I enjoyed this take on the calls for censorship:
I read it a few times, but I’m not sure I’m getting it. It seems like he’s saying we should differentiate between legitimate anti-Islam criticism and illegitimate anti-Islam hate, and then saying that both are to blame.
I only read it one time. My take is he’s making the following key points:
- The ‘left’ censoring right wing extremism is both counterproductive and hypocritical when similar calls weren’t made after Islamist extremist attacks.
- ‘Islamophobia’ is a redundant term because it combines criticism of religion with hatred of people. However, it is complicated because some people do use criticism of Islam as a smokescreen for anti-Muslim rhetoric.
I think part of the problem with that article is it talks about Islam and Muslims as if they all share one set of beliefs. The real Islamaphobes look at it like this too, they see the worst elements and then apply it broadly to everyone.
I think if there is general criticism of Islam the writer claims there will be pushback that the criticism is Islamophobic thinking that is an unfair characterization, in fact much of the time it’s not unfair at all.
What would be fair? Like Fareed Zakaria did recently on CNN was a critical look at Saudi Arabia and specifically Wahhabism. Even in the Islamic world such criticism is seen as valid, you are going to find very few or none who say this is Islamaphobic.
or distinguish between the type of follower, a casual follower, a moderate, a reformer, a Islamist or a fundamentalist. If you have an issue with a particular exteme form and it’s followers and state it as such I think very few would call this Islamaphobic.
Malik is a rare left winger who criticizes multiculturalism and is a passionate supporter of free speech. He’s an interesting guy.
I don’t like the word “Islamaphobic” personally. Does it mean “afraid of Islam”? It sure looks like it does. If it means something else, we need a better word.
If Islamic people don’t want me to be afraid of Islam, they have some work to do.
I think it’s the dearth, at least compared to other dangerous ideologies, of criticism of Wahhabism outside the Islamic world that is the problem.
The question I have is, are you really a Muslim if you’re just a casual follower or even a moderate? If you don’t really follow the set of Islamic laws, as Islam is as much as a religion as it is laws and a way of governance, are you really a Muslim? If you stray so far away from what Muhammad and his followers were, are you really a Muslim?
Because all the readings of the Quran and Hadiths say Muhammad would be more like isis than any of the moderates, casuals and reformers.
I mean, isn’t the Islam about following Muhammad to follow allahs word? If you just ignore most of it and avoid the ones that are clearly bad ideas…what’s the purpose?
Well an example I think which seems to highlight the issue well was Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox who criticized Ilhar Omar who wears a hijab which (she said) adheres to sharia law and then might be in conflict with the constitution.
This is silly, Muslims dont eat pork (nor do Jews for that matter) doesn’t mean it’s being forced on the rest of the population. Might as well say vegetarians threaten the constitution, so Ilhar Omar dresses modestly according to her interpretation of what modest is, doesnt mean that is being forced on anyone else and the idea sharia law is coming to the USA is risible fear mongering.
Yes. Do you follow all of the commandments in the Bible?
Fundamentalists in any form are annoying. I’ve worked with a couple of fundamentalist Chrisitans in my time. I never felt threatened by them, just mildly irritated.
Are there any figures for the number of people killed by fundamentalist Christians in recent years compared to the number of people killed by fundamentalist Islamists?
That might give an idea of where the problem lies.
I would say yes, they’re not to hard to follow even without it written. Not saying I’m perfect. But I acknowledge these are commandments from God.
But if you’re not even going to acknowledge things in the Haditha and Quran, isn’t that different?
If criticism of Muslims mean the criticism of what Muhammad said a Muslim ought to behave, don’t find anything wrong with that. That’s how Muhammad said Muslims should act.
So you support putting homosexuals to death?
No, the laws of the past are no longer applicable because of the resurrection and laws are set by man not God.
If Christians can develop a rationale for ignoring some of the commands in their holy book, why shouldn’t I believe that Muslims can do so?
If you have 10 minutes, I did post this before but it will save you countless hours in understanding, at least from this individuals perspective. The definitions list of who’s who, is from 24 min to 34 min. It also gives a bit of insight into western definitions that differ to his own definitions.
Because the foundation of Christianity is the resurrection. And the resurrection absolved all man of their sins and created a new covenant where the old laws are not needed.
There is nothing is Islam that says you no longer have to follow Islamic laws that I know of.
Probably why not a significant number of Christians are saying kill gay people let along doing it. Nor are the Jews when many of the harsher laws were given to them.
Thanks. I’ll fake a look when I get home.
Yet there are moderate Muslims. Why should I think they haven’t adopted some similar rationale?