Islamophobia in the US

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I think you'll find Jar Jar Binks discredited the majority of Yoda's theories a long time ago.

[Park Life 71]

On the good ship Lollypop?

She became a diplomat or something didn't she?

 

U.N.

[spongebob toonpants 3997]

"What is the concern about this mosque if not a totally irrational fear of muslims "

 

Hatred, not fear.

 

"It's helped less by refusing to allow them a church which would help them integrate. Treating them differently to members of any other religion."

 

The building in question may well still be built.

 

"Quite a generalisation there. I'm all for criticising Islam as a religion (like all others) on the grounds of it's backward thinking. I'm all for criticicising an Islamic government attempting to kill a novelist for his writing. That's not Islamophobia.

 

It's dangerous to confuse the two as you have here because it's what separates legitimate discussion of an entire group without restriction of their freedoms, as opposed to persecution of the members of a group based on the extremism of a limited number of it's members."

 

There was criticism of Rushdie in the west for writing a novel which was 'islamophobic' and insulting to muslims. This including SHirly Temple who was a member of parliament at the time. There were quite a number of liberals who supported this disturbing view. Like I said on the semantics front, similar terms for Catholicism and other religions do not exist, and Islam is treated differently to other religions when it comes to censorship.

 

You are nowhere near as clever as you think you are

[Park Life 71]

"What is the concern about this mosque if not a totally irrational fear of muslims "

 

Hatred, not fear.

 

"It's helped less by refusing to allow them a church which would help them integrate. Treating them differently to members of any other religion."

 

The building in question may well still be built.

 

"Quite a generalisation there. I'm all for criticising Islam as a religion (like all others) on the grounds of it's backward thinking. I'm all for criticicising an Islamic government attempting to kill a novelist for his writing. That's not Islamophobia.

 

It's dangerous to confuse the two as you have here because it's what separates legitimate discussion of an entire group without restriction of their freedoms, as opposed to persecution of the members of a group based on the extremism of a limited number of it's members."

 

There was criticism of Rushdie in the west for writing a novel which was 'islamophobic' and insulting to muslims. This including SHirly Temple who was a member of parliament at the time. There were quite a number of liberals who supported this disturbing view. Like I said on the semantics front, similar terms for Catholicism and other religions do not exist, and Islam is treated differently to other religions when it comes to censorship.

I think you're making stuff up to be honest. I remember the issuing of the fatwa well and the overwhelming public, media and political response was one of condemnation at the time. Who were these so-called liberals? (I thought you didn't like euphemisms anyway). Seemed like a huge fuss to make over such a tediously verbose novelist as well.

 

 

Quite. Has anyone actually read any of his books?

[Guest alex]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

Edited August 25, 2010 by alex

[Park Life 71]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

[Guest alex]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

He's decent crack tbf. Seems like a thinker anyway.

[Park Life 71]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

He's decent crack tbf. Seems like a thinker anyway.

 

He is that and perhaps this lesson in dialectics and post-capitalist thinking has helped him progress.

[Meenzer 15561]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

He's decent crack tbf. Seems like a thinker anyway.

 

He is that and perhaps this lesson in dialectics and post-capitalist thinking has helped him progress.

 

 

Shirley not.

[Happy Face 29]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

He's decent crack tbf. Seems like a thinker anyway.

 

Nice to have Fop back.

[spongebob toonpants 3997]

Let's face it under close scrutiny from the heavyweights on here, Kevin SS argment is falling away like cheap tolet paper in the library.

He's decent crack tbf. Seems like a thinker anyway.

 

Nice to have Fop back.

 

 

Ooooh -you could be right

[Guest alex]

Not Fop imo.

[Park Life 71]

Not Fop imo.

 

If it is Fop he's been doing some reading.

[Meenzer 15561]

Utter disrespect to the memory of Fop, frankly, who sadly died after being pinned down by a 270kg weight before being discovered six months later by an unsuspecting social worker. Shirley this is incomparable.

[Park Life 71]

Utter disrespect to the memory of Fop, frankly, who sadly died after being pinned down by a 270kg weight before being discovered six months later by an unsuspecting social worker. Shirley this is incomparable.

 

Alive and well apparently.

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

 

There were other members of parliament who criticised Rushdie, Lord Ahmed and Cat Stevens to name just two. I do believe that there are homogenous sects within political groups, and at the time there was a group amongst the left who felt Rushdie brought this fatwa on himself. This doesn't relate to the 'ground zero mosque', rather the wider issue regarding censorship and Islam that I was discussing. In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

[NJS 4389]

In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

 

To be fair, a lot of that censorship is more down to security fears (eg British newspapers not publishing the cartoons) rather than "over-respect". I don't think the Mail or the Sun "respects" Islam.

[Guest alex]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

 

There were other members of parliament who criticised Rushdie, Lord Ahmed and Cat Stevens to name just two. I do believe that there are homogenous sects within political groups, and at the time there was a group amongst the left who felt Rushdie brought this fatwa on himself. This doesn't relate to the 'ground zero mosque', rather the wider issue regarding censorship and Islam that I was discussing. In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

Cat Stevens? When was he an MP like?

Anyway, I think we're getting confused. I asked about at the time whereas I assume Lord Ahmed and Shirley Williams made criticisms in relation to his recent knighthood, presumable because he offended Muslims over 'The Satanic Verses'. I don't agree with them, btw, assuming that's what they were criticising.

Also, I think you must take my point, i.e. it's too easy to say: look at those wooly liberals. This week they were criticising that, now they're defending this. It's lazy on your part. I think you can do better. I appreciate that's condescending but you started it.

As for your point about censorship and Islam, I agree with Hitchen's point, which you're sort of alluding to about the veiled threats (no pun intended). Rushdie was sort of asking for it though. I.e. there's no way he's not intelligent enough to not have realised how controversial his work would be. He could've even predicted the issuing of the fatwa. And there's no way he'd be remotely as famous (or a knight now) were it not for that book. Perhaps it was a calculated risk on his part. His rights to write such works should be defended to the hilt though. And you know for a fact 99.9% of the people offended by that book have never even picked up a copy of it.

Edited August 25, 2010 by alex

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I think it's a combination. The security risk is negligible in most cases like with South Park, some internet group with about 4 members made threatening remarks and they pulled Muhammed again.

 

Speaking of straw man stuff though, as far as I'm aware the building of the faith centre has not been stopped. We've covered the protesters and Gingrich and everyone seems to agree on their right to spout whatever they want. This is where I'm struggling to see the outrage. I think the huge pressure HF speaks of to stop the building is exaggerated and would be surprised if the building was completely halted.

[Meenzer 15561]

Speaking of straw man stuff though, as far as I'm aware the building of the faith centre has not been stopped. We've covered the protesters and Gingrich and everyone seems to agree on their right to spout whatever they want. This is where I'm struggling to see the outrage. I think the huge pressure HF speaks of to stop the building is exaggerated and would be surprised if the building was completely halted.

 

If it is stopped, though, it'll be because of the protesters and Gingrich. Yeehaw.

[Park Life 71]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

 

There were other members of parliament who criticised Rushdie, Lord Ahmed and Cat Stevens to name just two. I do believe that there are homogenous sects within political groups, and at the time there was a group amongst the left who felt Rushdie brought this fatwa on himself. This doesn't relate to the 'ground zero mosque', rather the wider issue regarding censorship and Islam that I was discussing. In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

 

In the same way criticism of Israel is censored by the BBC and many others?

[Guest alex]

I think people on here are more concerned that the protest represent a not insignificant minority who view all Muslims with suspicion rather than being outraged at the protests against the Mosque. The latter demonstrates the former though. As Blaydon used to say: can't we all just get along?

Disclaimer: some of them don't want to get along either.

[Park Life 71]

I think people on here are more concerned that the protest represent a not insignificant minority who view all Muslims with suspicion rather than being outraged at the protests against the Mosque. The latter demonstrates the former though. As Blaydon used to say: can't we all just get along?

Disclaimer: some of them don't want to get along either.

 

The most ill-informed democracy on earth.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

 

There were other members of parliament who criticised Rushdie, Lord Ahmed and Cat Stevens to name just two. I do believe that there are homogenous sects within political groups, and at the time there was a group amongst the left who felt Rushdie brought this fatwa on himself. This doesn't relate to the 'ground zero mosque', rather the wider issue regarding censorship and Islam that I was discussing. In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

Cat Stevens? When was he an MP like?

Anyway, I think we're getting confused. I asked about at the time whereas I assume Lord Ahmed and Shirley Williams made criticisms in relation to his recent knighthood, presumable because he offended Muslims over 'The Satanic Verses'. I don't with them, btw, assuming that what they were criticising.

Also, I think you must take my point, i.e. it's too easy to say: look at those wooly liberals. This week they were criticising that, now they're defending this. It's lazy on your part. I think you can do better. I appreciate that's condescending but you started it.

As for your point about censorship and Islam, I agree with Hitchen's point, which you're sort of alluding to about the veiled threats (no pun intended). Rushdie was sort of asking for it though. I.e. there's no way he's not intelligent enough to not have realised how controversial his work would be. He could've even predicted the issuing of the fatwa. And there's no way he'd be remotely as famous (or a knight now) were it not for that book. Perhaps it was a calculated risk on his part. His rights to write such works should be defended to the hilt though. And you know for a fact 99.9% of the people offended by that book have never even picked up a copy of it.

 

Cat Stevens comment was a joke, as I'd confused Shirly Temple and Mclaine before. Yes you're correct about those two specifically criticising his knighthood but they were also critical of protecting him from the fatwa citing it as a waste of tax money and so on. I see the whole thing as an ongoing saga now thankfully finished with Rushdie in safety. As for him predicting the fatwa, I find that remark a little fatuous. I don't think he would wilfully chance a fatwa from the Ayatollah for the chance to gain fame. Perhaps there is something to that though, was he married to that stunner pre or post fatwa?

[Guest alex]

The Lib Dems, for starters.

You've named one Lib Dem. It'a straw man stuff anyway. I.e. "look: liberals are hypocrites because Shirley Williams criticised Rushdie yet liberals are condemning those protesting against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque." When in fact there is no homogenous group of liberals who all agree on everything. It's only an individual who can be a hypocrite on a matter like this and only then if said individual contradicts themselves. It's a bit like Dan's constant assertion that it's funny how liberals attack Israel yet support undemocratic Islamic regimes, without quoting someone doing so either in the thread or in the media.

 

There were other members of parliament who criticised Rushdie, Lord Ahmed and Cat Stevens to name just two. I do believe that there are homogenous sects within political groups, and at the time there was a group amongst the left who felt Rushdie brought this fatwa on himself. This doesn't relate to the 'ground zero mosque', rather the wider issue regarding censorship and Islam that I was discussing. In recent times there have been many incidents where material regarding Islam has been censored ('Islamophobic', 'offensive to Muslims') where if it had been a similar statement about another religion it would be published freely.

Cat Stevens? When was he an MP like?

Anyway, I think we're getting confused. I asked about at the time whereas I assume Lord Ahmed and Shirley Williams made criticisms in relation to his recent knighthood, presumable because he offended Muslims over 'The Satanic Verses'. I don't with them, btw, assuming that what they were criticising.

Also, I think you must take my point, i.e. it's too easy to say: look at those wooly liberals. This week they were criticising that, now they're defending this. It's lazy on your part. I think you can do better. I appreciate that's condescending but you started it.

As for your point about censorship and Islam, I agree with Hitchen's point, which you're sort of alluding to about the veiled threats (no pun intended). Rushdie was sort of asking for it though. I.e. there's no way he's not intelligent enough to not have realised how controversial his work would be. He could've even predicted the issuing of the fatwa. And there's no way he'd be remotely as famous (or a knight now) were it not for that book. Perhaps it was a calculated risk on his part. His rights to write such works should be defended to the hilt though. And you know for a fact 99.9% of the people offended by that book have never even picked up a copy of it.

 

Cat Stevens comment was a joke, as I'd confused Shirly Temple and Mclaine before. Yes you're correct about those two specifically criticising his knighthood but they were also critical of protecting him from the fatwa citing it as a waste of tax money and so on. I see the whole thing as an ongoing saga now thankfully finished with Rushdie in safety. As for him predicting the fatwa, I find that remark a little fatuous. I don't think he would wilfully chance a fatwa from the Ayatollah for the chance to gain fame. Perhaps there is something to that though, was he married to that stunner pre or post fatwa?

Certainly a canny career move anyway. Although often you could say the same about death so perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. I do think he fully realised it would create a stir however.