Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

[(Q)]

There are no torture centers either. Because the banning and torturing is done at an overseas level.

Running rampant all the way to India, in fact:

"Torture is widespread and has routinely been practised at police stations in India. Unchallenged and unopposed, it has become a 'normal' and 'legitimate' practice all over."

http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0204/97/

People whose views are unpopular don't write books they get bombed with their children as terrorists.

"The treatment that these victims were subjected to included various
forms of physical and mental torture. Mrs. Jayalakshmi was reportedly
beaten in the presence of her child. Many of the individuals brought
in for questioning were forced to strip naked. They were punched,
kicked, and slapped by police officers. Police officers stamped on
the victims' bodies with boot-clad feet. The victims were beaten with
lathis and nearly strangled. They were threatened at gunpoint. Some
victims were handcuffed and gagged. One victim, Mr. S. Vedanayagam,
was suspended from a tree by a long chain and beaten. Officers
urinated on the faces of some of the detainees when they requested
water, and forced them to drink the urine. The officers forced some
of the men to fondle or suck the penis of the other detainees or
officers. The detainees were verbally abused and their families
threatened. They were told not to report their treatment to any human
rights organisation and some were told not to seek medical treatment
at a hospital."

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2003/480/

 

[S.A.M.]

I would have more respect for Rushdie if he was not such a cunt when it came to suppressing people who wrote about him.

 

[(Q)]

I would have more respect for Rushdie if he was not such a cunt when it came to suppressing people who wrote about him.

Rushdie has suppressed no one. I can find mountains of articles written about him. Please cite your sources.

 

[Clucky]

I would have more respect for Rushdie if he was not such a cunt when it came to suppressing people who wrote about him.

How has he suppressed them? Does he suppress them in the same way Dan Brown suppresses the Catholic Church?

 

[S.A.M.]

How has he suppressed them? Does he suppress them in the same way Dan Brown suppresses the Catholic Church?

Mostly he uses his political connections. He's also a great supporter of military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and also Kosovo [for some vague reason] and has joined with Jack Straw in targeting women who wear the veil.

So, not much different from any other neocon here.

I think he was probably targeted by Ayatollah because he professed to be Shia [lying most probably, he must be atheist] and the Ayatollah is leader of the Shia which makes anti-Ayatollah comments punishable under Shia laws.

Rushdie has been known to become religious/atheist depending on the audience he is addressing. He's nothing more than an opportunist.

 

[Clucky]

Mostly he uses his political connections. He's also a great supporter of military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and also Kosovo [for some vague reason] and has joined with Jack Straw in targeting women who wear the veil.

So, not much different from any other neocon here.

Note that I do not agree with this: Britain is a christian nation. Just as we have to respect other's customs, in say Dubai, for example, Muslims will have to respect ours. If that means removing a veil, then so be it. I, personally, don't care if you have a veil on. I don't need to see a person's face to communicate with them well, but others disagree and feel it is rude. It is a courtesy to respect our customs, I would do yours.

And I don't know how familiar you are with British politics, but Jack Straw is probably one of the few politicians I could ever have faith in, in the current parliament.

I won't lump Muslim's together, and play the collectivist, if you don't put all British people in the same box.

Edit: The Ayotollah should not be responsible for Shia Muslim's living under Britain's jurisdiction and laws. Oh and Sam, I'm curious as to know your own religious stance. I know you are a Muslim, living in India, but nothing more.

 

[S.A.M.]

Note that I do not agree with this: Britain is a christian nation. Just as we have to respect other's customs, in say Dubai, for example, Muslims will have to respect ours. If that means removing a veil, then so be it. I, personally, don't care if you have a veil on. I don't need to see a person's face to communicate with them well, but others disagree and feel it is rude. It is a courtesy to respect our customs, I would do yours.

Easy enough. Make it a condition of immigration or make it against the law. But if you target women for making a choice, then you are at the wrong end of the spectrum.

Edit: The Ayotollah should not be responsible for Shia Muslim's living under Britain's laws. Oh and Sam, I'm curious as to your own religious stance. I know you are a Muslim, living in India, but nothing more.

Tell that to the Shias. They all accept the Ayatollah as their religious leader.

I'm a Sunni Muslim. I have no Supreme Poobah in Iran.

 

[(Q)]

I know you are a Muslim, living in India, but nothing more.

Surprise! Surprise!

Sam lives in the US of A visiting from India, apparently.

 

[(Q)]

Rushdie has been known to become religious/atheist depending on the audience he is addressing. He's nothing more than an opportunist.

So, once again, you have nothing to back up your silly assertions.

 

[Clucky]

Easy enough. Make it a condition of immigration or make it against the law. But if you target women for making a choice, then you are at the wrong end of the spectrum.

No, no. It is their choice. I would not be as oppressive as to pass legislature on the issue. But, understand, we can only live in harmony if we give a little to get a little. That applies for both Britain and Islam. We need to try and understand eachother's customs. But remember, if you come to live in Britain, then you respect our way of life. I wouldn't parade drunk around Iran. So, if at all possible, please try not to wear a veil. It concerns people. I have no idea why... But it does.

Sam: What would you make of Muslim supermarket attendants refusing to serve people who are purchasing alcohol? That has been happening here in some areas. What's your take?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, no. It is their choice. I would not be as oppressive as to pass legislature on the issue. But, understand, we can only live in harmony if we give a little to get a little. That applies for both Britain and Islam. We need to try and understand eachother's customs. But remember, if you come to live in Britain, then you respect our way of life. I wouldn't parade drunk around Iran. So, if at all possible, please try not to wear a veil. It concerns people. I have no idea why... But it does.

if people did not want to see gays holding hands what would you say to them?

Sam: What would you make of Muslim supermarket attendants refusing to serve people who are purchasing alcohol? That has been happening here in some areas. What's your take?

I would say: why is this my problem?

 

[Clucky]

if people did not want to see gays holding hands what would you say to them?

Close your eyes?

Live somewhere that oppresses gays?

I would say: why is this my problem?

I don't want you to answer my question with a question. What is your take, ethically? After all, they are being paid to do a job, that they voluntarily accepted, if not actively searched for.

 

[S.A.M.]

Maybe it should be inserted in the job description that if you have religious beliefs that will interfere with your job, then you will either do them anyway or disclose them and go find yourself another job.

 

[Clucky]

Maybe it should be inserted in the job description that if you have religious beliefs that will interfere with your job, then you will either do them anyway or disclose them and go find yourself another job.

Well it does. You are there to sell the goods of the shop. Essentially, it is refusing to do your job.

 

[Arsalan]

Writing a work of fiction is a very different thing from lying.

The whole idea that "truth-telling" or "lying" are relevant - or even, well-defined - considerations when assessing a fantasy novel is pretty bizarre.

That would be a valid argument had rushdie not accepted writing fiction and or fantasy wasnt what he was trying to do.

There are no banned books in my country. In my country, the same people that lionize Rushdie are also pretty vocal about how backwards and unenlightened European speech restrictions are. If you want to blast Britain for hypocrisy and imperialism, go right ahead. But understand that you aren't addressing any Brits, presently, and that those you are addressing have some very deep-rooted differences with Britain, on these issues.

Not that there is any comparison between regrettable censorship laws, and a worldwide campaign of ideological violence.

UK = part of Western world. Europe = part of Western world. The reaction was towards what happened in Europe regarding the book and the awards bestowed on Rushdie, while affirming the double standards that were and are still present regarding Christianity or other social groups. No one could give a rats ass about what happened in the US with Rushdie.

 

[quadraphonics]

That would be a valid argument had rushdie not accepted writing fiction and or fantasy wasnt what he was trying to do.

??? Dedicating a career to producing fantasy novels is a strange way to go about "what he was trying to do," then.

This continued reference to some uncited acceptance by Rushdie of, in fact, knowingly participating in your unspecified imperial-conspriacy-cum-novel, is worrisome.

Better to read magic realism, than pursue magical reasoning.

UK = part of Western world. Europe = part of Western world. The reaction was towards what happened in Europe regarding the book and the awards bestowed on Rushdie, while affirming the double standards that were and are still present regarding Christianity or other social groups.

The reaction that I (and, I gather, iceaura) have been talking about (i.e., the bannings, bombings, killings and threats) all preceded any public Western recognition that Rushdie received for his work. This stuff started up almost immediately after the book was published - so much so, that one has to wonder to what extent it was orchestrated.

The Ayatollah's fatwa, for example, was issued before The Satanic Verses had even been published in the United States.

And the awards and recognition all came much later - the knighthood, the election to the Academy, have all occurred since the year 2000.

No one could give a rats ass about what happened in the US with Rushdie.

I do. Two book stores and a newspaper were bombed, and as a result, something like 1/3 of all bookstores in the country were intimidated into refusing to carry the book, and many of those who did carry it did not display it. It was the most serious external assault on free speech in the United States for an entire generation - if not in all of modern American history.

The only thing that has come close, has been the Danish cartoon scandal.

Also, isn't America "part of the Western world?" If you want to single out the hypocrits, use a term that applies to them only. If you overgeneralize, expect to be rebuked for it. More generally, live up to your demands about not "lumping people together," if you want them to be regarded seriously.

 

[Arsalan]

Rushdie has suppressed no one. I can find mountains of articles written about him. Please cite your sources.

Rushdie suppressed Brian Clark who wrote a play about Rushdie relating to the fatwa because he was offended by it, ultimately leading to the play getting cancelled and Clark calling Rushdie a hypocrite and someone who has a few screws loose. Also read on one of his ex-wife saying how egotistical he was, always looking out for something that would make him even more famous, while disregarding any help the less famous writers might need.

 

[quadraphonics]

Rushdie suppressed Brian Clark who wrote a play about Rushdie relating to the fatwa because he was offended by it, ultimately leading to the play getting cancelled and Clark calling Rushdie a hypocrite and someone who has a few screws loose.

There's a world of difference between "suppressing" someone through legal channels, and launching an international campaign of terror.

Rushdie didn't put a price on Brain Clark's head, or firebomb retailers that carried his work.

Not that I've been able to find any reference to this incident, outside of loopy Islamist propaganda sites.

Also read on one of his ex-wife saying how egotistical he was, always looking out for something that would make him even more famous, while disregarding any help the less famous writers might need.

Sounds like every other great author that has ever lived. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Arsalan]

??? Dedicating a career to producing fantasy novels is a strange way to go about "what he was trying to do," then.

This continued reference to some uncited acceptance by Rushdie of, in fact, knowingly participating in your unspecified imperial-conspriacy-cum-novel, is worrisome.

Just because you are unaware of what Rushdie has said and done since the publication of that book is not my fault

The reaction that I (and, I gather, iceaura) have been talking about (i.e., the bannings, bombings, killings and threats) all preceded any public Western recognition that Rushdie received for his work.

The Satanic Verses was published by Viking Penguin on September 26, 1988.[7] Upon its publication the book garnered considerable critical acclaim in the author's home, the United Kingdom. On November 8, 1988 it received the Whitbread Award for novel of the year.[7] worth £20,000 [21]

Source

This stuff started up almost immediately after the book was published - so much so, that one has to wonder to what extent it was orchestrated.

Started months after the book was published and it had received awards and more.

The Ayatollah's fatwa, for example, was issued before The Satanic Verses had even been published in the United States.

But the year after the book was actually published over here.

I do. Two book stores and a newspaper were bombed, and as a result, something like 1/3 of all bookstores in the country were intimidated into refusing to carry the book, and many of those who did carry it did not display it. It was the most serious external assault on free speech in the United States for an entire generation - if not in all of modern American history.

Ah yes, and wheres the proof it was because of that novel? Iirc, Muslims just protested agains the book and because 2 stores were attacked someone suggested a link between those protestors and the attacks. Wheres the proof?

Also, isn't America "part of the Western world?" If you want to single out the hypocrits, use a term that applies to them only. If you overgeneralize, expect to be rebuked for it. More generally, live up to your demands about not "lumping people together," if you want them to be regarded seriously.

Most of my posts were in respect to that the UK did. You were focusing on the US becuase when I talk about the Western world, it is only natural for you to see if what I am saying rings true for your own country.

 

[Arsalan]

There's a world of difference between "suppressing" someone through legal channels, and launching an international campaign of terror.

"International campaign of terror" = handful of people who burned a book and attacked a couple of stores and people. Even the attack in Turkey was due to a differnet matter altogether yet that is pushed into the whole Rushdie affair, as to "biggen it up" a bit. It wasnt an international campaign of terror, it was a couple of idiots here and there.

Rushdie didn't put a price on Brain Clark's head, or firebomb retailers that carried his work.

Suppression is suppression, in whatever form you want to put it.

Not that I've been able to find any reference to this incident, outside of loopy Islamist propaganda sites.

Ah yes, "loopist Islamist propaganda sites". Well, maybe you should log on to a newspaper archive database and run a search. I would go to the british Library over here in London, but Im too lazy to get a copy for you. Or maybe you can read the book "Sacrilege vs Civility" :shrug:

Sounds like every other great author that has ever lived. What does this have to do with anything?

Just an interesting note about this great fighter for the right to freedom of speech, who didnt care about the plight of other writers if helping them didnt bring him any fame