Truck and Barter

Comments

---

Lugo wrote:

I don't read LGF, and I only occasionally read Daniel Pipes. In the latter case, I do not see "hatred" of Islam, only valid criticism. In any event, I'm not especially impressed by your "argument" that "they are racists, and therefore anything they say is invalid".

-- July 31, 2004 1:36 AM ∞

---

Kevin Brancato wrote:

I too think it is over the top to say that either hates Islam, although they're both quite clear that they hate ruthless terrorists inspired by a fundamentalist strain of Islam.

-- July 31, 2004 1:31 PM ∞

---

paul wrote:

Thanks for the comments. I think the issue needs to be clarified; what I meant was people like Daniel Pipes tend to equate Islam with terrorism and see it as a monolith religion. That is why a lot of people in the Muslim world see them as those who hate Islam. Daniel Pipes not only targets terrorists but even fellow colleagues get attacked as the following from The Economist ( Nov 28th 2002) suggests:

“…Many scholars of Islamic or Middle Eastern affairs have been listed on a website called Campus Watch, established by Daniel Pipes, an academic, and the Middle East Forum, a pro-Israel think-tank. In September, Campus Watch posted the names of eight academics whom it accused of downplaying the dangers of militant Islam or exaggerating Israel's faults. About 100 other academics, in a gesture of solidarity, asked it to add their names to its list. Campus Watch obliged, calling them all “apologists for suicide bombings and militant Islam”.

John Esposito of Georgetown University, one of the website's original eight, says he was picked out because he has argued that extremist Islamists are a tiny minority of the Muslim world. After the website posted his name, Mr Esposito began to get hundreds and sometimes thousands of e-mails every day. Some of them contain death threats. Others accuse him of being anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli or un-American…”
May be Edward Said was right after all when he said:
“The hardest thing to get most academic experts on Islam to admit is that what they say and do as scholars is set in a profoundly and in some ways an offensively political context”

As regards Professor Robinson’s remarks I myself don’t find it convincing especially when the person’s CV runs to some 15 pages. Daniel Pipes is probably justified to say that “Here is an opportunity for a leading criminal law practitioner to do something completely different...”

Comments on more substantive things are appreciated; of course it will be difficult in an age where the ‘trivial has triumphed’

paul asad

-- August 1, 2004 11:48 PM ∞

---

Kevin Brancato wrote:

Again, Paul, I do not think either of them equate Islam (which, like Christianity and Judaism, is a complex, sometimes inconsistent, belief system founded upon sacred texts and oral histories) with militant Islam (the glorification of the militant aspects of the belief system, used either as a political weapon or as a destructive force in itself).

Frankly, you need to present me with solid evidence that Pipes and LGF hate Muslims for being Muslim, which I don't think you can do--even though it's clear that both dislike aspects of Islam that do not conform to their own beliefs about morality.

In his critique of Robinson, Pipes' wants Robinson to stop reform of Shari`a only because he knows that Robinson can't and won't remodel Shari`a into a fully-Western doctrine, which Pipes believes is right and proper.

With regards to the more substantive portions of your post, given the small snippet of law you linked to, I think Robinson's help is badly needed, and should be praised by those who want to reform Shari‘a (which is not going away unless a great majoirity of Muslims drop their faith entirely).

However, a focus on rehabilitation of all criminals may not actually lower recidivism or add to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. But since basically the Maldives has found that it is losing its own "Drug War", and since decriminalization is not on the table, requiring rehab instead of incarceration seems to be a good second best alternative.

Adding a bail system seems to be a cost effective alternative to incarceration in certian circumstances.

Also, I really don't know what to think of banishment as a punishment... it is very outside my experience. Another post on banishment would be very welcome...

Personally, I would fight like hell any attempt to enforce a religious law on me, not because of the law's origin, but because I disagree with most major religions regarding the morality of using drugs and homosexuality.

-- August 4, 2004 10:43 AM ∞

---

Dhivehi Observer Maldives wrote:

There is no justice system in Maldives. It is the will of the Dictator that ultimately matters. Gayyoom, famously known as Golhaabo amongst Maldivians is a full fledged tyrant. Search the internet for Maldives Torture Reports and you will know the truth. Golhaaboa, his family and associates are above the law. The only way to bring change is to bring down this murderous regime.

-- August 21, 2005 7:06 AM ∞

---

criminal lawyeradvice wrote:

Criminal attorneys provide a discrete, sensitive, and professional advice to individuals. The clients who want to take criminal attorneys advice can visit the lawyers offices. These attorneys are well qualified and experienced and give the best suggestion to their customers.

http://www.lawyersindemand.com/

-- February 9, 2009 1:44 AM ∞