Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Islam is a political religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've done nothing but lie and exaggerate. To wit:

Compared to the truth, which was that out of a ten-paragraph article, this was all that was mentioned of Muslims helping Christians:

One Christian couple from the neighborhood said they went to their Muslim neighbors' house on Friday night after people came looking for the Christian man accused of blasphemy. Ishaq Masih said the Muslim neighbors sheltered the couple for the night and then gave them money to leave the area in the morning.​

(And this one reported instance of help did not occur during the riots, of course)

Then there was this business where you accused me of stereotyping:

...which you later said was based on the "blanket statement" title of the thread:

Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan​

On this point, we're either left with you not understanding the difference between a blanket statement and an observational fact, or you just trying to stir the pot again, the way you always do with your lies, exaggerations, and misrepresentations.

More lies. And a contradiction, to boot. You've tried to play this thing from multiple angles from the start. First you attempted to say that the mob violence wasn't religiously-inspired because of...what? Here, let's see what you said:

So not only did you construct a straw man in which I blamed all mob violence on Islam, but then you employed the logical fallacy that because mob violence happens for different reasons, religion therefore is not one of those reasons. And this is just the first of many attempted deflections. Let's explore you trying to blame the West for this specific event in Pakistan:

Both I and GeoffP have attempted to educate you on the status of religious violence prior to western involvement, and your argument has predictably deteriorated into the ridiculous charge that blasphemy was not punished prior to the British Raj.

You've also argued simultaneously that this was both the result of a personal vendetta and, as you say above, a political campaign. To the first, there was a fight between two men at the beginning of this, but the fight itself did not cause a mob to burn an entire neighborhood to the ground. What caused the mob to burn the neighborhood to the ground was the allegation of blasphemy that followed. Whether it happened or not, the impetus for the violence was religion--a Muslim mob attacked a Christian neighborhood because they believed someone said something insulting about their prophet. That's what happened. There was obviously hurt feelings involved from the fight, and even if they were on opposing sides of the steel mill elections (they weren't) the violence does not occur without the religious influence, which is why religion takes the role of primary cause.

To your charges that this was political in nature--you even go so far as to say there is "proof," even though you haven't provided any--you're once again inventing a scenario. Here is what your article says of the mills, and the election:

The colony rests next to Lahore’s steel mills, and the quarrel coincided with local elections for the steel worker’s union. According to residents, the leading candidates decided to make the alleged blasphemy a campaign issue.​

The article isn't suggesting that the mob was spurned on by the candidates--in fact, it says plainly that it was spurned on by the local religious leaders, not the candidates--nor would torching a neighborhood help sway the vote one way or another. In fact, the two people who had the fight that started all of this don't work for the mill; one is a municipal cleaner, and the other is a barber. But there's apparently nothing you won't say, thanks to your zeal to protect Islam from criticism.

The ironic part is that you actually agree with me. You say yourself of the problem in Pakistan:

I'd agree with all of that, but if I had come in here and said that this all goes back to the Islamitization of the Pakistani government, you'd have called me a bigot.

You were ignoring me because you had no answer to my charges. I called you out, showed everyone your lies, and you couldn't dispute it. So you ran. Because that's what you do. And you should be ashamed of your behavior in this thread. But again, this isn't anything new for you, so clearly you aren't bothered by being the biggest troll on this site.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why is this racist thread still open?

 

Jesus, maybe I was overestimating your intelligence earlier. No, that was not stereotyping. I made a sarcastic comment about the absurdity of calling Islam a religion of peace when it so often promotes and engages in behavior such as this. Can you really not see the difference?

No, it would be like a person saying they have black friends but making disparaging remarks about black culture. Again, you really can't see this difference? You expect me to believe you're really just stupid? I don't buy it. This must be an intentional misrepresentation.

So you cited as an example...soccer hooliganism? How does soccer hooliganism illustrate that riots are rarely just about religion?

I missed that part of the post, but I find the claim that they were on opposing groups of a steel mill union campaign given that previous reports show neither man employed by the steel mill. The first article you linked to said they were a "municipal cleaner" and a barber. Now they're on opposing sides of the steel mill union election?

No one has denied that there were other factors.

Cry me a river? I mean, I don't know what to tell you. You lie, you exaggerate, you misrepresent, and you make personal accusations and insults, and I'm supposed to give a shit how my pointing out your dishonesty makes you feel?

No one ever said there weren't other factors. Your misunderstanding of my original comment notwithstanding. And if you think you're tallying points by saying that there are other ignorant and dishonest people taking up your mantle, good luck with that. Yeah, you and Lightgigantic agree on something. Congratulations.

Something about guilt by association goes here..

I've never denied that it started with a fight. I've only said that the riot never would have happened without Islam. And I'm right. You tried to say it was a "minute" part of the problem, but in truth the riot can't happen without the blasphemy.

Islam. I was blaming it on Islam. I've never denied that.

Wow. Unreal. hahaha

You mean "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck." And I'd agree with that. The problem, however, is that you don't seem to have the first bloody clue what a duck looks or sounds like.

This is incorrect. The paper states that there were blasphemy cases prior to British rule, they simply don't have good information on them. They clearly state orthodox jurisprudence had existed in India prior to the British.

Certainly not when the people who need the education are either unwilling or unable to understand the lesson.

It's quite more than that. You yourself said that the solution to this problem lies in the secularization of Pakistan. If religion were just a cog, then you would have no doubt offered an alternative solution, one that didn't center around the threat of Islamization of the country.

Of course, if you only mean that it's one part of the puzzle, I don't disagree. But clearly you don't mean that. You have from the outset tried to relegate it to near irrelevance, and it certainly isn't that.

No, you feel it's bigoted because you don't have the integrity--or likely the intelligence--to handle criticism of an ideology you consider to be "off-limits." Had I posted an article outlining a bishop's efforts to protect a child molester with the line "The Church strikes again," you wouldn't have bat an eyelash. Why? Because bigotry against Muslims is rampant in the post-9/11 world, and people are understandably sensitive to it. And, in true bleeding-heart fashion, there are those who take the sensitivity too far. As it concerns you and your small-minded brethren, any criticism of Islam is bigoted.

Your first article said they were a cleaner and a barber. Now they're union workers at the steel mill? I mean, okay, if this was an oversight that was corrected, fine. It doesn't change the fact that Islam is to blame for the violence. It has to be. The riot isn't possible without Islam. They weren't going to torch a neighborhood over a union dispute.

Yet when I point out that Islam is the problem, you cry.

No, I do. It's based on your misunderstanding of my comment, whether it's because you really don't know what "stereotype" means, or you're just being willfully dishonest, I can't say. Maybe both.

Geoff, another guy you've called a bigot on several occasions, if I remember correctly. And you're not fooling anyone; you took up Geoff's posts because he didn't have all of your lies cued up and thrown in your face.

And yet here you are...

 

If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to talk about islam outside of political paradigms (which obviously isn't the case).

Once again, the irony is that your attitude actually feeds the perceived quality of islam that you have such distaste for (namely issues surrounding radical political affiliation).

IOW a good way to politicize any cultural aspect intrinsic to a geographic region (and ultimately isolate and solidify the said cultural trope... regardless whether we are talking about anything from commerce to religion to hair style) is to persecute all and any who identify with/possess the said trope in an indiscriminate manner.

 

she says you are stereotyping
you berate her for saying the wrong
... and then you confirm you are infact trying to paint all shades of islam the one colour with your statement.

:shrug:

 

There are atheist equivalents.
Just tell an avid evolutionist that humans are not in any way related to apes - expect that all hell will break loose.

Those offenses are on the same scale.

Okay.

Big words have been said, yes.

First you'd need to know what the cause is.
And then if it is within human power to do something about that cause, and then whose task is it to do something against it.


Because this problem of "religion violence" might just be one of those things that only each person for themselves can do something about, and about which others are powerless (unless they use explicit threats and physical harm).

I typed a reply, but then figured it would probably be against forum rules to post it.

That just goes to show what a tabooed topic this is.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

 

Can you sketch out what type of person is actually able to afford not to engage in such stereotyping and persecution?



IOW, I don't think you can really offer any viable alternative. Although I would very much like to believe that you can offer such an alternative.

 

Do you really believe that a life of peace and harmony is possible even when resources are scarce?

Do you know anyone who isn't eager to have things done their way?

 

historically it is shown to occur when actual (or broader) experience comes in to play as opposed to projecting one's imagined experience of a situation.

So for instance we can recognize a black person as being guilty of crime without having to fall back on the bigoted view of "black people are criminals" ... or even worse, try and ply some sort of political line for persecuting black people ...... such as making a sarcastic comment about the absurdity of calling black people innocent when they so often promote and engage in criminal behavior)

I bet that the resources that feed the notions of islam from several prominent posters here have nothing to do with actual experiences of muslim people or countries (and everything to do with rehashing media sensationalism/second hand accounts ... )

 

I thought you might take up this point. Well, why not? If there is no genuine evil in this world on basis of one philosophy or other, then all crimes have the same basis: lust for greed and power. After that, it would only be a matter of degree. No philosophy could be impugned for its merits. All would only be the lust for greed and power.

Well then, let's not belabour it: Aurangezeb introduced widespread Islamist doctrine, almost certainly including the persecution of 'blasphemers'. The links I posted indicate the same, although less canonically.

OK, then it was an encouragement of feelings that existed - in the immediately previous administration. Your initial point was this, however:

Clearly, this isn't so. In fact, they took over from a reactionary clique themselves.

True. Nor is the religion bad in itself. It does seem particularly susceptible or amenable to such twisting: part of this is that Islamic theology does advocate the investment of religion into governance, and so the fact of it occurs throughout the Islamic world, off and on. In time this might end - who knows? - but at the moment, it doesn't seem hideously likely. Hope springs eternal.

It is not an example of individual 'doucheness', and I resent these apologetics. It is an example of religious hatred - lest ye join now the ranks of Wynn, the illimitable reductionist/generalist, to whom all things are nothing and nothing all things.

As for Westboro - of course it indicates that Christianity is also prone to extremism. Certainly you have heard of the extremity of its expression, in other centuries (and this one). Like all religions, it must be watched. Currently, Islam is far more prone to it. This may change. Christianity is currently under better control, though I suspect that the theology is not so easily transferred to religio-political hatred. Or perhaps it merely depends on the group being hated.

I think I've mentioned this previously in the discussion and probably innumerable times before: it isn't. Nor have I argued so. But it does reflect some of the conservative streak of Islam known as 'Islamism'.

That's all nice, but again: if we subtract all advanced meaning from hatred, we are left with a dull understanding of it. In fact, we are left with a dullard's understanding of it: nothing can have meaning. Nuance disappears. There is no such thing as religious hatred: people are just people, aw shucks.

Including the above 'they', you did say so:

This is a group vilification. There is no mention of extremists, of outliers in Israeli society, nothing of the diversity that necessarily underlies the heterogenous host group. You have obliquely put all Israelis in a basket. How is this not generalization?

Anyway, it was just about the lust and greed for power. No need to damn Israeli society, then, or even settler society. A few douchebags had their way, for a moment in time.

 

Actually... I think wynn is right here, Balerion. I think he has you on this point.

Just last week, an MD told me how she'd "gotten over" the "evolution thing". When I asked her to clarify, she told me that she'd taken a class and gotten into it, but then come to her senses.

So I snapped and torched her neighbourhood.

That'll learn her.

Fortunately, we do know that, but every time it gets mentioned, someone is always trying to stymie it with pointless reductionism.

So I therefore have a question: what is the cause of pointless reductionism? If it's within our power to do something about it, is it our obligation to do so?

Or, one could enact laws and widespread social protection and reformation for those against whom religious violence is committed. One could educate about differences and why they should be tolerated. Granted, this would require individuals to do something. Aside from reductionist postulating, I mean.

Nor is denial just a moving body of water in northeastern Africa.

 

Still don't know what "stereotype" means, I see.

Apparently so. I still don't see any evidence of integrity in your posts, but I'm starting to see the lack of intellect as well.

And how exactly does soccer hooliganism illustrate that point? Soccer hooliganism is not religious in nature at all, so how does it serve as an example of riots that have the appearance of religious violence that are really about something else? C'mon, let's address this claim rather than trying to slither away from it.

I'm saying the earlier article listed them as a street cleaner and a barber. Now this one has them as steel mill workers. So I don't know what to believe.

I blame Islam for its primacy in this attack. There are other factors, but Islam deserves the lion's share of the blame.

What does that post have to do with anything? It was in response to a poster who was complaining because I didn't list any Christian atrocities in the OP. I was addressing the fact that criticizing Islam on this forum leads to self-righteous whining like you and Asgard and LG have done, yet criticize Christianity and you keyboard heroes are nowhere to be found.

The primary blames belongs to Islam, because Islam is the mechanism by which the violence occurred. A mob wasn't going to burn down a neighborhood over steel mill politics, or personal vendettas, without religion. This violence simply does not occur without religion. Meanwhile, this same shit happens all the time in Pakistan when it isn't coinciding with local union elections.

Islam bears the lion's share of the blame, because without it, this event wasn't possible. It's like the gun control issue; what do you blame for the Connecticut shootings? Insanity, or the availability of semi-automatic rifles? Obviously insanity plays a role in it. That goes without saying. But the carnage isn't possible without those semi-autos, and the topic being addressed in its aftermath is gun control.

Politics obviously played a role, and the whole thing started in a fight between two drunken assholes. But the biggest part of this was religion. Even if it's true that one of the candidates spurred on the mob, it was in effort to show which party is harder against blasphemy, thereby putting religion's role squarely in focus.

I haven't stereotyped anything, so here's hoping you trip over a dictionary at some point. I haven't contradicted myself, either, and the worst name I called you was a bleeding-heart. I haven't even called you a liar, opting instead to merely point out your countless lies and hope at some point you grow a conscious and change your ways. That was clearly just wish-thinking on my part.

The greatest irony, though, is you complaining about how I'm treating you, considering that you've spent six pages calling me a bigot and accusing me of things I haven't done.

Lying again, Bells. I never said Islam was the only blame. Geoff--a member you say you respect--has even told you that this was never my claim. You invented that one yourself.

First of all, you didn't provide proof of anything. All that anyone here has provided are links to news articles that emerged from a very chaotic event. Pretending that anything we've read here is gospel is stupid. Secondly, the part in the first article you're referring to is a Catholic bishop who said that this started as a fight between two guys. That hardly constitutes proof. It's hearsay. It did turn out to be true, but you had accepted it as fact based on one man's claim, which was part of your desperate attempt to deflect blame from Islam.

And let us not forget that this beginning as a fight does not diminish Islam's role in the violence. A bar fight wasn't going to rally a crowd to burn down a neighborhood. Only blasphemy was going to do that.

I never saw the article you posted linking them to the steel mill, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. I was addressing your earlier, entirely unfounded claims that this was wholly political and that they were of opposing factions, which was not stated in the earlier articles you and I linked to, yet you insisted upon from the very beginning.

It is Islam. Get it through your head: this isn't possible without your favorite religion.

Of course they do. But this one wasn't happening without Islam.

Islam deserves the bulk of the blame for the central role it played.

What do you think stereotyping means, exactly?

We're discussing Islam's role in this, and I'm making a case for that, and how key it was in the event. Obviously there were other factors, such as politics, but you're trying to say Islam's role was "minute" while I'm trying to say it was central.

This from the person who doesn't know what a stereotype is?

You are such a ridiculous person. I provided mounds of evidence of your lies. They're all there in the first few pages, go have a look.

I have to admit, though: I admire the stones it requires to lie so brazenly as you do, with all of your words still on record for people to see. Anyone reading this can just go back and check up on your posts, and see clearly that you're full of shit, yet here you are lying your face off. It's really impressive. It's almost as if you believe it yourself, but then you wouldn't have run away from me when I pointed them all out if you did.

It's not stereotyping to say "The religion of peace strikes again." Let's just get that out of the way.

Yeah, by saying "Let's show them how tough we are on blasphemy." This was a religious matter. Politics had a role in it, but religion was at its heart. You seem to be missing the fact that this happens all the time in cases of blasphemy.

By constantly bitching about my treatment of you.

I'm calling you out, not whining. I'm showing the thread all of your lies, not whining.

Nope. You don't know what stereotyping is, obviously.

No shit. You're not calling him a "raging bigot," even though he's defending my position. It's no wonder he's been more diplomatic.

Don't flirt, Bells. It's unbecoming.

Hmm...what new scam could you be concocting here, I wonder?

Bells, you've lied through your teeth through this whole mess, so I don't know who you think you're kidding with a comment like that. Maybe it's because we have an audience? I don't know. Point is, you are a liar. You have behaved as a liar throughout this thread, and trying to project your own lack of ethics upon me isn't going to change that.

No, it says something about you. Namely that you're dishonest, but also that you are a moderator who stirs up far too much drama. Perhaps if you engaged the person like a normal human being rather than dropping the gloves all the time, you would find yourself less often on the wrong end of these arguments. Case in point, your treatment of Geoff. He's defending me, yet you don't call him a bigot. You're perfectly polite to him. You don't see the difference? Of course you do, you're not as stupid as you pretend to be.

So you haven't been ignoring me at all, then.

 

A broader experience can on principle only happen when the person is open to it, allows for it. People who are prone to stereotyping on principle do not allow for broader experiences; their tendency to stereotyping functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy that can make it impossible to experience anything but further "evidence" that their stereotyping is justified.

For example, someone who believes black people are inferior will behave toward black people in such a way that is likely to elicit inferior behavior from them (such as call them names, to which the black person replies in kind), or interpret their every action in a negative way ("Oh, when that black man jumped into the river to save a drowning child, he was not doing this out of genuine concern for the child, but he was just trying to show off, the egotist! This just goes to prove again that black people are the worthless lowlifes that I've always thought they are!").

Basically, one usually gets from interactions with others what one invests in them. Although many people default to the idea that when things go bad in interactions with others, it is always the other person's fault - as if they themselves are always blameless and perfect.


I don't think that the negative notions of Islam that some people have are only based of media sensationalism, but also, if not primarily, from actual experiences with Muslims. And those are not necessarily hasty false generalizations either, but rather a predictable and consistent result of the way one's own attitude shapes one's experience of the interactions with others, and esp. the way one's own attitude affects the way other people will treat one.

Another source for those negative notions about Islam are the actually correct logical conclusions that one can arrive at by reflecting on Muslim doctrine:
my bad attitude toward a Muslim or toward Islam + Muslim doctrine -> bad consequences for me.
Of course, some people prefer to ignore the first element in this process ...


Some people seem to expect that religious people should always walk an extra mile for one. So that when one challenges a religious person or otherwise approaches them with a less than friendly, less than noble attitude, the religious person should nevertheless be extra nice in reply (and preferably turn the other cheek).
This isn't an entirely unreasonable expectation - after all, a person's religiousness should make some kind of evident positive difference in the religious person's life and the way they interact with others.
But that still doesn't make it wholesome to approach people with a negative attitude.



Other than that, I'm talking about being able to afford critical thinking.
I think that it requires a considerable amount of mental and physical wellbeing to be able to consistently engage in critical thinking in the majority of one's waking hours and esp. in interactions with others.

Schopenhauer wrote a sarcastic manual for how to always be right and win every argument. Those are vivid examples of informal fallacies. But in reality, it is precisely such fallacies that often make it possible for a person to prevail over another.

If a person who is otherwise prone to engage in stereotyping (and other informal fallacies), would make an effort to refrain from doing so, they would possibly be left with nothing to say, feeling vulnerable and stressed. People generally go to great lengths to try to avoid that vulnerable state. Even if this means that they abuse others as a result.

So I question what can be hoped to be accomplished via discussion - apparently, not much, as long as people don't have a good measure of inner peace already.

 

"For dealing with non-Muslims, Jasser Auda, a director of the al-Maqasid Research Centre in the Philosophy of the Islamic Law in London, England, says that the general rule is mentioned in the verse that says what means:

"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." ([Quran 60:8])"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir#Kafir_and_Jihad


Don't you think this is a sensible instruction, and not a matter of radical political affiliation?

Why would it be radical political affiliation to seek to destroy those who have warred against you on account of religion and who drove you from your homes?