Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread
- Thread starter kks
- Start date
I'm accepting your reasoning, with all of the feelings etc as described by you.arsalan said:
Again, it isn't "the reaction" that is at issue with me - it is your reaction, in common with SAM's and Diamondheart's and frankly the large majority of Muslims from the Muslim world whose reaction has been presented to me.
And no one else of similar intellectual status. Not even Juan Cole, or other people like him.
Convince me that the common ground of Islamic faith in the Muslim world isn't behind that pattern.
Hindus and others were offended as well. Like I said, anyone who had anything to do with that period, which ended in incredible pain for both India and then newly formed Pakistan, reacted.
And so you are in no position to represent those groups in any way, then, are you?
and theres where I disagree with you. I think a lot of Americans do not agree with the Iraq war and some dont agree with the Afghanistan war. Theres been plenty of protests and rallies to prove and support this. Just becuase you want to portray all Muslims as some group who instantly hated Rushdie because thats what their leaders told them to, you dont have lie about Americans just to reinforece your point. You chose as your evidence the paying of taxes and whatnot. It was a stupid point. I suggest you pick another. Maybe show me when all those Muslims got tickets out of Iran to England to kill Rushdie?Nobody is talking about anyone being offended.arsalan said:
We are talking about threats and violence and intimidation by murder. We are talking about being asked to "understand" such things, as natural and predictable reactions to being offended by a novel, without inquiring into or criticizing the apparent sources of those reactions.
Hindus are not much involved in that.
They were in the Rushdie affair, just not as much since Rushdie was focusing on Pakistan. They also had their own when he wrote The Moors Last Sigh
Last edited:
They murdered translators, rioted in far countries, threatened people in Hindu enclaves and communities worldwide based on common religion, etc?arsalan said:
Not really. The Muslim reaction to Rushdie is a special case. There are no Hindu apologists on these forums years later, once again explaining to me what I need to understand about how evil and corrupting Rushdie is.
Where?
Yes I know. I am one of those Americans who disagrees with the Iraq war. But that's the whole point: we don't get a pass on criticism of these actions just because we don't approve of them. We have to actually use our agency to put a stop to them, if we expect to be taken seriously by those suffering from those actions. What people object to is not the status of our approval, but the actions themselves.
Likewise, it is not enough to say that you don't condone murder and intimidation. You have to actually use your agency to put an end to it. And you're doing the opposite of that, by consistently working to shield those who murder and intimidate from criticism.
I don't want that. I do want you to stop wanting to portray me as someone who wants to portray all Muslims as blah blah blah.
??? No idea what you're talking about here. If I were to lie about Americans, that would undermine my point.
The most important thing that anyone did in support of the terror campaign was to apologize for it the way you are doing now. Without these crucial signals of solidarity, the actual killers would never have been emboldened enough to follow through on their threats.
I AM discriminated against by those who lump me with them.
Which gives me the right to represent the part
Regardless, it doesn't the change the fact that:
1. I don't vote for them
2. I don't fund them
3. I augur no benefit from them.
Sure.
Not at all. What it gives you is the responsibility to reject the lumping and discrimination in the first place.
If you play along, you're legitimating the discrimination, and so have no grounds to "defend" anything.
Indeed, and I have not disputed those facts. I ask only that you behave according to them, consistently.
Actually when The Moors Last Sigh came out they burned the books, hurt and threatened anyone selling it.
Not when the discrimination is based on "religious grounds"
I do. Haraki Murakami said it best:
"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall may be, how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will do it. But if there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?"
Thats my consistent point of view.
And you did the best you could right? You do get a pass on criticism because you disagreed and you did everything you could.
And they did. Although I think you might want to continue to this point in that other thread.
Apologize? I have nothing to apologize for. I have time and time again said I do not support any killings and I hope the killers get persecuted to the full extent of the law. But that doesnt mean I shouldnt be able to point what kind of opportunistic liar and hypocrite Rushdie is.
Why not try putting together a reasonable post, then?
How would you know he's a liar and a hypocrite if you haven't read his books?
Oh yes, because he criticizes Islam, so he must be a liar and a hypocrite.
How would you know he's a liar and a hypocrite if you haven't read his books?
Oh yes, because he criticizes Islam, so he must be a liar and a hypocrite.
Just for the record, I have read his books. I have also read what other people think about his books. I have also read about the varioius themes he uses and the points he is trying to make if you look at the book from a non-religious and or colonial background.