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

[quadraphonics]

I don't understand why an easily offended Muslim would obtain a book which is reputed for offending Muslims.

They don't. The problem is not what Muslim readers think about the book's contents, but that certain of them want to prevent anyone, anywhere, from expressing similar ideas, or at least prevent as many people as possible (and, in particular, other believers) from having access to them.

 

[hypewaders]

DiamondHearts: "Naturally, if people with zero knowledge of the situation and ground reality of the region continue to make such preposterous notions, then there really is nothing left of value in this forum."

If I may interject: That would only be true if those having situational awareness abandon the field. This forum has value because some (you in this case) have direct regional and cultural experience that many participants and observers here (like me) do not.

Those who persist in repeating common misconceptions here may not seem easily persuaded, and may seem severely isolated in willful ignorance. Even so, there are many more reading at the sidelines, who are learning from the exchange (as I have from your posts).

When one of us is better informed on a topic- especially when that knowledge is from direct personal experience- that person should understand that these exchanges often do initiate expanding ripples of consciousness that extend far beyond this forum. In addition, developing explanatory proficiency in this modest ring increases our powers of influence in higher-visibility venues.

I'm trying not to overlook or discount the value that remains when one person speaks truly, even when these discussions are otherwise loaded down with uninformed, misinformed, insincere, and fatuous opinions.

 

[Arsalan]

Hey, you're the one who keeps insisting these sentiments are "Anti-Muslim." It is actually possible to criticize beliefs and institutions, even strongly, without calling your basic identity into question.

Or rather, it is in places where speech is free. Unrelenting criticism of America's failings is considered a patriotic duty by a great many citizens.

Let me reprhase it: a Muslim with anti-Muslim sentiment would be like an anti-Semitic Jew.

Again, the nationality of the authors is less salient than their religion, but no, it's not enough. It is required that ANY book be tolerated (in the sense of not seeking to murder the author, and intimidate others into silence), not just the ones that those being scrutinized deem acceptable.

Unrealistic in any society in the world. Almost every society in the world applies certain censorship and certain material is banned.

Then you believe wrong. As he's pointed out to you repeatedly now, he's not defending the contents of the book, but attacking the reaction to it.

Those are two completely separate things.

Which he did after I wrote that.

Strange, I seem to recall certain people in Iran doing most of the really noteworthy reacting... or are all Muslims indistinguishable in this sense?

Ayatollah = Shia. Shia = 10-15% of Muslims. Even then most Shias did not see this fatwa, which is nothing but an opinion of someone, as authoritative.

You should understand that lumping Rushdie in with the "imperialists" makes you look flat-out crazy. You need to take a deep breath and try to get a realistic hold on what you're going to ascribe to "imperialism."

Ofcourse it does. Read up on imperialism, Rodinson, Watt and all the others then read Rushdies books then come back and call me crazy.

And yet, here you are writing page after page hounding people who had a problem with those responses. If we agree that the fatwa and murders and intimidation are unacceptable, and that Rushdie should be protected by free speech, then what exactly is your disagreement?

Im not hounding people. I just dont agree that Freedom of Speech means you can go and keep on hurting large numbers of people over and over. A personal example: Geoffp was offended by me saying "Redneck". Because of his sensitivity I stopped using that word in that debate. Real world examples also prove that censorship takes place everywhere. Visions of Ecstacy was banned after the Satanic Verses came out. Why? Censorship. Like it or not, freedom of speech is a ritual which is supposed to lead to and or uncover the truth. Instead of worshipping the truth we now worship the ritual, regardless of where it leads us. Knowing this, people still blather on about Islam being incompatible with it in some way while ignoring all the banning and censorship that happens everywhere. Thats the problem I have with it.

Okay. Why don't you try linking to those instead of berating people?

Im not berating. Anyone interested in those can use Google to find em.

I support Dahl's right to free speech every bit as much as I support Rushdie's. As far as supporting their actual ideas and writings, I will indeed pick and choose, as I hope will you.

I apply a more stringent number criteria

They don't need to be excused, because they aren't problems in the first place.

They are. They show what his intentions were because after he wrote the book, he kept denying the very things it turned out he did.

He is not an icon of free speech because of his character, or his intentions, or his ideas, or the content of his books. He is an icon of free speech because he spent years living underground to withstand an international terror conspiracy designed to kill him and so silence others. Many icons of free speech are far more problematic than he, in terms of their speech. Larry Flynt, for example. And it is exactly this that puts them in such a position: nobody persecutes uncontroversial speech, and by ensuring that controversial speech is protected, we thereby protect all speech.

An icon of free speech does not get a play banned because he was offended by it.

"Shown regularly?" That stuff hasn't been reported since back when it happened. Rushdie is more likely to appear in the media in background material on Padma Lakshmi, than in anything to do with literature or speech or religion.

How much was it shown back then?

Are you unaware that many people in the West have made highly inflammatory speech about all of those subjects, repeatedly, in public and in print, without having contracts put on their head by despots on the other side of the world? Or even having to worry about the impact of said speech on their safety in the first place?

Point me to books they have written that continously mock and ridicule the events and people involved, blaiming the people themselves on the situation they found themselves in.

Also, it seems like your searching for pretenses to invoke emotionally charged material here, which is always a troubling sign.

Which is exactly what Rushdie did.

 

[Arsalan]

I don't understand why an easily offended Muslim would obtain a book which is reputed for offending Muslims. After after obtaining it, they *read* the first ten or twenty pages, find it offensive, and *continue reading* the offensive material. If Rushdie's book was indeed such a blight on the face of the Islamic world, why not simply *stop reading the book*, thus preventing any outrage in the first place? Do Muslims go out of their way to take offensive to every little thing? Perhaps they just like to play the eternal victim, seething and raging at every perceived slight they go out of their way to identify.

We have a saying in the West whenever someone tries to censor a television program. "If you don't like it, don't watch it." Perhaps your Muslim barbarian friends with a short temper could take this advice. Instead of seeking out literature which they know will offend them and cause them to issue death threats, they could demonstrate a little self control.

The sad fact of the matter here is that we are talking right past you, because you can't grasp progressive Western values. We don't care that as a Muslim, you find the book offensive. At the end of the day, it's a relatively obscure work of fiction, and no matter how 'offended' your Muslim brethen might be, that's no excuse to go issuing death threats and making attempts with censorship.

Of course, you're just going to brush off what I've said with "But, but, but, it's offensive to the previously colonised Muslims! Boo hoo hoo."

Tough shit. Nobody told them to read it.

Ya, when Im walking down the street and see 2 people having sexual intercourse, I should just close my eyes and pretend it didnt happen. Or why ban religious material from a lot of public places? After all, if people dont want to read it they dont need to read it. Right? Closing your eyes and letting the world go by is a fools way to live.

 

[Arsalan]

They don't. The problem is not what Muslim readers think about the book's contents, but that certain of them want to prevent anyone, anywhere, from expressing similar ideas, or at least prevent as many people as possible (and, in particular, other believers) from having access to them.

Pretty big assumption that a lot of people actually want to continue to read his stuff. Up tunil the Satanic Verses his material was still accepted, but after that most people know what hes getting at. Why bother reading someone that offends you right? Isnt that what you said?

 

[iceaura]

Let me reprhase it: a Muslim with anti-Muslim sentiment would be like an anti-Semitic Jew.

And you are confident of your ability to detect an "anti-Muslim" sentiment. In the US we have the same claims from the fundies - they detect "anti-American" sentiments, and see the real intentions behind novels that disturb them with objectionable accounts or descriptions.

Almost every society in the world applies certain censorship and certain material is banned.

Not because it offends religious or hometown sensibilities, or because odd folk find imperialistic intentions hidden in it.

Ayatollah = Shia. Shia = 10-15% of Muslims. Even then most Shias did not see this fatwa, which is nothing but an opinion of someone, as authoritative.

So? You keep bringing up these irrelevancies.

Read up on imperialism, Rodinson, Watt and all the others then read Rushdies books then come back and call me crazy.

You're crazy regardless of what anyone says about imperialism. It's a novel.

I just dont agree that Freedom of Speech means you can go and keep on hurting large numbers of people over and over.

Yes it does, if these people choose to feel hurt about fictional dramatizations involving mythological - or even historical - events. Nothing is easier than avoiding the pain of reading a novel. And it does mean that you cannot threaten authors of novels, murder their translators, hound and pursue them and even their casual associates with real harm intended.

Instead of worshipping the truth we now worship the ritual, regardless of where it leads us.

Yep. Now you are coming to an understanding. We adults do not pretend that we somehow know that what we worship is "the truth".

They don't need to be excused, because they aren't problems in the first place.
”
They are. They show what his intentions were because after he wrote the book, he kept denying the very things it turned out he did.

Your version of Rushdie's intentions is an interesting opinion, ill-defended so far, which others do not share. Regardless, his intentions do not matter very much. Why do you bother about them?

Point me to books they have written that continously mock and ridicule the events and people involved, blaiming the people themselves on the situation they found themselves in

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Catch-22. The LIfe of Brian (movie). Don Quixote. Small Gods. Moby Dick. It's quite a long list, really.

 

[copernicus66]

Ya, when Im walking down the street and see 2 people having sexual intercourse, I should just close my eyes and pretend it didnt happen. Or why ban religious material from a lot of public places? After all, if people dont want to read it they dont need to read it. Right? Closing your eyes and letting the world go by is a fools way to live.

So now you're trying to compare a voluntary reading of a novel with being forced to observe sexual activity in a public place? For real?

Obtaining a novel and reading it requires voluntary action on behalf on the individual, whereas viewing a couple having sex on the street does not. What you're basically telling me is that Muslims actively seek out works of literature that offend them, get all in a huff about it, and then retaliate.

Seriously, your attempts to justify censorship are beyond the pale.

 

[Arsalan]

And you are confident of your ability to detect an "anti-Muslim" sentiment. In the US we have the same claims from the fundies - they detect "anti-American" sentiments, and see the real intentions behind novels that disturb them with objectionable accounts or descriptions.

Anti-Muslim sentiment, anti-Semitic sentiment, same thing. Easy to detect.

Not because it offends religious or hometown sensibilities, or because odd folk find imperialistic intentions hidden in it.

But because it causes offence to a large group of people whose history demands a certain amount of healing and respect.

So? You keep bringing up these irrelevancies.

Not irrelevancies. Just interesting info about who the fatwa actually was directed to.

You're crazy regardless of what anyone says about imperialism. It's a novel.

Call me what you wish, fact still remains that the colonial times and imperialism were a large part of the reason behind the reaction.

Yes it does, if these people choose to feel hurt about fictional dramatizations involving mythological - or even historical - events. Nothing is easier than avoiding the pain of reading a novel. And it does mean that you cannot threaten authors of novels, murder their translators, hound and pursue them and even their casual associates with real harm intended.

Whose saying you can? Im just saying that freedom of speech, like so many things under the law, is a defense with limitations. In the real world, there are many examples.

Yep. Now you are coming to an understanding. We adults do not pretend that we somehow know that what we worship is "the truth".

Actually, it was meant as a metaphor for the history of freedom of speech. But take it any way you want.

Your version of Rushdie's intentions is an interesting opinion, ill-defended so far, which others do not share. Regardless, his intentions do not matter very much. Why do you bother about them?

To find out exactly what kind of man he was and still is. What is funny though is that in almost every single book of his he seems to apologize for wat he is going to say.

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Catch-22. The LIfe of Brian (movie). Don Quixote. Small Gods. Moby Dick. It's quite a long list, really.

9/11 and 7/7?

 

[Arsalan]

So now you're trying to compare a voluntary reading of a novel with being forced to observe sexual activity in a public place? For real?

Obtaining a novel and reading it requires voluntary action on behalf on the individual, whereas viewing a couple having sex on the street does not. What you're basically telling me is that Muslims actively seek out works of literature that offend them, get all in a huff about it, and then retaliate.

Seriously, your attempts to justify censorship are beyond the pale.

Sure watching an act like that is voluntary! All you have to do is ignore it! After all, its not like books that people read that attack you and your history can in any way ever come to be a problem for you in our society,right?

 

[copernicus66]

Sure watching an act like that is voluntary! All you have to do is ignore it and look the other way.

Ahh, but looking away requires action on my behalf. Not reading a book does not require action on my behalf. Surely you can grasp this elemental difference?

If Rushdie's book was required reading for all Muslims, if a gun was held to their head, their eyelids taped open and the open book shoved in their face, your analogy might be more appropriate.

The fact that you can't distinguish sex in a public place, and choosing to read a book you might find offensive, is truly remarkable.

After all, its not like books that people read that attack you and your history can in any way ever come to be a problem for you in our society,right?

If they do, who cares?

 

[Arsalan]

Ahh, but looking away requires action on my behalf. Not reading a book does not require action on my behalf. Surely you can grasp this elemental difference?

Dont look away, just ignore it. Who cares right?

If Rushdie's book was required reading for all Muslims, if a gun was held to their head, their eyelids taped open and the open book shoved in their face, your analogy might be more appropriate.

So thats what happens when theres, say, sex in a public place? Interesting.

The fact that you can't distinguish sex in a public place, and choosing to read a book you might find offensive, is truly remarkable.

If they do, who cares?

Its like saying: its ok to publish a book that attacks a large group of people based on their culture and religion and histry and those people should not react at all. After all, when has being apathetic when someone is attacking a large group of people based on their culture and religion ever done any harm, right?

 

[copernicus66]

Dont look away, just ignore it.

Ignoring an activity in a public place replies intervention on my behalf. Choosing not to read a book does not, it's purely inaction.

Comparing sex in a public place with the voluntary reading of a book is like saying that having your flatmate playing heavy metal at 2am in the morning is the same as choosing to attend a heavy metal concert at 2am. I mean, hey, you can choose to ignore your flatmate, right? Just get some earplugs!

The fact that you can't grasp the elementary difference between the two is concerning.

So thats what happens when theres, say, sex in a public place? Interesting.

It's a more accurate representation than what you are describing. If Rushdie's book was required reading material in public places (ie. schools), your scenario of sex in a public place might be more appropriate.

Its like saying: its ok to publish a book that attacks a large group of people based on their culture and religion and histry and those people should not react at all.

React all you wish. Feel outraged, offended. But realise that no matter how abhorrent you might find an opinion or belief, you can't go clamouring for censorship and violence. Also realise that whether you read a book or not is a personal decision.

After all, when has being apathetic when someone is attacking a large group of people based on their culture and religion ever done any harm, right?

Well, S.A.M continually attacks the West and atheists in almost every one of her posts. If I ever find myself become too pissed off, I simply stop reading. It's that easy. A little self-control goes a long way.

 

[Roman]

After all, its not like books that people read that attack you and your history can in any way ever come to be a problem for you in our society,right?

It's not like the 36% of Muslims polled in the UK thinking that non-believers should be killed is an alright statement is a problem for your society or anything!

It's not like Islamic terrorism targeting your society is a problem for your society or anything!

 

[copernicus66]

By the way, Arsalan. If you want to have sex and publish pictures of the sexual intercourse in 'Arsalan's Kama Sutra', go for it. If you want to record your and your partner having sex and upload it on the internet, be my guest! If you want to organise a time for willing participants to gather and your place and watch you cornhole some dude, I wish you well. In all three of those circumstances, I don't have to engage in any action to avoid being 'offended' by your activity. Unfortunately, if you were cornholing some dude in a public place, I would need to focus pretty hard on blocking out the visuals, and engage in evasionry action to get my own ass as far away from the scene as possible.

 

[Arsalan]

Ignoring an activity in a public place replies intervention on my behalf. Choosing not to read a book does not, it's purely inaction.

Comparing sex in a public place with the voluntary reading of a book is like saying that having your flatmate playing heavy metal at 2am in the morning is the same as choosing to attend a heavy metal concert at 2am. I mean, hey, you can choose to ignore your flatmate, right? Just get some earplugs!

The fact that you can't grasp the elementary difference between the two is concerning.

Ignoring is the same thing as inaction. Just dont do anything about it. ITs you who cant understand the similarity between these and that is concerning. No ones forcing you to watch them, right?

It's a more accurate representation than what you are describing. If Rushdie's book was required reading material in public places (ie. schools), your scenario of sex in a public place might be more appropriate.

Since no one holds a gun to my head in a public place, at least not since Africa, Id say no.

React all you wish. Feel outraged, offended. But realise that no matter how abhorrent you might find an opinion or belief, you can't go clamouring for censorship and violence. Also realise that whether you read a book or not is a personal decision.

No ones clamoring for violence. All m saying is that the reaction was something that was inevtiable considering the history and that Rushdie is an opportunistic liar and a hypocrite.

Well, S.A.M continually attacks the West and atheists in almost every one of her posts. If I ever find myself become too pissed off, I simply stop reading. It's that easy. A little self-control goes a long way.

But Sams posts arent distributed worldwide by a publisher who ignores the advice of dozens of experts worldwide and then pays them a million in advanced royalties to forget about the whole situation. How many times have there been anti-Islamic remarks on this forum and how many riots have they incited? Seriously, that you dont understand the difference between the 2 is concerning.

 

[Zakariya04]

It's not like the 36% of Muslims polled in the UK thinking that non-believers should be killed is an alright statement is a problem for your society or anything!
!

hey roman

which muslims were polled??????

I am sure i could find some very abnrmal poll results depending on who and where i sruveryed??!

 

[Arsalan]

It's not like the 36% of Muslims polled in the UK thinking that non-believers should be killed is an alright statement is a problem for your society or anything!

Proof please. I wanna know which survey this actually was since there have been dozens over the past year supposedly giving various results.

It's not like Islamic terrorism targeting your society is a problem for your society or anything!

Its not like a history of colonisation, imperialism, racism and oppression requires a certain amount of healing and respect. Besides, who is actually sending troops over to ohter countries to bomb and kill the people of that country? AFter 9/11 everyone was shocked and sympathized with the Americans, even most of the Muslim countries who, like the world, sent their deepst condoleances. The USA could become one of the most popular countries of it had tackled the aftermath right. But instead, it seemed to declare war on the world.

 

[Arsalan]

By the way, Arsalan. If you want to have sex and publish pictures of the sexual intercourse in 'Arsalan's Kama Sutra', go for it. If you want to record your and your partner having sex and upload it on the internet, be my guest! If you want to organise a time for willing participants to gather and your place and watch you cornhole some dude, I wish you well. In all three of those circumstances, I don't have to engage in any action to avoid being 'offended' by your activity. Unfortunately, if you were cornholing some dude in a public place, I would need to focus pretty hard on blocking out the visuals, and engage in evasionry action to get my own ass as far away from the scene as possible.

Not really, you wouldnt need to focus at all. Just ignore. Inaction. WHy would you care about whats going on? After all, its not affecting you right? Oh? It is? Thats strange

And no, I have no need for public sex or whatever. Me being a Muslim, you can probably guess why.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Sources for the poll in question.

 

[Baron Max]

.... Besides, who is actually sending troops over to ohter countries to bomb and kill the people of that country?

And besides that, there are also Muslims in those countries who kill more Muslims than all the US forces combined!

And here you and DH are trying to tell us, convince us, that ALL Muslims are nice guys and all Muslims want the same thing. Odd, huh?

Baron Max