Religion wank
On the Amazon review board for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, Prince of Carthage has this to say:

Bashing Islam is the Best Selling Plat du Jour

It never stops amazing me how in the greatest country on earth where we're leading the world in the fields of academia, technology, economy, innovation, arts, etc. some mediocre (and that's an overstatement) books and authors manage to become instant bestsellers... the formula is obviously clear... Bash Islam and Muslims, these evil people... medicore writers like hannity, o'reilly, coulter and countless more figured out the best way to make a quick buck... attack a religion and a civilization that has given so much to the world.. one that achieved the unprecedented fate of 900 years of world domination... helping to advance maths, science, arts, philosophy, medicine, etc. a religion that from the time it was revealed set itself apart from previous ones by giving women many rights that were at the time unheard of in the rest of the world (women were still treated like sub-humans in the Christian world)... a religion with a prophet who worked for his wife, a leading noble businesswoman in Mecca... it goes without saying that Muslims have mismanaged their fall from grace... some did blame women... but should this be seen as illustrative of a culture where women were religious scholars, poets, writers, etc... or should we listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali... [...] That she felt stranger at home is ok, it happens... many teenagers go through that process... sometimes, they are right, sometimes they are wrong... but for her to jump on this Muslim bashing train is unethical... more and more Muslims will be unfairly profiled, mistreated and abused...

Ad hominem remarks, accusations of closemindedness and McCarthyism, "Your religion sucks!" arguments, and Very Special Logic ensues.

Other highlights include:

James H. Hill: Yes,Islam has given us alot. It has given us honor killing, stoning and forced marriage of women, church burning, rioting in response to a few cartoons, indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians all over then world, gross intolerance of other religions.

A. Hajric: And christianity gives us inquisitions, crusades, Pope tyranny, drugs, crime, violence, women abuse, beatings, illegitimate children, colonization, gangs, prostitution, AIDS, sexual abuse, transgenders, alcoholism, slavery and adultery. Peace!

and

All the fuss over female circumcision shows just how random the whole debate is. Of course it is a horrible practice, but the world is full of horrors and injustices that require urgent attention, so why are we so keen to single out this particular, pretty farfetched one, that seems limited mainly to one tribal culture in one African country? How about the routine genital mutilation of jewish boys?

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

t_boy
2007-05-05 12:51 am UTC (link)

So, exactly what is a fatwa?

And death threats? Only muslim-bashers get death threats? I know Ted Rall claims he gets death threats. Didn’t know he was a muslim-basher.

I mean, please, okay? </wank>

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2007-05-05 01:12 am UTC (link)
	I've heard of comedians getting death threats. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

t_boy
2007-05-05 05:34 am UTC (link)

You don’t even need to bash anything to receive death threats — all you need is to be, apparently, a “nigger lover.”

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	alya1989262 2007-05-05 07:10 am UTC (link)
	Psst--thank you. I seriously had to sit on my hands for this one. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

t_boy
2007-05-05 08:30 am UTC (link)

You’re welcome. I saw the wank report and was like, “Oh, man, here we fucking go again,” and I was prepared to just skip this damn report.

And then I saw fatwa comment and I kind of snapped a bit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	warrioreowyn 2007-05-05 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry. I was thinking of the specific sort of fatwas that are "the stated opinon of a mullah that so-and-so should die", as opposed to general stated opinion. And I didn't say that other bashers and critics didn't get death threats, but it seems to be more common among critics of Islam, particularly those who criticize it from inside the faith. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

tee ell; dee arr.

t_boy
2007-05-06 12:07 am UTC (link)

Do note, however, that a good part of that criticism is a stereotype. Non-Muslim death-threat makers are, more often than not, seen as what they are — lone kooks and loonies.

But if, say, an Islamic group makes a threat, or a mufti says something that can be misunderstood, or just plain horrible (they do, from time to time): aha, see now the violence inherent in the ~~system~~ religion!

Thing is, even for someone well-loved and popular like Ayatollah Khomenei (for Shi’ite Muslims, anyway, as a Sunni, I’m supposed to consider him a damn heretic), their fatwas are just that — fatwas, jurisprudential opinions made by a learned scholar. Muslims are, at any rate, not bound to follow these opinions.

Khomenei may have pronounced the death sentence (and there is a 2.8 million bounty, still, as of 2005, on Rushdie’s life), but in actual fact it is very unlikely that the bounty will be paid out, and it is very unlikely that Rushdie’s life is now in danger in any significant way.

(Why is the fatwa in effect still? Well, for one thing, only the person who issued the fatwa can retract it, or make further clarifications. Khomenei died that very year he made that fatwa).

Heck, Yusuf Qardawi supposedly made a fatwa stating that a boycott of all American and Israeli products is an obligation to all who are able. And yet, for some strange, obscure reason, there are entire nations full of Muslims who, for some damn reason, continue eat at McDonalds and Burger King.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: tee ell; dee arr.

warrioreowyn
2007-05-06 05:28 am UTC (link)

Part of the criticism is warranted, I admit; a great deal of people in the Muslim world have difficulty understanding the western conception of freedom of speech (as in: calling for people’s executions after they say mean stuff — bad).

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at, although I realize I didn't do the best job of it. It's not just the individual nutjobs (although the death threats Irshad Manji's getting for what's really a fairly balanced criticism are bad enough), it's stuff like the furor over the Muhammed cartoons - which I realize were offensive, but there's stuff (online at least) like cartoons of Jesus being fellated by a kid that was done in response to the Catholic priest scandal, and that stuff is offensive too, but it's more likely to garner internet flames than, y'know, widespread arson and hostility not just towards the person who made them, but towards his entire country.

The concept of a "free press" just doesn't seem to register.

Also, when Christian religious leaders (actual Christians, not ones like Phelps who is really running his own little cult) say something mind-blowingly wrong, like Pat Robertson calling for Chavez to be assassinated, it generally results in a public outcry, and they have to take it back or apologize or weasel out of it by saying their statement was misinterpreted, rather than having it be taken as part for the course. If the Muslim community stood and said SHUT UP YOU ASSES in response to horrible statements, things might be seen differently.

Not trying to offend, that's just how I see it. [/teal dear]

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: tee ell; dee arr.

t_boy
2007-05-06 07:57 am UTC (link)

There is a fundamental disjunct between Muslim countries and their responses to criticism, and for one particularly simple social and economic factor: apart from some exceptions, many Muslims live in countries with very poorly-executed or non-existent freedom of speech.

The lack of understanding of what the free press entails, and why keeping it free is a good thing? Yeah, well, considering the fact that their own fucking governments used to fucking torture dissidents who spoke out, not in violent, reactionary ways, but in moderate, intellectual ways, not 10 or 20 years ago?

The thing is, ideas like the free press and a secular state have had over 300 years to develop in Western countries. Muslim countries have had only, what, sixty years, tops.

To expect the general Muslim population to just get with the program in what amounts to three generations of oftentimes heavy-handed and unpleasant change?

The fact is, the Jyllands-Posten outcry in itself died down relatively quickly is a sign that things are changing. Certainly not fast enough to dispel a stereotype, but there’s a change. Just ten years ago it was a death sentence, massive demonstrations and several (successful and unsuccessful) assassination attempts made on translators and editors of the Satanic Verses. And that was one book.

When the Prophet Muhammad’s images came up (and they were unpleasant and hurtful to many Muslims), what do we get? Nasty riots, sure, a public outcry and talk of diplomatic and political sanctions, and then, six months later, a series of equally vile and unpleasant cartoons regarding the Holocaust, and more wank. If I had to choose between wank and assassinations, I’d choose wank, thank you.

If the Muslim community stood and said SHUT UP YOU ASSES in response to horrible statements, things might be seen differently.

You make the assumption that they don’t. The difference here is who is making the outcry, and who is reporting it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -