Not at all. It's exactly the fact that they are presenting themselves as such, when they are plainly among the least progressive on the matters in question, that raises suspicions.
A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Not at all. It's exactly the fact that they are presenting themselves as such, when they are plainly among the least progressive on the matters in question, that raises suspicions.
"They" are not representing themselves as anything you assert.
If you read the text of the resolution, "they" are concerned with the effects of the conflation of Islam and with terrorism on the safety and well being of Muslims. "they" are requesting an investigation into these effects on Muslims post September 11 and are requesting that such conflation is being used as a basis for discrimination. I have personal experience that this is correct.
But then if you read the resolution rather than Hitchens interpretation of it, you'd stop projecting his evaluation to what was actually said.
It's not like there isn't a precedent for it. The Reds and Jews have already experienced it firsthand.
Well, how about Saudi Arabia, we aren't undermining them. There are many predominately Muslim countries that we have good relations with. They are free to limit freedom in their own countries. Isn't it ironic that they want to be left alone, but they want to control how we speak?
There very well might be a connection between Islam and terrorism! Should we not be allowed to voice our concerns?
There very well might be a connection between Islam and terrorism! Should we not be allowed to voice our concerns?
There may very well be a connection between Jews and the global financial crisis too since any financial scandal involving tens of billions has some Jewish guy behind it. Should we not invetigate it!
How far would the ruler of Hejaz have gone without western support?
How far would the ruler of Hejaz have gone without western support?
You should be free to say whatever you like about it.
Why not? Obviously the torture is wrong, but the honest and open dialogue is not.
Besides, there is no correlation between the actions of the US government and personal statements of bigotry. We would not care about helping the Iraqis create a stable government if we just hated Muslims. We would not free Afghanis from the tyranny of the Taliban if we hated them. The people we bomb in Pakistan are the enemies of Islam, since they are the ones who created the connection between Islam and terrorism.
Besides, there is no correlation between the actions of the US government and personal statements of bigotry. We would not care about helping the Iraqis create a stable government if we just hated Muslims. We would not free Afghanis from the tyranny of the Taliban if we hated them. The people we bomb in Pakistan are the enemies of Islam, since they are the ones who created the connection between Islam and terrorism.
I have read the text, and while it does specifically mention post Sept. 11 issues faced by Muslims, it is very careful to phrase all recommendations in terms of generic principles of religious freedom. So there is an explicit pretext that the sponsors are interested in reducing discrimination in general.
I have no doubt that what the sponsors are actually interested in is solely the situation of Muslims, and that is at the heart of the criticism. The entire point is that they are seeking to advance a sectarian agenda by cloaking it as a generic human rights issue. Which is fine as far as it goes: if the result is that everyone enjoys better protections of their rights, then it really doesn't matter what motivated any particular party to participate.
The problem, however, is that these same countries are among the world's worst religious discriminators when it comes to religions other than Islam, and show no sign of adopting any of the (admirable, Western-derived) generic principles of religious freedom that they are calling for. This makes it clear that said states actually disinterested in progress on religious freedom for anyone other than Muslims. Considering also that the other countries in question here (i.e., the West) already have all of the laws they are calling for on the books (excepting the speech ones), this leaves no possibility of any progress resulting from this Resolution. So all we get out of the deal is a further undermining and politicization of the principles of religious freedom on the world stage, and a further illustration that the Muslim states in question are not serious about respecting religions besides their own.
There is, of course, further context that's important here. The Rushdie fatwa, for example. It's not as if Western concerns about attacks on the right to free speech don't have a basis in reality, even if they are overblown.
Western "concerns" about free speech are a joke. They consistently support and arm oppressive regimes for financial gain. Maybe if they ever get their head out of their arse and pay more than lip service, ie pimpimg fir dictators to protect their interests, there may be progress
And they consistently protect the rights of their own citizens to speak freely.
Yeah ironic isn't it? While consistently following a policy of regime change wherever democracy affects their profit margins.
And then the self righteous citizens who elect these morons decry the shabby state of the societies they have established.
I call it chutzpah
And then the self righteous citizens who elect these morons decry the shabby state of the societies they have established.
I call it chutzpah
Not quite as ironic as calls for freedom of speech and religion coming from states that not only attack those freedoms in other societies, but also prevent their own citizens from enjoying them.
On second thought, that's not ironic so much as insulting.
"Established?" Oh dear. The societies in question were established long before such a nation as the United States ever existed.
And has it occured to you that the people decrying the states of said societies may also not vote for the politicians who pursue the policies you object to? That they might, in fact, dislike both the politicians and the policies intensely? And that it might, therefore, be coutnerproductive for you to alienate them by insisting that they "elected" candidates that they despise?
Sure there is.
Who cares? Arrest me.
You could probably collar half the Islamic world too. They're not all mindless dolts, they don't have a monopoly on stupidity. The U.N. is right there as well as other religious groups when the competition for idiocy heats up. They've all taken the flag up to the front line at one time or another.
That's irrelevent. What about France, Luxemborg, Portugal? Is the entire west now disallowed from criticizing Islam, or just the USA?
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Quadra, you just told SAM she shouldn't speak for Muslims, but you just gave her a reason to because you brushed all Muslims with the same brush saying we are all enemies of freedom.
Maybe you should realize that if Muslims on this forum don't stand up for Muslims around the world and try to explain their views and what they are suffering through, then people on this forum are likely to ignore the feelings of Muslims as human beings and see us as subhumans, justifying further aggression against us.
SAM has the right to speak for Muslims, because she is Muslim herself, though an unorthodox one. Except not about Kashmiris or Pakistanis, because she favors India over the two, but I don't want to get into that right now. SAM has done alot for Muslims on this forum, and we believe she speaks for us, most of the time.
The fact is that today, Muslims represent 80% of all the world's UN recognized refugees and a substantial proportion of all occupied and aspirant people. According to Gideon Polya (an Australian researcher), more than one billion Muslims have been killed between the years 1950 to 2000, most of them by invasions by Western countries, including Russia. We are suppressed as a people, and the reaction and anger of Muslims throughout the world does not come out of a vacuum, it is from a history of exploitation and murder committed upon them. Some people tend to take reaction by blaming all Westerners for the murders of their families and the destruction of their homelands, others, like me, blame the Western power centers, Western armies, and Western economic exploitation for the destruction of our peoples' lives.
The story of Muslims today is the story of a people waking up to the reality of oppression visited upon them for hundreds of years, it took the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to ignite the fire, the firewood was already there. This is why we ask those Westerners who wish to listen to open your ears and hear what we are saying, because if you don't, then you are accomplices in the injustices against our people and God will ultimately judge whether we have striven for justice or injustice in this life.
Maybe you should realize that if Muslims on this forum don't stand up for Muslims around the world and try to explain their views and what they are suffering through, then people on this forum are likely to ignore the feelings of Muslims as human beings and see us as subhumans, justifying further aggression against us.
SAM has the right to speak for Muslims, because she is Muslim herself, though an unorthodox one. Except not about Kashmiris or Pakistanis, because she favors India over the two, but I don't want to get into that right now. SAM has done alot for Muslims on this forum, and we believe she speaks for us, most of the time.
The fact is that today, Muslims represent 80% of all the world's UN recognized refugees and a substantial proportion of all occupied and aspirant people. According to Gideon Polya (an Australian researcher), more than one billion Muslims have been killed between the years 1950 to 2000, most of them by invasions by Western countries, including Russia. We are suppressed as a people, and the reaction and anger of Muslims throughout the world does not come out of a vacuum, it is from a history of exploitation and murder committed upon them. Some people tend to take reaction by blaming all Westerners for the murders of their families and the destruction of their homelands, others, like me, blame the Western power centers, Western armies, and Western economic exploitation for the destruction of our peoples' lives.
The story of Muslims today is the story of a people waking up to the reality of oppression visited upon them for hundreds of years, it took the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to ignite the fire, the firewood was already there. This is why we ask those Westerners who wish to listen to open your ears and hear what we are saying, because if you don't, then you are accomplices in the injustices against our people and God will ultimately judge whether we have striven for justice or injustice in this life.
Last edited:
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
You can read the article yourself.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headli...tic-imperialism-and-0.9-billion-infant-deaths
We cannot deny that the majority of the people dying today from wars are Muslims, from Palestine, Somalia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.