Charlie Hebdo massacre and the West's response

[FNG]

I agree, but the CH editorial is clearly not doing that, in fact it is helping the fulfilment of that prophecy by implying, nod-and-wink style, that all Muslims are essentially the same.

Indeed they set up the grotesque caricature of the bruised marked baker that others are railing against. They in this debate framed what or wasn't a Muslim with their stupid vignettes.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I'm being flippant, but we are so concerned with women being controlled through their clothing that we will free them by dictating what they can and cannot wear.

Let's think this through a little more honestly for a moment.

Men controlling women - be it through their dress, their movements, behaviour, roles, etc - is about patriarchy. It can exist within and without religion. The first thing to note is that by insisting we are freeing women from patriarchal control by banning the wearing of the headscarf is to ignore the state's own patriarchal structure. Instead we're merely substituting one instance of it for another.

But of course, we're not even doing that.

To suggest we can free women of patriarchal control by banning the wearing of the headscarf completely misunderstands how men control women.

If we have a devout, possibly extreme fundamentalist Muslim husband who controls his wife by making her wear the niqab, will banning the niqab free her of his control? Of course it won't. He won't turn around and say, "I see, my dear, I have been forcing you to submit to my misogynist authority, and that was wrong. Go, my love, and be whatever and whomever you desire." That woman will not be free. If anything, I can imagine a situation where an ultra-religious man might force his wife to remain locked a prisoner in her home, now she (or he) cannot prevent other men from seeing her without a veil. And imagine the man who takes out his anger on his wife when she goes shopping without her niqab, because it's now illegal.

None of his actions are justified. All of those actions are abhorrent. But to suggest we somehow free all of Islam's womenfolk from the yolk of patriarchy by banning head/face coverings is patronising, ignorant, and in some cases willfully and dangerously disingenuous.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Quite apart from taking agency away from women, by suggesting they automatically must be in thrall to patriarchy and unable to think for themselves by choosing to wear a headscarf. Like the Jewish women who cover their hair. Or the Sikh women who are turning to wearing turbans entirely of their own volition (oftentimes antagonising men who think they shouldn't).

 

[redsquirrel]

But who's mentioned banning anything? Not danny, not LBJ. Indeed both have repeatedly said that they are opposed to such top-down authoritarian impositions. Nor does the CH piece argue for such a ban.

. (And, for what it's worth, that's where I disagree with the French state's top-down ban on the veil in public buildings. Top-down, state-imposed is the wrong way to do this. That'll always be a sledgehammer).

Top-down imposition will never work, imo - it will squeeze down and force a lot of ugliness out sideways.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It strikes me that our calls for secular homogeneity rely on 'them' becoming like 'us' - where 'us' is secular in the white Christian tradition.

Not sure who on here you're referring to with this, but 'secular homogeneity' is not what I'm calling for. 'Secular heterogeneity' would be closer to the mark. But that doesn't mean that anyone ought to feel that they can't comment on something within a different cultural group. FGM would be an extreme example of that - something some people have even defended from the outside as a cultural tradition. To do that is to abandon and betray its victims.

I also have never on this thread nor anywhere else said anything other than that I oppose any ban on religious dress, whether it's the niqab or anything else. And to repeat for the umpteenth time, I don't want to live in a society in which everything I don't like is banned. But then nor do I want to live in a society in which I am told to stfu about everything unless I want it banned. Not that I dislike the niqab in and of itself, necessarily. I do dislike the controls organised religions put on relations between people, though, disallowing some and regulating others. I detest that kind of repression, generally, and see no reason why I ought not to say that.

You're getting dangerously close here to saying that anyone not from within a particular group, as defined from outside, mostly, has no right to comment on what happens within that group.

 

[emanymton]

But who's mentioned banning anything? Not danny, not LBJ. Indeed both have repeatedly said that they are opposed to such top-down authoritarian impositions. Nor does the CH piece argue for such a ban.

I may be wrong but I thought she was comenting of the CH article, and the wider debate in France, rather than any poster on here.

 

[FNG]

Without wishing to be glib the British,French and other European left and other associated secular progressives are excluded from the debate that really matters that held with the potential radicalised Muslim.
If you examine the legacy issues of the "franchise" ie the recruitment and support networks of Islamic jihad set up in the 80s( of which sharia 4 Belgium and various choudry fronts are a manifestation)to fight communists and socialists overseas particularly in Afghanistan and at home root out trade unionists and suppress Shia,and other religious minority's in the various patron Middle Eastern and North african countries.


To that end the various religious clergy of said client countries expended great energy composing and compiling Hadith as recruitment materials to persuade and justify the path of international jihad. I don't think it was coincidence that great energy was expended by various regimes to encourage petty criminals to take the path of jihad as a way of redemption. A way of removing anti social elements from the regime and if they happened to be blown up in some shitty foxhole in afganistan or later Iraq then inshallah brother

Bringing this back to modern times
As part of the radicalisation process sharia4belgium would/does provide the would be terrorist with a list of carefully prepared hadith to challenge mainstream secular/moderate minded imans with. Knowing that the average iman would be unprepared and unable to give a persuasive counter argument to the path of jihad cementing the commitment of the recruit.

So where does this leave moderates like tariq ramadan? Charlie Hebdo advocates no platforming him for being some sort of Trojan horse,the tip of the iceberg,the thin end of the wedge,the John Hume of
international jihad.

I disagree.



To neuter tariq ramadan,to weaken one of the most prominent amongst the so called moderate theologians to decline to hear him speak is an own goal to be celebrated by the radicalisers.they will use it to point to the weakness of the moderate position,the lap dog that the master declines to hear.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is moderate? His views on homosexuality? Adultery? Correct dress and behaviour for women?

In another context I would suggest that his views would be seen as far from moderate.

 

[redsquirrel]

So where does this leave moderates like tariq ramadan? Charlie Hebdo advocates no platforming him for being some sort of Trojan horse,the tip of the iceberg,the thin end of the wedge,the John Hume of international jihad.

Do they? Where?

 

[Idris2002]

What is moderate? His views on homosexuality? Adultery? Correct dress and behaviour for women?

In another context I would suggest that his views would be seen as far from moderate.

He's moderate compared to the real shitehawks, the ones who might be picking up even more support if the likes of Tariq R. weren't around.

 

[LDC]

I wish people (incuding the media and some people on here) would stop confusing the tactic of 'no platforming' with just someone refusing to share a speaking engagement with a particular person or just saying they shouldn't be listened to. And this is relevant to the Greer discussions too.

 

[redsquirrel]

I wish people (incuding the media and some people on here) would stop confusing the tactic of 'no platforming' with just someone refusing to share a speaking engagement with a particular person or just saying they shouldn't be listened to. And this is relevant to the Greer discussions too.

Yes, although in this this case it's worth pointing out that there's nothing in the CH piece that suggests that they think Rariq Ramadan should not be invited to speak. Just that they think his views should be challenged.

 

[frogwoman]

Taxi driver admits killing Muslim shopkeeper for 'disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad' jesus

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Taxi driver admits killing Muslim shopkeeper for 'disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad' jesus

Relating this to Tariq Ramadan's position, Ramadan would clearly condemn the act in the strongest terms. However, Ramadan also believes that there is such a thing as 'god's law' as laid down in the Quran, that Muhammad is the last prophet and that his word is final on various matters, and that it is possible to 'disrespect' Islam in a way that goes against this 'god's law'.

He may preach peace, but he also preaches intolerance. CH very clearly see him and his ilk as part of the problem, not some amelioration of it, and I'm inclined to agree: a very different take on the same thing, but with a common core of intolerance nonetheless.

 

[frogwoman]

but presumably asad shah also prayed and did other stuff which might be seen by some of the people enthusiastically saying je suis charlie as part of the problem? i mean he was a muslim right (Even though daesh and the loon who killed him regarded as a dirty kuffar)

in that editorial it said that muslim shopkeepers with beards and who prayed several times a day, are part of the problem didn't they? so presumably that included the guy that was killed (although the scum that killed him thought he wasn't a proper muslim either)

 

[Vintage Paw]

It seems that if you're Muslim you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

in that editorial it said that muslim shopkeepers with beards and who prayed several times a day, are part of the problem didn't they? so presumably that included the guy that was killed (although the scum that killed him thought he wasn't a proper muslim either)

Yes, that section is also promoting intolerance itself.

For me, the strongest point in the article was the one about Ramadan and the idea of 'liberal' or 'moderate' Islamic scholars. It's an oxymoronic idea.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, that section is also promoting intolerance itself.

For me, the strongest point in the article was the one about Ramadan and the idea of 'liberal' or 'moderate' Islamic scholars. It's an oxymoronic idea.

i agree but that para and the one about the women in hijabs makes it difficult to take whatever good points in the rest of the article seriously. people can see this in articles in the guardian and the independent and the like. like people wouldn't go "oh but laurie penny / owen jones makes a good point in one para so the rest of the article is fine"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i agree but that para and the one about the women in hijabs makes it difficult to take whatever good points in the rest of the article seriously.

Yes.

 

[frogwoman]

i understand it's a mag that people respect but they got it badly wrong here.

 

[Radetzky]

Relating this to Tariq Ramadan's position, Ramadan would clearly condemn the act in the strongest terms. However, Ramadan also believes that there is such a thing as 'god's law' as laid down in the Quran, that Muhammad is the last prophet and that his word is final on various matters, and that it is possible to 'disrespect' Islam in a way that goes against this 'god's law'.

He may preach peace, but he also preaches intolerance. CH very clearly see him and his ilk as part of the problem, not some amelioration of it, and I'm inclined to agree: a very different take on the same thing, but with a common core of intolerance nonetheless.

Tariq Ramadan, is a good spokesperson and media communicator. As for many muslims he stays true to himself and will never change his mind in sake of national security. He should speak more to the muslim and arab world rather than the western world. He is intelligent but the West is tired of his philosophy and promotion of Islam in an fragile era as ours. Especially when he critisizes western politics and Europe's position rather than questioning himself about his role and the influence Islam can have. My suggestion to Tariq Ramadan (and that goes to all arab or muslim leaders), is to start a more aggressive dialogue to all persons seduced by the jihad. What western leaders like Obama, Cameron and Hollande are doing against the jihad is remarkable but sorry terrorist are not listening to them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i understand it's a mag that people respect but they got it badly wrong here.

They direct a lot of anger and disgust towards organised religion. It can make for unpleasant reading.

 

[frogwoman]

What western leaders like Obama, Cameron and Hollande are doing against the jihad is remarkable

shit troll is shit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tariq Ramadan, is a good spokesperson and media communicator. As for many muslims he stays true to himself and will never change his mind in sake of national security. He should speak more to the muslim and arab world rather than the western world. He is intelligent but the West is tired of his philosophy and promotion of Islam in an fragile era as ours. Especially when he critisizes western politics and Europe's position rather than questioning himself about his role and the influence Islam can have. My suggestion to Tariq Ramadan (and that goes to all arab or muslim leaders), is to start a more aggressive dialogue to all persons seduced by the jihad. What western leaders like Obama, Cameron and Hollande are doing against the jihad is remarkable but sorry terrorist are not listening to them.

I don't really understand this point. 'the influence Islam can have'? See that's where I do agree with CH. The answer isn't more Islam – any more than the answer to the Christian church's opposition to homosexuality is more Christianity. The answer in that case has been the weakening of the hold scripture has over morality (less Islam, less Christianity), as there are certain points about which various religious texts are rather unambiguous, homosexuality being one of them.

 

[frogwoman]

They direct a lot of anger and disgust towards organised religion. It can make for unpleasant reading.

but that anger and disgust has also come to be used as a political tool by the french state has it not?

and tbh private eye (which is a very similar type of mag) also has come in for a fair bit of criticism on here, its a bit surprising that people are defending that piece on the basis of CH's other output, it wouldn't work in the case of PE or even the guardian would it?

i don't doubt that CH has done important solidarity work in the past with refugees etc but do you not see why that piece is a bit dodgy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but that anger and disgust has also come to be used as a political tool by the french state has it not?

and tbh private eye (which is a very similar type of mag) also has come in for a fair bit of criticism on here, its a bit surprising that people are defending that piece on the basis of their other output, it wouldn't work in the case of PE or even the guardian would it?

There is a difference between CH and PE - CH is politically committed in a way PE isn't. CH's anger is real, whereas with PE there is no anger really, especially since the death of Paul Foot, merely sniggering.

 

[frogwoman]

There is a difference between CH and PE - CH is politically committed in a way PE isn't. CH's anger is real, whereas with PE there is no anger really, especially since the death of Paul Foot, merely sniggering.

the guardian also sees its self as politically committed though?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the guardian also sees its self as politically committed though?

Maybe. I don't see it as politically committed at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

the guardian also sees its self as politically committed though?

surely 'any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter'

 

[frogwoman]

I don't doubt that they've done important work in the past with refugees etc but do you not see why people were uncomfortable with it and even saw it as a bit dodgy, particularly due to the ends the je suis charlie stuff has been put to by the french state?