Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

[Arsalan]

Which is to say: significantly.

In your opinion. Fortunately, the sane world doesnt blame everyone else for whatever might happen to them.

And have you ever encountered any such person?

Myself. I was looking for answers regarding certain things I wasnt sure about, which lead me to a thread on here where we had 3-4 people posting verses from the Quran, mistranslating them and blaming all Muslims and Islam for everything.

No, the only outcome that would rise to the level of "enough" would be if those outside of your group do not have to worry about being attacked by those in your group. At that point, you'd be justified in telling those outsiders that enough is being done to limit your group's impingement on them. Anything short of that, and you're going to have to accept that some culpability is left for everyone in your group.

Or, again, you could always leave the group, if you don't like that.

The people that commit these crimes, have already left the group and or been kicked out. Thats enough.

Moreover, it is reasonable to expect to be able to criticize, without that being equated with violence, and without suffering violence and intimidation in return.

And, on the flip side, if they forward criticisms that are unrelated to reality, prejudicial, and used by their originators as pretexts for violence, then they should be held accountable for supporting violence.

Reinforced my point. Thanks.

And, through some amazing cosmic coincidence, you all independently arrived at the same opinion on Rushdie, with all the same obvious misreadings and personal aspersions, as the oppressors. Meanwhile, such a position is very rare in populations that don't share your religious allegiances.

What explains the correlation?

All? A lot of people had different things to say about Rushdie, but overall the major arguments were the same as they were presented by a group of people whose history was clearly the target. It would be unrealistic to expect Brazilians to rise up when someone writes negatively about the subcontinent.

Not someone, but something. And not "need:" what is needed is liberation from these processes. You have the causation exactly backwards: you aren't oppressed because you're intellectually dysfunctional. You are intellectually dysfunctional because you are oppressed.

More proof that the thought Rushdie promoted has taken root in certaina reas of our society: I have to be oppressed because my thinking seems dysfunctional to you.

No reasonable person who has read his work agrees with that view.

Ofcourse, call the intellectuals, writers and experts that have written and commented on it unreasonable. After all, they can have any opinion as long as it absolves Rushdie of what he wrote about.

Why would I do that? It's you who has ulterior motives when approaching his work, and who clings to a criticism constructed for blatantly political purposes. My view is aligned with that of the overwhelming majority of readers who do not come to the table with a pre-existing agenda.

Overwhelming readers in the West. Most people in the East, the people he actually targeted, see it differently.

 

[quadraphonics]

The people that commit these crimes, have already left the group and or been kicked out.

No, they haven't. That's the whole thing: you have no way to kick them out, and they have a strong desire to present themselves as representatives of your group.

Reinforced my point. Thanks.

The issue is that you are currently pursuing multiple mutually-inconsistent points at the same time, and so any reinforcement of one of them, is a weakening of another.

but overall the major arguments were the same as they were presented by a group of people whose history was clearly the target.

The supposition that "history" can be "targetted" by a novel, is striking.

As is the insistence that Rushdie, of all people, is out to oppress his own people.

More proof that the thought Rushdie promoted has taken root in certaina reas of our society:

"Our?"

I have to be oppressed because my thinking seems dysfunctional to you.

It's not a matter of "seem." It's clearly the case.

And not "have to be oppressed." You could just be stupid. If if you stop to think about it, attributing these outcomes to oppression is actually the charitable interpretation.

Overwhelming readers in the West. Most people in the East, the people he actually targeted, see it differently.

Again, the insistence that Rushdie's books are literal weapons, "targetted at" an entire people (which Rushdie is a member of). That's nuts.

And, again, the books in question are not available to the people in these "targetted" countries to read in the first place. They must rely on the assurances of religious autocrats, for their perspective. Which makes it highly suspect.

 

[Arsalan]

No, they haven't. That's the whole thing: you have no way to kick them out, and they have a strong desire to present themselves as representatives of your group.

Actually they do and have. Theres a reason they target mosques and other Muslim holy sites: they were kicked out, banned and are now actively pursued, captured and punished. They see the Muslims as their enemies as well.

The issue is that you are currently pursuing multiple mutually-inconsistent points at the same time, and so any reinforcement of one of them, is a weakening of another.

Nah, you just put my arguments into different words and I agree with that.

The supposition that "history" can be "targetted" by a novel, is striking.

As is the insistence that Rushdie, of all people, is out to oppress his own people.

Rushdie isnt out to oppress his own people. But he knew perfectly well what he was doing. By his own admission, he did not write fiction, nor did he dismiss the consequences of what he was doing.

"Our?"

I was raised in Western-Europe. I see European and Western society as my own, hence the "our".

And, again, the books in question are not available to the people in these "targetted" countries to read in the first place. They must rely on the assurances of religious autocrats, for their perspective. Which makes it highly suspect.

Not anymore. They used to be. I guess they didnt want to be connected to what he said about people.

 

[(Q)]

Rushdie isnt out to oppress his own people. But he knew perfectly well what he was doing. By his own admission, he did not write fiction, nor did he dismiss the consequences of what he was doing.

Knighthood, literary acclaim, supermodel wife.

Not bad consequences.

 

[Arsalan]

Knighthood, literary acclaim, supermodel wife.

Not bad consequences.

Ofcourse, and may he live a long and fruitful life. Just too bad about the relations he set back about a 100 years.

 

[(Q)]

Ofcourse, and may he live a long and fruitful life. Just too bad about the relations he set back about a 100 years.

Again, knighthood, literary acclaim, supermodel wife.

Excellent relations, by any standard.

 

[kmguru]

Knighthood, literary acclaim, supermodel wife.

Not bad consequences.

Definitely

 

[iceaura]

Actually they do and have. Theres a reason they target mosques and other Muslim holy sites: they were kicked out, banned and are now actively pursued, captured and punished. They see the Muslims as their enemies as well.

When are you going to make up your mind about "the Muslim community" and "the Muslims society" ?

Are the people in Iraq targeting mosques (actually targeting, with bombs, not writing novels set in them) also not Muslim? Is anyone persecuted by a large number of Muslims therefore not a Muslim? Are the Janjaweed in it or not?

I'm not at all sure membership in "the Muslim community" is something you can declare or define to suit yourself. OBL is supported by almost no one except other Muslims, at the moment - and their support is explicitly justified on religious grounds. He is definitely a member of a Muslim community, of some kind.

Just too bad about the relations he set back about a 100 years.

You continue to blame Rushdie for the actions of others. He wrote a couple of novels. The rioting and murder worldwide, the contract on his life by an Islamic head of state, the conflicts and confrontations and erosion of relations in my area and other Western areas, were none of his doing.

Nothing Rushdie has ever done or probably could ever do has set back relations between the Western and Islamic worlds as much as Khomeini's fatwa, or the riots and murders and worldwide tantrums over that one novel - followed by the mind-boggling reactions of Muslim intellectuals and spokesmen in many Western areas.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again, knighthood, literary acclaim, supermodel wife.

Excellent relations, by any standard.

Personal gain at public expense is not a new phenomenon. But I did not realise that you were an admirer of such.

 

[iceaura]

Personal gain at public expense is not a new phenomenon

Rushdie is not an inflicter of public expense. His novels are privately printed and sold, and his personal gain is from these writings.

 

[S.A.M.]

Kinda like the Shiv Sena.

 

[(Q)]

Personal gain at public expense is not a new phenomenon.

You're absolutely right. Rushdie wrote prize winning literature, the public expended a few bucks to buy his books and he gained personally, like I said before; knighthood, etc.

Look here at this online Islamic bookstore, there are Muslims selling books they've written.

It would appear that the system you describe, 'personal gain at public expense' is everywhere.

Unfortunately, the link I provided was not a very good example as the category listings of "Muslim books of Knowledge" were empty.

But I did not realise that you were an admirer of such.

You aren't? What are you, a communist?

 

[iceaura]

Kinda like the Shiv Sena.

Now we see novelist Rushdie's book production described as "kinda like" Shiv Sena .

The latest in a series of posts, by every single visible Muslim on this forum, whose basic thesis is that Rushdie is to blame for the violent and physically threatening reactions to his books.

The question comes up again: what is wrong with the Muslim religion that even its more Westernized and educated adherents produce such bizarre illogic, such travesties of reason and sense, in response to such things as criticism of the global vigilante (and specifically Muslim) persecution of Salman Rushdie for writing insulting novels?

 

[Arsalan]

When are you going to make up your mind about "the Muslim community" and "the Muslims society" ?

When people start making a distinction between law abiding Muslims and criminals that are Muslims instead of calling all of us by the same name and lumping the victims in with the criminals.

Are the people in Iraq targeting mosques (actually targeting, with bombs, not writing novels set in them) also not Muslim? Is anyone persecuted by a large number of Muslims therefore not a Muslim? Are the Janjaweed in it or not?

Ofcourse theyre Muslims if they see themselves as that, but where is a Muslim commanded to bomb a mosque full of innocent people? Anyone who kills another innocent person is a criminal and they should be called criminal, instead of making no distinction whatsoever between the victims, the Muslims, and the cirminals.

I'm not at all sure membership in "the Muslim community" is something you can declare or define to suit yourself. OBL is supported by almost no one except other Muslims, at the moment - and their support is explicitly justified on religious grounds. He is definitely a member of a Muslim community, of some kind.

Prove it. I seem to recall church leaders cheering 9/11. Does that count as support for Bin Laden?

You continue to blame Rushdie for the actions of others. He wrote a couple of novels. The rioting and murder worldwide, the contract on his life by an Islamic head of state, the conflicts and confrontations and erosion of relations in my area and other Western areas, were none of his doing.

Nothing Rushdie has ever done or probably could ever do has set back relations between the Western and Islamic worlds as much as Khomeini's fatwa, or the riots and murders and worldwide tantrums over that one novel - followed by the mind-boggling reactions of Muslim intellectuals and spokesmen in many Western areas.

He lied and he knew what he was doing. Thats all there is to it. The reaction, mostly non-violent, was in response to the way he was treated as a hero, while films and books about him and Jesus that were offensive got banned and cancelled.

 

[Arsalan]

Now we see novelist Rushdie's book production described as "kinda like" Shiv Sena .

The latest in a series of posts, by every single visible Muslim on this forum, whose basic thesis is that Rushdie is to blame for the violent and physically threatening reactions to his books.

The question comes up again: what is wrong with the Muslim religion that even its more Westernized and educated adherents produce such bizarre illogic, such travesties of reason and sense, in response to such things as criticism of the global vigilante (and specifically Muslim) persecution of Salman Rushdie for writing insulting novels?

Ah yes, because there has to be a problem with the Muslim religion if we say that Rushdie knew what he was doing and is not without fault for what happened. Nevermind the non-Muslims that denounced Rushdie, no, lets all focus on the Muslims! Better yet, lets focus on Islam! because its not like a Muslim can do something that is not in line with Islamic teaching!

/sarcasm, but his is the mindset that Rushdie promoted and I have seen over and over here by the people that defend him and absolve him of all blame.

 

[iceaura]

Ah yes, because there has to be a problem with the Muslim religion if we say that Rushdie knew what he was doing and is not without fault for what happened.

No. Try again. Reread if necessary.

He lied and he knew what he was doing. Thats all there is to it. The reaction, mostly non-violent, was in response to the way he was treated as a hero, while films and books about him and Jesus that were offensive got banned and cancelled.

He wrote a novel. A work of fiction. That is not the same as lying.

You are in error - repeated error, in the face of correction, no longer attributable to ignorance - about the treatment of novels and other works of art insulting to fundie believers in Jesus.

The reaction included a worldwide promulgation of serious and overt physical threat against Rushdie and anyone associated with his novels.

When people start making a distinction between law abiding Muslims and criminals that are Muslims instead of calling all of us by the same name and lumping the victims in with the criminals.

So until "people" quit lumping you with Muslims you don't like, you will continue to fail to comprehend the Western concept of freedom of expression. You will also (I predict) continue to refer to Western and colonial attacks against "the Muslim community" and "the Muslim world" and "the Muslim society", and make references to your different perspective and the different concepts you employ due to your Muslim upbringing and education, in between complaints about being lumped with other Muslims.

Ofcourse theyre Muslims if they see themselves as that, but where is a Muslim commanded to bomb a mosque full of innocent people?

I've been wondering about that myself - it's a very common phenomenon, and seems to need explanation.

 

[Arsalan]

You are in error - repeated error, in the face of correction, no longer attributable to ignorance - about the treatment of novels and other works of art insulting to fundie believers in Jesus.

Actually no. A year after Rushdies book came out, a film that was about Jesus was banned because of blasphemy in the UK. A year later or so, Rushdie threatened legal action against a playwright if he dared to stage a play that he was offended by and the play was cancelled.

The reaction included a worldwide promulgation of serious and overt physical threat against Rushdie and anyone associated with his novels.

The violence was by a handful of people, whose actions I dont support and I hope the law deals with them appropriately.

So until "people" quit lumping you with Muslims you don't like, you will continue to fail to comprehend the Western concept of freedom of expression. You will also (I predict) continue to refer to Western and colonial attacks against "the Muslim community" and "the Muslim world" and "the Muslim society", and make references to your different perspective and the different concepts you employ due to your Muslim upbringing and education, in between complaints about being lumped with other Muslims.

I knew you wouldnt understand When someone who is a Muslim commits a terrorist act by, say, blowing up a mosque full of innocent Muslims, we get people on here saying how this is typical of Muslims. When they keep calling those criminals Muslims, instead of just criminals or terrorists, they make no distinction whatsoever between the victims and the criminals and keep perpetuating the myth that they are just like Muslims everywhere. "Not lumping the victims in with the criminals" means stop calling them Muslims, refer to them by what they are: terrorists and criminals.

I've been wondering about that myself - it's a very common phenomenon, and seems to need explanation.

Criminals dont care what happens to innocent people. They are outsiders in society. But then again this is proof of the mindset I try to keep exposing: "it's not a criminal that blows up a mosque full of innocent Muslims, it's a Muslim", and then this leads us down to the standard "problem with Islam" arguments and blablablablaaaa

 

[quadraphonics]

He lied

Writing a work of fiction is a very different thing from lying.

The whole idea that "truth-telling" or "lying" are relevant - or even, well-defined - considerations when assessing a fantasy novel is pretty bizarre.

And, yes, I make these same arguments to fundie Christians that get all worked up about, for example, The Last Temptation of Christ. Not that Scorcese has had to live underground for years on end...

and he knew what he was doing.

The difficulty here is that you don't know what he was doing, apparently out of some positive determination not to.

The reaction, mostly non-violent, was in response to the way he was treated as a hero,

Non-sequitur. He was treated as a hero for defying and surviving the reaction.

while films and books about him and Jesus that were offensive got banned and cancelled.

There are no banned books in my country. In my country, the same people that lionize Rushdie are also pretty vocal about how backwards and unenlightened European speech restrictions are. If you want to blast Britain for hypocrisy and imperialism, go right ahead. But understand that you aren't addressing any Brits, presently, and that those you are addressing have some very deep-rooted differences with Britain, on these issues.

Not that there is any comparison between regrettable censorship laws, and a worldwide campaign of ideological violence.

 

[S.A.M.]

There are no banned books in my country.

There are no torture centers either. Because the banning and torturing is done at an overseas level.

People whose views are unpopular don't write books they get bombed with their children as terrorists.

 

[Clucky]

There are no torture centers either. Because the banning and torturing is done at an overseas level.

Most Britons are disgusted by this. Most Britons don't perceive Islam as the threat. Most Britons were deceived by government propaganda regarding the Iraq war. Most Britons love Cat Steven's music.

Remember Britain doesn't have proportional representation, either. What our government ascribes to is rarely what the people want these days. It is only now that Britain is becoming more continental in its protests. Believe me, we're all tired of the islamophobic paranoia exhibited by our anti-terrorist legislation.

Rushdie didn't commit a crime, and I applaud him for resisting the violence directed towards him by criminals. There was no need for the ridiculous sensitivity illustrated by some in the Muslim community though.

His fiction sucks anyway. There was no need for such a fuss, from anyone.