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

[S.A.M.]

The Sharia includes two laws called hurriyyat al-mu’arada [freedom to criticise] and hurriyyat al rai [freedom of opinion]

Its not novel in Islam to have an opinion or to criticise.

http://islamicbookstore.com/b2426.html

 

[quadraphonics]

First of all, I never justified any killing, so stop trying to insinuate I did.

Right, you only justify "reaction." And we're to ignore that the reactions, in this case, were murders and calls for more murders.

Or are you going to condemn the reaction, as it existed in reality?

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.

Nonsense. You clearly aren't familiar with Rushdie's body of work, and I've already explained to you that the portrayal was explicitly NOT the wives themselves, but regular old (fictional) prostitutes that employ Prophet-themed names to boost their (fictional) business.

Nothing else in Rushdie's "body of work" bears on this, since none of his other works pertain to the Prophet's wives, or to prostitutes.

The whole body of criticism of The Satanic Verses points to the critics not having a clue what they are talking about, and simply ascribing invented sentiments and statements to Rushdie, while apologizing for terrorists that tried to kill him, and succeeded in killing many others associated with the book.

The really ridiculous part is that there are portrayals of actual historical figures in The Satanic Verses that could legitimately be considered offensive. But these rarely seem to come up, because they aren't salacious enough to make good propaganda, and so the critics haven't read them in the first place. And they tend to turn on obscure historical and theological issues in the first place.

The downside of demonizing a book is that you're then left in the position of arguing against something you haven't read, and so don't understand. The thing that really got under the skin of the people who organized the assault on Rushdie are the hard, deep questions the book raises about Islamic theology, culture, etc., and the entire point of the campaign is to prevent people from being exposed to these questions. They might start to have second thoughts about supporting clerical authoritarians, if they did. And it seems to have worked quite well: here we have you and your friends arguing against a book you've never read, on the basis of material it does not contain, and never once stopping to ask what Rushdie might have been saying in the first place.

 

[iceaura]

The "fetish" as you call it, is not mythological.

I'll go back and put a hyphen in there, to prevent future such misreadings.

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

No more than Jesus's mother. And apparently, no less.

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.

Now we are getting somewhere.

There's something wrong with whatever produced the persecution of Salman Rushdie, and that's our first clue so far beyond the ubiquitous free speech incomprehension.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The Sharia includes two laws called hurriyyat al-mu’arada [freedom to criticise] and hurriyyat al rai [freedom of opinion]

Its not novel in Islam to have an opinion or to criticise.

http://islamicbookstore.com/b2426.html

Really? :roflmao:

 

[S.A.M.]

There's something wrong with whatever produced the persecution of Salman Rushdie, and that's our first clue so far beyond the ubiquitous free speech incomprehension.

Lets put it this way. If you went to a prostitute and she had your mothers name, would that make her more attractive a proposition to you?

 

[iceaura]

Lets put it this way. If you went to a prostitute and she had your mothers name, would that make her more attractive a proposition to you?

? Doubtful, but I have no base of experience.

I have read a novel that included a prostitute with my mother's name as a character, though - does that count?

 

[Arsalan]

Right, you only justify "reaction." And we're to ignore that the reactions, in this case, were murders and calls for more murders.

Or are you going to condemn the reaction, as it existed in reality?

Like I said, no one here justified any killing. What were saying is the reaction was something that was coming for a long time. People wanna shout and scream? Fine. People wanna write stuff? Fine. I dont care about that.

Nonsense. You clearly aren't familiar with Rushdie's body of work, and I've already explained to you that the portrayal was explicitly NOT the wives themselves, but regular old (fictional) prostitutes that employ Prophet-themed names to boost their (fictional) business.

Nothing else in Rushdie's "body of work" bears on this, since none of his other works pertain to the Prophet's wives, or to prostitutes.

The whole body of criticism of The Satanic Verses points to the critics not having a clue what they are talking about, and simply ascribing invented sentiments and statements to Rushdie, while apologizing for terrorists that tried to kill him, and succeeded in killing many others associated with the book.

The really ridiculous part is that there are portrayals of actual historical figures in The Satanic Verses that could legitimately be considered offensive. But these rarely seem to come up, because they aren't salacious enough to make good propaganda, and so the critics haven't read them in the first place. And they tend to turn on obscure historical and theological issues in the first place.

The downside of demonizing a book is that you're then left in the position of arguing against something you haven't read, and so don't understand. The thing that really got under the skin of the people who organized the assault on Rushdie are the hard, deep questions the book raises about Islamic theology, culture, etc., and the entire point of the campaign is to prevent people from being exposed to these questions. They might start to have second thoughts about supporting clerical authoritarians, if they did. And it seems to have worked quite well: here we have you and your friends arguing against a book you've never read, on the basis of material it does not contain, and never once stopping to ask what Rushdie might have been saying in the first place.

Oh boy. You really dont get it do you? Its not just the whores, well get to that later. Its a lot of other stuff. Gibreel Fraishta for example, who is supposed to represent the Angel Gabriel, and how he is presented. Mecca and the names he calls it. The various other Prophets he calls bastard. Calling important Muslim characters "some sort of bum" "enormous black monster" "riff raff" "trinity of scum" "those goons those fucking clowns". As if he didnt know what he was doing when he wrote about the "fictitious" brothel called "Hijab" where the whores had names like the Prophets wives. "Ah, no, it wasnt meant like that, ofcourse not! Those were just aliases!" Ofcourse And ofcourse, "Mahound" is just another alias right? Fact of the matter is that his entire body of work, and by this I dont just mean "The Satanic Verses" point to his deliberate use of historical islamic persons and situations and places and also other, non-Islamic persons, situations and places. Yes, he raises other points: Is God really omnipotent? And that stuff is fine, no one cares, but when you blatantly go on doing what he did for many years, expect a reaction.

 

[Arsalan]

No more than Jesus's mother. And apparently, no less.

So do you believe Jesus' mother was real or not?

Now we are getting somewhere.

There's something wrong with whatever produced the persecution of Salman Rushdie, and that's our first clue so far beyond the ubiquitous free speech incomprehension.

Its not the incomprehension of freedom of speech. If we want to go down that way and blame each other it could just as much bw incomprehension of the reverence of important historical characters.

 

[Arsalan]

Really? :roflmao:

If you liked that you will really love this

 

[iceaura]

What were saying is the reaction was something that was coming for a long time.

Why do you think that matters here?

No more than Jesus's mother. And apparently, no less.
”
So do you believe Jesus' mother was real or not?

You tell me.

I think Jesus existed, and had a mother. I think the Virgin Mary free of sin and impregnated by God is a myth.

Its not the incomprehension of freedom of speech. If we want to go down that way and blame each other icould just as much incomprehension of the reverence of important historical characters.

The one may help explain the other - reverence of that kind preventing comprehension of an idea like "free speech" ?

Interesting observation.

 

[Arsalan]

You tell me.

I think Jesus existed, and had a mother. I think the Virgin Mary free of sin and impregnated by God is a myth.

So we are agreed that his mother was real andtherefore that the wives of the Prophet were real and not fictional.

The one may help explain the other - reverence of that kind preventing comprehension of an idea like "free speech" ?

Interesting observation.

It's the main problem we seem to have in debates like these. I noted it some years ago when browsing the BNP website. Word of advise: dont go there. Its a scary place.

In my opinion the real fighters for Freedom of Speech did so because they worshipped the truth. Nowadays it seems we worship the ritual more than the truth itself.

 

[iceaura]

So we are agreed that his mother was real andtherefore that the wives of the Prophet were real and not fictional.

Somehow I have the feeling that we are not all that agreed - how much do you think you know about the wives of Mohammed?

It's the main problem we seem to have in debates like these.

It's not the main problem I have. The main problem I have is trying to nail the jello of deflection to the wall of event. I want to know how it comes to be that educated, sophisticated Muslims can look at the events of the Rushdie business and not see something wrong with Islam as it lives in the world, the Islam that we all have to deal with, for example.

 

[Arsalan]

Somehow I have the feeling that we are not all that agreed - how much do you think you know about the wives of Mohammed?

Quite a lot I think

It's not the main problem I have. The main problem I have is trying to nail the jello of deflection to the wall of event. I want to know how it comes to be that educated, sophisticated Muslims can look at the events of the Rushdie business and not see something wrong with Islam as it lives in the world, the Islam that we all have to deal with, for example.

Its because we dont generalize. We dont see these people as representing us. But we do react when people want to throw us in with the people who these things. If these events were treated with full background knowledge and as seperate events then we would have no problem. But its this constant feeling of being stabbed in the back just because you belong to a particular group even though you didnt do anything wrong. And even then, if you say that the reaction was predictable, you get the whole "You support those people" hoopla.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Q, you have not present any evidence to contradict my earlier post. Simply declaring it as lies and ignoring it is what cripples debate in this forum. I have consistently been honest in my views on this forum, the least you can do is debate my posts on their principles, and not issue personal attacks.

The mere fact that Salman Rushdie has managed to remain this long as the West's darling is proof enough that the Western power centers are at war with Islam itself. They cry for Rushdie, when more than a million Muslims have been killed with their 'war on terror.' Hate speech, especially one against occupied and oppressed people, is not protected under freedom of speech. Debate concerning Islam is commendable, yet this character has done nothing but issue curses against Islam's greatest heroes.

I have heard some posters say Muslims have not even read this book, well most of the Non-Muslims here have not either, otherwise you would read in his book that he says white women are only good for using and throwing over (I have chosen my words very carefully), furthermore he curses not only Islamic personalities, but Fatima Jinnah (the founding lady of Pakistan) and he constantly portrays a sexist and chauvinist view regarding women of all races, reserving specific thoughts for each of them. His book is the worst piece of racist, sexist, and bigoted trash to ever be printed in the West. I know this is is a bold statement, but it is 100% true. Those Westerners who disagree with me, read the book for yourself.

 

[Arsalan]

DH, dont expect them to have read and or understood everything Rushdie has said. From what I understand, Western readers like books that sound mystical, no matter what their actual content. Rushdie is racist and sexist in his books. And he knew full well what he was doing over the years.

 

[spidergoat]

Hate speech, especially one against occupied and oppressed people, is not protected under freedom of speech.

Yes it is, although characterizing this novel as hate speech is just silly as is characterizing the deaths of perhaps a million Muslims as an attack on them because they were Muslim. They just happened to be Muslim people caught up in an international conflict, just like what happened in Kashmir. You are just paranoid, no doubt this is religious-induced. Islam encourages clear lines between the insiders and outsiders, there is only black and white, Mohammed dictating God's word in perfectly defined terms. This is how it creates intractable wars. Peace is made of comprimise. Reality is subtle and not to be captured in words.

 

[iceaura]

Its because we dont generalize. We dont see these people as representing us

The opposite. It's because you don't personalize -you don't see yourself as you represent "those people".

Somehow I have the feeling that we are not all that agreed - how much do you think you know about the wives of Mohammed?
”
Quite a lot I think

Do you realize how unlikely that is?

Rushdie is racist and sexist in his books. And he knew full well what he was doing over the years.

And what was that?

All this disparaging of Rushdie, these catalogs of faults - you guys don't seem to understand that they are completely irrelevant.

 

[Arsalan]

The opposite. It's because you don't personalize -you don't see yourself as you represent "those people".

I dont see those people as respresenting the majority of Muslims

Do you realize how unlikely that is?

As much as can be gained from written history

And what was that?

All this disparaging of Rushdie, these catalogs of faults - you guys don't seem to understand that they are completely irrelevant.

What was that? Trying to write mystical books and adding some religious and non-religious history and then raping it.

 

[quadraphonics]

Like I said, no one here justified any killing.

So then, "the reaction," which consisted of killing, was unjustified, in your view?

What were saying is the reaction was something that was coming for a long time. People wanna shout and scream? Fine. People wanna write stuff? Fine. I dont care about that.

And yet here you are filling post after post with complaints about something someone wrote, and how people reacted to it. Not the actions of someone who doesn't care.

Oh boy. You really dont get it do you? Its not just the whores, well get to that later. Its a lot of other stuff. Gibreel Fraishta for example, who is supposed to represent the Angel Gabriel, and how he is presented. Mecca and the names he calls it. The various other Prophets he calls bastard. Calling important Muslim characters "some sort of bum" "enormous black monster" "riff raff" "trinity of scum" "those goons those fucking clowns". As if he didnt know what he was doing when he wrote about the "fictitious" brothel called "Hijab" where the whores had names like the Prophets wives. "Ah, no, it wasnt meant like that, ofcourse not! Those were just aliases!" Ofcourse And ofcourse, "Mahound" is just another alias right? Fact of the matter is that his entire body of work, and by this I dont just mean "The Satanic Verses" point to his deliberate use of historical islamic persons and situations and places and also other, non-Islamic persons, situations and places. Yes, he raises other points: Is God really omnipotent?

Well, that's certainly a lot more specific. It seems to me that you have some serious conceptual deficiencies when it comes to historical fiction and criticism, but at least there's some evidence of actual familiarity here.

The interesting questions he raises, and which bother people so much, do not pertain to abstract theological issues like the omnipotence of God, but rather to much more worldly issues such as the role of religion in society, the mythologization process which underpins it, conservative religion's interaction with sexuality, the fallibility of human interlocutors with the divine, and so on. These are issues on which Islamists are quite uncomfortable, accustomed as they are to an environment where these questions are not asked, and so they have no ready answers. This makes them insecure, and they react to this with aggression.

And that stuff is fine, no one cares, but when you blatantly go on doing what he did for many years, expect a reaction.

An unjustified reaction, in this case, yes?

 

[S.A.M.]

These are issues on which Islamists are quite uncomfortable, accustomed as they are to an environment where these questions are not asked, and so they have no ready answers.

Read a lot of Muslim magazines, do you?

Note that this discussion is not taking place in Arabic.