide (as Sepia Mutiny has admirably done before) to reform Pakistan's extremely stupid laws regarding women, and put pressure on the govt to take such killings more seriously and set up internal support groups to deal with problems.

Just saying "see - told you these Muslims are a problem" is almost as heartless of the person who sees his daughter as simply a carrier of family honour.

yes, and it will remain so if one simply accepts the mainstream characterization. pragmatism is all well and good, but ignorance will never be abolished if we accept it on its own terms instead of trying to force a change. we must do both. attacking islam's barbaric face does not imply a concomitant acceptance of racism or bigotry. rejecting racism and bigotry does not imply acceptance of a religion which, as it is practiced in much of the world, is patently barbaric in its treatment of females and non-members. simple as that.

The most feverent critics of the barbaric tendencies of a group of people is usually an opposing group that is oblivious to or justify own equally brutal tendencies. I agree with the ideal but when balance of power is skewed to one side attacking the non-dominant ideology does more to strengthen one type of brutality than weaken another.

If I lived in Iran for example, I would be critical of the Iranian regime, criticizing American or Isreali brutalities would be counter productive to the goal of ending the barbaric practicies in my society.

-
Also to all the Christian mutineers have a Happy Christmas.

Damn its late at night... didn't even spell my own name right.

Now that most here agree on how Muslims, er Pakistanis treat women, here is something from India. Tavleen Singh writes: (Link:http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=84644)

" Delhi Police picking up street children on a freezing December night and dumping them outside city limits as if they were stray dogs left to die of cold and hunger. If this were not enough we were treated by the news channels to blow-by-blow footage of ordinary, middle-class people in Delhi and Mumbai having their homes demolished before their eyes because corrupt officials failed to do their job.

The horror that is India was on full display. For me personally, the most horrific story was that of the children. What kind of monsters would do a thing like that? Aman Bradri, the NGO that rescued the children, says 250 children were rounded up by the Hanuman Mandir police station, flung into trucks, and dumped near Gurgaon. Are there no children’s homes in Delhi? No night shelters? What has happened to the thousands of crores that taxpayers have spent on anti-poverty schemes? "
..
Sad.

mani:

there are night shelters -- it was recently revealed that the gov't has "outsourced" their management to local mafia who now charge for the "free" shelters. ouch. as for children? well, they don't qualify for the night shelters which are for "adults and families" b/c the social welfare dept. supposedly has a "scheme" for homeless kids... haven't seen it yet. you have to hand it to the NGOs though, they are trying their best, but it's still an uphill battle.

delhi is rough, real rough. cm sheila dikshit is busting her ass but she has to compensate for the fucked-up acts of dozens of people below her, and the courts screwed up decisions, which she can only "object" to, but not actually change.

i live in delhi -- and let me tell you, if the old uncles in my walking park are any indication people are getting damn pissed off about the recent spate of action against the middle class... all of the UPA government's focus on rural infrastructure has put a spotlight on the simple fact that there was never a focus on urban infrastructure either!

The example in the original article is another chilling example of a person deciding that "the ends justify the means". Even if he's aware of the barbarity of his actions, I wonder if he's subsequently going to use the time-honoured tactic of claiming/thinking that his daughters somehow "forced" him to take such drastic measures as retribution for the eldest girl's love marriage and in order to pre-empt any similar future behaviour by his other daughters, and thereby using this justification in order to dilute/deflect his responsibility for his own actions.

As I've mentioned on other previous threads related to this topic, the very term "honour-killing" itself is a misnomer. Honour has very little to do with it, certainly if one interprets the word as "integrity". This is all about ego. And, horrifically (and unfortunately, this is all too familiar an attitude amongst certain quarters of the South Asian population), the man concerned obviously thought that his own ego was more important than the lives of his daughters.

Off topic... but something SM could cover (a chilling news for students):

College student accused of stabbing professor over failing grade
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (AP) -- A college student upset about a failing grade followed his professor to her Cambridge home and allegedly stabbed her in the neck, police said... is from Calcutta, India, and is in the U.S. on a student visa. His mother is a middle school teacher in New York and his father is a research scientist in India.

Surely you could've quoted any source other than LGF. The story was in the Philly Inquirer today.

It's not just Muslims who are capable of honor killings... where are the posts about the Hindus who kill their own kinfolk for marrying out of their caste?

I put these type of actions under, "abuse of children" and "crimes against women" category. And there is a lot of that going on in this country also.

"makes me damn thankful on this Christmas eve for the society we’ve been blessed to have been born within "

for all the things I am certainly thankful for being born in the U.S. , its certainly not for the supposed lack of a violent or vengeful culture. let's not be naive

*I wonder if he's subsequently going to use the time-honoured tactic of claiming/thinking that his daughters somehow "forced" him to take such drastic measures as retribution for the eldest girl's love marriage and in order to pre-empt any similar future behaviour by his other daughters,

Clarification: Meaning that the guy said something along the lines of "haalat ne mujhe majboor kiya" etc, as if he had no personal choice in the situation but to take the aforementioned violent steps. Obviously I don't mean that the younger daughters convinced him to kill them -- just in case any nutters lurking on SM misconstrue my words as such.

Kumar,

People often think & behave like this because they think there is tacit or explicit cultural (and sometimes religious) support for such actions within wider society. As far as I know, there is no cultural sanction in mainstream modern-day America (or here in the UK, for that matter) for the kind of behaviour exhibited by the murderer in the main story.

Anyway.....

Clarification number 2: My statement above regarding the killer using the excuse of circumstances forcing his hand is of course hypothetical at this stage -- I'm not actually quoting anyone here.

In addition to the points I made in my first post, I think that the problem of some parents regarding their children (especially their daughters) as literal possessions -- to the extent of believing they literally have the right of life & death over them, regardless of the son/daughter's basic human rights -- is a major driver behind such behaviour. Some parts of the world and/or communities have this attitude more than others, of course, especially if it is further reinforced by a mindset of "blaming the victim", along with excessive self-rationalisation of actions which are blatantly immoral/unscrupulous/unethical/ruthless, and in the more extreme cases actually psychopathic.

In the minds of the perpetrators and their supporters, it becomes easier to live with the guilt (if any) of their actions and deflect any finger-pointing away from themselves if they somehow find a way to twist the blame back towards the target ("I know what I did was wrong but I had no choice, they forced me to take such drastic steps, and that vindicates my actions as morally appropriate"), especially if the perpetrators decide to play the "aggrieved victim" card themselves.

I find it all very cynical, corrupt, and twisted.

this is something from another comment i wanted to reply to,

Teresa I hope you all in Dehli keep going with your outrage at the corruption there because those of us in the diaspora are rooting for you all. Keep going!!

which is what the words the overwhelming majority of victims are women and part of a global problem of violence against women meant. i didn't see the need to keep belaboring the "muslim" aspect since it's pretty obvious these things are common amongst hindus in india too. so there's no point clouding the issue with an irrelevant (in this context) discussion of religion.

Any approach here should not be about villifying a religion or a whole society of people

well, unless that is christian and western society :)

As so typified by razib the atheist, such stories simply become a way to re-enforce their prejudices. LGF has made it a story because Muslims are showed in a bad light, they will never of course highlight a story where a Pakistani does something positive.

yes, i am prejudiced against muslims. i admit it. hate and prejudice aren't always a bad thing. pretend i was a republican (oh wait, i'm registered as one!) and i'm sure you guys can appreciate the power and joy of prejudice and hate.

what happened to appreciation of diversity and genuine difference?

a) yes, action x can be found in any society
b) but, the frequency of action x may differ

to make gross generalizations, if i was a female infant, i think that my chances of getting killed or dying of maltreatment, let alone being aborted, would be higher if i was born in northern india or china than in southern india or the muslim world. my chances of getting killed for enjoying extramarital sex at the hands of relatives would probably be higher in the islamic world than in the non-islamic world.

all cultures have good or bad, both in a relative sense (judged by their own standards) and by generally agreed upon universal criteria (i.e., cultures where you might kill slutty women are also often very gracious toward guests!). equivalence between amerika and brownland (or any land) is well and fine, but there was a reason that many of our parents (or us) moved to the west. far more brown dies at the hands of brown than is ever at risk of harm from the white.

i'm sure many of you feel good looking down upon my honest appraisal of islamic barbarism. some of you are rather eloquent in what i perceive as obfuscation of nasty truths, while some of you are not. suffice it to say that in my own model of the world there is a definite chain of evil and barbarity. contextualizing does not imply equivalency.

The relative frequency of such acts are higher in muslim societies.

Careful... such comments will get you labeled as a "Right wing, Fox News watching, O'Reilly Factor fanatic" Islamophobe.... Don't you know it is just a tiny minority who are responsible for such acts ? ;-)

"Right wing, Fox News watching, O'Reilly Factor fanatic" Islamophobe.... Don't you know it is just a tiny minority who are responsible for such acts ? ;-)

whether i have 'right wing' is debatable. i don't watch fox news (have no TV), read it online, nor have i ever watched o'reilly except for the one where jenna jamison was on :) and actually, it is just a tiny minority who are responsible for the acts. but 1% is different from .001%. i have argued that in the aggregate the 'problem' with islam is that 'moderate' muslims are really equivalent to conservative christians. the entire distribution is shifted over, resulting in many more times the number of radical nutsos amongst muslims than christians (islamist = christian calvinist thenomist) and far fewer liberals theists in the vein of martin marty.

people see to want to talk in terms of idealized types. i don't think that's fruitful. a category like 'muslims' explores a large parameter space...as does 'christian.' i simply assert that the density of the various distributions differs....

oh, and hey, i don't shirk the term 'islamophoboe' to the first approximation. muslims have often not been shy in their contempt and disgust for me as an apostate, and traditional islam imposes capital punishment upon apostates. i do tolerate the expression of hatred and intolerance in a voltairean fashion, but i do not pretend to not detest it fundamentally.

(this is not to say that all muslims behave in such a manner, or that my generalizations apply in the broadest sense in all cases, i consider aziz poonwalla a friend, but he treats me like a peer, not an abomination, and that sort of respect demands to be returned. some might be surprised that i got honorable mention in the brass crescent award's last year :))

oh, and hey, i don't shirk the term 'islamophoboe' to the first approximation

My comment was deftly tongue in cheek about what people would label anyone who was not confirming to the warm fuzzy PCness that seems to abound when subjects like this are discussed. I love how people will spend so much time and resources finding "cultural excuses" for the "alienation of Muslims in the Westbeing extraordinarily quick to label people "Islamophobes" "racists" "Uncle Toms" etc if they express a view that refuses to buy into the apologistic attitude that the cultural experts (sic) express. Being branded an apostate bizarre and disturbinmg in this day and age, yet perfectly acceptable to those who preach "cultural sensitivity" to Muslim social views.

Razib:
hate and prejudice aren't always a bad thing.
Oh really? Maybe that is your understanding, but to me - hate and prejudice achieve nothing but divert from the truth. With regards to your previous point, I have nothing against Christians or western society in general so I don't know why you made that point.

what happened to appreciation of diversity and genuine difference?
Who said I was against that? I'm against blind prejudice, but that has nothing to do with appreciating diversity.

my chances of getting killed for enjoying extramarital sex at the hands of relatives would probably be higher in the islamic world than in the non-islamic world.
Sure, maybe.

but there was a reason that many of our parents (or us) moved to the west.
yeah, primarily money. IF you think it was because they saw western culture as superior, then you're in lala-land.

far more brown dies at the hands of brown than is ever at risk of harm from the white.
depends if you're talking about the current situation or taking a historical view.

suffice it to say that in my own model of the world there is a definite chain of evil and barbarity.
Never denied there was some evil people in the muslim world. There are plenty. But my main points were:
1) Such a stance doesn't help the people who it is supposed to - the opressed women.
2) Any approach here should not be about villifying a religion or a whole society of people, but rather trying to support women groups in Pakistan and worldwide.

That is certainly not your approach. Your approach is rather like that of the western Jesuit who though the brown people could only be saved by adopting western religions and cultural values wholeheartedly.

Razib,

hate and prejudice aren't always a bad thing.

With all due respect, hate and prejudice are always a bad thing. Apart from the corrosive effect they have on one's own psyche, they also distort one's judgement and the clarity of one's thinking.

Hate the idea (although not to the extent that you become neurotic about it and the hatred fries your brain), not the people.

However.....

Sunny,

I have nothing against Christians or western society in general

Sure, but one consistent mode of behaviour that is perpetrated repeatedly by yourself, both here and on Pickled Politics, is that you appear to be unable to tolerate any criticism of either Islam or Muslims without automatically dragging other groups (usually other South Asians) into the equation, by attempting to draw parallels between the perceived similar behaviour of the two groups -- even if, for example, a particular form of behaviour or thinking has its origins in Islam and/or Muslims, or if said behaviour occurs with significantly greater frequency amongst certain quarters of the Muslim population compared to other non-Muslim South Asian groups. Some would interpret this as an attempt to dilute the focus of the argument and thereby deflect attention away from the area one is addressing.

2) Any approach here should not be about villifying a religion or a whole society of people, but rather trying to support women groups in Pakistan and worldwide.

I don't support villification of any kind full-stop. However, if it is feasible that a certain negative attitude or behavioural trait has its origins in particular religious tenets/practices/precedents and/or scriptures, one should not shy away from condemning such destructive attitudes -- not the religion as a whole, note, but the specific aspect of it that triggers the negative behaviour. The same applies if there is a possibility that the divine origin of the tenet or the scripture (or at least parts of it) is not necessarily authentic -- one needs to at least consider this and undertake the requisite research, with the associated rigorously academic discussion, in order to explore this possibility. One should not make inappropriate excuses about "interpretations" and "commentaries". Nobody is under any obligation to defend unjust, unethical, or inconsistent religious precedents, tenets, scriptures, or religions in their entirety -- unless the person concerned actually believes in the authenticity of their divine origin, in which case one should make this very clear indeed.

The terrorist impulse doesn't always visit itself on foreign populations. By killing his daughters this man has terrorized the women of his region in general, and on behalf of all like-minded men. The purpose is to keep the women in line. Islamic extremism can be looked at as a rear-guard action to maintain male dominance. You don't have to be a freudian to see a sexual sickness behind this.

yeah, primarily money. IF you think it was because they saw western culture as superior, then you're in lala-land.

money & western culture have a definite non-trivial association. do you think capitalism thrives without rule of law and amelioration of omnipresent nepotism? brown immigrants might complain about the freedoms of american or european society, but without those freedoms (and concomitant social and legal capital) affluence is difficult to achieve for the masses.

1) Such a stance doesn't help the people who it is supposed to - the opressed women.
2) Any approach here should not be about villifying a religion or a whole society of people, but rather trying to support women groups in Pakistan and worldwide.

1 - there are people out there who will excuse barbarity and exclusion in the interests of cultural relativism/diversity. i've met plenty of them. so i think the stance is important, according to the values espoused in some societies it is kosher to kill women who are 'impure. you need to make a full front attack on particular values.

2) as for your second point, i believe there are societies where killing of females is widly accepted. and as for villifying religion, i am skeptical that people who pull their punches in regards to islam are as charitable to evangelical or fundamentalist forms of christianity. after all, there are many liberal evangelical and fundamentalist christians, irregardless of the fact that on the whole they are the segment of american society which tends to espouse conservative or reactionary views. should one not criticize the views represented by falwell because they are somewhat related to the religious views held by wallis?

3) i think that it is important for secularist minorities to 'hate' on religion in liberal societies. dissent and critique are important aspects of cultural development. since militant atheists generally have to flee islamic societies because of threats to their life, that attack on islam must come from the west. now, in the interests of anti-islamophobia some progressives want to muffle attacks on islam because of its association with ethnic minorities. clearly the high tide of the enlightenment is past among some sectors, and i smell the creeping toleration of medievalism in the interests of diversity.

4) oh, and That is certainly not your approach. Your approach is rather like that of the western Jesuit who though the brown people could only be saved by adopting western religions and cultural values wholeheartedly. if i had a binary choice between jesuitical tyranny and islamic traditionalism, i would pick the former. but i don't think i am offering a binary choice, and i don't think you honestly believe that there is a binary choice. just a nice talking point.

With all due respect, hate and prejudice are always a bad thing. Apart from the corrosive effect they have on one's own psyche, they also distort one's judgement and the clarity of one's thinking.

no. see descarte's error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. the computational model of cognitive science has overemphasized, i think, the extent to which we make our choices based on benthamite utilitarian calcuses. to be overwhelmed by hate & prejudice are bad, but all decisions and choices can not be made with recourse to rational models. those that can should be evaluated rationally, but even then, the root reasons behind rational calculations are emotional (satisfaction of wants and needs). to be explicit, i do not hate and detest people who justify the murder of theirs daughters because they stain 'family honor' solely on the basis of axiomatic respect for the utility bundle that should be the opportunity of each human being, i empathize with the powerlessness, lack of volition and subsequent pain felt by these women. the solutions should surely be predicated on rational principles, but the reason for our concern is emotional, and hate and implied prejudice against particular values and norms are implied with that (also, a great deal of human daily cognitive processes are reflexive, not reflective, i.e., they reflect the prejudice of the brain conditioned by innate hardwiring or prior inputs). in regards to sunny's assertion that "hate and prejudice achieve nothing but divert from the truth," that is irrelevant, because whether killing a woman because she is impure is correct or not is not a matter of truth, but of values (i am not a thomist FYI, i do not believe that natural law is a plausible proposition). values have no meaning aside from the individuals who express them, and individuals are expressed in societal contexts. fadime was killed by her father because of the shame he felt due to the disapproval of others of the kurdish culture in which he was embedded. this attempt to decouple the actions of individuals in many contexts from their social matrix strikes me as disingenuous and facile.

Totally random and idiosyncratic anecdote that this conversation has made me think of (it's me, so of course we are going anecdotal).

I was at the bank and the gentleman at the desk looked at my name and said, "Indian?" I said I was born in India and raised in the US. "Oh", said this gentleman - who stated he was from East Africa - "you are Americanized, Westernized," and he went on about his business. The clear undertone was that it was a pity, a shame, for a nice "Indian" woman such as myself to be Westernized. And, I thought, why? Why is this acceptable for him to say? If I said, "oh, you're African," and put a little sneer into it I would be judged as a close-minded person. So, why wouldn't I think the same about this man? I didn't, as it happend, what I thought was this: well, he's like a lot of new immigrants, he misses home, he thinks it is sad that I am now part of this place that doesn't feel like home to him, he thinks I should feel the same. And it made me think about Western values and the way in which that is used as a slur, or an epithet at times. I'm a woman and I like the way that I live, as a woman, in this Western world with it's Western values. I do. And a lot of that (much of it) has to do with being embedded in that social matrix that razib is talking about, but it is more than that. I think a lot of women, experiencing both the West and the East, would find the way they are treated in the West very, very pleasant compared to their treatment 'back home'. I add the very important caveat that the social matrix you have grown up in would change that view: if you grew up in India you might very well like India much better, regardless the general differences between the way women are treated in India vs America (and of course, the general hides the particular which varies so much in both places).

Where am I going with this? Oh, I dunno. I guess when we talk about a social matrix we need to realize it evolves, it is an ever changing thing, and adopting different values may be interpreted as evolution as much as any kind of cultural imperialism, if one were so inclined. And, in many instances, I am inclined to think of it as evolution. Talk of forcing democracy or women's rights on another culture seem absurd to me, as absurd as saying penicillin is some sort of cultural imperialism. The world moves, continually. Change will happen. And resistance to change can be a very deadly thing, as we have seen.

(You know, it seems that I had a romantic notion of India and Indians and thought they were so much more gentle until my own desi marriage to an abusive and troubled man. It became very clear to me in dealing with his substance abuse that the everday American culture I was raised in, my personal social matrix, had many, many strengths and the gentle sneering about how much 'better' Indians were when it came to family issues hid a great many weaknesses, which is not to say there aren't strenghs of course. Now, flame away at my points if so inclined......)

md, there is a difference between talk and action. my parents wax on about bangladesh and now much they miss, and how much better it is than the lascivious culture they live in now in the USA. they've been talking about selling their house and retiring to bangladesh for the past 10 years now. haven't done it yet. i know some old brown immigrants do go back. what percentage? for all the shit they sometimes talk about amerika, i'm skeptical that in their heart of hearts the homeland is as dear to them as they claim (as a point of fact, after a few decades, many first gen. immigrants became aliens where-ever they are, never at 'home' in their adopted country, but confronting a changed 'homeland' whenever they visit, their only real home is in their memories, and that is what is being contrasted with the amerika of their present).

Some religions kill more than others and some communities, like America, like to kill their young and glorify it as patriotism. As for corruption, all of you know of America's robber barons and cheats like Elihu Yale. Reading SM, one would think it was a particularly Indian phenomenon. What's interesting is, if there is any depravity, Indians jump and claim it as a major Indian activity. How well some have been taught by colonial masters to despise their own. Few Indian writers in English have any affection/understanding of India, but many can write well enough to suit the western media. Are we perhaps the only group with a hatred of our country and culture? Who take pride in not knowing their language or in speaking it poorly? I don't see this among the Chinese who have undergone horrible famines, corruption and the worst regimes ever. I don't see the Jewish community hating their own religion/ culture although it directly led them to horrific suffering. Neither do Jews reflect, leave alone blame, the Jews who actively collaborated with the Reich for money, etc., leave alone harp continuously on it!

I don't see Jews clamoring to call a street Hitler Strasse. I see India's English educated minority get most upset if some colonial name is removed from a road in India.

Re murder of women, men and kids, yes some communities and religions tend to do it more often. I still wonder when Indians, in particular, will learn not to drag their community down unnecessarily. Colonizing teaches to hate your own, so you can fit in with the conquerors comfortably and do their bidding. By the way, the percentage of female murders in India is no more or less than in the west: read the intensely researched book by Dr Oldenburg: Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime.

Talk of forcing democracy or women's rights on another culture seem absurd to me,

Yet you remain fervent supporter of Bush's imperialistic war in Iraq and "battle" (the US should call it an invasion ..) of Falluja, which was done to avenge the deaths of mercenaries.

Nobody ever denies that America is a land of opportunity, ideas and always attracts talent. There has to be said about the power of liberal democracy and a forum for voice for “almost” everyone in West. However, the concept of “equality” is not entirely a western construct (Read Amartya Sen – Rather me paraphrasing him). Sure, on a day to day basis, the life in America for women is far better, no cigar.

There is a lot of violence that lurks here just beneath the surface – it is like landfill – you just do not see the garbage on a daily basis, it is just tucked away. Once a women in America stops looking like Katie Holmes, the Tom Cruise will walk away without any compunction. As a post-doc at Indiana University, near my apartments, I think HUDD used to rent some apartments. I never seen similar "stark loneliness" that I saw - not even in Europe, Africa, India. Trust me, I also know violence due to class-conflict (poverty) from India up close and personal [would rather not go into detail in a public forum].

I have been living here in States now more than 2 decades. However, I know a lot of people who went back to India – after being quite successful here for many reasons. First my parents, some of my uncles and aunts (one of them was in States in 1940s)……The best graduate student from India I knew at Cornell is now a faculty of IISc (Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore). I just got an email from a friend of mine today – He and his wife (a medical doctor) are moving back to India from NYC at the height of their career.

I know about half a dozen Desis (US citizens) from Bay area who with out-sourcing business are practically maintaining two households (one in US, and one in India) – with properties, etc. We are not going to even talk about to and fro movement of Chinese diaspora these days or for that matter Irish diaspora.

I have to agree with laksmishakti on some points. The ultimate colonization of mind is self-loathing – Check out an incredible movie “Massey Sahib”. There is a huge difference between self-loathing and being self-critical. It ain't that simple.

MD: Its not democracy or womens rights that we object to but the motives of the democracy crusaders in this White House.
The colonial mission does have civilizing aspects too it, but the colonizers never have the best interests of the colonized in mind when they plan these adventures.
Now you can sit on the sidelines and cheer the war and explain away the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis (yes I know Saddam had mass graves and now we have open graves)

The ultimate colonization of mind is self-loathing

So true.

I don't see the Jewish community hating their own religion/ culture although it directly led them to horrific suffering.

the jewish community might not, but many individual jews do criticize aspects of jewish culture. if anyone wants substantiation of what i speak in the context of german jews, read walter rothenburg's 'hear o israel!'

"but many can write well enough to suit the western media". The abominable pankaj mishra comes to mind.

Article from NY Times: Indians find they can go home again

From my own travels in India in the past few weeks, I think India is getting a better and better place to live for many professionals. There are tons of infrastructure issues, but they are also slowly being addressed, and there's a lot of optimism in the air. For computer and biotech professionals, there's no limit to what you can do and the lifestyle can be pretty good.

I still think I want to spend a few more years in the US, though; the dating options are a lot more diverse ;)

Typical response... doesn't matter if the story is true, LGF is not "politically correct" enough for this blog.

LGF is an openly racist site that regularly does things with images, words and concepts of Arabs that would get us banned if we did them with Desis here. There can be no serious "political correctness" contention with the kind of scum that frequent LGF unless you're also thinking that maybe it's time for a "debate" about whether the Holocaust happened. We are honestly disturbed to see you give them this kind of attention. Maybe you can get together with them and set up a "Burn them wogs award" for fundamentalist Hindu pogrom-leaders who bag more than their quota, like the pancake references for Rachel Corrie and the pizzas offered to IDF killers for successfully protecting the world from another human that, frankly, to an LGFfer probably looks like you.
Also, LGF is the first entry in the Case for the Inferiority of Rightists. It's not just badly written, it's an inferior, ineptly put together site that takes 20 minutes to load even though it's all text. This unusual problem (common with right-wing sites) is highlighted by the fact that LGF webmaster Charles Johnson fancies himself an internet entrepreneur, and recently co-founded a testament to media stupidity called "OSM."
Seriously, seeing a link to LGF here was as shocking to us as hearing that Faux was dumb enough to associate directly with Stormfront. Have you not read any of their comment threads? Are you thinking that American Zionist war fans can telepathically detect religion and only hate Muslims?

I wonder why do people presume that all mutineers do not agree with the agenda of LGF.
If you are a regular reader of Sepia Mutiny its pretty clear that some commenters and moderators do share the agenda of LGF.

I have failed to understand the hoo-ha (sp?) surrounding Vinod's hat tip to LGF. Damn you're right that I'm sure some share their agenda here. But they are certainly in the minority.

Vinod's first post was not factually inaccurate - he merely stated where he had first noticed the story. He even likened LGF to a site devoted to honour killings, effectively agreeing with all those that chastised him for sourcing material from a one-trick pony website. If people are using the argument 'he's giving them exposure' then posts about FOX News should also be contraband. LGF's traffic is far in excess of SM's, they're in the top 30 blogs in the world or something, most bloggers are aware of them already. In his Vinod's second post mentioning LGF he again verified the facts elsewhere.

If you are a regular reader of Sepia Mutiny its pretty clear that some commenters and moderators do share the agenda of LGF.

Sorry, didn't notice you said moderators there. Which moderators share LGF's agenda? Come on, that's nonsense.

"i am skeptical that people who pull their punches in regards to islam are as charitable to evangelical or fundamentalist forms of christianity."

... but for the most part, those extreme christians are only considered as a few bad apples in an otherwise 'just' religion. But, such generosity is not extended to Islam these days - I do think that there are problems with muslims and muslim nations, but that is different from villifying an entire religion that has existed for over 1400 years and when vast majority of its people are like any other people who don't care rat's ass about what others are doing - they are just focussed on their daily struggle to move on with life. Your painting of Islam with a broad brush is inaccurate - and I am not sure where you get this 1% data - that is over 10 million people who are willing to do murder for their cause!!! Islam, like any other religion has different flavors - from Muslim Refusenik to Sufis to liberal muslims, they are all muslims of different flavors and kinds. Like any major religion, it is a very complex one - failing to understand that would result in a skewed and 'prejudiced' picture.

With respect to honor killing, it is a pracice that pre-dates Islam. However the male-favoring shariat laws in many muslim countries let the men get away with this brutal practice. the immediate inference to declare islam as the religion of such injustice is what troubles me - that draws an end to the discussion. A religion that has a billion followers is not going away anytime soon - it is better to understand the context prevailing in many of these countries that is letting these things happen than outright declaring the whole religion evil.

I have failed to understand the hoo-ha (sp?) surrounding Vinod's hat tip to LGF.

LGF is a haven for racists, both in comments and in the bloggers' slant. It's full of hate speech, regularly conflating all Muslims with extremists:

"Perhaps something more like targetted genocide at the religious muslims will become necesary." [Link]

"How can these vermin [Palestinians] have a country? How can these vermin be allowed to live?... Give them a state, give it to them in the depths of hell where they belong." [Link]

"Our superiority, militarily and morally, to these vermin [Palestinians] is so overwhelming that it would go without saying, were it not for the daily shreiking of the America-hating press." [Link]

"These subhumans [Palestinians] have shown for long enough that they don't deserve a state." [Link]

"If every subhuman piece of excrement in the rafah non refugee camp dies slowly and painfully of starvation, I'll have a great Passover!!" [Link]

"They [Palestinians] don't need statehood; they need sterilization." [Link]

"Elimination is the only solution; I know that sounds bad, but that's the way it is. Forced sterilization, and full occupation to keep them [Palestinians] under control until the problem solves itself in about 50 years." [Link]

Look at how their post titles conflate all Muslims with criminals:

lgf: Religion of Child Murderers
lgf: Religion of Child Abuse
lgf: Religion of Incitement to Murder
lgf: Religion of Mass Murder
lgf: Religion of Peace Says: Convert or Die
lgf: Religion of Beheadings
lgf: Religion of Slaughter
lgf: Religion of Savagery
lgf: Religion of High Explosives
lgf: Religion of Nuke-Lust
lgf: Religion of Decapitation
lgf: Religion of High Explosives
lgf: Religion of Bomb and Anthrax Threats
lgf: Religion of Blood and Body Parts
lgf: Religion of Beheadings in Thailand
lgf: Religion of Bloodlust
lgf: Religion of Beheading and Child Murder
lgf: Religion of Throat Slitting
lgf: Religion of Slaughter
lgf: Religion of Suicide Car Bombs
lgf: Religion of Masked Terrorists
lgf: Religion of Death Threats
lgf: Religion of Revenge [Link]

Hello, people. I'm from www.lgfwatch.blogspot.com a site that, as the name suggests, reports on the odiferous racism and bigotry of Charles Johnson and his self-styled (no kidding!) "Lizardoid Minions". A visit to our site and a stroll throught the archives will tell anyone more than they want to know about the far-right torture enthusiasts and Bushite fanatics who inhabit that sorry place. But for sheer entertainment, and a definitive "slapdown", let me commend writer James Wolcott to you. While not directly addressing the main theme of LGF, inciting hatred of *all* Muslims, he nails the "Lizards" perfectly: http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/headhunters.php
The simple truth is that Charles Johnson and his goons only interest in honor killings is to smear Muslims. Simple as that.

The well-off return to India because it now suits them. India has become comfortable thanks to those who live there. The engineer who lived comfortably here with never a worry for those back home now decides this is the perfect time to look after the old folk, ie inherit their homes. How about contributing for the highly subsidized IIT education? (Govt subsidized.)

The Indians who send money to India are usually the poor Gulf workers, not the educated, reasonably welloff folk here. They sent money when interest rates were high and drew it out immediately when they fell. Because yes, "there breathes a man with a soul so dead that his heart has never homeward turned ... who has never to himself said this is my own, my native land!" Colonism did that and the mission educated thought undying, unnecessary often incorrect self criticism was totally different from self loathing. After all being 'a good sport', beinga ble to criticise your institutions was high praise and a good concept for loyal natives, everyone else knew the importance of winning. Until you put your soul and self into your roots and heal your primary relationships, the rest is infirm. The Jews and the Chinese know that, the proliferation here of Hebrew and Chinese language schools, culture, adoption, increase in immigrants and myriad related spin offs in the US is an amazing phenomenon. Perhaps I stray. Our Indian Muslims having grown up in a secular democracy for the most part are wonderful. They love their religion and also respect ours. I refuse to include them in the destructive elements from the M East or elsewhere.

lakshmishakti

They sent money when interest rates were high and drew it out immediately when they fell.

"The Indians who send money to India are usually the poor Gulf workers"

I think this is true, though part of the reason is that the investment options for guest workers in gulf countries are rather limited compared to U.S

I was debating whether I should get involved in this thread, but the last few commentators have pretty much said all I wanted to say.

Steve Kelso : I was going to mention www.lgfwatch.blogspot.com when this thread started, which I think does a great job at exposing the agenda at lgf.

Manish Vij : I was planning to do a similar post but didnt want to "waste" my time. When people believe that the problem with sites like lgf is that they (lgf) are political incorrect as opposed to a hate site, then those people are a brick short of a full load. What next??? Reading the hezbollah website for information about jews and Israel, using stormfront as a source of information on blacks and other colored people..????? As for this story, the article by this guy written on monday 26th, pretty much sums up how I feel about this case. The govt needs to go medieval on this !@#$%^ ass.

The govt needs to go medieval on this !@#$%^ ass.

People "going medieval" is the fundamental problem, my friend.....

Razib,

Buddy you've actually paraphrased exactly what I said ! However, it's good to know there's some scientific rationale for what I was saying too ;)

Thanks for taking the time out to write that message too.

lakshmishakti,

what you are saying is broadly true. however, it is changing slowly. it is a start. surely, it is a tiny droplet compared to what Irish immigrants do for Ireland (what I read about Ireland, Irish-Americans have played a big role in addition to other internal factors in making the country from sick man of europe to a celtic tiger), or Chinese diaspora is doing for China-Taiwan-Singapore or American jewry has always done for Israel - Golda Meir, the history of IDF, and so on, and so on.

i have been told iit (kharagpur) is building world-class labs with endowment from nris/ expat indians as we speak. i'll check on iit (roorkee) once i am there. i was recently told one of the roorkee alum from here is working on providing internet connectivity to every dorm room. last year, i was an external examiner for a phd student at roorkee- it is outreach, maybe not with money.

i forgetting the name - one of the nris built a institute near meerut - bill clinton being his friend was at the opening ceremony - i am fogetting the details. through india today, i do read some of them reaching to village. sure, it is just a start.

about two weeks ago, i visit some of my old friends in bay area - it seemed all the vcs and tech entrepeneurs are eyeing india pretty hard - that is all the buzz i got.

PS: I have lot of respect for an Indian laboror who works in Middle East - they are just trying to better the life of their family under very harsh conditions - like anyone else. Maybe, they know about the conditions but they are just trying to break the cycle of poverty. Not everyone has the resources to get educated at IITs and IIMs in India and then go to MIT or Cambridge.

Our Indian Muslims having grown up in a secular democracy for the most part are wonderful. They love their religion and also respect ours. I refuse to include them in the destructive elements from the M East or elsewhere.

You seem to imply that muslims in non-democratic countries (India is hardly secular) like Pakistan or places in the middle east are fanatics.

Keep in mind that the muslims in favour of splitting up the country, post-independence, in British ruled India were the more moderate Barelvis from west Punjab (now pakistan) and the liberal Ismialis from western India (like Jinnah).

Whereas the more extremist Deobandis from the UP valley in what is now the heart of India opposed the partition and the two-nation theory because they wanted all of India to become a part of the Islamic Ummah. (rejecting Jinnah's western style nationalism)

While looking at intra-sect differences, Indian muslims are more moderate than the ones in Pakistan.
Indian deobandis are more moderate than their Pakistani counterparts, and Gujarati Ishmalis are more liberal than the ones in Pakistan.

But the majority of muslims in Pakistan are Barelvis, whereas the majority of muslims in India are Deobandis.

So I think an average Pakistani muslim is likely to be more moderate than an average muslim in India.

But the majority of muslims in Pakistan are Barelvis, whereas the majority of muslims in India are Deobandis.

Maybe in Western UP (where Deoband is) but in other parts of India I am not so sure that the majority of Muslims are Deobandis.

Maybe Razib could post some numbers on the deobandi population of Indian Muslims.
IMHO Southern and Western Indian states would hardly have any Deobandi Muslims.

PS: I have lot of respect for an Indian laboror who works in Middle East - they are just trying to better the life of their family under very harsh conditions - like anyone else. Maybe, they know about the conditions but they are just trying to break the cycle of poverty. Not everyone has the resources to get educated at IITs and IIMs in India and then go to MIT or Cambridge.

Well said !!! I have been in Gulf Air flight to India, where from the Dubai to India leg, I had several passangers sitting next to me, who needed help filling the customs and immigration form, as either they were illeterate or didnt know English or Hindi. I filled out the form for the guy sitting next to me. So others found out and asked me to do it for them. They were from the Kerala state. So there was no common language for us to communicate but the language of gestures was enough.
I realized that there was not much difference between myself and them. They were going to a un-hosipitable place (of those Saudi mofos) to make a better living and I went to America for better living. Only difference was, that I come from privileged background, so I could get degrees based on "merit".

Maybe Razib could post some numbers on the deobandi population of Indian Muslims.
IMHO Southern and Western Indian states would hardly have any Deobandi Muslims.

if had numbers i would offer them, but unfortunately i do not :( but yes, i don't think the majority of muslims in india are deobandi, deobandis reject hanafism theoretically (though i think to some extent they are an outgrowth of hanafism just as wahabbism is an outgrowth of hanbalism). though most south asian muslims are of various hanafi traditions, deobandis are particularly energetic, but i don't think they are a majority. there is a big difference between north and south india in this in that i gather that mopillas of kerala are not hanafi, but shafi. this is reflective of that fact that north indian islam has a strong turco-afghan tincture, while south indian islam is more diverse, with a great deal of maratime arab influence.

and najeeb, i assume you read my weblog since you linked to it, so you know i am not talking about platonic ideas of 'islam' or 'christianity,' i'm talking about distributions. christianity is pretty much gelded. islam is not. at least to the first approximation. i think the attitude toward open apostates and atheists in muslim nations is a useful indicator in commparison to christian cultures (i glean that there are many atheists and agnostics amongst the elites of muslim cultures, especially those who espouse a leftist-marxist influenced ideology, but they are not explicit and open about their private views, either due to prudence [they would be killed or attacked] or strassian assumptions that 'religion is good for the masses'). by the 19th century western societies had accepted the rights of atheists to publically criticize their gods, though not without discomfort. very few islamic societies have reached this state, even ataturk was not particularly vocal about his fundamental disagreemants with the axioms of islam as opposed to attacks on particular modes of expression.

as a point of fact, after a few decades, many first gen. immigrants became aliens where-ever they are, never at 'home' in their adopted country, but confronting a changed 'homeland' whenever they visit, their only real home is in their memories, and that is what is being contrasted with the amerika of their present

there is much here that literature, film, and art can express

you are right about Kerala muslims - they are shafis. But there are a lot of hanafis in the south too - like most Tamils for eg. Most of South East Asians are shafis too.

"even ataturk was not particularly vocal about his fundamental disagreemants with the axioms of islam"

This is true about Bush or even Clinton - when was the last time a major politician disgareed specifically with the axioms of christianity? people don' normally do that - but they show in multitude of ways how they differ from certain ideals by actions. You are right about the muslim dictators - but those are dicatorships, that is not what the people wanted - if people could have their way, some kind of representative government will come up. For a bunch of monarchies who are oppressing muslims as well as non-muslims, finding cause within their religion is futile, in my opinion.

This is true about Bush or even Clinton - when was the last time a major politician disgareed specifically with the axioms of christianity?

well, jewish policitians clearly do! but, in the american context, william howard taft was a unitarian (early 20th century), so he rejected the trinity, which is the common assumption of the vast majority of christians. to be honest about it, it seems to be me that american politicians became very religious right when universal sufferage became common (andrew jackson's presidency). before that most american presidents would be defined as non-christian!

but i am skeptical that either bush or clinton are not sincere christians. but, in other christian nations non-christianity is acceptable, america is the exception. australia had an agnostic prime minister. chile has had an agnostic prime minister. so has brazil. france has had many atheist prime ministers and presidents (mitterand and jospin the most recent). the leader of the labor party in england in the 1980s was an atheist. the president of poland is an atheist. america is the exception. you can google my site and you will see that the nation america resembles in its attitudes toward religion is turkey (they even have about the same number of creationists!). i think that tells you something about the 'christian' vs. 'muslim' world in their distributions.

you can google my site and you will see that the nation america resembles in its attitudes toward religion is turkey

to be precise, i mean the attitudes of the public. see here. obviously america does not share the turkish elite's laicism....

Re interest rates, no longer have stats but will seek them again. This happened when interest rates were 15%+. Early/mid nineties.

I admire the Gulf workers, try to coax airlines into serving them better. (The Philippines receive their cooks/nannies with govt organized parties, recognizing their forex contribution.) Also admire E Africa Indians(I was an expat for a decade) who pulled themselves up inspite of harsh circumstances, and the IndoCaribbeans who suffered tremendous, hideous slavery.

Re returning something to India, yes a trickle has started, like AIF, Pratham. It will increase only when Indians feel something for their country. The Jews chose to invest in their so called homeland and not because they lacked options. Same re Chinese, Irish or any others.

Also Pankaj, India certainly has been secular and democratic. With flaws? Certainly. I am a minority and never ever forget that it is the majority Hindu community which votes in a govt that for the most protects me. Yes Gujarat happened as did govt initiated pogroms during colonial times. And the Muslims should be compensated in every possible way. But this pogrom is NOT the norm and the Vajpayee govt, in spite of a good economic record, lost the elections. Also the Christian inquisition in Goa killed, tortured lakhs of Hindus. The Vatican books detail the horrors (children skinned in front of parents) but the Indian Christian community says the Pope must not be asked to apologize. After the terrible Staines event, public mourning was declared and Mrs Staines recd an official apology and much sympathy fromamhny many Hindus and Muslims. And yes, I do believe Indian Muslims, especially the women have benefited by being Indian.

I am grateful that I come from a country whose constitution was written by a man from the lowest class. Also the only country in the world where Jewish communities have been safe for thousands of years.
Anyway the fact remains that far too much remains to be done today.

By the way Kush Tandon, I was referring to Indians here, NOT in the Gulf, when I wrote that they invested in India only when they profited from it. Sorry.

By the way Kush Tandon, I was referring to Indians here, NOT in the Gulf, when I wrote that they invested in India only when they profited from it. Sorry.

Investing out of patriotism ??
My freind has just returned to India, to run India wing of a US based hedge fund.
His hedge fund has upwards of 3 billion $ under management. Its just that Indian stock markets are getting a lot of attention from overseas investors. BSE breaking records and all.

this doesn't feed into the ongoing debates here, but just an fyi, this story's now on cnn.com -- http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.honor.ap/index.html