However, that doesn’t seem to have stopped their adherents from being as racist as anyone else – probably more so taking into account the anti-semitism which both have harboured at varying times. And the sacred texts can, of course, be mined to justify any vileness either wants to perpetrate.

With a few saintly exceptions the religiously devout, even when the religion in question is theoretically racially inclusive, are necessarily locked into an exclusivist mind-set; us against them, the virtuous and the saved against the depraved and the damned. The perfect petri dish for breeding the bacilli of racism.

I would not deny that the anti-racist movements which have developed over the last half century of human history have included many devout and dedicated christians, any more than I would deny that at various times in history, if you wanted to minimise persecution for race or belief, you would be well advised to seek out an islamic state. But taken as a whole, neither religion has covered itself in glory on this issue.

Incidentally I’ve no issue calling my forefathers racist by today’s standards – they were without a shadow of a doubt and many white English remain so today.

I’m not sure if it is tied up with religion as much as a belief in general superiority of the British system, i.e. “For King and Country” more than “Christ and Christianity”.

I would feel about my forefathers if I’d not sat down and listened to the Nihal show on “is it OK for an Asian girl to date a Black guy?” and not one Asian guy phoned up to say “yes” despite Nihal begging someone to do so. Meanwhile a there was a long progression of women calling in to describe heart rending stories of family violence for them dating a black guy. At the end of the show he did get a text and was elated that a “brother” had spoken out against the violence these women had described.

The most “amusing” caller really couldn’t understand why it wasn’t racist to prevent Asian women from breeding with “black man” because “mixed race” children are “ugly”.

Afterwards I discussed it all with my part Jamaican flat mate told me some horror stories about his mates in Birmingham. had dated Asian girls and got into all sorts of nasty trouble.

TFI

No one has admitted that poo smells on this thread either. Must we re-invent the wheel each time we deal with racism?

That made me laugh, thanks Sid! I’m in a bit of a grumpy mood today.

inherently racist because of their religion

You can accuse Islam of many things, but racist isn’t one of them. It is truly an equal opportunities religion, I’ll happily give you that.

I would argue that is it can be inherently prejudice. As an external observer there seems to be an awful lot of energy being wasted discussing who is / isn’t good Muslim, and being a better Muslim is something to look down upon “lesser” Muslims. The Saudis seems especially prejudice and there seems to be a great deal of strange “my bloodline is traceable to the prophet therefore your my bitch.” stuff going on which is all tied up with “Izzat” that I simply don’t understand.

Besides I was asking really interested in this whole hypocrisy argument. We are at post 135 and so far no “politicized” Muslim poster has stated that it is unfair that Malaysia persecutes non-Muslim Malaysians.

TFI

Rewind selector!

Keep up TFI. I think you’ll find that what you’re postulating/insinuating is “my brothers” are inherently racist because of their religion. But you’ve unable to admit that “your fathers” might also be racist because of theirs. The operative word being “might”. See my post #112.

Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

TFI

I think it is interesting that when Sid bangs in post #75 that he compares the sins of “our” fathers to excuse the sins of “his” brothers.

Oh, I forgot, there is a thread on the Iraq war going on. Time to bash the west for hyprocasy again …

TFI

The clearly ridiculous stance of nations that have the word ‘Islamic’ in their title does not justify their singular defence of a particular belief system, or their medeivalist cruelty. It would be a mug that thought that was a good idea. Anyone?

It is probably as ridiculous as having peers who are bishops sitting in the House of Lords. WTF?

1) if an islamic society decides to discriminate against non-muslims that is there Islamic right by their own stated principles. If non-Muslims don’t like it they can convert or leave.

2) if a liberal democracy decides to discriminate against muslims that is an afront to its Liberal values. If Muslims don’t like it they can cry ‘Islamaphobia’ and accuse the state of hypocrisy.

3) if a Muslim disagrees with the above statements and sees the value in liberal democracy and believes that Islamic societies should be secular and not discrimate against non-muslims, they become non-muslims like Ed Hussian

4) if a liberal considers the hypocrisy in the first two statements and questions why those that don’t believe or see the worth in liberal values at it should be protected by them, they become non liberals?

Its a funny old world.

TFI

Thus we attempt to hold up liberal principles and ‘fail’ where instead Malaysia doesn’t bother with liberal principles at all. Therefore England is worst than Malaysia because we are hypocrites and they are not?

As for slavery there is plenty of sex slaves in the UK who are held with threats against thier families. Would you argue that these girls are also indentured workers and therefore there is no moral responsibility for us to act at all?

Do Islamis societies get a free hand to do what they wish, while the rest of world is judged by twisted Islamic philosophy?

TFI

@ 126. I thought the fact that we could be something other than ‘Western Muscular Liberal’, and complain about it, makes our society somewhat better. I happen to agree with you that we excuse our own excesses. I take it that that is what you meant?

In that article, the relevant quote is ‘the owner, Wang Binbin, had been arrested’. In a true slave state, it wouldn’t be the owner arrested for slavery, but the slaves arrested for refusing to accept their ownership.

I do think that makes an objective difference, although obviously avoiding slavery doesn’t make an economy good, in the same way avoiding beating your wife isn’t a sufficient condition to be a good husband.

By the way, your use of cheesey moral relativism in #115 has not gone unnoticed. That is to say, Western Muscular Liberal practice of illiberality (torture, lack of due-process etc) is somehow way better than the Foreign/Islamic/Indian illiberal practices (torture, lack of due-process etc).

Why thank you.

But isn’t that a beautifully elliptical way of saying that Amis arguing for strip searches of Muslims is OK (or just a bit of devil’s advocay!) or Nick Cohen’s defence of rendition and deportation of people to torture cells is fine.

My point is it is what it is. You could read it as hypothetical musing, and so new labour-style rhetorical judo: acknowledge a right wing argument in principle, then explain why it’s not the right thing to do here and now, in this specific case. You could read it is straight, and so authoritarian conservative. You could read it as a polite euphemism for what he ‘really’ means, and so fascist. Try hard enough, and you could read it as being about decimalisation.

Whichever way you read it, your understanding won’t be improved by comparing it as a literary text with some speech by someone else coming from a different political and economic environment, without taking account of those differences.

The Unabomber and the White Rose network both had pretty similar ideas about how much the society they were living in sucked. You won’t find out which of them was right by comparing their use of metaphor and simile.

In Mauritania in particular, the key element of true slavery – that the police and courts enforce slave status – does seem to be present. For example:

I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

Even the BBC puts the words slavery in speechmarks in this article

I pointed out that in fact conditions very analogous to slavery are widespread and that clerical opinion is divided, with some senior scholars being emphatic that it is correct practice. It isn’t the non-issue you dismissed it as.

But it isn’t slavery.

His point was that muslims are more racist because of islam his ‘evidence’ was specifically the case of ‘black’ indentured workers in KSA. Far from being a red herring my analogy with the army and the sweatshop workers in China or India was meant to point out we benefit from equally appalling conditions without calling it slavery. Islam doesn’t promote anything that makes it inherently worse in the present day – in terms of worker exploitation.

Oh you’re good. But isn’t that a beautifully elliptical way of saying that Amis arguing for strip searches of Muslims is OK (or just a bit of devil’s advocay!) or Nick Cohen’s defence of rendition and deportation of people to torture cells is fine.

By your logic, Western Fascism cannot be anything but anomalous or vestigial Liberalism whereas Islamic or Indian Liberalism cannot be anything but soft-core Fascism. Sorry, Nazism.

And the language used by fascists is certainly indistinguishable from that used by Nazis, so how can you coherently say he is one not the other? Either language use defines group membership, or it doesn’t.

Nick Griffin is a neofascist because he is the leader of a gang of thugs that beat up, or threaten to, blacks and muslims. If he successfully managed to go 5 years without publically saying anything obnoxious, that wouldn’t make him not one, as long as he maintains his unarmed militia. Structure of violence, and secondarily structure of economics, trumps rhetoric every time.

Amis’s quote looks to me to be a bit of devil’s advocacy, not a serious proposal. However, a hypothetical Amis seriously arguing for, voting for, arbitary detention of muslims would be, objectively, pretty similar to someone who spoke up as supporting the status quo in India:

arbitrary and selective enforcement on the basis of religion, caste, and tribal status; violations of protected speech and associational activities; prosecution of ordinary crimes as terrorism-related offenses; and severe police misconduct and abuse, including torture. In most states, prolonged detention without charge or trial appears to have been the norm, rather than the limited exception.

If someone used impeccable liberal and anti-racist language to praise that situation, the words used would not change their actual politics.