[ by Charles Cameron — NYT re Paris — curious minds wonder why ]
[ by Charles Cameron — NYT re Paris — curious minds wonder why ]
[ by Charles Cameron — why scholarship should inform punditry ]
I am a bit surprised, I have to say, that I haven’t seen — and Google doesn’t seem to have found, either — a clear rebuttal to one highly significant detail in David Brooks‘ discussion with Mark Shields and Judy Woodruff on Islamic eschatology.
In the PBS NewsHour segment labeled Shields and Brooks on fighting Islamic extremism (above), Brooks makes the statement:
I do think you have to take the religion seriously, that these people are — it’s not like they can’t get what we want. They want something they think is higher than what we want. Their souls are involved. And I’m saying you have to conceive of them as moving, as acting in a religious way.
And you have to have religious alternatives. And they are driven by an end times ideology. They think there’s going to be some cataclysm battle and Mohammed will come down. And if you ignore that part of it, write it off as sort of marginal, that they are being produced by economic dysfunction, I just think you’re missing the main deal.
I’m largely in agreement with this, but the phrase “and Mohammed will come down” is just plain wrong. In Islamic eschatology, it is claimed that Jesus (‘Isa ibn Maryam) — not Muhammad — will “come down” from heaven at the ‘Umayyad mosque in Damascus:
God will send the Messiah, son of Mary, and he will descend to the white minaret in the east of Damascus, wearing two garments dyed with saffron, placing his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it, and when he raises his head, beads like pearls will scatter from it.
The return of Jesus and his “breaking the cross” and preaching the one faith of Submission (Islam) may be what Brooks should have mentioned — or perhaps he meant the arrival and recognition of the Mahdi, who does not “come down” to us but is already among us by the time his end times role begins.
I can see how this may seem a slight slip-of-the-tongue to David Brooks, who is after all not solely preoccupied with IS, Islam, and / or apocalyptic — but it’s not something that should go unchallenged if we are to “take the religion seriously”.
[ by Charles Cameron — oh, the sheer delightful drudgery of finding patterns everywhere ]
I’ll start this post, as I did the previous one to which this is a sort of appendix, with a (deeply strange, tell me about it) example of the…
Truly weird Matrioshka Barbie image http://t.co/Dt6NcY4xWa
— hipbonegamer (@hipbonegamer) October 2, 2013
That’s a piece of jewelry made out of disembodied pieces of Barbies from the extraordinary designer’s mind of Margaux Lange, FWIW.
This post is the hard core follow up to my earlier piece today, Serpent logics: a ramble, and offers you the chance to laugh and groan your way through all the other “patterns” I’ve been collecting over the last few months. My hope is that repeated (over)exposure to these patterns will make the same patterns leap out at you when you encounter them in “real life”.
Most of the examples you run across may prove humorous — but if you’re monitoring news feeds for serious matters, my hunch is that you’ll find some of them helpful in grasping “big pictures” or gestalts, noting analomalies and seeing parallels you might otherwise have missed.
Have at it!
Here’s another Matrioshka, from the structural end of lit crit that my friend Wm. Benzon attacks with gusto over at New Savannah:
I wonder if any work has been done to map the stories-within-stories structure of the Mahabharata as a tree or graph?
— Abhinav (?????) (@abhinavagarwal) September 15, 2013
You’ll recall this is the pattern where something turns into its opposite… as described in this quote from the movie Prozac Nation:
I dream about all the things I wish I’d said.
The opposite of what came out of my mouth.
I wish I’d said
“Please forgive me. Please help me.
I know I have no right to behave this way?”
Here are a few examples…
After a Danish newspaper published cartoons satirizing the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, Ahmed Akkari spearheaded protests that ultimately cost the lives of 200 people. Now he says he’s sorry. Michael Moynihan on what changed Akkari’s mind.
That one’s run of the media mill…
After over-hyping cyberwar in story after story – media now runs story after story about cyberwar being over-hyped.
— Ali-Reza Anghaie (@Packetknife) September 20, 2013
And this one’s from my delightful, delicious boss, Danielle LaPorte:
What if the opposite were true? #truthbomb
— Danielle LaPorte (@DanielleLaPorte) September 20, 2013
A friend sent me this:
— Callum Flack (@callumflack) September 28, 2013
Let’s just plough ahead…
Nominalism is the category where the distinction between a word and what it represents gets blurry — a very significant distinction in some cases —
It's funny how 'mature content' is a phrase used primarily to mark immature content, especially with schoolboy humour in games.
— Chris Bateman (@SpiralChris) September 18, 2013
How’s this for naming your donkey after your President?
FOR THOSE THAT MISSED IT A FARMER HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR NAMING HIS DONKEY SISI.
— Stanley Cohen (@StanleyCohenLaw) September 21, 2013
Consider this one, another instance of nominalism in action, from the French justice system:
A mother who sent her three-year-old son Jihad to school wearing a sweater with the words “I am a bomb” on the front, along with his name and ‘Born on September 11th’ on the back, was handed a suspended jail sentence on Friday for “glorifying a crime”. A court of appeal in the city of Nimes, southern France, convicted Jihad’s mother Bouchra Bagour and his uncle Zeyad for “glorifying a crime” in relation to the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11th 2001.
The classic nominalist image — with which I’d compare and contrast the French three-year-old with the unfortunate name and tsee-shirt — is Magritte’s cdelebrated “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”:
And here’s one final nominalist example:
There is something very pharisaical about pointing at other people and calling them pharisaical.
— Chris Henrichsen (@Chrishenrichsen) September 30, 2013
Here’s a potential downwards spiral, for those watching India:
Watching Modi watch Bharatanatyam http://t.co/dC4wcoZRCI
— TOI India News (@TOIIndiaNews) September 30, 2013
This one’s from Jonathan Franzen:
And meanwhile the overheating of the atmosphere, meanwhile the calamitous overuse of antibiotics by agribusiness, meanwhile the widespread tinkering with cell nucleii, which may well prove to be as disastrous as tinkering with atomic nucleii. And, yes, the thermonuclear warheads are still in their silos and subs.
People who used to queue for bread find it odd to see people standing in line to get a phone almost identical to the one in their pocket.
— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) September 20, 2013
Some of these categories seem pretty fluid — or to put that another way, some of these examples might fit with equal ease into several doifferent categories. Here’s another oppositional class:
Grad school, the inevitable process of feeling dumber while getting smarter.
— Hans-Inge Langø (@hilango)September 24, 2013
From Ezra Klein and Evan Solta blogging at WaPo’s Wonkbook: The Republican Party’s problem, in two sentences:
It would be a disaster for the party to shut down the government over Obamacare. But it’s good for every individual Republican politician to support shutting down the government over Obamacare.
A great “values” juxtaposition:
Just saw a picture of a Che Guevara iPhone 5 case which kinda contradicts everything Che fought for
— reema #HandsOffSyria (@rHouzaiXo) September 28, 2013
And hey, nice phrasing:
The Paradox of Desistance is … You can't do it alone ,but only you alone can do it !!
— Steven Duncan (@BlessheadSteven) September 17, 2013
Here’s an example of one of the central patterns of violence and justice:
Tit for Tat:
What Kenyans are witnessing at #Westgate is retributive justice for crimes committed by their military, albeit largely miniscule in nature
— HSM Press Office (@HSM_Press) September 21, 2013
[ the account this tweet came from, which was a media outlet for Shabaab, has since been closed — hence the less than euqal graphical appearance of this particular tweet… ]
And here, without too much further ado, is a whole concatenation of…
Serpents biting their tails:
@selectedwisdom did you just link to yourself via yourself?
— GregorydJohnsen (@gregorydjohnsen) September 24, 2013
You call it narcissism. I call it me.
— Nein. (@NeinQuarterly) September 20, 2013
[ … and that last one of Nein‘s appears to have been withdrawn from circulation ]
Wow. Doctors & medical journal sued for publishing an article that made malpractice suits harder to win. http://t.co/3N5qWs4Vq7
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) September 18, 2013
I remember seeing a speculation that all words were originally metaphorical. In the metaphorical sense of 'all,' I'm guessing…
— Allen Stairs (@AllenStairs) September 22, 2013
This one I love for its lesson on biblical pick-and-choose:
A man tattooed Leviticus 18:22 on his arm that forbids homosexuality, unfortunately Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos. pic.twitter.com/heZ2woyfzt
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) November 17, 2013
Obama's choice to run State Dept diplomatic security shot himself in the foot. No, not figuratively. http://t.co/ZbUjM5FisF
— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) September 18, 2013
This one is also a DoubleQuote:
We hope you won't hate-read this essay about hate-reading http://t.co/gkHP3NIYix
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 20, 2013
when closely followed by:
Combatting Twitter Hate with Twitter Hate http://t.co/lmWCT7oauv
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) September 21, 2013
And this one really bites:
— Sana Safi ??? ???? (@SanaSafiBBC) September 19, 2013
To close the series out with more of a bang than a whimper, here’s Serpent bites Tail with apocalypse & gameplay for additional spice:
God hovers over "delete universe" button RT @NYTMetro: High-end restaurants feed their chickens their own high-end table scraps
— Teju Cole (@tejucole) September 17, 2013
[ by Charles Cameron — how a half-baked, re-raked tale from 2007, now showing on my local Facebook, gets things all wrong ]
Let’s set the record straight.
It seems that Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times did the amplification in this case. He tweeted, and Mia Farrow retweeted him, so we know what he said:
— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) September 27, 2013
I can’t find Kristof’s original tweet, I guess he’s deleted it. About the same time Mia Farrow was RTing it, though, and thus saving it for the record, he tweeted:
I'm wondering (via @JMHall_) if the Saudi case that the Examiner is reporting is the old 2007 Qatif Girl lashing case, rather than a new one
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) September 27, 2013
Anyway, the word got out on Facebook and went at least a little viral. And that’s sad. Because while the story does illustrate the state of jurisprudence in Saudi in 2007, the raped girl never actually received those 200 lashes — she was personally pardoned by the King.
Which should be a reason for rejoicing, not condemnation.
But here’s how it was presented on my FB page —
That does somewhat encourage the reader to think she did in fact receive those lashes, doesn’t it?
I understand, Nick Kristof tweeted it — and he’s the good guy who helps a whole heap of socially beneficial causes around the world that deserve all the support and encouragement he can bring them. I’m not disputing that, in fact I’ll gladly stipulate it.
But the story was wrong, and wrong in a damaging way. And forwarding or endorsing this sort of thing makes me very sad. Let me explain why.
The Examiner.com is an outfits that “operates a network of local news websites, allowing ‘pro–am contributors'” — nothing wrong with that, you just need to be careful when you read them, in other words.
The Examiner article in question quotes the Clarion Project, calling it “the women’s rights-centered news portal” when it’s far better known as the source of a whole lot of anti-Islamic propaganda — the Muslim organization CAIR lists Clarion among the “Islamophobia Network’s inner core” groups, while Clarion views CAIR with similar distaste. Okay, maybe they cancel each other out, let’s stipulate that, too.
But the article then states that the Clarion piece was posted “on Sept. 22, 2013” — whereas if you click through, you’ll find it’s actually dated Thu, November 15, 2007 — it’s 5 going on 6 years old. So why drag it up again now?
Retired US diplomat John Burgess who blogs about Saudi Arabia quotes to us, in a blog post from December 2007 and titled ‘Qatif Girl’ Receives Saudi Royal Pardon, an article from Agence France Presse in Riyadh, also dated December 2007, which can tells us what actually happened — how this unhappy story ended:
RIYADH (AFP) — Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has pardoned a teenage girl sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes after being gang raped, Al Jazirah newspaper reported on Monday.
The ruling against the 19-year-old girl in the ultra-conservative Muslim kingdom had attracted widespread international condemnation, including from human rights groups and the White House.
The Arabic language daily said it had been informed of the royal pardon from its own, unidentified, sources.
But in the same article, the kingdom’s Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Ibrahim Al Shaikh told the paper the king had the “right to overrule court judgements if he considered it benefiting the greater good.”
The minister added that the king, who is viewed by many as a cautious reformer, was concerned with “the needs of the people and the court judgments that are made against them.”
Got that? Pardoned. By the King. Who is viewed as a cautious reformer.
I hope Kristof and Farrow have let their friends know…
So the Examiner writer whose work Kristof and others are quoting has:
picked up a nasty story from Saudia Arabia almost six years ago, that actually didn’t end in a girl being given 200 lashes for being raped but resulted in the King personally pardoning her, thus moving Saudi jurisprudence in a very welcome new direction
— and posted it without any of the redeeming parts, with attribution to a group that’s not exactly friendly to the House of Saud, and getting the date wrong by almost six years in the process… And then well-meaning, generous people — Nick Kristoff and some of my friends among them — circulate this ugly and incomplete story, without first checking to see what truth there is to it.
I quoted a source without checking its veracity only the other day [1, 2, 3], so I’m in no position to go around blaming people who don’t check their sources. But seeing this particular story of the 200 lashes go viral makes me sad — because repeating it only stirs up righteous anger, disgust and hatred.
Rape is terrible. A penal code that sentences people to 200 lashes is way, way beyond my sense of justice. But I don’t believe stirring up hatred between nations or against religions is the path we want to choose…
[ Charles Cameron — always on the lookout for signs of the dajjal — even in the New York Times ]
Are you Presbyterian?
I probably wouldn’t have take much notice of Ali Gharib’s tweet (upper panel, above) if I hadn’t just wandered off after reading a tweet from Habib Zahori:
#Kabul: Driver: People only talk about Qeyamat, judgment day, we live every second of our lives in Qeyamat.
— Habib Zahori (@habibzahori) August 3, 2013
to find out who he was, and run across his NYT piece, The Insidious Language of War, which looked interesting enough that I read it — leading me to the headlights quote (lower panel, above).
Okay, two one-eyed remarks in five minutes got me thinking…
But as you may know, by now my mind is fully stocked with what Coleridge in his Biographia Literaria calls the “hooks and eyes of memory” — so a broken headlight in Kabul and mention of the Mullah’s missing eye brought me naturally to the celebrated image of Mullah Omar (below, upper panel)
and thence (lower panel) to the Dajjal — Islam’s version of the Antichrist.
Thus, a sort of Six degrees of Kevin Bacon game brought me from a Daily Beast blogger via broken headlights to the Dajjal in three quick hops — and the result is what one might term a false positive…
It was fun while it lasted — I just wonder how many times NYPD officers ask drivers “Are you Amish?” Maybe a horse and buggy on Fifth Avenue would somewhat justify so inquisitive an inquiry.
Switch to our mobile site