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

[StrawDog]

Of course, there always is disinformation with issues of this magnitude and they're probably worth discussing, but not if the focus is entirely one sided. Disinformation exists on both sides of the issue.

Of course, hence the discussion.

If you're referring to Bush's born-again Christian zealotry, I might tend to agree with you that he most likely places those beliefs squarely in the middle of his Islamic based decision-making processes.

Yes.

And, you can rant on and on about Bush, but that doesn't preclude the fact there shouldn't be focus on anything else.

Of course. Here is an opportunity to broaden the discussion.

No, they're not.

DH

Thus they must therefore seek to malign others, to hold themselves as supposed 'enlightened' beings. American invasion and killing of more than a million human beings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, and other regions is the only proof required to prove our assertion.

How are these not facts?

Why do Muslims demand to incorporate Sharia law outside of Islamic nations, particularly in the West?

You will have to direct me to an example, so that we can discuss from the actual context.

Perhaps you'll go there some day and see for yourself?

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. I have seen for myself.

Islam becoming a raging lion? Yes, I see the hypocrisy of that.

No, you see humor, which is fine. In US global geopolitics, Islam must be restrained at all cost, lest we see Western hegemony challenged. Quite natural actually, but not realistic.

Yes, more of a fantasy.

No, the cuts of colonialism run deep, and with constant reminders from the present US/British game plan are as real as real can be.

The lack of intellectual honesty?

You will have to explain what you mean by this.

The facts as presented by Diamondhearts?

No, you have the liberty to disregard, DH, myself or whoever, research the facts for yourself, and if you apply honesty, the reality will prevail.

Ashes?

Not quite. I would never wish for that. What you may see is a new unilateral world, where the US, or even the "Western" model will most likely by inconsequential.

 

[quadraphonics]

Because lapsed Muslims never go on rants?

Anything can happen, but the presumption must be that he is supportive of his family and doesn't wish to villify them. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

Isn't it possible that what he's criticizing is not "Islam" or "Muslims" but some very specific subsets of those groups? And that you are doing everyone a disservice by insisting that he's out to get all Muslims?

Or perhaps the implication must be that you yourself are a member of the subset being criticized?

You think so? I thought Sound and Fury categorised as post modernist.

I've always heard it called "experimental," although there have been some recent movements to reinterpret Faulkner from a postmodern perspective. It's possible that he would be considered squarely postmodern, if he'd been born a few decades later.

Never heard of them

They're two of the three most famous postmodernists ever, so this speaks poorly of your familiarity with the genre.

Roald Dahl?

Guess again. This guy is easily the most noted postmodern novelist of all time.

 

[S.A.M.]

Anything can happen, but the presumption must be that he is supportive of his family and doesn't wish to villify them. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

They don't care about religion either?

They're two of the three most famous postmodernists ever, so this speaks poorly of your familiarity with the genre.

I'm not a genre person, my usual method is to haunt old bookstores, hunt and peck.

Guess again. This guy is easily the most noted postmodern novelist of all time.

Murakami? Kafka on the Shore?

 

[quadraphonics]

The book was about the partition.

Midnight's Children was about the aftermath of Partition. The Satanic Verses has little to do with that topic.

Again, I'd avoid lecturing people on the contents of books that you haven't read.

 

[S.A.M.]

Midnight's Children was about the aftermath of Partition. The Satanic Verses has little to do with that topic.

Again, I'd avoid lecturing people on the contents of books that you haven't read.

Ah yes, one was about the immigrant experience. I read bits of both, but they were both boring.

 

[quadraphonics]

They don't care about religion either?

???

Murakami? Kafka on the Shore?

???

Actually there are two very prominent postmodernists you're missing here, now that I think about it... one of them wrote Naked Lunch.

The other I think you would enjoy quite a bit, dealing as his novels do with colonialism and racism.

 

[S.A.M.]

???

Guess not.

???

Actually there are two very prominent postmodernists you're missing here, now that I think about it... one of them wrote Naked Lunch.

The other I think you would enjoy quite a bit, dealing as his novels do with colonialism and racism.

No idea. :shrug:

Naked Lunch = William Borroughs. Heard of it, never got around to it. I like to read historical fiction/non-fiction, like the kind written by Wilbur Smith and Michener. Or even Marquez, which I term cultural history. Drug induced hallucinations are not my style

Who is the other author?

 

[iceaura]

The content of the novels is all but irrelevant to the problem with Islam the reaction to them reveals.
”
Another clueless post. Its like saying that the death threats to Zhang Ya werent a result of what she wrote and said, but because of Buddhisms reaction to them

? No, it's not like that. It's like saying the Buddhist reactions revealed something about the Buddhists who were reacting.

He continously villified people in India and Pakistan and protrayed their religious figures as whores and whatnot. They werent just gonna stay quiet.

Why not? Most people would. Mexicans, Texans, Brazilians, Chinese - what's different about these people?

The "situation" has little to do with the content of Rushdie's books. Clueless.
”
It has everything to do with the content of his books.

No, it doesn't. They could be blank pages, and putting a contract on Rushdie's life and agitating with violence for the removal of them from the shelves and threatening violence to everyone who sells them or even carries them in public would be exactly the same situation.

There is no such straw, or camel. Again, this kind of response is completely typical of the common responses I encountered by otherwise educated, literate, competent people who happened to be Muslim. And so I learned something about the Muslim religion.
”
This is coming from someone who hasnt even read the book, yet is able to tell me what it was about.

No, it isn't. I have never attempted to tell you what any book was about, and I have repeatedly insisted on the irrelevance of that here.

If I mock 9/11, I shouldnt expect to be welcomed back to NYC. Or the USA for that matter.

Neither should you expect to have a contract put out on your life, and be forbidden entry under threat of arrest and prosecution, and have to go into hiding on the other side of the world.

Fact of the matter is that there are loads of books and movies and games banned in the Western world.

No, there aren't.

If you had digged through The nations video arrchives, you would actually see pastors calling for the death and destruction of Palestine and Muslims.

And it's a quick and easy jump to church congregations shouting "death to the Arabs and Palestinians" - in your mind. But I claim that such shouting by a congregation has not happened in the US. And there is a reason for that, which you do not understand - or you would not use such improbable scenes to casually illustrate a point.

Clueless. No such double standard exists. Nobody is complaining about anyone's denunciation of Rushdie's novels.
”
Actually they are. Everytime someone writes something anti-Islamic and someone denounces that, we get the hole hoopla about Freedom of Speech.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between criticizing a book and getting angry about it and so forth, and calling for its removal from the shelves and the banishment of its author from the public realm if not the living world. We are not giving you the "whole hoopla" because of anything you said in criticism of Rushdie's writings.

You even took my postings here as objecting to your denunciations of Rushdie's novels, missing the Freedom of Speech argument completely. You seem in general oblivious to what is for Westerners the main issue.

It is still about the laws that affect us in everyday life. Quite how "Paying charity" can somehow condition me more than "Pay taxes" is the problem here.

No one has asserted that in particular, so you needn't trouble yourself specifically. But some kind of conditioning is obvious - it isn't just you, it's Muslims in general, educated and literate and sensible people on the whole, who have a hard time getting hold of this "free speech"idea.

 

[S.A.M.]

it isn't just you, it's Muslims in general, educated and literate and sensible people on the whole, who have a hard time getting hold of this "free speech"idea.

Could you speak up? Its hard to hear over the liberating missiles.

 

[Arsalan]

Yes I know. That's how I know that the actual wives of the prophet weren't portrayed as whores.

Portraying whores who use religious psuedonyms is not the same as portraying actual religious figures as whores. This is born out in the reasons for the offense, which have nothing to do with profaning religious figures, and everything to do with insecurities over the relationship between religion and sexuality. Conservative religions are uniformly sexually repressive, and this induces serious insecurities in adherents, which are all too easy to direct against external "enemies."

I.e., it's not that the whores have religious names, but that they adopt said names because it increases business amongst their Muslim clientele. This suggestion is far too much for conservative religious people to handle.

If I went up to my Polish neighbour and called his mom and grandmothers whores, I should expect a reaction.

 

[Arsalan]

? No, it's not like that. It's like saying the Buddhist reactions revealed something about the Buddhists who were reacting.

If you say so

Why not? Most people would. Mexicans, Texans, Brazilians, Chinese - what's different about these people?

Iirc he didnt write about these people what he wrote about the people that did react.

No, it doesn't. They could be blank pages, and putting a contract on Rushdie's life and agitating with violence for the removal of them from the shelves and threatening violence to everyone who sells them or even carries them in public would be exactly the same situation.

If they were blank pages, there would be no reaction.

No, it isn't. I have never attempted to tell you what any book was about, and I have repeatedly insisted on the irrelevance of that here.

Then this is where you and I disagree. In my opinion, the reaction was down to what he had continously written in his books.

Neither should you expect to have a contract put out on your life, and be forbidden entry under threat of arrest and prosecution, and have to go into hiding on the other side of the world.

No you shouldnt. But can you be sure that if I mocked 9/11, then went to NYC, I would not face any kind of reaction?

No, there aren't.

The lists are there for you to see.

And it's a quick and easy jump to church congregations shouting "death to the Arabs and Palestinians" - in your mind. But I claim that such shouting by a congregation has not happened in the US. And there is a reason for that, which you do not understand - or you would not use such improbable scenes to casually illustrate a point.

Pastors are there on video saying this stuff. But keep blocking it out, maybe it will go away. After all: "We cant ever sink to the level of these savages". Right?

You appear to be unable to distinguish between criticizing a book and getting angry about it and so forth, and calling for its removal from the shelves and the banishment of its author from the public realm if not the living world. We are not giving you the "whole hoopla" because of anything you said in criticism of Rushdie's writings.

Nope. I never called for a book to be removed. In fact, calling for books to be removed is something Americans are familiar with, especially the Southern States and some people in Alaska. I have personally witnessed any denunications and or rebuttal of an anti-Islamic book being labelled as an attack on free speech, regardless of whether there was a call for the book to be pulled.

You even took my postings here as objecting to your denunciations of Rushdie's novels, missing the Freedom of Speech argument completely.

Not at all. Quite the contrary, it is you who seems to be under impression that I agree with the fatwah. All my posts here have shown I do not and neither does the majority of Muslims. The only thing I have argued is that the reaction was not something spontaneous or a direct result of the fatwah. It was something that was boiling ever since he started attacking and villifying the very people who brought him up.

You seem in general oblivious to what is for Westerners the main issue.

Lemme see: Muslims dont like religious bashing and dont want the book? If everything was so simplistic. If Westerners dont understand all the themes and nuancesin his books because they are steeped in Eastern history and religion, thats not my fault.

No one has asserted that in particular, so you needn't trouble yourself specifically. But some kind of conditioning is obvious - it isn't just you, it's Muslims in general, educated and literate and sensible people on the whole, who have a hard time getting hold of this "free speech"idea.

Actually no. as with everything, even in the West, you have 2 sides or more. Unfortunately, when the Muslim side that does not agree with certain things speaks up, it is plastered all over the newspapers and media as being the Muslim reaction. There is hardly any mention of the other side. Free speech is not something Muslims are unfamiliar with. If you disagree, you should really pick up some Arab magazines having debates about the authenticity of the Quran and its usefulness. And yes, these magazines are real.

 

[quadraphonics]

Naked Lunch = William Borroughs. Heard of it, never got around to it.

It's intentionally written to be almost unreadable, so don't worry to much about it unless you have some time you really want to spend benging your head against it.

The movie is pretty good though, if you can handle Cronenberg films (and Naked Lunch is one of the most "Cronenbergy" of all his work).

Or even Marquez, which I term cultural history.

It's interesting that you like Marquez, but not Rushdie, as they both write in the magic realist style, and both pursue similar "cultural history" approaches.

Who is the other author?

Thomas Pynchon, of course. Surely you've heard of Gravity's Rainbow?

 

[S.A.M.]

It's intentionally written to be almost unreadable, so don't worry to much about it unless you have some time you really want to spend benging your head against it.

The movie is pretty good though, if you can handle Cronenberg films (and Naked Lunch is one of the most "Cronenbergy" of all his work).

Thanks

It's interesting that you like Marquez, but not Rushdie, as they both write in the magic realist style, and both pursue similar "cultural history" approaches.

Marquez is not boring I've read almost all his books. Rushdie is boring. Perhaps esoterica is more enticing when the subject is unfamiliar?

Thomas Pynchon, of course. Surely you've heard of Gravity's Rainbow?

Nope, never.

 

[quadraphonics]

If I went up to my Polish neighbour and called his mom and grandmothers whores, I should expect a reaction.

And if you wrote a book portraying fictional Polish people patronizing fictional Polish whores who used pseudonyms drawn from Polish history?

Some reaction might be in order (they don't have to like your book, after all), but would your neighbor be justified in killing you?

 

[iceaura]

it isn't just you, it's Muslims in general, educated and literate and sensible people on the whole, who have a hard time getting hold of this "free speech"idea.
”
Could you speak up? Its hard to hear over the liberating missiles.

You can hear fine. It's the thinking part that lets you down.

If I went up to my Polish neighbour and called his mom and grandmothers whores, I should expect a reaction.

And if your Polish neighbor can't tell the difference between that and you writing a novel about Mother Mary, best not to give the head case a copy for Christmas.

And if you do write that novel, in Hawaii, and your former neighbor puts a contract out for a million dollars on your life and every Pole you meet says, well, you shouldn't have insulted his mythological-mother fetish, it's your fault, and btw a million is a lot, you might want to think about growing a beard,

will it occur to you that your neighbor was not quite right, as they say?

Free speech is not something Muslims are unfamiliar with

Its' something that you, SAM, Diamondheart, and every other Muslim on this forum, has demonstrated a fundamental obliviousness toward. And the Rushdie affair, as rehashed right here, illustrates that odd and notable circumstance.
- - -

? No, it's not like that. It's like saying the Buddhist reactions revealed something about the Buddhists who were reacting.
”
If you say so

I do.

Why not? Most people would. Mexicans, Texans, Brazilians, Chinese - what's different about these people?
”
Iirc he didnt write about these people what he wrote about the people that did react.

So? Texans have had plenty of crap written about them, and more to come if somebody would pay me. Mexicans likewise. Amish. Mormons. Catholics. Japanese. They none of them flip out like that. Most people don't flip out like that. These people are different for some reason.

If they were blank pages, there would be no reaction.

So?

Then this is where you and I disagree. In my opinion, the reaction was down to what he had continously written in his books.

So?

Pastors are there on video saying this stuff. But keep blocking it out, maybe it will go away.

That's pastors saying stuff "like that", not congregations shouting such things, as you claimed. You do not understand the significance of the difference, though.

The lists are there for you to see.

The books on the lists you posted are not banned, and most never were banned from anywhere except a few grade schools or county libraries, and temporarily. AFAIK no one has been killed, or even threatened with mob violence, over any of them - and if someone were, there would be no talk about straws and camels and similar excuse-mongering.

No you shouldnt. But can you be sure that if I mocked 9/11, then went to NYC, I would not face any kind of reaction?

As a novelist? You might get invited or disinvited to a few parties.

I'm not following the alleged parallel here, though. It's not Rushdie's reception when he went to visit the folks who had misread his book - or not read it, more likely - that is at issue. An actual parallel might be bookstores in Indonesia fearing to put a book mocking 9/11 on the shelves because of violent threats by the local firefighters' union, and a million dollar contract put out by Rudy Guiliani on the life of the author.

Nope. I never called for a book to be removed

Nobody said you did.

I have personally witnessed any denunications and or rebuttal of an anti-Islamic book being labelled as an attack on free speech

I don't think, based on your responses to my posts here, that you can tell the difference. You may have witnessed such, you may not have, but you characterize the posts on this thread as examples of the free speech hoopla, and I can see the problems with that.

Not at all. Quite the contrary, it is you who seems to be under impression that I agree with the fatwah. All my posts here have shown I do not and neither does the majority of Muslims. The only thing I have argued is that the reaction was not something spontaneous or a direct result of the fatwah. It was something that was boiling ever since he started attacking and villifying the very people who brought him up.

So?

 

[S.A.M.]

mythological mother fetish

The "fetish" as you call it, is not mythological. Someone like Salman Rushdie cannot pretend to be ignorant of that.

Pretending that it should not exist, will not make it go away.

 

[quadraphonics]

Marquez is not boring I've read almost all his books. Rushdie is boring. Perhaps esoterica is more enticing when the subject is unfamiliar?

Probably. A common criticism of both Rushdie and Marquez's work is that it (unwittingly) appeals to and reinforces a patronizing post-colonial mindset that views the people in question as "exotic." While I don't subscribe to that criticism, I have to admit that Marquez seems much more popular than other comparable post-modern authors that confine themselves to more Western-oriented subject matter.

Nope, never.

Well, you are sorely missing out then. It's considered by some to be the best work of literature produced in the 20th century. The place to start with Pynchon is The Crying of Lot 49, but if you want to really get inside Western colonialism, racism and militarism, quit your job and start reading V and Gravity's Rainbow.

 

[S.A.M.]

I've just quit my job. So it must be destiny.

 

[Arsalan]

And if you wrote a book portraying fictional Polish people patronizing fictional Polish whores who used pseudonyms drawn from Polish history?

Some reaction might be in order (they don't have to like your book, after all), but would your neighbor be justified in killing you?

First of all, I never justified any killing, so stop trying to insinuate I did. This counts not for you but other people on here mostly.

Secondly, if that was the case then there would be no reaction. But his whole body of work points to him knowingly portraying the wives of the Prophet, not fictional, as whores in a brothel, with Aisha being the favourite whore of everyone. That kind of stuff was interpreted taking into account his whole body of work. The reverence for those women in Islam and by every Muslim is incomparable, as usual, to anything the West can put forth. The only thing it compares to, is the vehement defences of such writing under Freedom of Speech. So see it like this: it hurts as much as someone wanting to take away Freedom of Speech. Thats how much these people mean to Muslims.

So, if I knowingly called my neighbours mother and grandmothers whores, I would surely expect a reaction.

 

[Arsalan]

And if you do write that novel, in Hawaii, and your former neighbor puts a contract out for a million dollars on your life and every Pole you meet says, well, you shouldn't have insulted his mythological mother fetish, it's your fault, and btw a million is a lot, you might want to think about growing a beard,

will it occur to you that your neighbor was not quite right, as they say?

So are you implying that the wives of the Prophet are fictional?