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

[IMR]

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.

I wouldn't know whether the situation is hopeless or not but it is grim.

I remember once seeing news footage from the earliest days of the Iranian revolution. Islamists weren't the only ones wanting to get rid of the Shah, there were political progressives and secularists of various kinds too.

The footage showed a march of people only identified as 'progressives' many thousands strong. Then they came under attack from a much smaller group of Islamist fanatics, all young men, who hurled stones and debris at them with amazing vigour.

The progressives didn't fight back but instead shrank from the fierce barrage - the long camera shots made the march look like a huge caterpillar squirming helplessly under countless pin-pricks. We all know how that turned out in the long run.

I don't think you can rule out something like that happening to those Egyptian Muslims who have shown solidarity with Copts.

 

[Thomsy]

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.

Please have the courtesy to read my earlier reply correctly. I specifically and deliberately said that I did NOT know what the motivations of the individuals were. I said that WHATEVER their subjective intentions, their actions in fact in no way objectively contradicted Islamic notions of supremacy.

As for the other cut-and-paste quotes: Read any Egyptian history book and you will find that the same words are used every time there is a sectarian incident.

 

[Thomsy]

But.....but.....Thomsy's an academic - he must know more about the motivations of those who demonstrated than the actual participants themselves.

Same reply as to IMR above. But without the courtesy his commented merited.

 

[Thomsy]

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.

That is pretty cheap.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hmmmm....

 

[IMR]

I said that WHATEVER their subjective intentions, their actions in fact in no way contradicted Islamic notions of supremacy.

You did indeed write that, but the news reports I've come across don't back up that view.

 

[nino_savatte]

"Islamic notions of supremacy". That sounds like a very suspicious discourse. In fact, it's one that's current in EDL 'thinking'. It's as if to suggest that other 'faiths' don't see themselves as supreme or superior to others. Xtianity has claimed to be the "one true faith" for years. Cultural relativity? Oh yes.

 

[Thomsy]

The great Edward Said...

‘Great’? He was certainly a slippery fish!

One minute he condemned anyone who claimed Islam (or the Orient) existed. The next, he condemned Westerners for abusing the same Islam (or Orient).

In populist forums, he deployed a Gramscian concept of ‘discourse’ – to claim that those who disagreed with him were Machiavellian intriguers complicit in the fabrication of a hegemonic discourse. But whenever anyone demonstrated in print the inaccuracy of his claims, he would retreat into a quite different Foucaultian concept of discourse and suggest that Orientalists were themselves victims of an archive from which they were powerless to escape.

It seems you have learnt from his style as well as his substance.

 

[Thomsy]

"Islamic notions of supremacy". That sounds like a very suspicious discourse. In fact, it's one that's current in EDL 'thinking'.

Yawn.

If you can't out-reason a guy, you can always try and smear him, can't you.

 

[IMR]

Can't see the Islamists being particularly pleased with those Copt-supporting Egypt Muslims. I would guess they regard them as scum.

 

[Thomsy]

He's a Christian missionary

I am getting kind of bored with the ad hominems. If you actually want to know where I'm coming from, have the courtesy to read a few of my back posts from years ago.

My substantive point is: “Essence must appear” – (was it Marx or Hegel said that?) – i.e. essence is made real and manifest in its actual diversity.

As I type this, I am sitting on a wobbly wooden three-legger. As you read it, you are maybe sitting on a blue swiveler, or perhaps a brocaded chaise longe. I say we are sitting on ‘chairs’. You and Said say there is no such thing as ‘chair’. I’ll admit I’m wrong the moment my a**e hits the ground.

Or to pose it as an Aristotelian conundrum:

If , on Christmas Day, one Egyptian Muslim says: “Christians in Muslims areas should be permitted to practice their religion in complete safety – for so long as they accept their subordinate status as demanded by Islamic law”…

.. and another Egyptian Muslim says: “No, we should occasionally bomb the Christian churches in our areas to make sure they know and accept their subordinate status as demanded by Islamic law”…

... would this constitute evidence of the ‘diversity’ or of the ‘essential consistency’ of Islamic discourse? Would it demonstrate that Islam ‘exists’, or that Islam ‘does not exist’? Would it tell us only about Muslims in Egypt on Christmas Day, or would it provide any meaningful information about ‘Islam’?

 

[nino_savatte]

Yawn.

If you can't out-reason a guy, you can always try and smear him, can't you.

Stop it, you're splitting my sides.

 

[nino_savatte]

You look familiar "Thomsy". Do you live in Luton by any chance?

 

[IMR]

If , on Christmas Day, one Egyptian Muslim says: “Christians in Muslims areas should be permitted to practice their religion in complete safety – for so long as they accept their subordinate status as demanded by Islamic law”…

That wasn't the message being given out at the demonstrations. The mobilising message was 'Egypt for All'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"Islamic notions of supremacy". That sounds like a very suspicious discourse. In fact, it's one that's current in EDL 'thinking'. It's as if to suggest that other 'faiths' don't see themselves as supreme or superior to others. Xtianity has claimed to be the "one true faith" for years. Cultural relativity? Oh yes.

The comparison with Christianity is instructive, though, isn't it?

For instance, I have changed my mind about Sharia courts being allowed in the UK. Until recently, I didn't see the harm in it, given that it would be absolutely no different from the Jewish courts that already exist.

But then I had a think about why those Jewish courts exist, and it is for the same reason that Christian courts exist in Egypt. There was a time when British law was indeed Christian in its very nature, and so allowing Jewish courts for family law was a sign of a tolerant Christian state, just as allowing Christian courts is a sign of a tolerant Islamic state.

Now, in all but its purely symbolic forms, the UK is a secular state, so the reason for Jewish courts to exist is no longer valid. Rather than allowing Sharia courts, I would argue instead for completing the job of fully secularising the state and getting rid of the Jewish court, ridding the UK of the final vestiges of past Christian notions of supremacy.

That other religions have notions of supremacy isn't a reason not to say that Islam has too.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7538

Keith Vaz is referring to the explicit comment by Judge Head, who said at the conclusion of the trial: ‘It was never the Crown’s case that these offences were racially motivated or aggravated.’

The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the North and Midlands – which found perpetrators in these two cases were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community – had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.

They added that the real finding of their research is that: “This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims.”

 

[ohmyliver]

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.

The issue is not nessisarily that of demonisation, it's more an issue of false essentialism. Islam isn't a homogenised single entity.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I am getting kind of bored with the ad hominems.

Or to pose it as an Aristotelian conundrum:

In populist forums, he deployed a Gramscian concept of ‘discourse’ – to claim that those who disagreed with him were Machiavellian intriguers complicit in the fabrication of a hegemonic discourse.

Do you actually speak like this in real life?

 

[nino_savatte]

That other religions have notions of supremacy isn't a reason not to say that Islam has too.

That isn't what I'm saying. There is a particular discourse that says that Islam is the only religion to have such notions. It clearly isn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The issue is not nessisarily that of demonisation, it's more an issue of false essentialism. Islam isn't a homogenised single entity.

But neither is it entirely heterogeneous. Islam is the belief that there is one true god and that Mohammad is his prophet. And there are scriptures outlining what that prophet had to say. He said lots of things, but he didn't say everything.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That isn't what I'm saying. There is a particular discourse that says that Islam is the only religion to have such notions. It clearly isn't.

Right, ok, well clearly I agree with that.

 

[Thomsy]

That wasn't the message being given out at the demonstrations. The mobilising message was 'Egypt for All'.

I do appreciate that, IMR. I was simply posing a hypothetical query to Dylans' eulogy of Edward Said.

What I was earlier saying was that a Muslim is simply expressing Islamic doctrine when he asserts that Christians should be free to practice their religion. It has about as much political punch as a US student opposing some US military adventure on that grounds that the invasion 'is not in the US interests' or that 'American soldiers might get killed'.

By contrast, (and to return someway towards the subject of the thread), the laws governing sexual relations in Egypt (and elsewhere in the Muslim world) are not hugely different from the Nuremberg Laws. A Christian or Jew who attempted a sexual relation with a Muslim woman can expect the same fate as a Slav who had relations with an Aryan woman. If someone in Egypt challenged that law, it would really mean something. But no one in Egypt is going to dare oppose that law. And many of the people on this board seem to be apologists for it.

 

[The39thStep]

A pea-shooter would suffice against you, I think.

you'd know pea brain

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by nino_savatte
"Islamic notions of supremacy". That sounds like a very suspicious discourse. In fact, it's one that's current in EDL 'thinking'.

How is this a "smear", Thomsy? You're a bit touchy aren't you?

 

[_angel_]

racism

 

[Thomsy]

I remember once seeing news footage from the earliest days of the Iranian revolution. Islamists weren't the only ones wanting to get rid of the Shah, there were political progressives and secularists of various kinds too.

There was a brilliant book on the crushing of the Iranian Left by the Islamists by Assef Bayat entitled 'Workers and Revolution in Iran.' It was published by Zed Books back in the 1980s. It is particularly good at showing how the revolutionary guards liquidated the Leftist factory councils.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

By contrast, (and to return someway towards the subject of the thread), the laws governing sexual relations in Egypt (and elsewhere in the Muslim world) are not hugely different from the Nuremberg Laws. A Christian or Jew who attempted a sexual relation with a Muslim woman can expect the same fate as a Slav who had relations with an Aryan woman. If someone in Egypt challenged that law, it would really mean something. But no one in Egypt is going to dare oppose that law. And many of the people on this board seem to be apologists for it.

Could you give a link to something that outlines that law? It is indeed an important point, imo.

 

[Crispy]

racism

This isn't really helping your petition to be unbanned

 

[IMR]

What I was earlier saying was that a Muslim is simply expressing Islamic doctrine when he asserts that Christians should be free to practice their religion.

Were the demonstrators expressing Islamic doctrine when they mobilised under what looks to me like a patriotic and secular message?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Were the demonstrators expressing Islamic doctrine when they mobilised under what looks to me like a patriotic and secular message?

Clearly not. Thomsy has possibly worded that badly. If I understand him correctly, his point is that they are not contradicting Islamic doctrine in doing so, whatever their motives.