Retard! Or, How Not to Make Your Point

It's been a while since I was in school, but I remember the 'good old days,' when merry cries of "retard, retard, you're a retard!" would waft across the playground.

Apparently, not much has changed.

A discussion started in the comments of a previous post, which I believe demonstrates how not to make your point.

The post, "ISNA, Hamas, Obama's Inaugural, and the Usual Suspects " (January 19, 2009), was the second of two, with my take on some foolish, misguided, pot-stirring on the part of The Associated Press and others.

Here's the discussion got started, copied from the post's Comments (format altered to enhance readability):

• Brigid said...
  • Gosh! I'm part Irish and I visited Ireland! I have ties to the IRA! Nooooooo!
  • *commence eye rolling now*
  • January 19, 2009 11:00 AM
• Muslims Against Sharia said...
  • Brigid,
  • You being retarded has nothing to do with you being Irish.
  • January 19, 2009 8:23 PM ...
• Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
  • Muslims Against Sharia,
  • What gives you the idea that Brigid is retarded?
  • January 19, 2009 10:58 PM
• Muslims Against Sharia said...
  • Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski,
  • Her comment.
  • January 19, 2009 11:26 PM
• Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
  • Muslims Against Sharia,
  • I see.
  • Interesting.
  • Brigid is an artist, my daughter, and has, I will grant, a rather informal way of expressing herself.
  • She is not "retarded." Unless you are using "retarded" in it's schoolyard taunt sense, as in "you dropped the ball, retard!"
  • She was clearly showing the ludicrous nature of The Associated Press's, and others, implied claims about the president of ISNA, by comparing that situation to a hypothetical case of her being accused of ties with the IRA, on the basis of her trip to Ireland.
  • I respectfully suggest that, if this is how you treat your friends, they will have to be very long-suffering.
  • January 19, 2009 11:48 PM
• Muslims Against Sharia said...
  • OK, maybe retarded was not the proper term. However she so arrogantly displayed her ignorance, it was not uncalled for.
  • While Ingrid Mattson may not have direct ties to Hamas per se, some of ISNA's high-ranking members do. There is not dispute that ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB. MB is not on the list of FTOs, some of its branches are. Same goes for the IRA. IRA is not on the list, but Real IRA is. Ingrid Mattson has ties to MB not because she is a Muslim, but because she is a president of the MB branch. Ridiculing this notion but saying: "I'm part Irish and I visited Ireland! I have ties to the IRA!" is ... retarded, in a schoolyard taunt sense.
  • Radical Muslims in America spend tens of millions of dollars every year to paint themselves as moderates. And it obviously works; they get to become a part of the inauguration. Comments by your daughter, however insignificant they may seem, play a role in whitewashing radical Islam. I suggest you explain to her what's at stake. We cannot afford to have another ignorant Westerner jumping on "Sharia is acceptable" bandwagon.
  • January 20, 2009 9:25 AM

Response, from Another Ignorant Westerner

I had a conversation with my daughter this evening, to see if she was "jumping on 'Sharia is acceptable' bandwagon."¹ during the approximately 24 hours which had elapsed since we last spoke.

She's not.

Not on the "Sharia is acceptable" Bandwagon

In fact, she is as firmly convinced as ever that sharia law, together with other manifestations of pre-Magna-Carta systems of jurisprudence, are inappropriate for contemporary societies.

I have discussed with her certain inadequacies in the method by which she had attempted to express her point. She had, as I suspected, been employing sarcasm. More specifically, she had endeavored to demonstrate the absurdity of The Associated Press's attempt to link ISNA's president with Hamas, by repeating the argument, with different terms, as a hypothetical example.

Apparently, her effort to communicate her ideas was not entirely successful.

In fact, Muslims Against Sharia's belief, regarding her stand regarding sharia law is diametrically opposed to what she actually believes.

Muslims Against Sharia, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Unsupported Assertions

I think that part of the difficulty, apart from misapprehension of a somewhat informal expression of belief, lies with Muslims Against Sharia's assumption that ISNA must be linked to Hamas, and that all who are linked to ISNA must therefore be tainted by Hamas as well.

As Muslims Against Sharia said, "...While Ingrid Mattson may not have direct ties to Hamas per se, some of ISNA's high-ranking members do. There is not dispute that ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB...."

This assertion may or may not be true, but it is unsupported in Muslims Against Sharia's comment. That is to say, there is no citation of a source which might support the assertion that: "There is not dispute that ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB."²

Another unsupported assertion is "Ingrid Mattson has ties to MB not because she is a Muslim, but because she is a president of the MB branch."

Ingrid Mattson may, indeed, have ties to MB (Muslim Brotherhood). She may even be president of the MB branch. Muslims Against Sharia is not at all clear as to what MB branch they suppose Ingrid Mattson to be president of. Since Muslims Against Sharia assert that "Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB" - perhaps they believe that Ingrid Mattson is president of Hamas.

I rather doubt that Muslims Against Sharia believes that, but that is a possible (although, in my opinion, unlikely) interpretation.

Muslims Against Sharia: Something of a Disappointment

I became aware of Muslims Against Sharia in 2007, while researching reactions in the Islamic world, to cartoons published by Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. The "Swedish dog" had upset quite a few Muslims, with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed which were, at best, in rather dubious taste. Quite a few Muslims defined the cartoon as "blasphemous," and, given what little I understand of Islamic beliefs, they were probably right.

At that time, Muslims Against Sharia stated their belief that Lars Vilks should not be killed, and offered a monetary incentive to anyone who successfully undertook specified actions which would tend to preserve Mr. Vilks' life.

I made a cursory study of the Muslims Against Sharia website, decided that they had ideas and opinions which might be of interest, and added Muslims Against Sharia to this blog's blogroll.

Tonight, after reviewing yesterday's rather curious dialog between myself and Muslims Against Sharia, I made a slightly more detailed study of the organization. I found very little that I had not known before.

Muslims Against Sharia's mailing address is a post office box in Omaha, Nebraska. Their website's registrant is Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., of Bellevue, Washington: which is also, purportedly, their website's administrator.

While such deliberate anonymity may be justified, by the admittedly lethal means of self-expression employed by a number of Islamic organizations, including but not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it does discourage an interested outsider from determining the bona fides of Muslims Against Sharia.

Given limitations which circumstance places on my time and other resources, it's unlikely that I will continue a study of Muslims Against Sharia. I have decided, tentatively, that the organization, although perhaps well-intentioned, values its own opinion over verifiable facts, and is much too eager to identify one who does not share Muslims Against Sharia's biases as an "ignorant Westerner."

Such lack of intellectual rigor, coupled with an eagerness to identify as "retarded" and an "ignorant Westerner" one who is, in fact, in general alignment with Muslims Against Sharia's alleged positions, does not encourage me to regard Muslims Against Sharia as a reasonable, reasoning, organization. As I said, in my final comment yesterday, "if this is how you treat your friends, they will have to be very long-suffering."

Islam, Muslims, Perception, and Reality

Saudi royalty and others have managed to give Islam and Muslims the reputation for being arrogant, rude, condescending, and more than a little ignorant. I have tried, from time to time, to correct this misapprehension. It is disappointing when Muslims in an Islamic group undercut my efforts.

---

Sharia Law? Never Heard of It

Princeton's WordNet Search defines "Sharia Law" as

"...Islamic law (the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed) 'sharia is only applicable to Muslims'; 'under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state' ".

According to WordNet, alternate spellings and terms are shariah, shariah law, and sharia.

I briefly discussed sharia law in September, 2007, and made a short list of related posts:

• "Don't Like British Law? No Problem!
  Set Up Your Own Courts!"
  (February 11, 2008)
• "Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks"
  (November 26, 2007)
• "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics' "
  (October 20, 2007)

As I wrote then, I recommend using this blog's search function to search for more commentary on sharia law.

Another post, not in that list, shows how sharia law gets used, and why it can be a problem, when used by countries living in the 21st century:

• "Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric "
  (September 19, 2008)

---

¹ The last sentence in Muslims Against Sharia's final comment reads: "We cannot afford to have another ignorant Westerner jumping on 'Sharia is acceptable' bandwagon." It should have been "We cannot afford to have another ignorant Westerner jumping on the 'Sharia is acceptable' bandwagon."

While recognizing that definite and indefinite articles in American English can be something of a challenge for those learning the language, they are important elements, and their inclusion - or, in this case, non-inclusion - does make an impression on the reader.

² Another syntactic blunder, but let it pass.

Inauguration Day, 2009: History Gets Made

Unless something very unexpected happens, tomorrow will be a very historic day. Barack Obama is expected to become the first black president of the United States, on the day after this year's Martin Luther King Day.

Actually, it's a pretty big deal.

This is the third 'milestone' presidency I've seen:

• Kennedy, America's first nominally Catholic president
• Carter, the first 'openly southern' president since the War Between the States¹
• Obama, the first black American president

Under the circumstances, I'm going to let this post get a little further away from discussion of the War on Terror than usual.

Presidential Moving Day's a Bit Different This Time

There won't be moving vans around the White House to get the Bush's stuff out of the way. At Mrs. Bush's direction, the family belongings were packed and sent to Crawford, Texas, starting in the summer of 2008. The family got their stuff out of Camp David over the Christmas-New Year holiday.

Aside from making things perhaps less hectic for the Bush family, getting most of the soon-to-be-former president's belongings out of the way makes it easier for the White House staff to get the Obamas' personal belongings unpacked and prepared.

Following in Lincoln's Steps: Tracks, Actually

Barack Obama traveled to Washington, D.C., by train, following the route taken by Abraham Lincoln. In a very old-fashioned railway car. It was built in 1930, but the symbolism is still there.

An op-ed in The Times of India gave a plausible explanation for the 'Lincoln's Route' show. An American professor said that Obama wanted to:

• Get associated with a great leader
• Put himself in a "broader narrative about the nation overcoming its racial past"
• Give the impression that he's a leader who can "heal divisions in difficult times"

That "heal divisions" business got my attention. I suppose that most Americans aren't aware that the Reconstruction didn't end until around 1877 (Lincoln was assassinated in 1865), and don't know much about carpetbaggers. Enough of that. It's the theater that counts here: and it was good theater.

It's Going to be An Exciting Four to Eight Years

I am concerned about the assumptions and beliefs that Obama may be bringing to the White House. Today and tomorrow, however, it's time to celebrate an historic event: The inauguration of the first black president of the United States, and the first inauguration since the attack of 9/11.

After that, given the times we live in and Obama's flair for drama and symbol, I think we can expect a lively presidency.

News, views, and background:

• "Lincoln legacy: To make history, Obama has big boots to fill"
  The Times of India (January 20, 2009)
• "Transition Holds Clues to Obama Governance "
  The New York Times (January 19, 2009)
• "No moving trucks needed for Bushes on Inauguration Day"
  CNN (January 19, 2009)
• "Slow Train Coming"
  The Caucus blog / The New York Times (January 16, 2009)

---

¹Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president from one of the pre-Sumpter Confederate States of America (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas). However, since he and, to a lesser extent, L. Johnson did not exhibit mannerisms which indicated a southern origin, their presidencies do not seem to represent such a radical shift from the post-Reconstruction era.

Jimmy Carter, a Georgian peanut farmer with a distinct southern (Georgian, specifically) accent, was the first president since the War Between the States to be unabashedly from the south. I see this as a major step in repairing damage done in the latter part of the 19th century.