68 thoughts on “Sans commentaire”

  1. I wonder what Reza Aslan would say about this? Probably nothing, b/c it has nothing to do with Islam…any evidence that points in that direction is purely coincidental/circumstantial.

    1. The Afghan Taliban reportedly say that this action was unislamic. The problem seems to be
      that Allah ‘inspires’ different people differently.

      1. This is exactly the problem. I have no doubt that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are horrified by what has transpired here. The issue with faith, is that it means anyone can interpret the “Holy Book” however they want, and you really don’t have much of a leg to stand on in rebutting it – and this is especially true of Islam, where Muslim reformers simply don’t have enough support to draw on from the holy texts themselves.

        Of course, you have people like Reza Aslan, who zero in on the few passages that support their view — but that doesn’t mean you can just ignore the myriad others that don’t, and which may be motivating other people who aren’t Reza Aslan.

        1. The real danger with faith is that it means that anyone can insist they have not “interpreted” what God wants because they’ve made themselves too small. They’ve let go of ego and become ignorant, humble, meek, weak. All they see is the purity of God.

          And THAT can justify anything.

          There’s a popular smug little trope that goes something like “The problems happen when men think God is on their side; the solution is to try to be on God’s side” and then they smirk and nod and expect everyone to nod along. But at least someone who thinks God is on their side believe that yes, they have a “side” and it’s theirs. You can deal with that, you can try to work with that, you can address it as one person to another.

          But “I’m on God’s side?” We’re all freakin’ screwed.

  2. Wish American news organs were as quick to call a spade a spade as The Independent is. “[T]he deepening spiral of religious atrocity,” indeed.

    These barbarians set out explicitly to murder children. That should be inconceivable. No words…

    1. Wish American news organs were as quick to call a spade a spade as The Independent is. “[T]he deepening spiral of religious atrocity,” indeed.

      This is an anomaly. They’ll be back to blaming Western imperialism in no time.

    2. These barbarians set out explicitly to murder children. That should be inconceivable. No words…

      Take solace in the words of the Bible! :

      Exodus 12:2929 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

      Feel better now?

      Joshua 6:2121 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

      Feel better now?

      Deuteronomy 2:34-3534 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.

      Feel better now?

      Numbers 31:7-18[Moses isn’t happy to have to deal with PoWs] 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Feel better now?

      2 Kings 2:23-24, a true classic of just, proportionate retribution23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

      Feel better now?

      Judges 21:10-2310 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

      (We’ll disregard the following gang-kidnap-and-rape scene. An inspirational message for ISIS fighters everywhere.)
      where’d I put that sarcasm filter?

        1. A challenge.
          OK, some proposals. We can start by throwing de Sade’s mastubatory fantasies into the bin (waterproof – don’t want it leaking) – it’s just plain silly.
          Is ‘Mein Kampf’ profoundly evil? I odn’t know, because I’ve never read it. I remember reading the memoir of Mengele’s (enslaved) pathology technician and finding that one of the most disturbing reads I’ve ever had (my copy disintegrated a number of years ago, and I forget the title/ author) ; that, describing the consequences of Mein Kampf, suggests that the inspiring book was something pretty evil.
          Crowley – in the bin with de Sade.
          Various organisations from the SS, through the US armed and police forces to innumerable tinpot dictators through continents and history, have produced technical manuals about how to torture people physically and/ or psychologically. They’re pretty nasty, but never intended for wide readership (contra the “BuyBull” and “Kor[e]an” (body doubles, as per The Author’s running joke).
          For sheer brazen mendacity, then the Book of Mormon scores highly on those grounds. But for evil … it’s essentially a confidence trick perpetrated by a pathetic little shit in order to become rich in both financial terms and in access to sexual partners. reprehensible, but no more reprehensible than (researches …) the likes of Julien Blanc who publishes media to make himself richer and get more access to sexual partners.
          In terms of net harm caused – the anti-vaxxers are trying to get into the territory of the BuyBull and Kor[e]an, but simply don’t have the millennia of accumulated harm. Designers of nuclear weapons, nerve and chemical warfare agents likewise.
          Nope, I’m struggling to think of serious contenders to your assertion. But it’s good to challenge such statements by trying to think of counter examples.

    3. ditto the lack of words….just a sick feeling in the stomach. Allahu Akbar my Ass!! (probably not a wise bumper sticker…)

  3. This story struck me a bit deeper than normal as, when I had gone to Japan for a PhD interview, I had shared a room with a man from Pakistan. During our conversations he had mentioned he lived in a town that was fortified by the military as it was where many government and military families lived, meaning it generally safer. Then hearing about this at a military school was quite shocking.

    1. Country has multiple disparate factions ; the factions live separately ; one faction attacks the children and families of the other faction.
      “Film,” as the saying goes, “at 11”.
      Were you astonished by the attacks on children in Ulster, or only surprised that none of the children were killed?
      It is only rational. If you’re attempting a war of extermination, then the FIRST people you attack are the enemy’s children. Deny them future fighters and terrorise the parents and families. Once you accept that you’re in a war of extermination, the logic is clear.
      Plainly, there is a war of extermination going on between the state of Pakistan and the Taliban in the “tribal areas”. Which honestly should not be news to anyone. Unless they’ve been believing what politicians say.

  4. What makes it even more sickening is the number of commentators proclaiming “this has nothing to do with religion”

    1. As a humanities grad student, I hear such comments from my peers all too frequently. This response is one of the things that troubles me the most re these events.

      Many of the groups & individuals committing these acts explicitly indicate — before, during (“Allahu Akbar”), & after — that their motivations are partially or wholly religious. Rejecting the manner in which these people *choose to frame their own actions* is staggeringly condescending, dismissive, & patronizing.

      That this misrepresentation is so often justified by appeals to colonialism makes it all the more egregious. When you dismiss, outright, a people’s own perspective on & understanding of the actions they undertake, are you not imposing your own cognitive schema & social norms upon them? Do you not infantilize them, suppress their culture, rob them of agency in the process? Is this process not central to colonialism?

      It’s rank hypocrisy, it’s fundamentally incoherent (b/c self-refuting), & it vexes me to no end.

      1. Yes, yes you do.

        And the claim, “that is not religion,” more specific to this incident, “that is not true Islam,” is precisely the same point of view that is one of the major motivations for religious groups to perpetrate violence against other religious groups. Particularly those that are most similar to their own.

        People from Obama to Aslan make that claim. Of course the truth is that all variations of a religion, all sects, all religions period, are man made and every single one of them is as true as any other.

        1. I agree! Excellent points.

          This is not to say colonialism is not a factor certainly; the environments that grow these virulent belief systems all have similarly underdeveloped civic infrastructures. How much of this is due to colonialism – versus the corrupt, totalitarian regimes the Western empires replaced – is hard to say. The problem is the phenomenon Colin Powell referred to as the “Pottery Barn Rule” of “you broke it, you bought it. Western imperialism and meddling are a real thing, so it’s a convenient and effective target for the finger-pointing.

          It seems the measuring stick should be how people behave, not what they believe. It so happens there’s a strict correlation between how Muslim terrorist organizations behave and what they believe – but we get tied in knots because the West is inevitably allied with regimes and organizations with the same bad behavior and beliefs. So there is weapons-grade rationalization that takes place, and also spin and misrepresentation to ignore the misdeeds of the “good guys” and dehumanized the “bad guys.” And just to make things good and messy, lots of data available the internal opposition can use to frustrate a coherent Western response – which is not all bad, by the way, if it keeps the West out of further imperialistic entanglement.

          This is all a win-win for the arms dealers, wealth extractors and others who profit from the suffering of the “little people” everyone wants to say they care about. The little people are the ones doing all the suffering and dying in this game. And the ones who make the money do a remarkable job of keeping the focus off of them and on the political intrigue. So yes the hypocrisy is disgusting and frustrating – and as long as there are more ways to get rich from war than there are from peace, we can fully expect the disgust and frustration to continue.

          1. All sound points, unfortunately.

            I agree that Western colonialism is certainly a factor — as is the region’s extensive history of Islamic colonialism (which many westerners conveniently forget or elide). The problems in the Near & Middle East long predate Western intervention in the region. Nonetheless, I think that it is the case that the West has played a major rôle in exacerbating the problems.

            Given the degree of corruption & self-interest on all sides (including those sides we are unaware of), it seems to be a no-win situation. Intervention seems to make things much worse for those on the ground (especially women & children), yet withdrawal has the same impact, albeit for different reasons.

            It’s horrific, & I’ve no idea how address the situation. I doubt matters will improve during lifetime of anyone currently living.

        1. Equating “godless” with “evil” is both bigotry and an explanation for bigotry.

          As long as believing in God and following God are ranked as great virtues, atheists can kowtow and respect and osculate the rump of faith while deploring those fundamentalist atheists who argue with people … and it won’t do much good in the long run. The religious will simply classify them as “atheists who act like they believe in God (and thus probably secretly do.)”

    2. See above comment from the Judeo-Christian group wet-dream compendium.
      This is to do with religion, but not a particular religion. The religion of the participants barely matters, merely that the two groups differ on some important point such as the end of the egg to eat first. (More groups are possible, of course. See for example, the struggles between ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israeli settlements, the Orthodox government of Israel, and the Islamic populations of Israel and Palestine. Nice little 4-way war going on there.)

      1. I would a to take some exception to the characterization of the Government of Israel as Orthodox. The current government is the first in Israel’s history in which the religious parties have been excluded and thus is entirely secular.

        1. Compared to the Jew-in-the-UK-boozer, their actions and posturings are pretty Orthodox. Mind you, it is difficult to recognise shades of grey through the telescope I need to try to look into their minds.

  5. When is anything negative ever going to be attributed to religion? Perhaps we need to define Nice Islam and Nasty Islam, although the both come from the same source material.

  6. It should be very clear by now that the Religion of Peace is at the very least very ineffective at making its believers peaceful. You don’t need to go as far and establish a causal connection. When believers murder, and they did and do, then religions have failed to pacify their hosts. And that is safe to say.

    2. I’ve always wondered if maybe we have just completely misunderstood them about the Religion of Peace thing. Perhaps what they mean is that Islam is destined to bring peace to everybody else. You know, by the sword and all that.

      Analagous to the path to pure communism. First you subjugate everyone, which can be quite messy and painful, but hey, once you’ve done that you achieve Peace!

      3. *Islam* means ‘submission’, & is also etymologically related to *salaam* ‘peace’. The underlying idea is that a Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah *thereby attaining peace*.

        (Consider the idiom ‘hold your peace’ meaning ‘hold your tongue, be silent’. The sense is similar).

      4. I’ve always wondered if maybe we have just completely misunderstood them about the Religion of Peace thing….First you subjugate everyone, which can be quite messy and painful, but hey, once you’ve done that you achieve Peace!

        I’ve always understood it to mean exactly that.

  7. Just read a comment on another site where someone argues that religion isn’t the problem ideologies are.
    The commenter seems to be ignoring the fact that religion is in fact an ideology. Not only is it an ideology, but it’s an ideology who’s dogma is is supposed to have been authored by the infallible creator of the universe. It’s also the only ideology that people are indoctrinated in from birth under threat of eternal damnation. To argue that ideologies are problem, and that religion, the most widely, and dogmatically held ideology isn’t, is insane.

    1. Seems odd. All the muslims I’ve talked to or read about has said that Islam covers all aspects of life, from private life to politics, etc.

      1. Taking this one step further, it would seem impossible for a ‘true’ Muslim to engage in any public act without it being religious in nature. The same probably applies to the godly soldiers of the Armies of Pakistan, Iraq, etc., whose atrocities are mostly censored from what Americans call news.

    2. Very common, cliche even, claim. Right up there with, “it isn’t religion that’s the problem, it’s culture.” As if the two are somehow distinct, seperate things.

  8. Strange, most UK media are referring to this as a terrorist attack and ignoring the religious aspect cos, you know, the religious are so peaceful really.

    1. At the same time – about time one of the left-wing UK newspapers actually attributing this to religion.

      The Guardian for instance was quick to post yet another opinion piece – by a Muslim judging by the author’s name – predictably proclaiming this had nothing to do with religion but it is just an internal Pakistani power struggle.

      Yeah right.

  11. In the language of the religious all over the world but especially in Pakistan — When you make deals with the devil you can’t be surprised when it bites back.

    Pakistan is always walking that fine line with religion between possible and insanity. It’s too bad we know no better.

  12. As much as the problem is religion, we need to also confront the fact that more than 95% of the problems of the world, atrocities, etc are caused by men. And men are the ones who use religion to make up, codify and enforce their screwed up world views. One of the biggest uses of religion by men is to subjugate women. Societies where women are empowered are better – more peaceful, just, richer. This is not a feminist perspective – it is a reality. The biggest issue Islamists have with the West is how we treat women. The biggest influence on the Islamist movement, Sayyid Qutb, was horrified by American women in 1948-50 Greeley, Colorado.

    There is a reformation going on in the Islamic world. That is not the same as a liberalization. The Protestant Reformation was about about purifying xianity. It was by its very nature fundamentalist. It led to centuries of wars of religion – something that horrified that founders of the American republic. The Islamic Reformation is going off in the same direction.

    2. Good point regarding the Protestant Reformation. We tend to think, wrongly, that it was a time of liberation of thought. And it was in the sense that a bunch of intolerant thinkers slaughtered each other over disputed fantasies. The Enlightenment was largely a reaction to those horrors.

      So we need a new Enlightenment in the Islamic World. An Islamic Reformation isn’t enough.

    3. “The Protestant Reformation was about about purifying xianity.” yes but it was far more than that. Why did the Reformation happen in northern/western Europe?

      1. The Reformation occurred throughout Western Europe, North & South, in multiple independent movements.

        I think George may mean that, at the outset, the primary motivations behind the Reformation were theological (which is accurate). Be that as it may, the Reformation did come to be about more than theology, &, over the long term, it was more successful in the North.

        ‘Why?’ is an exceedingly complex question. Factors *may* include:

        – Proximity, which undermined the Church’s ability to suppress dissent. Southern Europe was under much tighter control. The closer you are to a seat of power, the more difficult it is to extricate yourself. (Distance also complicates buying off local authorities).
        – Incipient nationalism/regionalism. Northern princes were not keen on being dictated to from Rome, & having monies sucked out of the region by the Vatican.
        – Lack of political uniformity in the north. Germany, in particular, was a patchwork of tiny principalities.
        – Linguistic differences were a further point of contention. Latin was (& is) at a significantly remove from Germanic languages.
        – Economic factors. It has been argued that capitalism, which emerged in the North, played a rôle.
        – Broader cultural differences are likely implicated.

        Note that there are arguments for & against every single one of these possible factors — & I’ve probably missed some others. (Which is to say, I don’t know that we can answer the question with a high degree of certainty).

        1. I do mean that the Reformation was a purely religious movement. It did lead to a lot of other things – most importantly the Enlightenment. Those who got it going, men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, et al, were disgusting religious bigots who used violence. Sayyid Qutb is cut from the same cloth.

          You hear calls for an Islamic Reformation. Be careful what you ask for because it is clear one is underway. It may eventually lead to good. But the road will be splattered with blood.

          One question historians have not answered (at least to my satisfaction)is why the Enlightenment and the age of science and discovery happened in Europe – a very backward and splintered place around 1400. China and the Arab world were so much more advanced. The one argument that makes some sense to me is that the Reformation created space for ideas. The leaders were so busy fighting over religion in addition to wealth an power, that the Renaissance was able to take root in the cracks. One thing led to another and a few centuries later you have something.

          The hope for the Islamic world is that it take less time than a few centuries – and a lot less blood.

  13. Sad, but unfortunately not surprising. This beautiful country has no hope to end this cycle until they lose religion. That is not sufficient, but it is necessary.

  15. The big surprise for me in the coverage was that the Indy chose that headline for their front page. Pretty brave. I can imagine them getting some pushback for that.

    To be absolutely honest, this attack, following on from the Australian hostage sutuation, seems by comparison less religiously motivated. I think, so we don’t just do the opposite of the apologists, we need to be scrupulously honest about separating, on the one hand, atrocities perpetrated by religious people in the name of religion, and on the other, atrocities perpetrated by religious people.

    This attack seems like a straightforward, albeit shatteringly awful, military tactic. I don’t quite see how this couldn’t have happened without religion, I don’t hear any specific religious justifications from the Taliban(beside the usual ones they use to justify everything they do). I’m wavering on this. I suppose one could argue that everything the Taliban does is religiously motivated, as their ultimate aims are explicitly religious.

    1. “…beside the usual ones they use to justify everything they do…”

      I think you did a pretty good job of responding to your initial objection.

    2. I’m struggling to think of any strictly military tactic that involves killing a hundred children, plus their teachers, at a school. What military objective does that serve?

      An ideologically driven tactic on the other hand…

      1. Apologies for the late reply. Am an infrequent poster.

        Yes, perhaps “tactic” was an ill-chosen word. On the other hand it doesn’t seem particularly ideologically-driven. I’m certainly not trying to exculpate Islam for its role in what happened, but I think there have been more explicitly religious atrocities just in the last week. This seems like pure, military revenge. I don’t see what explicit religious injunctions they were satisfying, unless, as I said, you believe that everything they do is ultimately religious in nature. I just think it’s more complicated than that.

        Still, I’m probably being a bit pedantic here. Thanks for the responses:)

        1. The ideology of this particular group seems to include that education is bad. As was pointed out on UK TV last night, the leader of this group is the same one that ordered the attack on schoolgirls that included Malala. The idea seems to be that uneducated people are easier to recruit – and oppress – than educated ones.

          I think ideology runs though everything in these groups, but not because i hate Islam; it’s just that when you start digging below the surface, you find it.

  16. Having read “I Am Malala” this news is no surprise to me and it shouldn’t surprise anyone else. Malala is the young lady who was on a school bus full of girls coming home from school and a Taliban maniac, probably a virgin who was afraid someone might see a girl’s ankle, boarded the bus and shot her point blank in the face. She amazingly survived and wrote a very readable and interesting look at life in northern Pakistan. She makes it clear that neither the military or the local police have any chance at this point of stopping the Taliban from doing as they please. In true fundamentalist insanity, they hate education. They must be afraid that the more that people learn, the more they will understand how absurd and hateful the actions of the Taliban are and they may even question the beliefs of Islam itself. They are barbarians who want to and have made great inroads to run the country the same as ISIS wants to do in Iraq and Syria and eventually the world. Go ahead and place blame on colonialism and American intervention if you want, but be afraid of Islam especially radical fundamentalist Islam. Don’t make the mistake though of giving greater Islam a pass; it is to blame for not speaking out against the fundamentalist maniacs and mostly acting afraid of them. I’m waiting for more courageous Muslims to join Malala in trying to speak out and defy the maniacs. Long wait so far.

  19. I saw a pretty decent tweet about the attack along the lines of “let’s see if Muslims worldwide respond to this atrocity with the same vigour as they respond to blasphemy” which may be a dead horse but is still a valid point.

Comments are closed.