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

[Arsalan]

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

I dunno. All Im saying is that the reaction was not wholly spontaneous.

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.

I said I dont care about people protesting by shouting and writing stuff. But I didnt advocate or justify any killing.

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.

Its not that I have conceptual deficiencies, its that I can see what he says because I know the history and what he is talking about.

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.

There have been so many books written on the role of religion in society, about sex in religion, about Prophets and their falliblity. The question then becomes what makes this one so special? The reason this book stands out is because it is a culmination of his previous work attacking people all around him and their religions.

If you want to make a point, fine. Be civil about it. If I were to act and talk like he did in my University just to raise some points about worldly issues, I would be kicked out of the debate, and rightly so. When you say all the things he said, knowingly, then go and apologize and pretend you didnt know what you were doing, people will react to you. Be that positively or negatively.

If you dont think Muslims or "Islamists" are accustomed to the questions he asked, you really should look up the various question and answer sessions that have been held throughout the history of Islam. If you want to ask someone something or criticize him, you have to be civil. If youre not, then dont expect the other person to be civil either.

 

[iceaura]

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

Which is beside the point.

Do you realize how unlikely that is?
”
As much as can be gained from written history

Which is not, in this case, either reliable or complete, and is known to have been incorporated into an elaborate mythology in at least some respects. So very little, obviously. That is obvious, I hope?

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

Which he has a perfect right to do, and employs a great deal of skill in doing. So no problem, on his end.

Now, about the reactionary end - - - -

 

[Arsalan]

Which is not, in this case, either reliable or complete, and is known to have been incorporated into an elaborate mythology in at least some respects. So very little, obviously. That is obvious, I hope?

Exactly what is not reliable or complete about the history of the wives of the Prophet?

Which he has a perfect right to do, and employs a great deal of skill in doing. So no problem, on his end.

Now, about the reactionary end - - - -

Ofcourse, he has a perfect right to be as callous and brutish as possible. Just dont expect the people you have lambasted for so long to cheer you on.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

If you liked that you will really love this

Really? and what happened in the centuries since?

Islam a Democracy? yes mob rule, a Constitutional Republic? :roflmao: yes tell me another one.

 

[Arsalan]

Really? and what happened in the centuries since?

Islam a Democracy? yes mob rule, a Constitutional Republic? :roflmao: yes tell me another one.

Age old cartoon:

 

[Roman]

Age old cartoon:

In a modern context, that cartoon would be informing Americans to worry about the threat of Islamic terrorism overseas and to take military action before we find it on our doorstep.

In other words, it'd be pro-Israel.

 

[iceaura]

Exactly what is not reliable or complete about the history of the wives of the Prophet?

Most everything. Bits and pieces of hearsay recorded many years after the fact, incorporated into an obviously mythologized account including supernatural events and the like, is not what you rely on in areas of your life where the consequences of error are immediate and painful.

Ofcourse, he has a perfect right to be as callous and brutish as possible. Just dont expect the people you have lambasted for so long to cheer you on.

The subject of "cheering him on" has hardly come up. We are talking about driving him into hiding on far continents, about people with no personal connection to him killing other people for mere indirect business association with his name.

And as far as callous brutality, we are comparing the writing of what is universally agreed to be a well-written high-art novel that no one need peruse involuntarily (not something one can produce callously, and physically a fairly gentle activity involving at most some energetic banging on keys) with putting out a contract on the author's life (and actually murdering others) because one feels insulted - "dissed", as gangbangers used to refer to the honor violence typical of gangs.

 

[quadraphonics]

I dunno. All Im saying is that the reaction was not wholly spontaneous.

Well of course. Hence the "re" in "reaction."

Neither was Rushdie's work "spontaneous," in this sense.

What does spontaneity have to do with anything?

I said I dont care about people protesting by shouting and writing stuff.

Neither do I. Which is why I haven't complained about it. If someone wants to write a book criticizing Rushdie, so much the better. Or waste your time holding rallies protesting him, if that's more your style. As long as the response remains in the domain of speech, it's no-harm-no-foul.

The complaint is about murdering people the world over, in an effort to intimidate them into silence.

But I didnt advocate or justify any killing.

Then why do you keep objecting to people who have a problem with killing Rushdie and anyone associated with his work? If you agree that those reactions are unacceptable, what are you arguing, exactly? That people are right to want to kill Rushdie for his ideas, but that they shouldn't follow through on that urge?

There have been so many books written on the role of religion in society, about sex in religion, about Prophets and their falliblity. The question then becomes what makes this one so special? The reason this book stands out is because it is a culmination of his previous work attacking people all around him and their religions.

Except that he doesn't do that, under any reasonable reading of the term "attack." You keep insisting that he's out to insult and attack people, but you don't support this assertion. All you can do is point to certain incongruous combinations of holy/mythic elements with profane elements in his work, without any apparent recognition of what literary role such methods play, and so what is intended by their presentation. That is, when you aren't just making blanket assertions about his "body of work" demonstrating that he's out to "attack" people.

The problem is that certain people regard any meaningful criticism of their ideas as a personal attack, equivalent to physical assault. It is not possible to have a civil, intellectual debate with such people, because they will respond to criticism with violence. Just like they did with Rushdie. These people are not justified, regardless of how much psychological distress exposure to criticism may cause them.

If you want to make a point, fine. Be civil about it.

He did. He spent years producing a magnificent piece of literature that encapsulates his ideas, and explores the interplay between them in a nuanced, open-ended manner. It is a subtle, considered, intellectual work, that was forced on nobody. And it is much more than simply an intellectual criticism of mythologization in Islam, or its psychosexual underpinnings, or cultural tensions springing from this stuff. You seem to have the crazy idea that he writes books just as packages for criticism of Islam, which is not the case. Nobody would bother writing epic postmodern novels if that's all they wanted to accomplish; an essay would suffice.

It's the people who want to make a point in response to him that can't seem to be civil. Instead they go around stabbing translators in far-flung countries, and putting out open murder contracts on his head. Say whatever you want about Rushdie: he's just an author. He doesn't force anyone to accept his ideas, or even to be exposed to his ideas in the first place. He is not coercing anyone by writing books, and so it is ridiculous to equate that with "attack" or "aggression." It's the anti-Rushdie crowd that is coercing people, both by preventing people from reading his books, and trying to murder him and anyone associated with his writing.

If I were to act and talk like he did in my University just to raise some points about worldly issues, I would be kicked out of the debate, and rightly so.

Act and talk? The Satanic Verses is a book. There's no "debate" to expell anyone from: people are free to read it or not (except in many Muslim countries, where they are not free to read it in the first place).

And any university that would respond to the production of a book of that caliber with expulsion is not one I'd be proud to attend.

 

[chuuush]

Let me insert a minor, but yet at the same time, significant difference in the perception of these radical Muslims, and say, Christians. Taking into account the many shortcomings on both sides, there is a major contrast. Christians believe in going from flesh and blood to spirit, however the Muslims go from flesh to flesh, as in the example of the many Virgins to be had after detonating an explosive vest, so right away I can see the inferior perception aquired by these subnormal beings blowing themselves up under the belief of a failed view of their religion.

There is one thing I want to make it clear here and forever. Your words here just display how deeply misinformed you are of islam and its teachings. I'm not saying this to change your mind; but there may be people here who will be interested to know the other party better. Right, Quran talks about various blessings bestowed by God to those who enter paradise due to their good acts, and Huris are among them. Virgin is an intentional msintrepretation of the term, but nowhere in Quran or islamic teachings it meantions 70 or MANY virgins as is repeatedly used by anti-muslims (or at least as a devout muslim (fundamentalist in your terms) I have never heard of such a thing). In islam thing are not done for the sake of virgins, instead people are encouraged to do good acts for the sake of God's satisfaction. Jihad is an important part of islamic teachings and rightfully so because due to the nature of our world there is always oppression, tyranny and bullyism out there, so muslims are ordered to defend themselves, help the weak and fight the oppressors.

Islam is like the various Hadiths say:"If anyone of you hears a man crying for help but you shun his request you are no muslim!", or "a muslim is not one who goes to bed full while his/her neighbour can not find anything to eat!", or "Do not harm the elderly, women and children in your wars; do not destroy the trees and waters!..." and " do not be the ones who starts a war, just defend yourself and the oppressed!", "do not transgress the limits in your wars, verily Allah does not like the transgressors!", "one who kills an innocent person has actually killed the whole world and one who saves a life has actually saved the whole world!!"..

 

[Baron Max]

Jihad is an important part of islamic teachings and rightfully so because due to the nature of our world there is always oppression, tyranny and bullyism out there, so muslims are ordered to defend themselves, help the weak and fight the oppressors.

So why are Muslims killing so many other Muslims? Oppression, tyranny?

We hear of suicide bombings in marketplaces all the time, with Muslim civiians, women and children, as the obvious target. What's with that if Muslims are supposed to help the weak?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

We hear of ...
Baron Max

Exactly. Why do you hear of Muslims [with religion attached] but not others?

 

[Arsalan]

In a modern context, that cartoon would be informing Americans to worry about the threat of Islamic terrorism overseas and to take military action before we find it on our doorstep.

In other words, it'd be pro-Israel.

Way to miss the point my friend Apparently it is alright if non-Americans die, since they dont matter as much.

 

[Arsalan]

Most everything. Bits and pieces of hearsay recorded many years after the fact, incorporated into an obviously mythologized account including supernatural events and the like, is not what you rely on in areas of your life where the consequences of error are immediate and painful.

Their lives were recorded as they were being lived and a couple of years until after they were dead. It is the sayings of the Prophet, that were written down years after the fact. The lives of the Mothers of Islam are pretty well recorded, without any supernatural events.

The subject of "cheering him on" has hardly come up. We are talking about driving him into hiding on far continents, about people with no personal connection to him killing other people for mere indirect business association with his name.

Ofcourse, they didnt cheeer him on, they were too angry about what he had said and done to them ever since he started writing.

And as far as callous brutality, we are comparing the writing of what is universally agreed to be a well-written high-art novel that no one need peruse involuntarily (not something one can produce callously, and physically a fairly gentle activity involving at most some energetic banging on keys) with putting out a contract on the author's life (and actually murdering others) because one feels insulted - "dissed", as gangbangers used to refer to the honor violence typical of gangs.

Universally agreed? I personally know of a handful of literature teachers and normal people who dont agree it to be a high art novel. It is usually accepted in the West as high art novel for its mystical and adult content trying to prove a point. The only mistake he made was that in this work and including all the work over the years, he had mocked and insulted people, events and places which led to some people finally saying enough. Contract out on his life? That contract was bullshit as it had no authority. If you think the people were after him because of some contract, you are mistaken. But then again, this is my whole point: throwing the people that protested against his books, whether physically or with the pen, in the same basket.

 

[Baron Max]

Exactly. Why do you hear of Muslims [with religion attached] but not others?

Because it doesn't happen with others! When was the last time a suicide bomber ...OTHER THAN A MUSLIM.... killed a bunch of people in an attack?

That's right, SAM, ....ONLY Muslims blow themselves up in Mosques ...like I think one just did in some Indian mosque, right?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

When was the last time a suicide bomber ...OTHER THAN A MUSLIM.... killed a bunch of people in an attack?

Last week.

Sri Lankan ministers targeted by Tamil Tiger suicide bomber

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-targeted-by-Tamil-Tiger-suicide-bomber.html

 

[Arsalan]

The complaint is about murdering people the world over, in an effort to intimidate them into silence.

Then why do you keep objecting to people who have a problem with killing Rushdie and anyone associated with his work? If you agree that those reactions are unacceptable, what are you arguing, exactly? That people are right to want to kill Rushdie for his ideas, but that they shouldn't follow through on that urge?

I dont keep objecting to people who criticize the killings. When I respond I do so because everytime a person criticizes someone who killed, they automatically then apply this to Islam and all Muslims.

Except that he doesn't do that, under any reasonable reading of the term "attack." You keep insisting that he's out to insult and attack people, but you don't support this assertion. All you can do is point to certain incongruous combinations of holy/mythic elements with profane elements in his work, without any apparent recognition of what literary role such methods play, and so what is intended by their presentation. That is, when you aren't just making blanket assertions about his "body of work" demonstrating that he's out to "attack" people.

Obviously the imagery, context and stories he used went beyond your head or you arent familiar with them. Its a skill of Rushdie, to disguise blatant attacks under a manner of writing through which it is impossible for anyone not familiar with the stories and or history or places to understand what he is exactly saying. All they see is some kind of meaningful exploration of various literary themes.

He did. He spent years producing a magnificent piece of literature that encapsulates his ideas, and explores the interplay between them in a nuanced, open-ended manner. It is a subtle, considered, intellectual work, that was forced on nobody. And it is much more than simply an intellectual criticism of mythologization in Islam, or its psychosexual underpinnings, or cultural tensions springing from this stuff. You seem to have the crazy idea that he writes books just as packages for criticism of Islam, which is not the case. Nobody would bother writing epic postmodern novels if that's all they wanted to accomplish; an essay would suffice.

evidence of my last point.

It's the people who want to make a point in response to him that can't seem to be civil.

Again, with the whole "Every Muslims responded violently" which forces me to keep responding.

Instead they go around stabbing translators in far-flung countries, and putting out open murder contracts on his head. Say whatever you want about Rushdie: he's just an author. He doesn't force anyone to accept his ideas, or even to be exposed to his ideas in the first place. He is not coercing anyone by writing books, and so it is ridiculous to equate that with "attack" or "aggression." It's the anti-Rushdie crowd that is coercing people, both by preventing people from reading his books, and trying to murder him and anyone associated with his writing.

Oh, go ahead, read his books. Most people dont care. Even though he attacked the people that then reacted against him when they finally had enough, most people dont really care about him anymore.

Act and talk? The Satanic Verses is a book. There's no "debate" to expell anyone from: people are free to read it or not (except in many Muslim countries, where they are not free to read it in the first place).

And any university that would respond to the production of a book of that caliber with expulsion is not one I'd be proud to attend.

Wow. I dont think you got it. Fact of the matter is that if I were to stand up and try to prove a point about the University and the way it operates by acting and talking, continously, the way he has, there would be a reaction from the Uni. Or you can apply this to any civilized institution. Any company or community which calls itself civilized will not even listen to what I have to say if I talk like him. Thats the point.

 

[Arsalan]

So why are Muslims killing so many other Muslims? Oppression, tyranny?

We hear of suicide bombings in marketplaces all the time, with Muslim civiians, women and children, as the obvious target. What's with that if Muslims are supposed to help the weak?

Baron Max

So why are Christians/Americans killing so many other Christians/Americans? Oppression, tyranny?

We hear of killings/gang attacs/beheadings/shootouts/killing sprees in marketplaces/schools/streets all the time, with Christian/American civiians, women and children, as the obvious target. What's with that if Christians/Americans are supposed to help the weak?

 

[Arsalan]

There is one thing I want to make it clear here and forever. Your words here just display how deeply misinformed you are of islam and its teachings. I'm not saying this to change your mind; but there may be people here who will be interested to know the other party better. Right, Quran talks about various blessings bestowed by God to those who enter paradise due to their good acts, and Huris are among them. Virgin is an intentional msintrepretation of the term, but nowhere in Quran or islamic teachings it meantions 70 or MANY virgins as is repeatedly used by anti-muslims (or at least as a devout muslim (fundamentalist in your terms) I have never heard of such a thing). In islam thing are not done for the sake of virgins, instead people are encouraged to do good acts for the sake of God's satisfaction. Jihad is an important part of islamic teachings and rightfully so because due to the nature of our world there is always oppression, tyranny and bullyism out there, so muslims are ordered to defend themselves, help the weak and fight the oppressors.

Islam is like the various Hadiths say:"If anyone of you hears a man crying for help but you shun his request you are no muslim!", or "a muslim is not one who goes to bed full while his/her neighbour can not find anything to eat!", or "Do not harm the elderly, women and children in your wars; do not destroy the trees and waters!..." and " do not be the ones who starts a war, just defend yourself and the oppressed!", "do not transgress the limits in your wars, verily Allah does not like the transgressors!", "one who kills an innocent person has actually killed the whole world and one who saves a life has actually saved the whole world!!"..

Whats funny is that nowhere does the Quran state anything sexual happening in Heaven. It is the sick minds of the anti-Islamics who equate women/virigins with sex and or carnal acts.

 

[(Q)]

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.

Your lies are exposed in the relevant posts made, which you usually ignore. To come back now and state there is no evidence is just another lie.

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.

A fabrication. Rushdie attacked the bigotry of the same religion you promote as peaceful. It has nothing to do with the west or war.

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.

More fabrications. Rushdie did not curse Islams so-called greatest heroes. He criticized them, which is debate, which you consider commendable. So, stop lying about it.

I have heard some posters say Muslims have not even read this book, well most of the Non-Muslims here have not either

Perhaps the non-Muslims here aren't commenting on the book in contrast to the Muslims who want to kill Rushdie who haven't read the book.

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.

You haven't read the book to make that comment, 100% true.

 

[(Q)]

... people are encouraged to do good acts for the sake of God's satisfaction. Jihad is an important part of islamic teachings and rightfully so because due to the nature of our world there is always oppression, tyranny and bullyism out there, so muslims are ordered to defend themselves, help the weak and fight the oppressors.

The "nature of our world." Interesting rationale. Here we have a religion in which the god is supposed to have created everything, the entire universe, and is in control of it all. So, that god IS the "nature of our world" according to Islam. Therefore, that god created the oppression, tyranny and bullyism, but then orders HIS creations to go out and kill one another, "in defense" and "for the sake of God's satisfaction."

If the god of Islam is so powerful, why can't he fix the problem he himself created? Is it because he is evil and enjoys the killing, or is he just a figment of someones imagination, and the holy books of Islam were written for the people, by the people of that time?