by Doctor Science
Last week, the voters of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a state Constitutional amendment to prohibit judges from considering international or Shariah law. As Marcia Hamilton said on Findlaw (I believe sarcastically), this
seems to be Oklahomans' reaction to the demonic Taliban and al-Qaeda forces that are pledged to end our way of life and America itself [ominous music].
As has become customary, much of the rhetoric about "Shariah Law"[1] focuses on the legal status and treatment of women. In this case, one of the standard talking points is that "Shariah Law" mandates unjust wills, because it prescribes that, in dividing an estate each son should inherit twice as much as each daughter. The Muslim who has filed the initial lawsuit against the amendment is doing so on the basis that his will states "that his possessions be divided 'in accordance with the guidance contained in the prophetic teachings' of Islam" -- which pretty much makes the point for his opponents.
I'm not certain if there is anything "especially nefarious" about the shariah laws when compared to other religious laws created during the middle ages, and that's when most of them seem to have been created. They all tend to give women fewer rights than men, though.I'm more knowledgeable about Islam than Echidne, and I'll go further: before the Enlightenment, Islamic inheritance law, in particular, was in many ways *more* just and equitable than that current in Europe, and some Islamic legal creations have become part of the structure of Western law.
Once again, I'm going to be an explainer about Islam -- not an apologist, in the traditional sense, but more like an anthropologist: someone who tries to see and explain what other people get out of their culture. Once again, much of my understanding is based on Marshall Hodgson's The Venture of Islam. Read it and learn.
As with the Jewish and Christian revelations, one of the core concerns of the Qur'an and the Islamic canon[2] is justice: fairness, even-handedness, might does not make right. Nowhere is this clearer than in laws of inheritance.
Islamic inheritance is partitive (property is divided among the heirs) along a strict formula. What is important is not just that sons get more than daughters, but that all sons get the same amount. It's not just that daughters can inherit, it's that they *must*. The children must be treated equally and fairly.
In contrast, for the thousand years after Mohammed it was still the case in the Christian countries that a daughter had no expectation of inheritance whatsoever. In regions following Salic law, there were things (lands, positions) that she explicitly *could not* inherit, and which could not be inherited by her sons, either. In much of Christendom, primogeniture was the rule, a winner-take-all system where the eldest son got everything, and the other sons were almost as deprived as the daughters. In no Christian country would a widow automatically inherit her late husband's estate; she generally could only count on money given her by her family at the time of her marriage.
Islamic inheritance law stood out for its equitable treatment of women, and for its stress on not playing favorites among one's children. King Lear could be an object lesson in what Muslims are supposed to *not* do, and why. Inheritance should be equitable and even formulaic, not subject to a parent's whims or manipulations.
As Hodgson discusses, this also explains some aspects of Islamic family law. He points out that in pretty much *all* 'advanced' societies, upper-class men have the option of keeping and having children by more than one woman: that is, they may be de facto polygynous. Traditional Christian societies are de jure monogamous, which means that only one of those women (and her children) count: mistresses, concubines, slaves and their children are not entitled to support or inheritance. Christian marriage doesn't protect children in general, it ensures that some children (and their mothers) get preferential treatment, while others may be righteously neglected.
Among the Christians and Mazdeans (as in most societies), such wealthy men as maintained more than one woman had to accord special privileges to a primary mate and to her children. Among the Mazdeans, the secondary mates received some legal protection and their children might under some circumstances inherit. Among the Christians, the secondary mates had in principle no rights whatever and their children were stigmatized as mere bastards. ... The effect of the Shar'i rules on marriage was to accord up to four mates absolutely equal rights, which their children also shared in; the kept mistress or the free-born concubine disappeared, in effect, from among the ordinary privileged classes. Moreover, though the male was permitted to take his slave girls to bed (as normally happened wherever slavery itself was allowed), girls who became pregnant by him were granted privileges and their children, if recognized, had rights exactly equal to those of the children of regular wives.As with any religious system, Islamic principles have played out in various ways in real-world societies: sometimes leading to unintended consequences, sometimes to followers twisting the principle pretty much 180° to suit what they *really* want to do -- just like for Christian principles in Western society, in fact. But we need to acknowledge that one of those core Islamic principles is equal treatment under the law, and in families -- a principle our culture also claims to hold dear. Egalitarian democracy is not any further away from Islam than it is from Christianity; in both cases getting there takes some work.The Christian system sanctified -- and under favourable circumstances surely fostered -- a solidarity of interest in a couple committed to a single marital union despite the temptations of wealth. The Muslim system sacrificed the primacy of conjugal unity in favour of equality of rights on the part of all concerned.
As I've said, Islamic law dictates partitive inheritance, breaking up a man's wealth at his death. Naturally, some Muslim families (or societies) would want to get around this, to keep property together past one generation. The legal device they invented is called a waqf -- which became part of Western legal systems as the charitable trust or foundation. In Islamicate societies, hospitals and madrasahs (schools) were often supported by waqfs, and this pattern was copied by Europeans using the legal structures waqfs had pioneered. Muslim waqfs can also be set up to benefit a particular set of people -- such as one's children -- but the default is:
If he does not stipulate any conditions, then rich and poor, male and female, should be treated equally when given the benefits of the waqf.I gave the above quote so you can get a flavor for the emphasis on equality and even-handedness in Islamic law: it's not a modern interpretation, it's a constant refrain.
...
If a person sets up a waqf for his children, he must treat males and females equally, because he has included all of them in that, which implies that they all have an equal share. Just as if he were to give something to them, it should be shared equally among them, so too if he sets up a waqf for them, they should have equal shares.
From the very beginning, women as well as men have been able to be trustees or managers of waqfs. In a number of Islamicate societies, widows in particular were able to have considerable power and influence by this means: waqfs usually ran the schools, hospitals, social services, and even urban water supplies, not to mention the mosques themselves.
I'm not saying these things because I'm a Muslim or a believer or even anyone who can read Arabic. I'm just sick of seeing significant parts of the US (the Oklahoma amendment was approve by *70%* of the voters) being force-fed a toxic mixture of fear, ignorance, and outright lies. It's possible to know better.
[1] As the Oklahoma Muslims point out, "Shariah law" is a misnomer. "Shariah" is roughly "all the rules or expectations for living a Muslim life"; the word for jurisprudence is fiqh.
[2] Muslim religion and law is not based only on the Qur'an; it also includes hadith, collections of oral traditions.
In regions following Salic law, there were things (lands, positions) that she explicitly *could not* inherit, and which could not be inherited by her sons, either. In much of Christendom, primogeniture was the rule, a winner-take-all system where the eldest son got everything, and the other sons were almost as deprived as the daughters.
The same was true in the Ottoman Empire. No Sultan ever handed on the throne to his daughter, or divided it equally between all his sons. And there was the added twist that the non-inheriting sons were often deprived not only of inheritance but also of eyes, freedom, and/or life.
The main difference was the lack of a rigid primogeniture rule; the effect this had in terms of palace politics, rivalry etc is well known.
Posted by: ajay | November 11, 2010 at 04:35 AM
"I'm not certain if there is anything "especially nefarious" about the shariah laws when compared to other religious laws created during the middle ages,"
Well, no, the complaint isn't that Islam is worse than Christianity was during the middle ages. The complaint is that it's not the middle ages anymore, and that we're comparing the two religions TODAY.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 06:18 AM
Related:
I do look forward, though, to the precedent set by this amendment, when suddenly people discover that, say, Orthodox Jews can no longer have their disputes settled by legally binding arbitration reliant on the Torah. Equal protection, etc.
Posted by: Phil | November 11, 2010 at 06:32 AM
My take on this is the law has no meaning at all. Not that it doesn't have flavor, mind you, but this looks to me like: without this amendment to their constitution, Sharia law could not be at variance with state, local or federal laws.
Nothing changed. And given how much I hate unnecessary or unnecessarily convoluted law, I would prefer that OK not have done this.
But not being an Okie, I don't have much say in the matter. Also, not being a lawyer, my opinion is no doubt insufficiently nuanced.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 11, 2010 at 07:48 AM
Slarti: I don't know that this really needs nuance. "It's a dumb idea that doesn't really do anything" seems like a perfectly valid complaint.
Posted by: Nate | November 11, 2010 at 08:36 AM
Brett is correct in that the problem people have with Islamic law/practice is not that it is, in the broad expanse of history, clearly worse than the other Abrahamic religions, but that it is *now*, generally.
That doesn't make this OK amendment right, smart or in any way necessary (that's the kicker, to me). The fear, the hysteria... ugh.
That said, *if* the BS claim that "sharia law is coming!" were actually true, I'd be in opposition the same way I am when Christianists try to govern from the Bible.
Posted by: Rob in CT | November 11, 2010 at 09:48 AM
The complaint is that it's not the middle ages anymore, and that we're comparing the two religions TODAY.
So why aren't you comparing Islam in the US versus Christianity in the US?
Why not compare extreme Muslims to extreme Christians? The ones in Uganda spring to mind.
Otherwise you're just being disengenious, cherry-picking your examples to make your point. Hardly compelling.
Posted by: Morat20 | November 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM
When discussing this subject, I suggest looking into the precedents of U.S. and state laws allowing for Orthodox Jewish law to have a place in family law.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I'd guess that might hold, Gary, to the extent that said law doesn't conflict with existing domestic laws.
I don't seem to be taking your advice, do I?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM
I propose a constitutional amendment that it is illegal to destroy crops or inhibit fertility (and/or virility) by use of black magic. We can't just ignore the possibility that witches could do damage to the economy (as they do in Africa) or scry national security related secrets in order to sell them to the enemies of the state/people (as they did in Britain during WW2, before the laws against it were foolishly dropped).
Posted by: Hartmut | November 11, 2010 at 10:41 AM
The complaint is that it's not the middle ages anymore, and that we're comparing the two religions TODAY.
To expand on what Moraty20 said, in an awful lot of the world, it is the middle ages. In fact, in some parts of the world, it hasn't even achieved that level of civilization. Not to say that we shouldn't want the people there to have better. But it's the reality.
But, Brett, you can cherry-pick areas in, for example, central Africa, where nominally Christian countries have legal "systems" which are nowhere near as equitable as those in Muslim places like Indonesia or Turkey. So a bit more even-handedness is definitely possible.
Posted by: wj | November 11, 2010 at 11:04 AM
What bugs me about the OK law is the paranoia behind it and the intellectual dishonsety of its proponenets. The law itself probably doesn't do much of anything. A muslin who wishes to leage an inheretance in accordance to sharia law can simply divbide things up and give them to the descendants by name without mentioning sharia, for example.
The main problem iwth the law, the part that gets up my nose, is the institutionalization of a lie: that AMerican Muslims are trying to impose sharia on other Americans and hae to be twarted in their neferious plot by the heroic lawmakers.
Posted by: wonkie | November 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM
what wonkie said @ 11:37
Posted by: cleek | November 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM
what wonkie said.
Posted by: russell | November 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM
I divide up my "what X said" in accordance with Shariah law to wonkie and Gary Farber.
Posted by: MobiusKlein | November 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I have to disagree a little with both Nate and Slarti. "It's a dumb idea that doesn't really do anything" is being way too nice. It's only in a very narrow sense that you can say the law "doesn't really do anything": it is quite effective at showing American Muslims that they are not trusted or wanted in Oklahoma.
Law is at least as much about saying what people *want* the society to be like, as it is about taking specific legal actions -- and this goes triple for a plebiscite.
Is this eliminationism? Not *quite* ... yet ... but if I were a Muslim in a "red" state, I'd start thinking about an exit plan. Better to be like the Jews who left Germany in 1933 than the ones who left in 1939 ... or 1945.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 11, 2010 at 12:17 PM
ajay:
Inheritance in the Ottoman Empire illustrates the kind of workarounds Muslims had to use, to get the inheritance pattern they wanted despite the straightforward canonical rules -- just as Christians and Jews developed workarounds for *their* canonical rules.
But what you see in the Ottomans -- and also in e.g. the Saudi royal family today -- is a strong bias *against* a father choosing which child will succeed him, and a bias against pure primogeniture (where the inheritor is determined by luck of birth order). The Muslim ideal tends to be expressed either that children are strictly equal, or that the heir is chosen from among a pool of candidates by people who are alive after the father is dead (sometimes by a struggle to the death). His wishes are not determinative.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 11, 2010 at 01:16 PM
...and in the dead-tree Newsweek(*) which came to the house on Tuesday, there is a series of huge, splashy puff pieces about the great new places in the US to move to and start businesses.
Prominently, Oklahoma.
Gawd.
(*)Sorry, but I can't take a computer into the bathroom with me.
Posted by: efgoldman | November 11, 2010 at 01:27 PM
It's only in a very narrow sense that you can say the law "doesn't really do anything": it is quite effective at showing American Muslims that they are not trusted or wanted in Oklahoma.
Good point, and there's a strong parallel here with sodomy laws. If you read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, it's pretty clear that his real complaint isn't that the state should forcibly stop consenting adults from having sexual relations with someone of their own sex. Rather, it's that the state no longer enshrines in law the notion that those relations, and the people who have them, are qualitatively inferior, and are only "free" to do what they do through the largesse of their natural superiors.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | November 11, 2010 at 01:36 PM
More what wonkie said.
Using the initiative system as a way to beat up minority groups is not appropriate.
In trying to find out more about the challenges to this law on constitutional grounds I found myself mired in the cesspool of right-wing conspiracy sites. Not so sure this whole internet thing was such a good idea, at times.
Posted by: Jacob Davies | November 11, 2010 at 01:41 PM
Isn't this pretty much just like a will selecting an executor and setting out the general rules to be followed by the executor? Is it so unlikely that a similar model was followed by members of a Christian church?
Posted by: El Cid | November 11, 2010 at 02:09 PM
Dr. Science: This is true, and I felt that went without saying. As the law has no practical impact, its only purpose is to say "Hey, we don't like Muslims!"
Posted by: Nate | November 11, 2010 at 02:12 PM
Hence my "it has flavor" comment. I know: I should have unpacked that.
My point wasn't that the amendment didn't send a message, just that it didn't emplace any new legal constraints on anyone.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 11, 2010 at 02:14 PM
I'm all in favor of the notion that, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."
That said, I think it's a bit iffy for a judge to enjoin a proposition at the stage of being put on the ballot, rather than the stage of being implemented. What makes it to the ballot, and how the voters chose to vote on it, is about as pure a "political matter" as you can get.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 02:46 PM
This was, after all, perfectly equivalent to a judge enjoining the legislature from voting on a bill. How often does that happen?
Roughly never, I believe. The voters resorting to ballot propositions and initiatives deserve at least as much deference from the judiciary, as the legislators, who after all only exercise the voters' power as a delegation, vs directly.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 02:51 PM
The voters resorting to ballot propositions
"Resorting?" What problem, exactly, has gone thus far unsolved that voters must "resort" to this proposition? Please show your work.
Posted by: Phil | November 11, 2010 at 03:00 PM
No work to show: The voters chose to put a proposition on the ballot; My position is that this is indistinguishable from the legislature bringing a bill up for a vote, and the judiciary would NEVER enjoin the legislature from voting on a bill.
The voters, be they ever so stupid, prejudiced, whatever you want to call them, are entitled to at least as much judicial deference as the legislature, when they directly exercise a legislative role.
Why they chose to put the proposition on the ballot, what they expected of it, what the proposition says, all irrelevant. The appropriate time to enjoin is at the point of enforcement, not prior to the vote.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 03:08 PM
You used a specific word, "resort," which has a specific meaning. If you don't understand that meaning or its implications, don't pull the two-step with me trying to get away from it.
Posted by: Phil | November 11, 2010 at 03:16 PM
Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'
I'm opposed to this OK law and the frightening rise of anti-Islamic bigotry in the USA, but let's not kid ourselves here.
Even the craziest and most frightening Christianists are pikers compared to their Islamic counterparts.
Posted by: Chuchundra | November 11, 2010 at 03:16 PM
Then again, this isn't the first time you've demonstrated your rather shaky relationship with the English language, so I suppose I should be grading you on a curve.
Posted by: Phil | November 11, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Even the craziest and most frightening Christianists are pikers compared to their Islamic counterparts.
i don't think there have been many Islamic stonings in the US.
Posted by: cleek | November 11, 2010 at 03:34 PM
Phil: Ballot propositions are, generally speaking, a way for the voters to circumvent the legislature on subjects where it is reluctant to do the people's will. So "resort" will, generally, be the appropriate word.
OTOH, I was unaware that this particular measure was put on the ballot BY the legislature. So maybe "resort" was the wrong word in this instance.
But I stand by my position that it is inappropriate for the courts to intervene until actual enforcement of a law is at stake. Can you cite examples of a judge ordering the legislature to not count the votes on a bill, or certify that it got the votes?
Judges have got to extend the public as much deference as the legislature receives, when the public is exercising the legislative power in it's own person, rather than delegating it.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Even the craziest and most frightening Christianists are pikers compared to their Islamic counterparts.
But
In Uganda, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, if enacted, would broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age.... The proposed legislation in Uganda, however, has been noted by several news agencies to be inspired by American evangelical Christians. A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held where three American Christians asserted that homosexuality was a direct threat to the cohesion of African families.
cite
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 11, 2010 at 03:48 PM
Phil, you could probably cool it on the "resort" issue.
A) so far as I can tell you're wrong (i.e. initiatives are typically 'resorted to' when the voting populace thinks some branch of the state government hasn't dealt with something properly--and that is doubly true when the initiative passes);
and more importantly
B) so far as I can tell, no crucial part of the argument/conversation turns on the word "resort"; changing it to "used" or "engaged" or "employed" or some other broadly similar word in context doesn't appear to change Brett's argument at all, so insisting on attacking it/having Brett defend it, looks more like a destructive distraction than a constructive addition to the conversation.
Posted by: Sebastian | November 11, 2010 at 04:01 PM
i don't think there have been many Islamic stonings in the US.
And none in Oklahoma.
Posted by: russell | November 11, 2010 at 04:29 PM
And that's the real issue here. This is hysterical, and not in the funny way.
If and when "sharia law" is actually being proposed here in the USA, please do alert me and I'll be happy to oppose it.
Posted by: Rob in CT | November 11, 2010 at 04:34 PM
A couple of questions [inserting usual IANAL disclaimer here]:
Assuming that this miserable bit of prejudice-mongering isn't struck down for one reason or another (and - pace Brett's charming faith in the apparent fundamental goodness of "citizen initiatives" - a good many of these type of ballot propositions are): what practical effect would this have on OK jurisprudence?
Suppose the late Muhammed M. who lived, say, in Tulsa, dies, and leaves a will to be probated which says:
"I, Mohammed Mohammed, being of sound mind, etc.... do hereby bequeath my worldly estate, in accordance with the Laws of The Prophet (PBUH): To my wife [X], to my son(s)[Y], to my daughter(s) [Z]"
Someone (a disgruntled daughter?) would have the standing to challenge the will on "anti-Shariah" grounds? What if the late Mr. Mohammed omitted the religious formulations, and just specified the "traditional" divisions? Does that make a claim?
Nah, what wonkie said at 11:37....
Posted by: Jay C | November 11, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Even the craziest and most frightening Christianists are pikers compared to their Islamic counterparts.
Given what said Kristians(TM) in the US utter on a regular base the main difference to me seems to be that they lack the means becasue they have until now not been able to erect the unfettered theocracy they claim to desire.
The most extreme Kristianists(TM) call for the death of >95% of the world population or closer to home for the execution of >2/3 of the population of the US (for starters). Lenin's companions thought that 10% would be enough, Mao 5-8%(but with occasional repeats) and even Pol Post managed to kill only about a quarter of his people. I am not aware that even Al Qaeda calls for billions of dead in order to fulfill their mission. But hey, in the US everything must be bigger.
Posted by: Hartmut | November 11, 2010 at 05:13 PM
Do you have some particular group in mind Hartmut? Preferably something better than Rev. Phelps 'congregation' consisting almost entirely of his own family? I'm relatively familiar with Christian groups and I can't think of who you are talking about.
Posted by: Sebastian | November 11, 2010 at 06:22 PM
Well the Christian Domionists are pretty scarey. They want a theocracy and aren't shy about demonizing other religions including Christians who don't share their views. And the Joshua's Army types are overly militaristic. Remember that Christian militia that panned to kill police officers in Michigan? Remember all the Christian apologists for rightwing terrorism andmurder against doctors and family planning clinics? And I am not at all comfortable with the intolerance shown by evangelicals in the US militgary forces for anyone who does not tow their part line. It is very dangerous that people of a certain Christian persuasion are deliberately trying to make the military be a branch of their religion.
There is a real danger in the lies perpetuated by Christians in the US who deny separation of chruch and state and assert that we are a Christian nation. The danger is that, if that lie gets imbedded inthe popular imagination, the power of govedrnment will be suverted for political aims disguised as religious freedom (for Christians of the right type).
And thanks for all the what wonkies saids. Affrimations are fun!
Posted by: wonkie | November 11, 2010 at 06:37 PM
"Brett's charming faith in the apparent fundamental goodness of "citizen initiatives""
I have no such faith at all. I simply observe that the judiciary typically extend a great deal of deference to the legislature in it's workings, and believe that the people, when they exercise a legislative function through initiatives, are entitled to at least as much deference.
Even though their initiatives are frequently as poorly thought out or even outright evil as the legislature's work product...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 11, 2010 at 07:00 PM
I assumed Hartmut was talking about the "Left Behind" fandom.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 11, 2010 at 07:30 PM
Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but most of the Left Behind crowd doesn't expect to be here for all of that. Suggesting that they 'call for the death' of some huge portion of the population is severely misunderstanding the concept.
Posted by: Sebastian | November 11, 2010 at 08:13 PM
I think the Left Behind fans definitely plan to have ring-side seats in Heaven, though, chanting WE TOLD YOU SO as the majority of the Earth's population suffers the Tribulations we have (I gather) so richly deserved.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 11, 2010 at 09:05 PM
Sure, it could be meanspirited, but not in the vein that Hartmut was suggesting.
Posted by: Sebastian | November 11, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Sure, it could be meanspirited, but not in the vein that Hartmut was suggesting.
I know a lot of those folks as well, and most of them are fine people.
But somebody's buying that f***ed up first person shooter game.
The Dominionist crowd are worth keeping an eye on. The white supremacists stand right out, you can see them coming a mile away.
The Rushdoony types blend in, and should they ever have the reins in their hot little hands, they will have no problem whatsoever employing the full power of the state to compel you to toe their line.
It's what they're about.
Posted by: russell | November 11, 2010 at 11:01 PM
I think the US prejudice against Sharia is not really about inheritance. It is about the requirement for Muslims to fight Jihad against non-Muslims, whenever possible. It isn't possible for the US Muslim community to wage Jihad, but the rich oil states can, so if they're inclined (Iran) they interpret Sharia that way. I guess it could be different in Oklahoma.
I've read that the ancient laws of inheritance were built around the need to keep landholdings intact, to prevent further fragmentation each generation, resulting in phone-booth sized plots down the road.
Since the law doesn't do much, the real reason for measure was probably just a way to get the Christian Right to turn out in larger numbers for the mid-term elections. If so, it sounds like a practical political move that worked out. The Republicans did very well in Oklahoma; we can expect the campaign managers to rise within the ranks of the Republicans.
Posted by: Fredj | November 12, 2010 at 03:11 AM
The Left Behind guys indeed expect that they do not have to do the mass slaughter themselves and some indeed revel in the thoughts of getting a front line seat to watch the ultimate desaster movie unfolding. It's just a certain flavor of horror porn. This type is by no means new. The oldest example I am aware of is Tertullian (late 2nd century). Despicable but mostly harmless*.
I was thinking more of Rushdoony types (although I am not sure that he himself explicitly called for global genocide) and those parts of the religious right that overlap with the KKK. And then there are the simply deranged like Bryan 'whale stoner' Fisher (latest news: he demands that when a single human is harmed by a single animal of one species then that species has to be exterminated) who nonetheless have close relationships with well-known politicians (see the midterms election campaign).
I do not claim that this is widespread but there are some with access to mikes and publishers*. Imo that's enough to 'refudiate' the claim that the worst Christians are pikers compared to Islamic radicals (often falsely conflated with the mainstream).
A good source (because it quotes and/or links to authors themselves) is http://www.rightwingwatch.org/>Right Wing Watch. The archives are a veritable cabinet of horrors ranging from the yearly War on Christmas to the most extreme edges.
*unlike the "Kill 'em all, the Lords knows his own" guys who would gain traction not before the high Middle Ages. Still some fanatic catholics running around with similar beliefs usually combined with a worship of Mary that I can consider only pathological (e.g. 'not before all protestants are drowned in their own blood can the true love of Mary bloom again', Germany 1930 with imprimatur)
**not talking about Ann Coulter here. She imo does her stuff only because it's lucrative.
Posted by: Hartmut | November 12, 2010 at 04:18 AM
FredJ:
No-one here is saying it is. We're saying it's a prejudice based on bigotry and fear. I think this is substantially true, but it's not clear that you've grasped that this "practical political move" is evil.Yes, I've said it, evil. Promoting bigotry and pointless fear because it makes you more powerful? That's evil, that's what it looks like.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 12, 2010 at 09:31 AM
It is about the requirement for Muslims to fight Jihad against non-Muslims, whenever possible.
There is no such requirement in the Koran. Not even the most extreme forms of Sharia believe in such a requirement. That is a seriously ignorant statement.
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 12, 2010 at 09:52 AM
Is it bad that I now kinda want to see an action movie starring whoever is the Muslim equivalent of Steven Seagal called Sharia Justice?
Posted by: Phil | November 12, 2010 at 10:29 AM
No, Phil, that is not bad. I'm going through Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things to find candidates ...
This one, perhaps, though I don't know if he can do his own stunts. I also don't know if I *care*.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Some years back, Muslims in Ontario agitated for the right to govern themselves under Shariah law. The Canadians considered the idea, then rejected it. If present company does not respect the opinions of Oklahoma voters, in pushing this camel's nose out from under the tent, they may give the Canadians a more indulgent hearing. DIY research here. What the Oklahomans are really afraid of here.
Posted by: Sanity Inspector | November 12, 2010 at 03:23 PM
If present company does not respect the opinions of Oklahoma voters, in pushing this camel's nose out from under the tent, they may give the Canadians a more indulgent hearing.
What does this mean? The comparison seems wildly off the mark.
In Ontario, there was a proposal to allow Muslims to govern themselves under their interpretation of Sharia law.
In Oklahoma? No such proposal. No nascent notion of such a proposal. No proposal in any neighboring state, or distant state.
Nothing.
They weren't voting against anything. The camel did not have its nose under the tent. The camel wasn't even near the tent. They were pushing at air, shadow boxing.
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 12, 2010 at 03:39 PM
Also, the video you showed had nothing to do with Sharia law.
No connection.
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 12, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Also, the video you showed had nothing to do with Sharia law.
Perhaps not. But that's the image that's in the air, that's what's behind this legislation.
Posted by: Sanity Inspector | November 12, 2010 at 04:12 PM
Yes, there is no doubt that the legislation in question was fueled by ignorance. But I view that as a bad thing, and basis for criticism.
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 12, 2010 at 04:13 PM
But that's the image that's in the air, that's what's behind this legislation.
Then the people in OK should really get a better clue.
The Ontario thing was a consideration of whether Muslims should have access to Islamic arbitration tribunals for *their own internal family disputes*.
Similar issues come up for pretty much any conservative, orthodox, or separatist religious community.
Hasidim, Amish, some Mennonites, Mormons, very conservative Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists.
All of these folks have religious scruples that conflict with civil law or common civil practice. Here, in this country, we find a way to make room for them. All of them. We figure it out.
I can understand why Parisians find having their sidewalks blocked by 500 Muslim behinds inconvenient and annoying. But inconvenient and annoying, and nothing more, is exactly what Muslims praying in the street in large numbers amounts to.
If they wanted, in good faith, to sort it out, I'm sure they could. The French, as a former colonial power in a number of Muslim Arab nations, have their own issues to sort out with the Muslim Arab folks who live among them.
And that's France, where certain public expressions of religious faith actually are illegal, to a degree that would make Bill O'Reilly's head really and truly explode.
The folks in OK feel threatened by Muslims, because 19 guys flew planes into buildings almost 10 years ago. So, they wanted to make a great big point about how unwelcome Muslims should feel in their wonderful state.
Mission accomplished.
To be totally honest, I don't really give a crap what the folks in OK put in their state constitution. I don't live there, don't want to live there, don't plan to live there, am highly unlikely to ever visit there.
But it's nothing more than ignorance and fear. And it accomplishes nothing other than making a lot of folks who might actually want to live there and make a contribution want to find some other place to live.
Posted by: russell | November 12, 2010 at 04:45 PM
"The folks in OK feel threatened by Muslims, because 19 guys flew planes into buildings almost 10 years ago. "
Making no point about the stupid law, I would prefer this statement never be used in an argument. You try to make it sound so unimportant, it's not.
Posted by: Marty | November 12, 2010 at 05:25 PM
I would prefer this statement never be used in an argument. You try to make it sound so unimportant, it's not.
I'm far from trying to make it sound unimportant. I'm drawing a contrast between the actual danger and the perceived threat.
And you're not likely to have your preference granted. The difference between the actual danger and the perceived threat is extremely relevant to this case, and many others.
"Muslims are trying to impose sharia law on Oklahoma" is about as close to reality as "Jews are trying to make everyone in Iowa keep kosher". Or "Anabaptists are trying to make everyone in Ohio wear funny hats and ride in buggies".
People should freaking recognize that.
The reason anyone in Oklahoma gives a crap about what Muslims are doing is because of 9/11. And the events of 9/11 have vanishingly little to do with the daily lives of 99.99% of the Muslims who live in this country.
There are more crazy-ass apocalyptic Christian wackos looking to shed blood in this country than radical Islamists. Trust me on this.
It's time to talk plainly, realistically, and accurately about this stuff. "It freaks me out" is not a good enough reason to be singling out religious minorities for special negative treatment under the law.
Posted by: russell | November 12, 2010 at 06:22 PM
"There are more crazy-ass apocalyptic Christian wackos looking to shed blood in this country than radical Islamists. Trust me on this."
Sorry russell, I don't. I don't trust that there are more wacko Christians willing to kill thousands of Americans to "make their point" than radical Muslims. But I will give you that both are here.
Posted by: Marty | November 12, 2010 at 06:28 PM
Sorry russell, I don't. I don't trust that there are more wacko Christians willing to kill thousands of Americans to "make their point" than radical Muslims.
"in this country"
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 12, 2010 at 07:03 PM
SI,
Some years back, Muslims in Ontario agitated for the right to govern themselves under Shariah law.
That is not at all what your link says.
An official report in December by former Ontario attorney-general Marion Boyd said Muslims should have recourse to arbitration tribunals using religious law, such as those already used by Christians and Jews.... Ontario would introduce "as soon as possible" a law banning all religious arbitration, the Premier's spokeswoman said.
Needless to say, there's a huge difference between having voluntary recourse to religiously-based tribunals and "agitating for the right to govern themselves". And even *that* is a far, far cry from imposing Sharia on *other people*. And it's noteworthy that, if this is objectionable on its face as a religious imposition, it was a right already being granted to Christians and Jews.
Perhaps not. But that's the image that's in the air, that's what's behind this legislation.
Perhaps it's in the air because people who ought to know better link to it and say "this is what people are afraid of". Just sayin', it's hard to act all boggled that this is being misrepresented mere moments after misrepresenting it.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 12, 2010 at 07:06 PM
"Sorry russell, I don't. I don't trust that there are more wacko Christians willing to kill thousands of Americans to "make their point" than radical Muslims.
"in this country""
Yes, in this country.
Posted by: Marty | November 12, 2010 at 07:18 PM
Sorry russell, I don't. I don't trust that there are more wacko Christians willing to kill thousands of Americans to "make their point" than radical Muslims.
Not that it's really my main point, but:
Christian Identity, National Alliance, Church of the Creator, Aryan Nation, America's Promise, The Order, etc etc etc etc etc.
Thousands to tens of thousands. In this country. They kill people when they can, have done so for years and years.
Posted by: russell | November 12, 2010 at 07:37 PM
russell,
There is a difference between racist thugs and Christian wackos, pick one.
Is your point that there are organized terrorist groups willing to kill thousands of Americans at the cost of their own lives for the Glory of God?
Racist bullies kill individuals and small groups when they think they can get away with it becausee they are cowards wrapped in whatever power source they can find to attract other wackos. Aryan Nation is a Christian wacko group, really?
I would suggest that we compare apples and apples because this:
is an accurate description of the however many Islamist extremists there are in the country.
Posted by: Marty | November 12, 2010 at 07:49 PM
There is a difference between racist thugs and Christian wackos, pick one.
No need to pick, there is substantial overlap between the two.
Just ask them.
Racist bullies kill individuals and small groups
They kill individuals and small groups because the FBI is on their @ss like flies on you know what.
As they ought to have been on the @sses of the Al Qaeda crew in 2001.
And I'll say no more on that for now.
because this... is an accurate description of the however many Islamist extremists there are in the country.
But, by far, is not limited to them.
Not only not limited, they don't make up the majority of the population of "organized terrorist groups" in the US.
Posted by: russell | November 12, 2010 at 08:03 PM
But it's nothing more than ignorance and fear. And it accomplishes nothing other than making a lot of folks who might actually want to live there and make a contribution want to find some other place to live.
well, that's not all it accomplishes. it also keeps the GOP faithful enraged and engaged.
Posted by: cleek | November 12, 2010 at 08:26 PM
is an accurate description of the however many Islamist extremists there are in the country.
How exactly do you know so much about the state of Islamic extremists in the US? Have you infiltrated any of these groups? Do you speak Arabic? Are you a Muslim who attends a Mosque where they congregate? Did you read it somewhere? If so, where?
Posted by: Turbulence | November 12, 2010 at 08:50 PM
If we're talking about home-grown, all-American, Christian terrorists, how can we not mention Oklahoma City? I frankly wonder how coincidental it is that this vote happened in OK -- an area where Muslim terrorist attacks are purely theoretical. This sure looks to me like projection: a refusal to be afraid of an actual danger because it comes from within, instead pretending that outsiders, strangers, funny-looking people, are the real problem and if they can be ejected we'll all be *safe*.
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 12, 2010 at 09:20 PM
Aryan Nation is a Christian wacko group, really?
Wikipedia:Aryan Nations (AN) is a religious organization founded in the 1970s by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group known as the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian.
I suggest that if you don't think of the Christian Identity movement as primarily Christian, they certainly do. Their ideology is rooted firmly in the Bible and Christian theology, albeit horribly twisted.
Which I think is probably close to what a practitioner of mainstream Islam would say about AQ. Why you see one as a legitimate (if fringe) offshoot of its parent religion and the other as not representative at all of its parent religion is I think colored by subjectivity.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 12, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Look, to be clear, I'm not trying to dump on the folks who live in OK. I think to some degree it's a matter of what you're exposed to.
I work with Muslims. I interact with Muslims every day, not just at work, but in lots of areas of life.
For me to think that a significant number of Muslims in the US wanted to impose sharia law here, I would have to look those folks in the eye and believe that they had some secret collective agenda. Because they give no evidence of wanting to take over the US, or making me grow a beard, or demanding that my wife wear a burka, or anything remotely of the sort.
They want to work at their jobs, raise their kids, remodel their kitchens, buy a new car next year, and have a nice life.
It would be an exercise in nothing short of paranoia for me to think they wished me, or this country, ill.
I don't know how many Muslims live in OK. Maybe all that people there know about Muslims is what they see on TV. I can understand how a diet of sensational cable TV crapola could give you the wrong idea about things.
But at a certain point, you really do have to think about what you're doing. You have to stop freaking out and look around at what's actually happening right in front of your face.
Muslims live in the US in large numbers, and have done so for quite a while. The number of them who engage in any kind of hostile behavior is very, very small, both in absolute numbers and relative to their population. As threats to the nation go, they are not at the top of the list.
I'm not trying to minimize anything when I say this, I'm just trying to ground the discussion in something like reality.
There are lots of religious communities in this country whose practices rub up against civil law in uncomfortable ways. In general, we find ways to sort that out without imposing their choices on the rest of the community, and vice versa.
There really is not a need for state constitutional amendments against sharia law. Or any other kind of religious law or practice. When religious and civil law or practice conflict, we find ways to sort it out.
I appreciate that Muslims are different and perhaps weird to some folks, but life's like that. We really need to learn to deal with it, because as time goes on, it's going to become more and more common for folks to be confronted with people who aren't just like them.
Posted by: russell | November 12, 2010 at 09:44 PM
A nit:
"In no Christian country would a widow automatically inherit her late husband's estate;"
I think you're overlooking the English common-law dower, which I explicitly had to waive when buying a house recently; my husband had to waive the male equivalent, curtesy. Dower required that the widow inherit a specified proportion of her husband's estate.
So wives got a specified portion of the estate, just as daughters do in Islamic law.
Posted by: Madame Hardy | November 12, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Madame Hardy:
Fascinating, I never knew about dower -- I assumed it was a variant of "dowry", that is, it meant "property the wife brought into the marriage, which would be for her support were she widowed".
Interestingly, I don't recall reading the term in the kind of 19thC English novels that are quite explicit about money -- those mention "jointure" far more often than "dower".
Posted by: Doctor Science | November 13, 2010 at 12:12 AM
The deference the legislature receives is that judges normally won't issue directives to the legislature. It doesn't translate into deference to the executive branch. Thus a judge won't issue an order directing the legislature not to pass an unconstitutional law, but deference to the legislature won't keep the judge from directing the executive branch not to enforce the unconstitutional law.
In the case at hand, the judge granted the voters the same deference that courts normally grant to legislatures. The judge didn't issue any orders to the voters. It ordered the executive branch not to certify the results.
You will notice in both these cases that the directives to the executive branch have pretty much the same result that a directive to the legislature (in the first case) or the voters (in the second case) would have. Deference to the legislature is a matter of form; it doesn't substantially limit the ability of the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws. In my view, that is a good thing.
Posted by: Kenneth Almquist | November 13, 2010 at 02:31 AM
The Muslim density in Oklahoma is lower than 1 in a 100 (20-30K in 3.58 million) or 1 Muslim per 6-9 km². I guess that many Oklahomans have not (consciously) seen an actual Muslim in their life (except on TV etc.). But the absence of the visible 'threat' can be used to let it be seem even worse. Long before the Nazis German antisemites considered assimilated Jews to be the real threat because the uninitiated would not recognize them (unlike the traditional 'Caftan Jew'), so they could do their nefarious deeds in secret. Today antisemitism and xenophobia are strongest in those areas of Germany where it is nigh impossible to find any Jew or ME foreigner.
Forget the 'Muslim garb'. The message sent is 'the harmless looking guy sitting next to you on the train or walking past you in the market could be a Muslim/Jew/Illegal Alien/enemy du jour. Aren't you afraid? YOU SHOULD BE!'.
I am cynic enough to believe that in some regions a ballot inititive resembling the Nuremberg Laws would pass easily or an equivalent to the legal proposal in Austria to make eating pork at least once a year in front of witnesses mandatory (what about adapting the Japanese trampling of the crucifix for US use with the Quran taking the place of the Christian symbol?).
Posted by: Hartmut | November 13, 2010 at 04:48 AM
Failing any answers to that, could you please cite the Suras and Hadiths you have in mind, as well as all the others relevant, so we can discuss your claim? Thanks!
Sanity Inspector:
Your cite: So your argument is that because Canada -- according to one of Australia's major newspapers, which absolutely would be the first place I'd look for news on the other side of the world -- specifically decided to allow Christian and Jewish family law to be used, upon mutual agreement, in courts, but that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to. Well, who could see anything wrong with that? Yes, that certainly is a powerful argument for the insidious nature of religious groups seeking the cover of law.When was the last time you protested Orthodox Jewish beth din use in U.S. courts? What's that? You haven't? Why not? Why on earth not?
Let's try wacky extreme leftist Eugene Volokh.
But what would he know?And, you know what? Lots of us Jews don't want you coming after us next, and can see the writing on the wall. It's the same old story. Once you've made it possible to pick on some other guys, you go for us, if you haven't started with us in the first place.
But if you're going to make a complaint, at least be consistent.
Marty:
: Fair enough. What's your source for the number of radical Muslims in America willing to kill thousands of Americans to "make their point"?I'll take any credible cite that isn't your imagination. Give us the number, and we can compare them with similar cites to estimates of how many American Christians are equally willing.
I do assume your belief is based on facts, not imagination and emotion and fantasy, so please do share the numbers that led you to your conclusion. Thanks if you can offer that useful information!
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 13, 2010 at 05:18 AM
"Aryan Nation is a Christian wacko group, really?"
Really. And that you question it strongly suggests you have no idea what you're talking about.
How many more hundreds of thousands of words of their bullsh*t philosphy would you like quoted? And why did you not GO LOOK THIS UP FOR YOURSELF FIRST before asking a question which the proper answer to is "wtf?"What was the last book you read on Christian Identity, Marty? Who do you regard as a good expert in the field that you get info from about the movement? Where do you read about them? How many years have you followed the news of their movement and groups?
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 13, 2010 at 05:29 AM
"In the case at hand, the judge granted the voters the same deference that courts normally grant to legislatures. The judge didn't issue any orders to the voters. It ordered the executive branch not to certify the results."
No, that's not at all the same thing. If the legislature votes on a law, a judge is not going to direct that the votes not be counted. He's not going to direct that the bill not be enrolled, and sent to the executive. He's not even going to direct that the executive not sign it. Or that it not be added to the state's law books.
He's going to direct that the executive not ENFORCE it. But the law will be on the books, just the same, unenforced.
Barring some basis in suspected ballot fraud, or the like, I don't believe it is ever proper to direct that the result of an election not be certified. It's an incredible over-reach in any democracy.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 13, 2010 at 07:10 AM
To Gary,
There is a large difference between the original and the actuality of Aryan nation, I find no large religiious organizations dancing in the street at the success of there terrorist activities. I suppose you can find a thousand organizations that start with Christian fundamentalist cover that are just as bad.
My expertise is in the members of the Aryan Nation I have met that couldn't quote a verse from the bible if you paid them large sums.
And, since you are not nearly as dense as this comment might imply:
I await your (or russells) credible cite on those numbers before I "trust him", which, of course, no one but me questioned because it fits with what you want to believe.
Nonetheless, please let me know when those groups fly a plane or two into the WTC and kill 3000 people and I will discuss it further.
Posted by: Marty | November 13, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Many Taliban (despite their name being literally 'religious students') are also rather ignorant about their holy book. I read a report of a survivor of a Taliban tribunal who wrote that the judge pretended to quote from the Quran while he held the book upside down. Btw, Roman Catholics that are not in the clerus are still discouraged from reading the Bible by themselves and up to the 20th century it was actually forbidden ('The laypeople are not allowed to possess the scriptures of Old and New Testament or to read them'). This ban was rarely enforced though or limited to editions that were not the Latin Vulgata.
Posted by: Hartmut | November 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Nonetheless, please let me know when those groups fly a plane or two into the WTC and kill 3000 people and I will discuss it further.
A small plane flown into an IRS building at least shows some efforts. Incompetence does not preclude intent. ;-)
Btw, why limit the intent to kill to Americans in the US. Some Kristian(TM) fanatics do a good job in Iraq etc. killing locals without provocation (no, that's not an excuse for Muslims killing or driving away their Christian countrymen as happens since Saddam was removed from power).
Posted by: Hartmut | November 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Hartmut,
I don't diminish the reality or intent of Christian fanatics here or elsewhere. There are repugnant and evil people doing evil things covered in the cloaks of flags and religious symbols all over the world.
However, I believe (note opinion) that the Islamic radicals are uniquely focused on actually killing people in the US and from the US, in newsworthy ways. Comparing them to hate based organizations covering themselves with the flag of religion is not a valid comparison, IMO.
They do what they do for the glory of Allah and with the intent of creating as many deaths of innocents as possible, the point of terrorism. I perceive them to be people of principle, prepared to die for the common good and convinced of their righteousness.
The hate groups kill specifically those they hate, but have much less actual intent of creating a large scale splash because they fear the backlash. I do not perceive them to be principled or convinced of their righteousness, just content with their hate, of the world around them in general, and happy to assign the blame for that to Jews, blacks etc.
The Islamic terrorists see the backlash as a great recruiting tool and proof of the very essence of their reason to exist.
I admit I don't know which side of this assessment Christian terrorists fall into in other countries.
Both are bad, they are just not the same.
Posted by: Marty | November 13, 2010 at 12:48 PM
There is a large difference between the original and the actuality of Aryan nation, I find no large religiious organizations dancing in the street at the success of there terrorist activities.
Again, "in this country"? Do we need to get some superglue for the goalposts?
My expertise is in the members of the Aryan Nation I have met that couldn't quote a verse from the bible if you paid them large sums.
Harmut already pointed out that that can be true of religious fanatics across the spectrum. But even without that, have you met and made this determination about a large number of Aryan Nation adherents? Unless you're in some field that would bring you in constant contact with them, Id bet a tidy sum Ive met more Muslims than you have Christian Identity adherents.
Are you sure that they were AN? Neo-Nazis aren't very biblical, and there's a lot of line blurring.
This just seems like another example of your subjectivity in play- these guys aren't Christians bc they don't know the bible very well. If you found out that eg one of the 9/11 hijackers didnt know the Koran, would you honestly conclude that he was not a Muslim terrorist?
I await your (or russells) credible cite on those numbers before I "trust him", which, of course, no one but me questioned because it fits with what you want to believe.
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201001/2015943221.html (1996)
The FBI estimates the [Christian Identity] organization's membership at over 50,000...
Do you think there are over 50k AQ members "in this country"?
I didn't question russell because I've read some stuff about the whole Patriot-Militia-CI-AN complex. It's not about who can believe harder- at least, it shouldn't be.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 13, 2010 at 01:12 PM
I haven't read enough books about Christianist terrorists to figure out any one that comes close to Awlaki.
I would like to see a few examples, and given it is the end of the decade, keep the list from 2000-2010.
Posted by: DaveC | November 13, 2010 at 09:54 PM
would like to see a few examples, and given it is the end of the decade, keep the list from 2000-2010.
Id recommend starting with the wikipedia page on Christian Identity. Im not sure if you'll find enough parallel to do the apples to apples comparison you're looking for, but it's fairly interesting and scary stuff.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 14, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Carleton's 50,000 is probably too high. This, from the FBI ca 1989, puts the Christian Identity folks at 2,000 max.
The National Alliance was about 1,400 at its peak.
There are probably a couple dozen similar crazy-ass Christianist white supremacist wackjob groups floating around with smaller numbers, maybe in the low hundreds.
It's hard to keep track, because they come and go, and the same sad, sick people pop up in them.
The Stormfront site is the real jackpot, with about 130,000 registered members, but only about 20,000 active. Not all of those folks self-identify as Christian, the vast majority of them are only violent in their own imaginations.
The big question is whether you want to include the Klan or not. If not, the number of folks involved in violent white supremacy and/or nationalism who also self-identify as Christian is probably in the thousands.
If you include the Klan, significantly more. Still lots of Klansmen out there, and the wackier among them are the feeder stock for all of the other groups I've referred to here.
If you want to expand the religious criteria to include Odinists, you can probably throw another couple of dozen into the mix.
How does that compare to domestic Islamic extremism?
From this Rand report:
One hundred twenty five, in about 8 years. One hundred twenty five people, and forty six instances of Muslims in the USA actually trying to pull off any kind of violent action against Americans.
And that includes "providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations", which can basically consist of writing a check.
One hundred twenty five Muslims in the USA trying to harm Americans. Out of a population that the same RAND report estimates at three million.
And yeah, Al Qaeda got freaking lucky on 9/11 and killed about 3,000 people, which is a hell of a lot.
Al Qaeda currently has, depending on who you ask, a worldwide membership of two to three hundred to "a few thousand".
Worldwide. Not in the US, around the whole freaking world.
bc, if you're interested in a handy one-stop shopping site for information about domestic Christianist white supremacist terror, I recommend the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have an agenda of their own, so if you like, take anything they say with a grain of salt. But you'll find lots of information there that you can follow up on and check out at your convenience.
Marty, re this:
I await your (or russells) credible cite on those numbers before I "trust him", which, of course, no one but me questioned because it fits with what you want to believe.
This is a blog. With possibly a handful of exceptions, none of us here know each other well enough to know what any of us "believe" or "want to believe".
Not only that, what any of us "believe" or "want to believe" is, quite frankly, none of the rest of our business.
All we know about each other is what any of us feels like sharing in posts and comments. I suspect that's nothing like the whole of us, for any of us.
It therefore behooves us to address what people actually say, and not what we imagine they are thinking, feeling, or believing.
Because we know f**k all about that.
If you think my numbers are wrong, you're entitled to challenge that.
You have exactly no standing to make assumptions about what I, or anyone here, thinks, feels, or believes.
None of us do.
Posted by: russell | November 14, 2010 at 02:14 AM
Marty, I hope to have more time to come back to your other comments in the next day or so, as well as those of others, though no promises whatever.
But on this:
Which "Islamic radicals"? Which groups? It's not as if there's a single homogenous lump, you know, so this statement is exactly as useful as saying that "I believe that the Christian radicals are uniquely focused on actually killing Muslims."
Christians, radical or otherwise, come in a zillion flavors and sects and congrations and groups, and so do "radical Muslims."
It's not possible to have a productive conversation about "radical Muslims" and what "they" want, any more than we can usefully generalize what "radical Christians" want and how far "they" will go.
Be specific, please. If you can't be, I suggest educating yourself as to what you're talking about until you can be specific. Which groups do you have in mind? Because if you can say, I'll be happy to give you estimates of your numbers.
And I can outline all the relevant groups for you, if you like. But if you more or less have no idea what you're specifically talking about, we're not going to get very far until such time as you know enough to be able to be familiar with the simple basics of distinguishing the various extremist Islamist groups, which there is hardly any lack of information about for you to read on the internets, if you care to.
I've already taken an Ambien, and am exhausted, so I shouldn't comment further tonight.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 14, 2010 at 03:37 AM
DaveC:
I'm curious: why?Posted by: Gary Farber | November 14, 2010 at 03:40 AM
Apparently the words "in this country" are being rendered in, like, Swahili by everyone's browser except for mine, russell's and Gary's. Y'all might want to update or switch to Firefox or somesuch.
Posted by: Phil | November 14, 2010 at 07:26 AM
@Marty:
[Islamic radicals] do what they do for the glory of Allah and with the intent of creating as many deaths of innocents as possible, the point of terrorism. I perceive them to be people of principle, prepared to die for the common good and convinced of their righteousness.
This statement is, I fear, very very telling. The Islamic radicals who actually vigorously act on said radicalism generally do not do what they do for the glory of God. Actually studying the movements time and time again shows local political motivations. They're not acting to "creating as many innocent deaths as possible", which is neither their intent nor the intent of terrorism in general. That would be, um, effecting political and/or social change by means of violence or threat of violence. The violence, real or implied, is merely a means to an end. Yes, they're people willing to die for the common good as they perceive it, but lo and behold, that oh-so-deeply religious motivation for some strange reason always seems to be realized politically.
The hate groups kill specifically those they hate, but have much less actual intent of creating a large scale splash because they fear the backlash. I do not perceive them to be principled or convinced of their righteousness, just content with their hate, of the world around them in general, and happy to assign the blame for that to Jews, blacks etc.
I find it something between grimly amusing and deeply disturbing that you're unwilling to believe hate groups define principles or perceive themselves as righteous. This is hardly an uncommon attitude, I fear, but it smacks of those who are unwilling to see burning racial hatred in people who seem "normal", since obviously real fanatics of this sort brand their foreheads with swastikas. Or something.
Posted by: envy | November 14, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Carleton's 50,000 is probably too high. This, from the FBI ca 1989, puts the Christian Identity folks at 2,000 max.
Not sure why an old estimate from the same organization is probably better than a newer one. Although it's likely that the two estimates are of different things since they're so far apart.
For exampleThe Aryan Nations Revival reached unprecedented success, exceeding 100,000 listeners with its weekly radio broadcast titled "The Aryan Nations Broadcast" spanning from 1999–2009, the radio program was authorized by Pastor Richard Butler.... If that number is correct, it'd be hard to think that there were less that 2k CI adherents in the US during that period. But I certainly wouldn't want to count a regular listener as an "adherent" either. Counting CI folks is more like counting Lakers fans than counting eg Muslims, since there's less in the way of centralized authorities to provide definitional lines and bc it blurs into other religio-social philosophies.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM
"If you think my numbers are wrong, "
Except russell, you didnt provide any numbers, at all, in the comment I was responding to. You said there were lots more of one than the other, "trust me". I guess I don't just "trust you". Yet I am slammed for not providing numbers.
I shouldn't be called out to provide numbers because I don't "trust you"
Posted by: Marty | November 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM
No, I didn't provide specific numbers. "Lots more" is correct.
I have no problem with you saying no, I don't trust you, show me numbers. And, I'm not asking you to show numbers, you asked me to do so, and I have done so.
What I have a problem with is your assuming bad faith. By which I mean, the "what you want to believe" comment.
Posted by: russell | November 14, 2010 at 01:00 PM
Not sure why an old estimate from the same organization is probably better than a newer one.
My guess is that it depends on what you're counting.
If you mean everyone associated with Christian Identity, in all it's forms and flavors, 50K seems pretty plausible to me.
If you mean only those who give evidence of potentially (or actually) being violent, the smaller number seems more likely.
Either way, 2,000 people who are ready, willing, and able to blow stuff up and kill people is a big number. And that's just CI.
IMO your comment about counting Lakers' fans is apt.
Posted by: russell | November 14, 2010 at 01:49 PM
Not all of Martin Luther's comments on either papists or jews wound up in Protestant doctrine, as odd as that may sound.
I believe there was some mention of the Pope as the Antichrist by Martin Luther, which was later explicitly rejected as part of (some part of) Lutheran doctrine.
I don't know to what extent other Protestant faction have denied or embraced the notion of the Pope as Antichrist, or of the Jew as a body of Really, Really Bad People.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 14, 2010 at 04:47 PM
Well, I found this googling "jack chick pope antichrist":
With this fifth “dogma,” [the Virgin Mary] will have effectively elbowed Jesus aside and assumed the central focus of attention for the one-billion-plus Roman Catholics trapped in the superstition and ignorance of this pagan false church.
This is just another step in Rome’s attempt to draw all religions under the pope. Most false religions have a female goddess central in their worship. If they can be persuaded that their goddesses are really this Catholic Virgin Mary, the pope can declare himself the head of all religions, stepping into position as the final anti-christ.
Chick Publications has books by more than one author who was once snared by the pope’s deceptions. From seven years old, Dr. Alberto Rivera was trained by Jesuits in secret plans to destroy the Protestant resistance to the advance of Roman Catholicism. These plans are detailed in the seven books in the Alberto Series Crusaders Comics Pack.
Another book exposing the deception of the popes is written by Charles Chiniquy, who spent 50 years as a Catholic. He grew up in Catholic home and became a priest. For many years he struggled between being faithful to the pope and obeying the Bible. His bishop demanded that he give up the Bible and submit completely to Roman tradition that contradicted the Bible.
Instead, he led his congregation out of bondage to the pope and into freedom in Christ. In spite of many attempts on his life, he was able to detail his struggles in his book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome.
Apologies for the long quote, but it's just too good not to share.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | November 14, 2010 at 05:28 PM
It's been at least a decade since I read it, but Fuller's Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession seemed a nice treating of the subject.
Again, it's been a while, but I'm (very very very strongly) wanting to say that it presented the Pope as being a popular target for American Protestants of many denominations over the years...
Posted by: envy | November 14, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Slartibartfast, you might like to check out seriously influential Northern Ireland politician and Protestant minister Ian Paisley:
By all accounts he's still on about it but on a lighter note, apparently Her Majesty the Queen of England does a bang on impersonation of him during family get-togethers.
Posted by: anthony | November 14, 2010 at 09:28 PM
I'm a bit late to this, but someone like Warren Jeffs seems just as twisted as al-Awaki, in the use of religious justification for commit crimes. You could probably put Scott Roeder in the same box as well.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 14, 2010 at 09:41 PM