French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

[ddraig]

Where is that?

Sheffield apparently

 

[SpineyNorman]

You're trolling aren't you?

No. Just a really smug and self-satisfied tosser.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Sheffield apparently

Cheers. Thought it looked familiar. Will have to find out what went off.

 

[Diamond]

That links to a report about a march by Islamophobes in Germany.

To speak of an Islamic "colonization" of the West is nonsense. Colonization is when you invade with armies and that. It's a bit more serious than insisting on wearing a burka.

I think you misunderstand me. My point was that it is heartening to see the type of march in Dresden today - in favour of solidarity - in light of the anti "Islamisation" marches that seem to be becoming common there.

Perhaps that was not clear.

 

[phildwyer]

I think you misunderstand me. My point was that it is heartening to see the type of march in Dresden today - in favour of solidarity - in light of the anti "Islamisation" marches that seem to be becoming common there.

Perhaps that was not clear.

My apologies, I see your point now.

 

[gosub]

Where is that?

Sheffield

 

[andysays]

OK I've dug this out. Sam Harris:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

I think this is squarely a criticism of Islam (and by implication of consistent Muslims) but not of Muslims in general, Sam Harris is careful to note that not all Muslims think this way. The point about the world being divided into the "House of Islam" and the "House of War" is false. The doctrine is not in the Qu'ran or the Hadiths but rather came later to define various states and their relation to the Islamic empire. Furthermore the doctrine allows for intermediate statuses.

There is an obvious demagogic appeal (despite Harris' qualifications). It promotes the fear that Muslims are taking over or at least desire to take over "the West".

So formally it is a criticism of Islam not Muslims as such and it doesn't intend to be anything more than that. It is nevertheless based on bullshit and will nevertheless feed fear and suspicion of Muslims. If I were a Muslim reading that I may or may not feel offended but I would certainly feel threatened.

Thanks for digging it out and posting it.

I will start by saying that I don't know enough about Islam to categorically agree or disagree that

the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization

but from what I do know, I suspect that Harris is wrong, both because the problems are not with Islam as a whole but with particular manifestations of Islam (in their contemporary form they're usually referred to as Islamism), but also because those problems are not unique - it's arguable that some historical manifestations of Christianity have posed similar problems.

I also suspect that Harris is wrong when he says

Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world

because that seems to suggest that if you are moderate you can't be devout, ie the only way to be devout is to be extreme, fundamentalist, Islamist. I don't think that true of Islam anymore than it's true of any other religion, and to suggest it is (and this is the really important bit, IMO) is to agree with the fundamentalists, those who would kill the moderates, the apostates and the non-believers, when they claim to be the true holders of the supposed single and monolithic Islamic faith, which doesn't exist any more than a single monolithic Christianity, Judaism etc does.

And for that reason, whatever his intent, Harris' position is, IMO, anti-Muslim (Muslimophobic to use danny la rouge's construction) because it attacks the vast majority of self-proclaimed Muslims as being "unmuslim" and deserving of whatever attack fundamentalists choose to make on them.

 

[andysays]

Let me get this right - Islam in all its manifestations is out of bounds for criticism, and criticising any manifestation or aspect of Islam - unless one is a Muslim - would be equivalent to racism? Does that still apply if one is supporting criticism that comes from progressive Muslims, say?

That is arguing for an exceptionalism for Islam that neither of us would argue for Judaism, (as andysays has said).

TBH, I also think any construction which uses the suffix -phobic is problematic, because you can be prejudiced against a group of people without literally being afraid of them, and it allows circular nonsense like quiquaquo's answer to your request to define Islamophobia as

Phobia of Islam and all its manifestations Muslims included

which gets us precisely nowhere

 

[SpineyNorman]

Harris is a massive bigot, nobody sensible would deny that. He's also an intellectual midget.

 

[danny la rouge]

TBH, I also think any construction which uses the suffix -phobic is problematic, because you can be prejudiced against a group of people without literally being afraid of them, and it allows circular nonsense like quiquaquo's answer to your request to define Islamophobia as



which gets us precisely nowhere

Aye, because it means hatred and/or fear, it's easy to wilfully take the other meaning.

That said, I think there's a place for a term that denotes bigotry and prejudice towards Muslims.

 

[andysays]

I guess it's the same sort of principle as not writing Jahweh.

Except it appears to be taking it to a whole other level.

As far as I am aware, the the prohibition on writing the complete name of God only applies to adherents of one particular religion - if a non-member writes it in full, they are not likely to be threatened with death.

But I you or I as a non-believer create or publish a picture of the prophet, we can apparently still be threatened with death by a tiny minority of fundamentalist Muslims (who clearly, for the avoidance of any doubt, don't speak for Muslims in general, even if they claim to do so).

That seems to me to be quite different, unless I've misunderstood the seriousness with which some Jews view the writing of the name of God (you'll notice that I've avoided writing it myself, just in case )

 

[andysays]

Harris is a massive bigot, nobody sensible would deny that. He's also an intellectual midget.

Not really familiar with him, but happy to take your word on both counts

 

[danny la rouge]

Harris is a massive bigot, nobody sensible would deny that. He's also an intellectual midget.

I'm going to accept that as a valued judgement, but although I know of him, I haven't knowingly read anything by him, other than what Knotted provided above.

 

[andysays]

Aye, because it means hatred and/or fear, it's easy to wilfully take the other meaning.

That said, I think there's a place for a term that denotes bigotry and prejudice towards Muslims.

I think so too, and if we must have the -phobia construction, then making a distinction between Islamophobia and Muslimophobia is the best we're likely to get.

 

[scruffle]

Well I've never heard any Muslim, however radical, refuse to engage in rational discussion of their religion. On the contrary, they generally can't shut up about it.

But they draw the line at blasphemy. So for them, obviously, it is not "the same field" at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

what i love about urban is the amount of unacknowledged pedantry which goes on round the place, even though the pedants wouldn't like to be described as such

 

[phildwyer]

what i love about urban is the amount of unacknowledged pedantry which goes on round the place

I think you mean "that goes on."

 

[treelover]

Where is that?

Its City Hall

 

[treelover]

he's loving it no doubt - his political compass swivels all the way round

pathetic.

 

[Pickman's model]

pathetic.

but true - or should i say trew.

 

[Knotted]

Harris is a massive bigot, nobody sensible would deny that. He's also an intellectual midget.

I agree but he is somebody whose bigotry stems from criticism of religion. It's a vulgar and clunky criticism of religion to be sure but it isn't vulgar and clunky because he is a bigot. It's vulgar and clunky because he's an idiot.

 

[maomao]

I think you mean "that goes on."

Non-restrictive clause so 'which' is correct.

 

[phildwyer]

Non-restrictive clause so 'which' is correct.

Not in Australia.

 

[quiquaquo]

what i love about urban is the amount of unacknowledged pedantry which goes on round the place, even though the pedants wouldn't like to be described as such

Bigotry more than pedantry when it comes to Muslims. Like a fucking EDL meeting sometimes on here.

 

[Pickman's model]

Bigotry more than pedantry when it comes to Muslims. Like a fucking EDL meeting sometimes on here.

sadly true

 

[maomao]

Not in Australia.

No, I'm not but that doesn't really narrow it down.

 

[cesare]

Except it appears to be taking it to a whole other level.

As far as I am aware, the the prohibition on writing the complete name of God only applies to adherents of one particular religion - if a non-member writes it in full, they are not likely to be threatened with death.

But I you or I as a non-believer create or publish a picture of the prophet, we can apparently still be threatened with death by a tiny minority of fundamentalist Muslims (who clearly, for the avoidance of any doubt, don't speak for Muslims in general, even if they claim to do so).

That seems to me to be quite different, unless I've misunderstood the seriousness with which some Jews view the writing of the name of God (you'll notice that I've avoided writing it myself, just in case )

That's why I said it was the same principle, not the same.

 

[nino_savatte]

Good article by Robert Fisk. The Algerian war of independence and the 1961 Paris Massacre are weeping wounds that have yet to be healed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html

 

[andysays]

That's why I said it was the same principle, not the same.

Not wanting to labour the point, but I think it's qualitatively different, actually a different principle.

Most religions have rules which are expected to be followed by their adherents, and "systems of correction" for those adherents who break the rules.

For some members of a religion to claim that their rules must be followed by everyone, adherents and non-adherents alike, and then to dish out the ultimate "correction" as we've seen in this case, is in effect saying that their particular prohibitions have to be universally followed, and they reserve the right to punish anyone who they regard as breaking them, believer or not.

To me, that is something based on a different principle, and we need to recognise it for what it is.

 

[cesare]

Not wanting to labour the point, but I think it's qualitatively different, actually a different principle.

Most religions have rules which are expected to be followed by their adherents, and "systems of correction" for those adherents who break the rules.

For some members of a religion to claim that their rules must be followed by everyone, adherents and non-adherents alike, and then to dish out the ultimate "correction" as we've seen in this case, is in effect saying that their particular prohibitions have to be universally followed, and they reserve the right to punish anyone who they regard as breaking them, believer or not.

To me, that is something based on a different principle, and we need to recognise it for what it is.

It's a blasphemy law. No need to make it more complicated than it is.