Islamic Changes
Dean
Something seems to be in the air. First, Penny Wit sends me a fascinating Martin Shram column from January 2005. The whole thing is worth reading from start to finish but the opening paragraphs, containing his predictions for 2005, tell the tale:
The big story will be that 2005 was the year of Islam vs. Islam.
It will be a year of Islamic conflicts that will erupt explosively in various ways around the planet. Islamic fundamentalist militants, moderates, monarchs, military and non-military autocrats who are fundamentalist and not-so-fundamentalist will clash in Saudi Arabia, the now-forming Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to varying degrees in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. These will be clashes of ideology, militancy and just plain power-grabbing, local politics style.
Hot on the heels of that link came a note from Crossroads Arabia's John Burgess, which noted a recent document published on MEMRI, a site devoted to translating Arabic-language media for Western audiences. While MEMRI has taken criticism for being agenda-driven and focusing only on the most negative and inflammatory of materials, this particular item simply demands attention. It is a report originally written in Arabic, by muslims from the region. It contains recommendations put before the United Nations legal and security councils. In rather bald terms, the report, in short, recommends:
Europe Must Change its Lenient Treatment of Muslim Extremists
Incitement on the Internet Must Be Stopped
Arab Intellectuals Must Stop Speaking in Two Voices
The Terrorists Must Be Separated from Their Sympathizers
Muslims Must Denounce the Terrorists; The West Must Stop Being Naive
Muslims Must Ban Suicide Bombings for Moral Reasons
The Religious Institutions Must Take Practical Measures Against the Terrorists
The Muslims Must Form a New Religious Culture
The Silent Majority Must Speak Out Against the Terrorists
The War on Terrorism Requires Extensive Intellectual, Political and Educational Activity
Again, these are recommendations written in Arabic, by muslims, for and about muslims. You can read a complete translation on MEMRI's site.
On the same day as all this, Aziz Poonawalla dropped me a line to let me know he'd completed his latest Brass Crescent link roundup of recent muslim blogging, which as it happens has more than one item in it discussing this very topic from multiple angles.
This on top of that fascinating item from the Arab News I ran yesterday (see "If you want to catch a fish..." below).
Makes you wonder about that whole Jungian "collective unconscious" thing, doesn't it? Honestly, I've been feeling lately like something's got to give on this soon.
You could insert "LGF" for "MEMRI" and have the exact same sentence.
I would just like to note that the linked article does just the opposite, focus on positive and ameliorating materials. Why did you, Dean, highlight it? Because Muslims saying, in Arabic, that aiding and abetting terrorism is bad is so rare, or because MEMRI highlighting positive articles is so rare? I would bet the first as both LGF and MEMRI try to accentuate the positive when they can.
If MEMRI and LGF had more positive material they would post it. LGF will occasionally highlight something from a "moderate Muslim" only to discover that he ain't so moderate and have to update the post.
Discounting MEMRI and LGF because of supposedly being "agenda driven" annoys me. The, "If you can't disprove what they're saying, discredit them" school of debate annoys me. I'm not accusing you, Dean, of that, but whenever somebody puts that caveat into the description of LGF or MEMRI they are caving in.
As Allah said, whenever you see somebody called "moderate", search on MEMRI and LGF and marvel at what you find. That's not because they hate Muslims or Arabs, it's because they are attempting to remove exactly the cover that the report identifies Arab Intellectuals Must Stop Speaking in Two Voices
Don't blame the messenger, blame the people who perpetuate it, just as the report suggests.
How many positive items on Al Jazeera and its anti-terrorism and pro-democracy coverage has LGF run? Or its status as the only independent broadcast voice that questions Arabic dictators in Arabic?
How many items on the Free Muslims Coalition has LGF run?
How many Arab News articles siding with Blair and Bush has LGF cited?
Has LGF ever once posted about the enormous thirst for democracy and secularization found in the Arab muslim world?
Why is it that I don't even have to try very hard and I find these things?
I couldn't find anything on there about Mukhtar Mai, but when I googled "Pakistani Rosa Parks" to find out other search terms I did find this link to your site with a link, in the first comment, to his site about riots in response to the rapes. So obviously I didn't find all the stories in my searches. Also note that Joe Katzman found a 'good news' story on the very day
Nothing I remember on the second, Charles calls them JihadTV so I'm pretty sure he doesn't like them. A search for Al Jazeera is 160 hits, most of which don't appear to be complimentary.
Free Muslim Coalition, not many, but they're obviously supportive.
Arab news, he obviously doesn't like them, a search on his site gets you lots of hits that begin with, Arab News hits bottom, digs but I did find this. I stopped looking at the hundreds of hits but I'm sure there are more.
Has LGF ever once posted about the enormous thirst for democracy and secularization found in the Arab muslim world?
I had to go back more than a week for this on pro-democracy riots in Yemen, I found this looking for something else. He's also posted on Lebabon a bunch of times. I'm not going to keep searching for other links, your question was "ever once", I found twice and could find more if I felt like it, most obviously about Lebanon.
I'll accept part of your point, he doesn't go too far out of his way to highlight the positive, but he does do it.
I still don't accept bashing LGF for merely highlighting the truth. Charles doesn't make stuff up, he obviously doesn't paint as rosy a picture as you would like, but he does perform a valuable service and shouldn't be attacked for that.
I also wasn't really trying to attack you, Dean, in my comment. I just dislike the 'necessary' caveats about LGF and MEMRI as if they are racists who want to kill all Muslims and you have to force people to take them seriously.
I'll ignore lots of sites, but I can also point you to exactly the post or series of posts that make me ignore that site. Attacks on LGF are usually of the "He's a racist" variety with no proof, because really, "you shouldn't need any proof."
MEMRI, although a 301(c)3 organization which pays no US taxes, refuses to divulge its sources of income. That's okay, too, as 501(c)3 corporations aren't required to reveal their sources of income. But because it's run by a former intelligence officer of a foreign country, some legitimately wonder about that.
It works secretively, choosing not to provide phone numbers and actual office addresses. This may be for legimimate security concerns. Let's just say it's chosen not to be transparent in its funding or staffing.
MEMRI does selectively choose outrageous statements made by Arabs that appear in Arab media. That's okay... they made the statements and they deserve to be identified as idiots and bigots.
Until recently, MEMRI never pointed out anything a moderate or a liberal reformer wrote. Because it was getting complaints for being so one-sided, it started to pick up occasional pieces showing another side of the issues, rolling it into a "Reform Project". It now publishes pieces that support secular reform--but not Islamic reform. It doesn't actually seek to reflect the totality of regional media, but that's not their mission. That's okay, it's meeting its own goals, not mine.
MEMRI is not a lobbying organization. At least it's not registered as a lobby. But it does send daily e-mails to every member of Congress--and Congressional staffs--highlighting what it wants highlighted. Perhaps those e-mails are deleted unread; we can't really know. We can tell, however, that they're often cited by Congressmen, so they must have some readers. It clearly has some influence on policy discussions. That's okay, too... perfectly legal. It's highly effective, too.
MEMRI achieves its goal, which is to make Arabs look as bad as possible, while still retaining credibility.
It used to have a public mission statement that read, “In its research, the institute puts emphasis on the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel.” (source). That sentence been deleted from its current statement of mission. Perhaps that's no longer one of its goals.
MEMRI certainly does not translate extremist articles appearing in the Israeli media. That's definitely not their mission. But because no one is currently doing that, unless we happen to read Hebrew those articles are invisible and therefore don't exist. By being limited to selective quotation, it's easy to assume there's only one side to the issues.
What MEMRI does not do is produce an accurate picture of what is going on in the Middle East. It's not interested in doing that; it's not funded to do that. What it is doing is not "bad." I don't condemn it. I just say you need to understand where they are coming from when you read what they choose to republish.
It'd be nice if someone could do a real and regular overview of exactly what is appearing in Middle Eastern media--all languages, all countries. But no one is standing there with an open checkbook to actually fund such an endeavor. We're stuck with partial views of a very complicated landscape. As long as we're aware that we're dealing with incomplete information, MEMRI is truly useful. But we need to keep its own agenda in mind as we read its products.
regarding MEMRI, if you want a more balanced assessment of Arab media, you shoudl be reading Abu Aardvark. Daily. And not just for the Nancy Haifa and Jumana Nimour coverage, either.
second, I guess according to SMA's stark criteria, I'm the enemy. Come and get me.
Demanding a standard Americans don't even apply to themselves is really pretty weird, you know. Actually, if pretty damn far off the edge of reality.
Are you a member of "the reality-based community"?
I will say I've voted exclusively for Republican candidates since RMN's first election.
"I will say I've voted exclusively for Republican candidates since RMN's first election."
That's good!
As to "reality-based community," I'm proud to say I'm a myth-based egoist.
Aziz:
I will restrain myself from saying what I think of I suspect you are, by your own words. I stand by every word I wrote.
SMA, spare us the histrionics. I'm an American patriot, not a George W Bush sycophant as I'd be if I tried to meet your absurdist "100%" standard.
I'm 100% with my nation - not with you. You're no patriot, sir. You're a jingo.
oh, and by the way - I'm in the 56% majority.
I looked at headlines for a random date, and I don't see any negative trend. It seems to be normal news topics: Al-Qaeda, Iraq, government policy, etc. Several headlines look positive.
ISLAMIST INTERNET SITES QUOTED BIN LADEN THAT THE DEADLINE FOR A TRUCE EUROPE HAS EXPIRED, AND THREATENED THE EUROPEANS WITH 'A BLOODY WAR UNTIL YOU RETURN TO YOUR SENSES.' HE THREATENED ITALY WITH TORRENTS OF BLOOD. BIN LADEN CALLED ON THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES NOT TO SUPPORT AMERICA OR 'THE VULGAR AND LEADER OF ATHEISM BUSH.' (AL-WATAN, QATAR, 7/30/04)
THE 'FEDAYOON [MARTYRS] OF QADDAFI' THREATENED TO KILL ANYONE WHO RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE IN LIBYA IN THE 70S OF SENIOR LEBANESE SHI'ITE CLERIC AYATOLLAH MUSSA AL-SADR. (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 7/30/04)
IRAQI DEFENSE MINISTER HAZEM AL-SHA'LAN ANNOUNCED THAT HIS COUNTRY HAS DECIDED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATING WITH THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT RETURNING THE AIRCRAFT SMUGGLED INTO IRAN BY THE PREVIOUS REGIME. (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 7/30/04)
SAUDI ARABIA COMPLETED THE PLANS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE FIRST OFFICIAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, IN PREPARATION FOR ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. A NON-GOVERNMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HAS STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES RECENTLY. (AL-WATAN, SAUDI ARABIA, 7/29/04)
THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES LEGISLATED NEW LAWS TO COMBAT TERRORISM, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY ON ANYONE WHO 'ESTABLISHES, ORGANIZES OR CONTRIBUTES TO ANY INSTITUTION OR GROUP FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING TERROR ACTS.' (AL-SHARQ, QATAR, 7/29/04)
BOSNIA'S DEFENSE MINISTER ANNOUNCED THAT 50 BOSNIAN SOLDIERS VOLUNTEERED TO GO TO IRAQ FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF REMOVING MINES. (AL-WATAN, QATAR, 7/29/04)
MEMBERS OF THE CALEDONIAN COMMUNITY IN IRAQ DEMONSTRATED IN THE NORTHERN CITY OF IRBIL TO PROTEST AGAINST THE REGIONAL AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS FOR 'IGNORING' THEM. (AL-WATAN, QATAR, 7/29/04)
As I've said, though, MEMRI is now reporting some more positive stories. For the first five years of it existence (i.e., until 2003) it carried negative stories exclusively.
I welcome the change, but still caution that you need to consider your sources, particularly when they self-identify with a particular political point of view. But that goes for all media, all the time.
When Arabs condemn Arab extremism, it can be considered negative ("Even Arabs agree that there's an Arab threat!"). When Arabs praise Arab extremism, it's also negative ("Incitement!")
I have no doubt that if MEMRI translated Israeli extreme right-wing articles (as you suggested), it would be considered propagation of extreme right-wing Zionist propaganda (i.e. anti-Arab).