Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Weasel Straw strikes again (Pakistani men in Britain see white girls as "easy meat")

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are living in Cairo right? Are you aware of the thousands of Muslims who surrounded Coptic Churches on the 7th of January in defence of and solidarity with their Christian brothers and sisters?.. These people need our support. Yes they are cowed and intimidated but dismissing their bravery only gives power to the Salafists. ... I didn't say "this is not really Islam" I said It is the not the only one. I see Egyptian Muslims standing with their Coptic neighbours and I see a competing discourse which deserves our support.


It was great that Muslims came to protect churches on Coptic Christmas. But let's not overstate the significance of the event.

Christians are ‘tolerated’ in Islamic law. They are permitted to exist and to practice their faith… so long as they accept legal, political and cultural subordination to Muslims. It's a feudal form of toleration. It's even expressed by the term ‘protection’. Muslims are enjoined to ‘protect’ their subordinate minority communities… so long as those communities don't try to protect themselves.

The Muslims who stood at churches weren't challenging the laws which impose second-class status on Christians. Paradoxically, they were asserting Islamic law by defending the limited rights accorded to Christians under that law. Despite the physical dangers, it was a uniquely ‘safe’ demonstration of support for Christians – in that it accorded with the essence of the Muslim relationship to licit minorities: paternalistic protection.

(I don't mean that this was the personal motivation of the Muslims who attended. I’m sure there were liberals and secularists and others among them. I am only making the point that these demonstrations of sympathy were in no way a challenge to Islamic supremacism. It was ‘politically’ and ‘religiously’ safe to attend.)
 
But this is the point that fundamentalists would make. And is the point that Thomsy was making. That they are in fact less Muslim than the true dedicated believer.

However, if you have a Muslim cleric who thinks this, who defends secularism, then you are on to something else – a version of Islam that does not see the religion as an all-encompassing system.

Don't you see that to accept this is to accept the discourse of the fundamentalists. Why do you allow them to set the agenda? I will leave you with the words of one wiser than myself. The great Edward Said, writing after 9/11

What is bad about all terror is when it is attached to religious and political abstractions and reductive myths that keep veering away from history and sense. This is where the secular consciousness has to try to make itself felt, whether in the US or in the Middle East. No cause, no God, no abstract idea can justify the mass slaughter of innocents, most particularly when only a small group of people are in charge of such actions and feel themselves to represent the cause without having a real mandate to do so.

Besides, much as it has been quarrelled over by Muslims, there isn't a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futiley tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly. Yet history is far more complex and contradictory than to be represented by demagogues who are much less representative than either their followers or opponents claim. The trouble with religious or moral fundamentalists is that today their primitive ideas of revolution and resistance, including a willingness to kill and be killed, seem all too easily attached to technological sophistication and what appear to be gratifying acts of horrifying retaliation. The New York and Washington suicide bombers seem to have been middle-class, educated men, not poor refugees. Instead of getting a wise leadership that stresses education, mass mobilisation and patient organisation in the service of a cause, the poor and the desperate are often conned into the magical thinking and quick bloody solutions that such appalling models pro vide, wrapped in lying religious claptrap.
............
On the other hand, immense military and economic power are no guarantee of wisdom or moral vision. Sceptical and humane voices have been largely unheard in the present crisis, as 'America' girds itself for a long war to be fought somewhere out there, along with allies who have been pressed into service on very uncertain grounds and for imprecise ends. We need to step back from the imaginary thresholds that separate people from each other and re-examine the labels, reconsider the limited resources available, decide to share our fates with each other as cultures mostly have done, despite the bellicose cries and creeds.

'Islam' and 'the West' are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly. Some will run behind them, but for future generations to condemn themselves to prolonged war and suffering without so much as a critical pause, without looking at interdependent histories of injustice and oppression,without trying for common emancipation and mutual enlightenment seems far more wilful than necessary. Demonisation of the Other is not a sufficient basis for any kind of decent politics, certainly not now when the roots of terror in injustice can be addressed, and the terrorists isolated, deterred or put out of business. It takes patience and education, but is more worth the investment than still greater levels of large-scale violence and suffering
http://www.counterpunch.org/saidattacks.html
 
However, if you have a Muslim cleric who thinks this, who defends secularism, then you are on to something else – a version of Islam that does not see the religion as an all-encompassing system
.

I think you may be interested in this site.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-575/i.html

It contains interviews with and articles about leading Arab and Muslim intellectuals across the Muslim world who put forward the case for modernist interpretations of Islam.
 
It was great that Muslims came to protect churches on Coptic Christmas. But let's not overstate the significance of the event.

Christians are ‘tolerated’ in Islamic law. They are permitted to exist and to practice their faith… so long as they accept legal, political and cultural subordination to Muslims. It's a feudal form of toleration. It's even expressed by the term ‘protection’. Muslims are enjoined to ‘protect’ their subordinate minority communities… so long as those communities don't try to protect themselves.

The Muslims who stood at churches weren't challenging the laws which impose second-class status on Christians. Paradoxically, they were asserting Islamic law by defending the limited rights accorded to Christians under that law. Despite the physical dangers, it was a uniquely ‘safe’ demonstration of support for Christians – in that it accorded with the essence of the Muslim relationship to licit minorities: paternalistic protection.

(I don't mean that this was the personal motivation of the Muslims who attended. I’m sure there were liberals and secularists and others among them. I am only making the point that these demonstrations of sympathy were in no way a challenge to Islamic supremacism. It was ‘politically’ and ‘religiously’ safe to attend.)

I read what you wrote there and was struck by the tone of self-assurance, like you knew everything that went on at those events and what was going on inside everybody's heads.

Having often dealt with salesmen in my working life, and having been one of sorts for a while myself, I know not to always take such self-assurance at face value.

Here's an excerpt from a journalistic description of the demonstrations at the Coptic churches in Egypt which I found online:

At the mass Thursday, Egyptian celebrities and media personalities stood at the steps of the cathedral before the service and recited poems about Egypt. “Today, I don't say I'm Muslim or I'm Christian,” one host announced. “I say, I'm Egyptian.”

A variety of different views expressed in another article on the same site:

Mariam Yassin, a 24 year old video editor, will take Thursday off to travel to Alexandria to attend the mass at the Two Saints Church. “I am not going as a representative of any religion. I am supporting all those who died as a result of ignorance.”

Yassin’s friend, Mariam Fekry, was killed along with her mother, sister and aunt in the Two Saints Church attack

“I feel great sympathy for her family’s loss, yet I don’t feel that as a Muslim I should apologize on the behalf of murderers.” Yassin added.

On the other hand, Fatima Mostafa, a 40 year old house wife, will join Copts tomorrow to show that Muslims feel their sorrow. “I want to show the world that Islam is a religion of peace and that such attacks are nothing more than a result of poverty, ignorance and oppression.”

While the reasons they cite for doing so may vary, many Egyptian Muslims are rallying around the idea of acting to protect their fellow citizens.

“I know it might not be safe, yet it’s either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians,” Cherine Mohamed, a 50 year old house wife said.

For Youssef, Egyptians should attend regardless of their faith as “we all have Christians as part of our family. I am a Muslim but I’m sure my great grandfather was a Christian.”

Lastly, this account of the demonstrations and the way they were publicised in advance:

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea. [. . .]

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent – the symbol of an “Egypt for All”. Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one.

People can note the differences between those accounts and yours and draw their own conclusions.
 
But.....but.....Thomsy's an academic - he must know more about the motivations of those who demonstrated than the actual participants themselves.
 
IMR I read what you wrote there and was struck by the tone of self-assurance, like you knew everything that went on at those events and what was going on inside everybody's heads.

Having often dealt with salesmen in my working life, and having been one of sorts for a while myself, I know not to always take such self-assurance at face value.

Yes. I am curious about this guys motives and agenda too. He says he is in Egypt "studying relations between copts and Muslims" . It strikes me as rather odd that someone who is working in Egypt and researching relations between the two religions at a time of unprecedented importance for the communities is so keen to downplay the significance of these events. Who exactly are you working for? Are you a fundamentalist Christian missionary by any chance? Sorry to be suspicious but your post sounds a little fishy and frankly your understanding of the dynamics of Egyptian politics is rather flimsy.
For example.
The Muslims who stood at churches weren't challenging the laws which impose second-class status on Christians. Paradoxically, they were asserting Islamic law by defending the limited rights accorded to Christians under that law. Despite the physical dangers, it was a uniquely ‘safe’ demonstration of support for Christians – in that it accorded with the essence of the Muslim relationship to licit minorities: paternalistic protection.


Really. Sure about that are you?

Protestors denounced the New Year’s Eve attack on Al-Qeddissine (Church of Two Saints) in Alexandria — which killed 23 and injured more than 90 — carrying banners with slogans against Islamic extremism as well as discrimination against Copts, and demanding the establishment of a secular state.
The protest is a sign of unity and a message that the Egyptian people were the victims of this attack just as they were victims of the fraud in the parliamentary elections results,"

"Egypt needs a comprehensive solution that addresses the problems of sectarian tension, poverty, unemployment, political oppression and inflation; and that can only be achieved through the peaceful change of the current regime," Hamden Sabahi of Al-Karama Party, told Daily News Egypt
http://www.dailyethiopia.com/index.php?aid=936

Not challenging the laws which discriminate against Copts? I think you are too keen to dismiss the voices of the Egyptian people.
 
There are no Christian missionary academics? He was keen to let us know he's doing "research".

It just strikes me as very curious that someone researching this very subject should be so dismissive of signs of solidarity between Copts and Muslims and so keen to paint the situation as hopeless.

01-muslims-and-christians-protest-attack-against-church-in-egypt.jpg
 
It just strikes me as very curious that someone researching this very subject should be so dismissive of signs of solidarity between Copts and Muslims and so keen to paint the situation as hopeless.

The sarcasm of my original post went right over your head then......
 
Don't you see that to accept this is to accept the discourse of the fundamentalists. Why do you allow them to set the agenda? I will leave you with the words of one wiser than myself. The great Edward Said, writing after 9/11

I'm not interested in demonising Islam. And I'm certainly not accepting the agenda of the fundamentalists. But I'm not going to argue with a Christian about gay rights by delving into the Bible to show that it says they should accept gay rights, because I know full well that there is stuff in there that justifies those Christians' bigotry. I don't excuse people's bigotry because they think their religion tells them to be bigots. I don't accept the religious agenda, the discourse that begins with 'We believe that...' People have to take responsibility for themselves.
 
whatever the motives, the solidarity with the Copts in Egypt is a very positive thing and should be applauded.

Most certainly, particularly in the context of the rise of fundamentalism in Egypt and the dictatorship's at best equivocal relationship with the fundamentalists.

To defend Thomsy a little, as I understand it, what he says is a reasonably fair reflection of the Egyptian constitution. It appears that he's way off the mark with regards the ordinary folk who turned out to support the Copts, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom