Conspiracy theories in Islamophobia & anti-semitism
I got this in an email a while back and I should have posted it but didn’t get around to it. Its worth reading though. At ignoblus, the blogger highlights a comment I made earlier:
Furthermore, I find it amusing that when Muslims are associated with conspiracy theories to Islamicise Britain (as Melanie Phillips is frequently liable to claim) or ‘Eurabia’, we don’t see that level of condemnation [as we see of antisemitic conspiracism].
Firstly, if you feel that the sort of conspiracy theories directed at Muslims are not sufficiently critiqued, it would certainly be appropriate to say so. I’ve noticed them and wondered about them, but my perspective is different from yours.
…
Perhaps more importantly, though, I’m concerned that you might be missing something essential about antisemitic conspiracism. It’s dependent upon a view of Jews as too much assimilated. While (many) Muslims are visibly Other, Jews are (to make use of an illustrative but fortunately historical extreme) shapeshifters. Jews, mistakenly perceived in the West as white when not all are, live in the uncanny valley. The more assimilated and successful Jews become, the greater the threat we represent to antisemites.To the best of my knowledge, conspiracism in Islamophobia arises through an Orientalist history that views both Jews and other ‘Orientals’ as superficially clever, but it does not have the same history in Islamophobia as it does in antisemitism. Because of the rules of evidence employed by conspiracists, always returning to disgraced and discarded ideas like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the disgrace proving the “danger” and hence relevance of the text, conspiracism is heavily dependent on its own antisemitic history. While many Islamophobes view Muslims as conspiring to infiltrate the West, those with the most extreme conspiracist worldviews unanimously view Muslims as (racially inferior to whites) victims of Jewish supremacism. And because the Otherness of Muslims is visually marked, I’m not sure it could change targets even if it that history could be overcome.
Instead, I think it’s more likely that the successful assimilation of Muslims will be viewed as a Jewish plot –as affirmative action, multiculturalism, the UN, and progressive immigration policies here in the US already are.
That last sentence, as it deals with white supremacists’ desire to rank minorities, risks a comparison that I hope I can back away from. I have no desire to pit Jews against Muslims in “the Oppression Olympics.” Islamophobia is certainly an important topic these days, and I have no desire to stand in the way of the fight against it. I have no doubt that it has the potential to become actively genocidal in any one of a great many Western nations. I have no doubt that it has informed the current wars that have killed so many people already. I have no desire to stand in the way of the important job of accurately and effectively critiquing Islamophobia. But I do very much doubt that Islamophobia will ever follow an antisemitic logic rather than an Islamophobic one.
This is a really intelligent point, and one I hadn’t considered earlier.
Its certainly true that bigotry towards Muslims is primarily couched in terms of ‘they’re different to us and will destroy our lifestyle‘, while anti-semitism towards Jews is much more about how they’ve infiltrated the ruling classes.
So the last point - that the logic behind anti-semitism is different to the logic behind hatred of Muslims - looks like a good point to make.
But you can also see how hatred of Muslims has also changed. It started back in the days with how the Middle Eastern governments were all backwards and had to be controlled, then kicked off recently with how these people are all terrorists, and rapidly morphed into a general hysteria about how British Muslims were going to destroy this country’s values.
The statistics game, where people try to predict how the demographic growth of Muslim children, is the latest re-incarnation.
You could also argue that Michael Gove MP’s assertion - women wearing veils are Islamists (or potential terrorists) is part of the same narrative: keep on defining them as a threat to our society. Keep on looking down on them, and if they look down on us then get outraged.
Anyway, I’m glad he made the point because its interesting to think about.
And from theories to facts; Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar, Waheed Mahmood and Salahuddin Amin, who planned to target nightclubs or a major shopping centre near London have lost their appeal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7521024.stm
I’m sure their only motivation was the incredible Islamophobia and oppression they faced day in and day fuelled by The Daily Mail/Express 3rd Reich axis….
Sunny, thanks for posting this. That was a while ago, and my thinking on the subject has changed just a bit. Today, I would add that I think there are lessons in the history of antisemitism that can inform the fight against Islamophobia. Namely, that strategies heavily based on assimilation (keeping your head down) are dangerous.
I’m coming to think that a pressure to assimilate is particularly important (and neglected) for understanding antisemitism. (See on the personal cost of assimilation and on the way pressure toward assimilation blunts anti-antisemitism.) Thinking of it that way, there are some striking similarities. Some Muslims aren’t Arabs, and they have the option of saying “We’re not like those other Muslims.” And Some Arabs can pass for white in the way they look. (See here, for a discussion of Ralph Nader at an anti-racist website.) This is like how a lot of antisemitism developed in contexts of well-assimilated versus newly immigrant Jews (German Ashkenazi versus Easter European Ostjuden in Germany, eg). Also there are stereotypes of rich oil sheiks. And, while antisemites often talk about crypto-Jews (who often aren’t Jewish at all), many Islamophobes do talk about about Western liberals as “dhimmis,” which absolutely undercuts some of what I said about Muslim immigration necessarily being seen as a Jewish plot.
So I do think there’s might be a future danger to this kind of “Eurabia” talk, and maybe it should be addressed more directly today. But, in doing that, I hope people will take effort not to pit Jews against Muslims or to appropriate the history of antisemitism in the fight against Islamophobia - both things which already happen too much. These were the reasons I sent the email in the first place, and I think they’re still relevant concerns and reasons to distinguish between the histories.
Marvin, their motivation was the incredible sex they were going to get once they reached heaven…nothing changes really. All motivattion is driven by greed or fear.
Hahaha. Yes you may be right Hermes123. Maybe Sigmund Freud was on to something after all…
Heh.. just found this quote “Better we go fight for Allah maybe at least we go Jannah (heaven or paradise)… Over there we have good wives, everything.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpU78Fwu6-swpC3MuWomEA9WYcCQD920O9800
Sigh.
an interesting point. the idea that “the more we start to look like them, the more they’ll [secretly] hate us” is sometimes even used by intra-jewish outreach groups as a reason that we all have to show our judaism outwardly and dress like C16th polish noblemen….er…..
on the other hand, it might be possible to show examples of the “fear of the assimilated muslim” coming through already; look at the “is obama a secret muslim?” discussion - and i wonder if it relates to the current furore over tarique ghaffur?
actually, the point at which jew-hatred became bona fide anti-semitism was when, during the enlightenment, it becaume possible for jews to become full citizens of secular states. when that happened, the jew-haters still needed to find a way to mark us out; thus developed the perversion of science which characterised us as a “different race” - and we all know how that ended up.
b’shalom
bananabrain
The inherent problem with Sunny’s progressive Jihad against “Islamophobia” is that Islamophobia is a word that describes a fear of Islam, which is perfectly natural if you are a non-Muslim living under Sharia law, or if you are familiar with people being blown up in the name of Islam. It’s a natural phenomenon for quite a scary religion (in the eyes of layman non-muslims).
People find Islam scary. There, I said it. So Sunny is launching his new positive-war narrative by attacking those who fear Islam … What could possibly go wrong with such a strategy?!
Why is Labour in such a terrible state? Why is the BNP gaining?
This is well worth reading
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233
…
The fact’s remain that on asking 1,000 Muslims for Channel 4’s What Muslims Want, 68% think that British people should be arrested and prosecute for insulting Islam.
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf
If that 68% is taken to be roughly representative, then with 1.6 million Muslims in the UK, surely your new Jihad against intolerance should be directed at your these people too, rather than this lop-sided approach against “Islamophobia”? There’s racism against Muslims, as there is racism against blacks, whites, asians, Jews. There’s some intolerance everywhere! And statistically Muslims really are not the biggest victims here!
How can you be taken seriously when you have such an unbalanced approach? You used to have, a mediocum, of balance. Now you’ve lurched over to the communist (i.e. Bob Pitt) and Islamist narrative of Islamophobia obsession. Are you trying to send Ken a message, that he was right all along, all is forgiven?!
I wouldn’t be surprised if you started attacking the newspapers for being racist against blacks for printing pictures of those involved in knife and gun crime in the cities!
Ken was right all along! Get over it.
Marvin, why are you expending so much energy trying to convince Sunny that he has strayed from the true path?
Sunny, you’ve found that last piece of the jigsaw. Now is the time to plan the relaunch of New Generation Network. I may even consider signing up this time.
How the hell are warnings of Islamaphobia part of a ‘communist narrative’? I was going to say cum hoc ergo propter hoc, but that wouldn’t quite do justice to my incredulity.
Ben
‘People find Islam scary. There, I said it.’
That’s exactly what some people want. And you are hardly being brave.
Once the fear is instilled, then it becomes multi-purpose. Which I believe is what Sunny has alluded to with his post upthread.
However I have faith in the public, they will see it for what it is. But of course not before we go through a period of pain as the economy worsens.
People only find Islam scary because they haven’t a clue what its about.
Its not that difficult to open up a Quran without prior assumptions and read what it says. If you go LOOKING for scary things - you’ll find them.
BenSix, see http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
It’s run by communist Bob Pitt. Until recently, we had a united RESPECT party that had this islamophobia narrative as a means to power through communalism. There’s a kind of white-paper for the thinking here
Once the fear is instilled
You don’t need to read newspaper comment piece to be fearful of things. Pictures and footage of 7/7, and the Glasgow attackers will have sent a strong message to the layman far stronger than some editorial ran in The Mail on the 32nd of October whenever.
“BenSix, see http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
It’s run by communist Bob Pitt. Until recently, we had a united RESPECT party that had this islamophobia narrative as a means to power through communalism.”
Well, I’ll have to revert back to my intended statement: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Is the Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne taking part in this communist narrative?
People only find Islam scary because they haven’t a clue what its about.
Conversely, some people will find Islam scary because they have read the Quran. Let’s not go back to the old Islam is Peace meme. It’s more like a mirror. Mohammed was a fantastic military leader and a warrior. His recantations included vile cruel things for enemies, and some really quite insightful and smart things for humanity too.
@ 15 ” Mohammed was a fantastic military leader and a warrior. His recantations included vile cruel things for enemies, and some really quite insightful and smart things for humanity too.”
I believe that Mohammed also had sex with an underage girl (12/13 yrs old) - his reason was that God had told him to do so. That is scary in such a leading religious leader/prophet.
Err I think the consensus is 9 years old, certainly the age of marriage (and therefore sex) was dropped from 18 under the Shah, to 9 in the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
There’s lots of scary things. Which many people are in deniable about. Yes there’s good stuff too! Woohoo!
Criminal attacks should be investigated by the police. If anybody, Muslim, Jew, White, Brown, gay gets attacked the should feel the force of the law. If there is an epidemic, which there is not, then it should be looked at and tackled.
We need to foster a culture of tolerance, moderation, respect, freedom of speech, and responsibility in ALL people living in the UK.
Banging on about victimisation is not going to help. This is the language of the BNP too, let’s not forget. If there’s cases of attacks they should be reported every time.
Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been fair game for decades. Mocking of Christians perfectly accepted - “no holds barred” the “usual rules of engagement suspended”. Mocking of Muslims or Islam… err… Major Problemo!
Ah forget it. Put those kid gloves back on.
Thanks Marvin. As long as it was legal and as long as a Shah decreed it, it must be OK then …..
“So the last point - that the logic behind anti-semitism is different to the logic behind hatred of Muslims - looks like a good point to make.”
Care to explain the logic behind all the anti american posts and comments on this blog and in the MSM associated with conspiracy theories and what not?
His recantations included vile cruel things for enemies, and some really quite insightful and smart things for humanity too.
I’m not denying the contradictions or vulgarity of some of verses within the Hadith. However, seeing as the Hadith were written over 200 years after the old Prophet’s death - there are questionable aspects to it.
I was referring to the Quran and its teachings. Please do point out the cruelties towards enemies within that source. This is the the primary source for Muslims - not the Hadith.
I believe that Mohammed also had sex with an underage girl (12/13 yrs old) - his reason was that God had told him to do so. That is scary in such a leading religious leader/prophet.
You’ve taken that whole thing out of context didn’t you? I see what you did there. So I will not react. =)
“You’ve taken that whole thing out of context didn’t you? I see what you did there.So I will not react. =) ”
What context should it be in? It may be that you are reading something into what is not there. I do not have the full context, which is why I said I BELIEVE that … etc.
” Muslims are associated with conspiracy theories to Islamicise Britain ”
Well, this isn’t actually a conspiracy theory: muslims are supposed to bring the benfits of islam and muslim rule to the places where they live- in short islam is a conspiracy if carried out according to the basics. Go to the loopier and/or more enthusiastic muslim sites and you’ll find people imminently expecting an islamic state of Britain. It isn’t a conspiracy that is very likely to succeed, of course, but it’s still a conspiracy, as is any religion that aspires to universality.
“But you can also see how hatred of Muslims has also changed. It started back in the days with how the Middle Eastern governments were all backwards”
On the contrary: fear and hatred of islam and muslims began when Middle Eastern- and European- muslim governments were very advanced and it looked like there was a pretty strong chance that “the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mohamet.”
Add the practice of piracy and slave- raiding, justified on religious grounds, in places not ruled, threatened with or with memories of muslim rule and there were pretty sound reasons for hostility to islam and muslims.
The reasons- or excuses- for hostility to muslims and jews have varied over time, of course, but it is foolish to suppose that they have always been irrational and unjustified.
“I was referring to the Quran and its teachings. Please do point out the cruelties towards enemies within that source. This is the the primary source for Muslims - not the Hadith.”
Well, the doctrine of eternal torture for so-called wrong-doers- and of eternal rewards for the supposedly good, for that matter- is unjust.
You’ve taken that whole thing out of context didn’t you? I see what you did there. So I will not react. =)
I’m not sure what you mean with that sentence…
as far as what else you said I agree…
but you dont need to explain that to the non muslims … you need to tell it to the muslims who ARE taking every word literally and wish to remain living in what ever century it came from .
Please do point out the cruelties towards enemies within that source. This is the the primary source for Muslims - not the Hadith.
Really? There’s over well over a hundred verses that Jihadists use, out of context of course, to justify their acts. Can I ask are you yourself Muslim? Well here’s two.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012
Like somebody said before though, you’ll find what you are looking for. He said some good sheet too
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256
(Unfortunately the next verse says the unbelievers will burn in hell, but that’s par for the course in the three Abrahamic religions)
Tu S Tin, anti-americanism is one of the few things that is widely accepted as normal in this country, and really does fester on the left. Reminds me of this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4881474.stm
Ms Cox, 29, says she has been called, among other things, “terrorist”, “scum”, “low life”, and feels that she is constantly being held to account for the actions of President Bush and for US foreign policy.
Must have been “peace activists”
So have any Muslims here experienced bad stuff from people in this country recently? Would be interesting to hear.
Marvin - your attempts to ‘convince me’ fall on deaf ears, and are actually really boring and off topic. Some of us are trying to have an intelligent discussion here? Go somewhere else. cheers.
I’ll respond to the other points once I’ve had some food.
What context should it be in? It may be that you are reading something into what is not there. I do not have the full context, which is why I said I BELIEVE that …
Uh uh, what’d mum say about assuming stuff without researching it?
Well, the doctrine of eternal torture for so-called wrong-doers- and of eternal rewards for the supposedly good, for that matter- is unjust.
True. But it doesn’t advocate for HUMANS to be the judge or deliverer of such torture. Its only a consequence to not following the guidelines within the doctrine. We can go back and forth about what’s right, wrong, and the ugly in various religions - so to each his own.
Tinman - sure enough. I blame my own culture and its people for the their own demise. But I find it ironic that youse think this is a Muslim only problem.
Starving Marvin - Oops, you did it again. You pointed out Verse 09 - but neglected Verse 08 which clearly states the reason to fight the Pagans (they broke a sacred treaty with the Muslims during their pilgrimage and killed several of them after swearing allegiance).
So there you have it. You looked for bad, found it, used it to your advantage in this here debate - without seeing as to WHY it happened.
Tell me something - what happens when one country betrays another in today’s day and age? Retaliation in the form of war - right?
So why is that time any different from today?
Anyways - I’ll let youse figure it out. Need not worry what I am, just see me as words behind a screen.
“So have any Muslims here experienced bad stuff from people in this country recently? Would be interesting to hear.”
Last week, a vague - and admittedly unpleasant - associate declared that Muslims should be shipped off to an island. However, I don’t believe, as you appear to, that anecdotal evidence is necessarily representative.
Ben
REf “Uh uh, what’d mum say about assuming stuff without researching it? ”
By all means give me the wisdon of your research then
” Anyways - I’ll let youse figure it out. Need not worry what I am, just see me as words behind a screen.”
Shall we assume then?
“True. But it doesn’t advocate for HUMANS to be the judge or deliverer of such torture. Its only a consequence to not following the guidelines within the doctrine. We can go back and forth about what’s right, wrong, and the ugly in various religions - so to each his own.”
So, if an all-powerful, all-knowing being decides to torture people for ever for arbitrary reasons, that’s all right then, M Xtreme? The theory is that everyone is that beings own and will be [mis]treated accordingly.
Ms_Xtreme
I am glad you can explain all of the verses in context and it makes sense for you. It’s shame the radicalised don’t get it like you do. I do understand it as a story, and it’s in the context of very tough times. Just so you know.
So, if an all-powerful, all-knowing being decides to torture people for ever for arbitrary reasons, that’s all right then, M Xtreme?
All religions believe so. The concept of “The One” is within age old Hinduism too. It was part of the Indus Valley Hindu Civilization beliefs - the oldest religion known to man. To reject this concept is free to all man - nobody is telling anyone to accept this. However - from what I know and have read in different religious doctrines - the authority to punish lies with The One. Not with us. Its clearly identified within the Abrahamic Religions.
Starvin’ Marvin - u mocking me? I don’t know nearly as much as I’d like to. Trust I’m not perfect. So thanks.
“Furthermore, I find it amusing that when Muslims are associated with conspiracy theories to Islamicise Britain (as Melanie Phillips is frequently liable to claim) or ‘Eurabia’, we don’t see that level of condemnation [as we see of antisemitic conspiracism].”
Because people find it acceptable. Because even here you see the normal rubbish uttered by people about how Muslim religious text is disturbing. But similar passages exist in other texts and it is nonsense to pretend they don’t.
The concept of God’s instructions we are told drove Bush to war. So is that any worse than Muslim text?
Religion can be falsely used to justify anything and we see that acutely in the Middle East.
The fact is that it suits the agenda of other faiths to portray Muslims negatively and keep them out of politics and project them as a danger in order to further their own interest. As Muslim numbers grow and they get organised then their influence can only be diminshed if they are viewed as a threat and portrayed as such.
It is part of a long term right wing objective and it is shameful that when a few couragous religous leaders spoke out to defend Muslims there was mass hysteria.
Then we get some people who sit by and watch this and they do a bit of interfaith work and we can then say how pleasant we are being to Muslims and thus deny that we turn a blind eye and allow this prejudice and bigatory to go unchecked.
So are the values of the Judeo-Christian West as good as they ought to be?
Another excellent and insightful post in a series - PP is back to its best.
Persephone 16:
@ 15 ” Mohammed was a fantastic military leader and a warrior. His recantations included vile cruel things for enemies, and some really quite insightful and smart things for humanity too.”
I believe that Mohammed also had sex with an underage girl (12/13 yrs old) - his reason was that God had told him to do so. That is scary in such a leading religious leader/prophet.
Therein lies the rub with this anti-Islamophobia line.
There are deep issues within Islam which no Muslim- moderate or otherwise- has even begun to explain to a curious wider world.
Mohammed had 16 (recorded) wives, and estimates for the age of Ayesha at the time he had sex with her range from 9 upwards, hence Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s contention that he was a paedophile.
All this before you reach the explicit anti-semitism of the koran.
These things are not a matter of phobic hysteria, but a matter of recorded historical fact, and any anti-islamophobe worth their salt needs to square these issues away convincingly before they can expect any traction in the real world.
Best of British luck with that!
Try looking at the historical reality of the time. Biblical Prophets had multiple wives and concubines which people readily accept but then won’t accept the same reality for Arabs at a later time.
In addition marriage at a young age was common even in Europe until relatively recently.
In fact in parts of Africa and Asia marriage of young girls is still common. As soon as they hit puberty then people look to marry them off.
So why is it so odd when in fact the practise still goes on in parts of the world today.
In fact I think regarding Henry VIII the Pope said that the bible obligated he marry his brothers wife and that wasn’t so long ago.
Thus marriage customs we are used to today have varied over the centuries so setting your standards and trying to apply them to events from over 1000 years ago is fairly naive.
Child marriage is still common today in rural parts of the 3rd World and that despite legislation.
These things are not a matter of phobic hysteria, but a matter of recorded historical fact, and any anti-islamophobe worth their salt needs to square these issues away convincingly before they can expect any traction in the real world.
This really is typical of your stupid thinking.
If anyone asked you to convert to Islam - by all means ask away your questions. But frankly, the only thing required of you is to be nice to other people depending on how they behave towards you, not what YOUR interpretations are of their holy book.
Like, frankly, I don’t give a flying fuck about what’s in the Quran providing Muslims (like other religious people) are law abiding citizens. After that it comes down to personal relationships and I have close Muslim friends and people who I think are tossers.
What you think about what needs to be “squared” - perhaps for your benefit - is of relevance only to you. Who cares what you think?
The anti-Islamophobia line is about demonising a group of people just because they happen to call themselves Muslims, regardless of how they behave in real life. If you want to find dodgy quotes or historical references, go and find them in the Old and New Testament too. There’s plenty. As there is in the Vedas etc. And what? Your ignorance is your own problem, not anyone else’s.
Eeedjat.
“So, if an all-powerful, all-knowing being decides to torture people for ever for arbitrary reasons, that’s all right then, M Xtreme?
All religions believe so. The concept of “The One” is within age old Hinduism too.”
No they don’t. Neither the Greek nor Norse polytheists- nor other polytheists- believed so, for example. Furthermore, the concept of “The One” is irrelevant to the injustice and cruelty of the concept of eternal punishment. “It was part of the Indus Valley Hindu Civilization beliefs - the oldest religion known to man. To reject this concept is free to all man - nobody is telling anyone to accept this. However - from what I know and have read in different religious doctrines - the authority to punish lies with The One. Not with us. Its clearly identified within the Abrahamic Religions.”
You confuse the ability to punish or reward and the right to punish or reward- a confusion- as you say- “clearly identified within the Abrahamic Religions” but not eith other religions and not with common sense and logic.
“The concept of God’s instructions we are told drove Bush to war. So is that any worse than Muslim text?”
Well, Avi Cohen, we agree that muslim texts are on a comparable level of wisdom and godliness with the opinions of George Bush.
“Try looking at the historical reality of the time. ”
Exactly. The opinions of an arab 1400 years ago, no matter how wise he was and no matter how sure he was that god shared those opinions should not be used as a model for behaviour now.
“The anti-Islamophobia line is about demonising a group of people just because they happen to call themselves Muslims, regardless of how they behave in real life. ”
Certainly, Sunny, and it would be wiser and more honest if those who don’t actually believe or follow the more absurd or cruel bits of islam recognised as much and stopped claiming to be muslims to themselves and others.
Now, back to the matter at hand.
Matt, you say: Some Muslims aren’t Arabs, and they have the option of saying “We’re not like those other Muslims.” And Some Arabs can pass for white in the way they look.
Yup, agreed. And there are other examples - for example when brown Sikhs / Hindus say that they’re not Muslims, and its them who should be harassed. This has been long discussed amongst Asians, especially after 9/11. There have been attempts by fundamentalst Sikh/hindu groups to actively drive a wedge so as to say - “look, we don’t want to be associated with that terrorist community” etc. Some lobbied to drop the word “Asian” so they couldn’t all be put in the same category.
Um, what’s wrong with Muslims conspiring to Islamise Britain? It’s a proselytising religion and they are perfectly in their rights to do so. I’m sure the Socialist Workers are conspiring AS WE SPEAK, along with the Jehovah Witnesses and assorted nuts and bolts.
The point is the UK is a soft touch for any kind of religious group wanting to push their agenda. It’s not their fault, it’s what they do - but if we want to live in a liberal, secular society, then it is beholden on “us” (if you are a liberal secularist) to push back. Because they ARE conspiring, all of them, and so should we. It’s how society is formed, or rather constantly in a process of forming.
@ 41 ” There have been attempts by fundamentalst Sikh/hindu groups to actively drive a wedge - look, we don’t want to be associated with that terrorist community etc.”
Why is it driving a wedge to say you do not want to be associated with a terrorist group? Is it not akin to wanting to being seen as leftist and not wanting to be associated with the right?
And this talk of 3rd world countries etc who still legally allow marriage at a young age is not adequate defence nor rationale. Sometimes allowing children to marry, albeit legally, is due to poverty & not best for the child. Essentially marriage at an age where the child is not emotionally(and sometimes physically) ready is not humane - it is aganist a childs human rights.
“The anti-Islamophobia line is about demonising a group of people just because they happen to call themselves Muslims, regardless of how they behave in real life. ”
Certainly, Sunny, and it would be wiser and more honest if those who don’t actually believe or follow the more absurd or cruel bits of islam recognised as much and stopped claiming to be muslims to themselves and others.
You would think that this were the case. But In actual fact, it’s complete bollocks.
Take me for example. I’m a cultural Muslim and I come from a Muslim background. My real name is instantly recognised as a Muslim name (derived from Arabic) . However, in religious terms I’m not a practising believer of Islam nor do I believe in a personal god in any sense or form. In fact I believe all religions are nothing more than man-made belief systems, in Management terms: classic organisational units. In particular, I believe that the “Divine Law” of legalistic monotheisms are nothing more than the products of the minds of frenzied, over-litigious prophet-lawyers. In other words, not only do I not believe in the “cruel bits of Islam”, I do not believe in *any* of it’s bits nor the cruel bits of any of the other religions either, in the spiritual “saving leap of faith” sense. I have an interest in religion and religious identity and I’m floored by the religious art of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism but that’s about it.
This is my personal non-belief. I’m not an Ibn Warraq who will make it my business to try and disabuse believers of the utter waste of time of their beliefs.
Now, does that make me any less of a Muslim to non-Muslim outsiders? Does the fact that I don’t believe in the religious mandates of Mohammed, Jesus or Abraham make me less of a Muslim to, say, Immigration officials in US Airports or government jobsworths who are itching to place me in their league-tables religious demographics, or to journalists like Melanie Phillips or Trevor Kavanagh?
Very unlikely.
The idea that my personal non-belief will suddenly save me from exposure to religious intolerance or prejudice is bogus. So I will fight against institutionalised religious prejudice in whatever form it takes.
And this talk of 3rd world countries etc who still legally allow marriage at a young age is not adequate defence nor rationale. Sometimes allowing children to marry, albeit legally, is due to poverty & not best for the child. Essentially marriage at an age where the child is not emotionally(and sometimes physically) ready is not humane - it is aganist a childs human rights.
This is true. Child brides are still happening in India to this day and the transgressors don’t usually belong to the Islamic tradition either.
I wonder how many people who are “outraged” by the Prophet’s nine year old bride of 1400 years ago, to the point of obsession, are equally obsessed with trying to stamp out real incidences of child brides that are happening in the world today. People are free to assign me with the guilt of association of the marriage of Ayesha to Mohammed, but don’t the child brides, incest, slavery, concubinage and the “sex crimes” of the prophets of the Judeo-Christian traditions also cause them the same concern? Or is this just a Muslim thing. Again.
Sid - You’ll find is that such things were acceptable even in the UK until recently.
In France in the 18th Century Marie Antionette married whilst still a teenager (just over 200 years ago) and it was accepted and still isn’t queried today. In fact Europeans rarely ever question their own history from less than a few hunred years ago when the same things were happeneing. But if you happen to be from the East and do this then they’ll go back hundreds of years to criticise.
In biblical terms Soloman had many wives and concubines and that is something that was acceptable during that period and later periods. It isn’t queried today but the neocons then attack the founder of Islam for having a far far far smaller number of wives to instill fear.
The issue of marriages in early Islamic history is a tool which is used to attack Muslims and Muslim Belief without looking at the prevailing conditions of the time. Such customs would have been similar for other faiths and not just Muslims.
Also with respect to child marriages you have to remember that life span in many such countries is short, much shorter than Europe and thus parents want to get children settled soon as they may not be around to do it later.
Europeans have trouble grasping the fact that these things are done for a number of reasons including financial, social etc.
We may not approve but the reality in the 3rd world is different.
Also interesting is the fact that so many Europeans go abroad for illegal underage sex and when caught then apparently the 3rd World isn’t equipped to be fair in seeking justice!
So basically until recently Europe turned a blind eye to their own white people doing this but such traditions for brown people are to be used to attack them.
No doubt saying this will lead to questioning of my Jewishness
Marvin: “Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been fair game for decades. Mocking of Christians perfectly accepted - ‘no holds barred’ the ‘usual rules of engagement suspended’. Mocking of Muslims or Islam… err… Major Problemo!”
Try rewriting this as follows: “Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been fair game for decades. Mocking of Christians perfectly accepted - ‘no holds barred’ the ‘usual rules of engagement suspended’. Mocking of Jews or Judaism… err… Major Problemo!”
The mocking of Jews and Judaism is a problem because the Jewish community is a minority who have been, and still are, victims of racism on the part of the non-Jewish majority of the population. Consequently, it is difficult for non-Jews to criticise or ridicule Jews and their religion without the exercise tipping over into antisemitism, or giving legitimacy to the views of antisemites.
The same considerations obviously do not apply in the case of Christianity (although I’m opposed to those militant atheists who abuse and insult Christians because they hold religious beliefs - I think it’s just rude and arrogant).
Marvin appears to be a sympathiser of Searchlight, who have a long record of opposing antisemitism, so I would have thought he would be receptive to this argument.
Unfortunately, that sensitivity goes out the window when the minority threatened with racism are Muslims rather than Jews.
Certainly, Sunny, and it would be wiser and more honest if those who don’t actually believe or follow the more absurd or cruel bits of islam recognised as much and stopped claiming to be muslims to themselves and others.
Hold on a sec. Individuals are and should be responsible for their own actions. I would love for the nutcases of all religions to listen to the more moderate elements, but they’re nutcases for a reason.
Why you seem to think Muslims should self-police themselves, but then wouldn’t use that line against a Christian fundamentalists and tarring all Christians with the same brush, is beyond me.
Unfortunately, that sensitivity goes out the window when the minority threatened with racism are Muslims rather than Jews.
Actually, if it’s not always the same people tolerating both forms of oppression, people in general are awfully tolerant of both antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Which prophets are you referring to?
You are confusing ’secular society’ with ‘atheist society’. Rookie mistake. Certainly a liberal secular democracy includes freedom of religion.
Sid @44 pretty much sums up my feelings about being Jewish. In many ways “nothing” would be a far more accurate description of my religion than “Jewish”, but the fact is that when a homicidal maniac decides that you are Jewish it doesn’t really matter whether you agree with them or not. The only thing that matters is whether you can survive them. By way of example, the Jews of Nazi Germany were considered to be the most assimilated Jews in Europe; many of them barely remembered that they were Jewish at all and all of them considered themselves first German and then Jewish, but when push came to shove what they thought they were just didn’t count.
Matt: “Actually, if it’s not always the same people tolerating both forms of oppression, people in general are awfully tolerant of both antisemitism and Islamophobia.”
But, thankfully, less tolerant of antisemitism now than in the past.
For example, if the Daily Express published an article “exposing” the existence of Beth Din courts under the screaming front page headline “Now Jews Get Their Own Laws”, claiming that the Jewish community poses a threat to the British legal system, there would be a furore.
But the Express can publish an article attacking sharia councils that play a similar arbitration role in family and civil matters under the headline “Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws” and hardly anyone bats an eyelid.
It’s also worth noting that the BNP have now almost completely abandoned public displays of antisemitism on the grounds that there is far less political mileage in that than in whipping up hatred against the Muslim communities.
Griffin talks about the party riding the wave of Islamophobia in the media. He doesn’t talk about riding a wave of media antisemitism – for the simple reason that there isn’t one.
On the specific issue of antisemitic and Islamophobic conspiracy theories, I think there is more similarity than you might think, given that Muslims are one of the poorest and most marginalised communities, which makes it difficult to pin the accusation on them that they exercise a malign influence at the highest levels of society – which is at the centre of classic antisemitic conspiracy theories.
One way round this is proposed by Bat Ye’or, of “Eurabia” notoriety. As she recently explained to the Jerusalem Post, the European elites have capitulated to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (who play the role of the Learned Elders of Zion in her conspiracy theory) and consequently “Muslim politics are conducted in Europe by Europeans themselves, based on the interests of Muslim lobbyists”.
She also claimed that “European universities – like those in America – are totally controlled by the Arab-Islamic lobby, as are the schools”. But from her standpoint this “Arab-Islamic lobby” presumably doesn’t consist predominantly of actual Arabs and Muslims but rather of “dhimmis” who have sold out to the Arabs and Muslims.
Of course, other conspiracy theorists don’t bother with this more sophisticated approach and simply repeat the traditional stuff about Jewish control of the media, for example, but with that role now attributed directly to Muslims.
Over at the Centre for Social Cohesion site yesterday Douglas Murray attacked the BBC for reporting the activities of the Scottish Islamic Foundation, which he claims is led by unrepresentative extremists. His views were endorsed by a supporter who wrote: “Absolutely shocking. All part of the stealth jihad of course. The BBC has been infiltrated by muslim extremists right up to the highest level.”
And of course the use of bogus demographic data features heavily in Islamophobic conspiracy theories. Muslims are supposedly outbreeding the “indigenous” white population of Europe and while they may not control society now, they will do so in the near future by sheer weight of numbers.
All in all, I think the similarities between antisemitic and Islamophobic conspiracy theories are more striking than the differences.
Just to add that the demographic argument is of course an essential part of the “Eurabia” thesis. In order to do down the United States and Israel the European elites supposedly came to an agreement with the Arab/Muslim world, central to which was the acceptance of unrestricted Muslim immigration into Europe.
At the moment the Muslims exercise their secret control over society indirectly through these proxies in the European elites – rather than directly, as the Jews do in classic antisemitic theory.
However, as the number of Muslims grows while the white population declines, they will soon reach the point where they can dispense with their dhimmi collaborators and exercise control directly and openly.
At the end of the day the fact that Melanie and co are growing in terms of media time and column width indicates a growing acceptance of their freedom to push their agenda.
The fact that there is no distancing from the likes of the ADL, Chief Rabbi, Church etc. means that this disgraceful portrayal is going by unchecked. The fact that those same institutions are quick to highlight similar issues in the Muslim world, which is perfectly right for them to highlight indicates a double standard.
No doubt the Jewish Police will now ask for my ip address. I wonder if the Judaism Police have considered working for the Chief Rabbi to define acceptable conversion but they must be too busy doing a bit of interfaith work and writing articles in Jewish publications but could be a useful career opportunity to question people’s adherance to faith.
Katy @52 - Just curious about why you feel that way. Would you for example only marry a Jewish person or anyone?
Sid @44 - I’m confused but a while back you said that you believed in the spiritual aspect and individual aspect. Does that still apply?
Sorry to ask both of you but I always find it fascinating why people continue to associate and write about a faith when they no longer believe the central tenants of that faith.
“Take me for example. I’m a cultural Muslim …
This is my personal non-belief….
Now, does that make me any less of a Muslim to non-Muslim outsiders?”
Well, yes, Sid, it does to me. As far as I’m concerned a muslim is someone who- among other things- thinks homosexuals should be killed and would like to live in a society where that would happen. It should make a comparable difference for others and I thimk it’s an important enough distinction to be worth emphasising. The fact that many muslims are the equivalent of “anglostics” or “angleists” isn’t as well-known as it should be.
“The idea that my personal non-belief will suddenly save me from exposure to religious intolerance or prejudice is bogus. So I will fight against institutionalised religious prejudice in whatever form it takes.”
Agreed. However, the knowledge that there are many other muslims like you might make people less hostile to islam or muslims, however defined. You could argue that people like that aren’t hostile for rational reasons so your attempt to lessen the hostility would do no good and you wouldn’t want to treat people like that on their own terms anyway. Even so, just on the practical bases of treating people in general without prejudice and with respect and finding and deterring genuine terrorists it would be better if everyone knew that the term “muslim” covers a very wide range of opinions and behaviours.
Sunny:
39) “This really is typical of your stupid thinking.
…And what? Your ignorance is your own problem, not anyone else’s.
Eeedjat.”
This is a very typical sort of response from you, I’m coming to learn.
For someone with such high aspirations as ‘forging a new liberal left alliance’ and taking on the might of the political commentariat, it doesn’t take much to call you out as just a mouthy playground rudeboy.
Not the stuff of high office really. Fairly gutter, even for one of your blogs.
Sid,
That is surely the point, is it not? I would agree with everything you had to say in 44, and subscribe to fighting religious prejudice. Although, I’d like Dawkins to shut the fuck up. That is not a particularily helpful point of view, IMVHO. It makes us look as ridiculous as the fundies…
And we are better than that.
Douglas - Why does Dawkins needs to shut the f up? Religions has had people like Dawkins down the ages and should be able to deal with that and respond to it. But people need not be afraid of Dawkins if their own personal belif is strong enough.
Roger - In terms of Abrahamic religions then the death penalties to which you refer actually only apply when homosexuality is practised in the open and the same applies to sex outside marriage. I think people automatically assume that these puishments apply but they apply only in set circumstances.
The media in their potrayal list them as matter of fact when they are not.
Religion is a moral guide and some people find comfort in that.
“In terms of Abrahamic religions then the death penalties to which you refer actually only apply when homosexuality is practised in the open and the same applies to sex outside marriage. I think people automatically assume that these puishments apply but they apply only in set circumstances.”
So you think that’s all right then? In fact they apply- as do the penalties for any “crime”- when people are caught and convicted of the “crime”.
“Religion is a moral guide and some people find comfort in that.”
Religion claims to be a moral guide. If people find comfort in imposing religious instructions on themselves, well and good. Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions especially find comfort in trying to impose their moral guidance on everyone else.
douglas #59
I agree with you about Dawkins. His whole approach to atheism is based on the same Christian impulses that he likes to think he eschews. Also disconcerting how similar is how easily his faith-based evangelism of science moves into fundamentalist territory. I flee from that kind of thing.
Katy #52
So like Jonathan Miller, you’re “More Jew-ish than Jewish”.
I wish there was a Muslim version of that line.
“More Muslim-ish than Muslimish” doesn’t have the same ring to it but that’s pretty much my position as well. In any case, my ideas and beliefs have more in common with Jew-ish people than Muslim people.
#57
Roger
Even so, just on the practical bases of treating people in general without prejudice and with respect and finding and deterring genuine terrorists it would be better if everyone knew that the term “muslim” covers a very wide range of opinions and behaviours.
Agreed, but believe me when I tell you that Islamists hate people like me more than they hate you.
Roger “So you think that’s all right then? In fact they apply- as do the penalties for any “crime”- when people are caught and convicted of the “crime”.”
I didn’t say it was right or wrong I simply said that the punishment is applied in certain circumstances and not generally as was being implied.
“Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions especially find comfort in trying to impose their moral guidance on everyone else.”
Agreed and again the aim of religion is to tell people about the faith and not impose it. However through time people get overly zealous and rather than tell people they impose.
Sid - “Agreed, but believe me when I tell you that Islamists hate people like me more than they hate you.”
Which highlights their own stupidity. The reason is because they lack any ability to convey their point and articulate their belief so the only way they can feel better about their position is to adopt a crass approach to other people.
You aint much better mate; you’re known now for being a bit of a bully, obnoxious to the extreme and with the above like to stick your oar in for no good reason.
For someone that’s running a organisation such as yours, a worthy one too, you’re actions are less than impressive.
For Sid,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg
Now that is the right attitude, I think
Sid @ 45
Any objection was the aspect of a prophet being made to look very herioic/put on a pedestal, not necessarily because they are muslim. It was also surprising to learn that Gandhi’s wife was not given any antibiotics/other prescribed medicine when she was ill due to his beliefs & she died of her illness. When Gandhi was later ill he took the prescribed medicine
If Islam is “scary” so too is Christianity and Judaism, and other mumbojumbo imposition on an individual.
Muhamad [peace be upon you]:
“If Islam is “scary” so too is Christianity and Judaism, and other mumbojumbo imposition on an individual.”
Wise words, my man.
“Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions especially find comfort in trying to impose their moral guidance on everyone else.”
I disagree that it’s especially the Abrahamic religions. I do think that these religions are more explicit about their own uniqueness and specialness, and the conversion aspect of it– particularly in certain brands of Christianity, like the Mormons, Baptists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses who have hassled everyone and their mama. But you cannot seriously tell say that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the only ones who do this. The right wing Hindus in India are trying to ‘reconvert’ people (esp. the tribals [whose beliefs are different from the Hinduism these Hindutvavadis advocate] and Christians).
And in terms of ‘imposing their moral guidance on everyone else,” nothing beats the brahminical caste system –an unequal and unjust institution that has survived since before the times of Christ– that has been laid on everyone else to grid them in as well.
Judaism doesn’t try to convert others, Desi Italiana. In fact, it goes to a lot of bother to deter people from converting, but both christianity and islam and most of their variants and off-shoots say that it is their duty to impose their moral codes on the world and to bring the benefit of those codes to everyone, whether they want it or not.
I don’t know much about hinduism or its variants, but isn’t it supposedly restricted to Indians and/or former hindus with no universalist aspirations? Or are these limitations merely practically based- if that’s the right term- and only the first stage in its ambitions? I agree about the evil of caste, but what concerned me above was the univeralism of islam and christianity and the consequent effects on the mind-sets of their followers. Indeed, how far is the organisation of hinduism into a formal religion with an organised theology rather than a variety of interconnected mythologies and customs a response to the pressure of islam and christianity?
Roger,
I don’t quite follow what exactly your argument is, especially since your comment seems to have a fixation on Islam and Christianity (and hence, selectively bringing up points that you think are valid), and you place an undue emphasis on the concept of ‘organized’ religion.
“Judaism doesn’t try to convert others, Desi Italiana.”
That is why I said particularly the Christian strands.
“but both christianity and islam and most of their variants and off-shoots say that it is their duty to impose their moral codes on the world and to bring the benefit of those codes to everyone, whether they want it or not.”
There are some adherents of Judaism who, in the name of religion, are imposing certain kinds of ideologies geographically, ethnically, religiously, and politically. Religion– whether Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, whatever– is practiced and used by others (whether scripturally acceptable or not) in various ways.
“Indeed, how far is the organisation of hinduism into a formal religion with an organised theology rather than a variety of interconnected mythologies and customs a response to the pressure of islam and christianity?”
First of all, there ARE standards and organization WITHIN the sects of Hinduism, and they are quite rigid.
Secondly, do you really need a formally organized religion or theology to do the things that right wing followers of Hinduism have done? And in fact, wouldn’t the lack of over-arching standardized boundaries make adherents of Hinduism more susceptible to coming up with whatever they wanted to, which could possibly have detrimental effects on others?
And I disagree with you about your selective reading of the evolution of Hinduism and that the customs are a ‘pressure’ to Islam and Christianity. Every single religion is a response to the pressures of other religions or customs around them, not only Islam and Christianity. And Hinduism is no different from Islam and Christianity themselves in being a response to other beliefs and traditions.
BTW, despite the fact that Muslims, Jews, and Christians each respectively have a singular book that supposedly every follower has read or been familiar with (and hence, this idea that it is ‘organized’ and has a ’standard theology’ in contrast to Hinduism), Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are themselves disorganized. That is why you have a thing called “sects”, and regional differences between the ways that these religions come to be practiced.
As far as I’m concerned a muslim is someone who- among other things- thinks homosexuals should be killed and would like to live in a society where that would happen.
Erm, this is really, really crap. I know a whole load of practicing Muslims who do not think that.
Then, logically, Sunny, they ought to think very carefully about whether they actually are still believing muslims.
Sorry, Desi Italiana: in brief, my argument is that in their claims for absolute universality of truth and their dependence on “revealed” writings supposedly inspired or dictated by god, christianity and islam and their offshoots differ in kind to to other religions. Obviously humans can behave horribly without these inspirations but I think that they give people more reason to be cruel, and to think they’re being good while they’re at it.
Roger - There are many Muslims, Christians and Jews who may not agree with all that they are told about their faith but that doesn’t make them any less believing.
The punishment for homosexuality is the same across all 3 faiths and your attempt here to paint Muslims as different is shocking.
There are Rabbis who are complaining about the same issue in Judaism and Priests who are complaining about the same in Christianity so maybe if you listened a bit louder you’d know.
In addition all religion tries to convert that is how they spread. Even in Judaism now there is a trend towards allowing people to convert to become Jewish. Further there is a small but growing voice that due to the small numbers of Jews think that there should be a move to bring people to the faith. One of the leading Reform Rabbi’s is agreeing with this though not openly calling for this yet. So even here there is a move towards calling people to the faith.
If religion didn’t seek to convert them it wouldn’t ever gain a foothold now would it beyond its founder. Each religion would therefore only survive the lifetime of its founder.
All religion is based upon the concept of converting people. The fact that Judaism hasn’t for an extended period of time is due to the factors and situations faced by Jews in terms of persecution etc. It isn’t because of the laws of faith and trying to proclaim it is, is nonsense.
Similarly Jewish law regarding homosexuality is the same as Christian and Islamic law. Just after the destruction of the temple the Rabbi’s took a decision that due to the circumstances faced by Jews that the capital punishments in the Bible wouldn’t be enacted anymore. Equally nothing is stopping this returning - though it is highly unlikely.
Christianity is now trying to appeal to everyone thus largely ignores those laws, but this is causing a massive split within the churches.
BananaPoliceman - You are very slow at answering questions - are you finding it hard! I managed to answer your questions in a few hours. So come on!!
Roger:
“Sorry, Desi Italiana: in brief, my argument is that in their claims for absolute universality of truth and their dependence on “revealed” writings supposedly inspired or dictated by god, christianity and islam and their offshoots differ in kind to to other religions.”
Thanks for clarifying.
Now, “revealed truths”? You think that Christianity and Islam are the only ones who have that? What the hell do you think the Vedas are? And why do you not include Judaism in your little exegesis on “revealed” truths? Interesting you leave Judaism out.
Avi:
“BananaPoliceman - You are very slow at answering questions - are you finding it hard! I managed to answer your questions in a few hours. So come on!!”
I have no clue who BananaPoliceman is, but yaar, people have lives. Maybe he/she is out partying, drinking, or hanging out with family. Not everyone lives according to the Pickled Politics timeline where they anxiously refresh every 5 minutes to see who has responded to them and then answer back.
Roger:
“Then, logically, Sunny, they ought to think very carefully about whether they actually are still believing muslims.”
I think you are not aware of the diversity of beliefs and practices within certain communities, if we can even say that there ARE communities of believers.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that you should meet people rather than reading religious books, and assuming that everyone who calls him/herself an adherent of X religion believes they need to abide to whatever scriptures in order to feel the X religious identity. The truth is that the vast majority of people around the globe (Muslims included) do lots of things that are not written in the Koran.
Also, you might want to start looking into South Asian Islam, which is different from Indonesian Islam and Islam in various Arab countries. Especially because:
South Asia has more Muslims than the Arab world does.
Indonesia has the largest numbers of Muslims.
Even in the Arab World, Islam comes to be practiced in different ways, like the Berber influences in Morocco, etc.
Islam and Christianity are not as monolithic as you make them out to be.
Desi Italiana - BananaPoliceman is Bananabrain who has taken on the task of checking and verifying whether people are Jewish abnd thus able to give opinions regarding Israel.
If you dare to disagree with a few Israeli policies then he questions if you are Jewish. If you dare to do this long term he starts asking for ip addresses.
Thus I’ve given him a bit of a test to check his knowledge and so far he hasn’t come back with answers to two questuions. One extremely difficuly and one easy.
Accepted he may be a bit busy but it was more tongue in cheek to let of a bit of steam following his appalling and heavy handed approach following my criticism of Israel.
But, thankfully, less tolerant of antisemitism now than in the past.
Why even make that comparison? The effect is to dampen criticism of contemporary antisemitism. “It’s not so bad, really. No Holocaust.” Well, thank, God, it’s no Holocaust, but that says nothing about the necessity of fighting against it. Antisemitism is still bad enough. It’s not over.
And that’s one of the reasons I often find it offensive when people try to use the example of antisemitism in the fight against Islamophobia. There are legitimate comparisons, but there are also illegitimate uses. I’m in favor of fighting both, but we should strive not to pit Jews and Muslims against each other in the Oppression Olympics. It’s a disservice to both groups, and I’m afraid it seems to be your main tactic here, Bob.
given that Muslims are one of the poorest and most marginalised communities, which makes it difficult to pin the accusation on them that they exercise a malign influence at the highest levels of society
Recall that The Protocols were first published in 1903 in Russia. Do you think Jews were not “one of the poorest and most marginalised communities” then? Yet people had no problem pinning such a charge on Jews.
Brief replies to a few points:
“There are many Muslims, Christians and Jews who may not agree with all that they are told about their faith but that doesn’t make them any less believing.”
No, Avi Cohen, but it does mean that what they believe isn’t actually part of their faith. The term is heresy. As I said to Sunny above, I think it better if people say they believe what they actually do believe, rather than assumng that their beliefs fit in with an already-existing belief system.
“The punishment for homosexuality is the same across all 3 faiths and your attempt here to paint Muslims as different is shocking.”
The punishment for homosexuality is not the same across all 3 faiths because they each interpret the way in which their sacred books are “the word of god” differently. Nearly all christians and jews interpret their writings as the word of god expressed and communicated through man, whereas the muslim theory is that it is the exact and literal word of god to be obeyed absolutely. Some christians and jews think the proscription of homosexuality in Leviticus still applies- unlike nearly every other proscription there. Many do not. Nearly all think that they do not have the right o impose their religiously-based opinions through the power of the state. What is shocking about that?
“Now, “revealed truths”? You think that Christianity and Islam are the only ones who have that? What the hell do you think the Vedas are? And why do you not include Judaism in your little exegesis on “revealed” truths? Interesting you leave Judaism out.”
What exactly are the Vedas, DI? Are they supposed to be the word of god as revealed to man as the Abrahamic religions claim their sacred books are, in one way or another? This isn’t a rhetorical question, by the way; i’m genuinely curious. I’d always assumed the vedas were like the Greek or Norse myths rather than supposedly direct revelation.
I leave out judaism because judaism doesn’t claim to be universally true or universally applicable and doesn’t aspire to worldwide dominance as chridtianity and islam do. In fact, I wonder whether judaism as a religious construct- a belief system- was a response to christianity’s adaptation of judaism to form a universal belief-system. After all, if you believe there’s only one god you’ve got to explain why he’s so concerned with only one small group of people, whwereas Jahweh began as only one specifically tribal god and got bigger.
“I think you are not aware of the diversity of beliefs and practices within certain communities, if we can even say that there ARE communities of believers.”
Certainly; however, what surprised me is how many people can disregard core beliefs of the belief-system and still claim to be believers. In fact, it was meeting believers who didn’t actually believe what they claimed to believe that made me wonder about it. Most believers are much nicer than their beliefs; the only problem is that they still claim to have beliefs they don’t actually have and sometimes feel obliged to impose them on other people..
perhaps Islamophobia should be renamed Muslimophobia? clearly what people are talking about are the problems of xenophobia and the many guises it comes in. maybe that would make life easier for those of us who wish to critique a set of ideologies without being lumped in and confused as ‘islamophobic’. Organized Religion can and should be critiqued , if you believe in something and you should critique it all the more.
I find it interesting that too often any criticism of Islamic theology or any other religious thinking is swept aside by claims that people ‘don’t know what they are talking about’. In many cases yes that is certainly true. But not necessarily all. It is defensive to assume that because someone does not accept the Truths one accepts, they must not be in the ‘know’. Everyone has very different views of religion, that much is certainly clear.
but to go back to the point about xenophobic thinking, yes that is a big problem certainly, for some reason there is a lot of focus on “Islamophobia” when as far as i can see, the main problem with society and the ‘group’ thing is that it feeds xenophobic thinking. the fixation to marry within one’s “own” group is highly xenophobic and perpetuates the ‘group’ as the group would like to be.
if anyone is going around saying ‘oh you’re no muslim if you don’t believe in punishment of homosexuals its the “eye on queer muslims” lot who seem to think they are in the know, and that the rest of us should listen to them. certainly that’s what they said about fatiha and irshad manji! and no ‘innovation’ is allowed remember, so differences happen, but are not to be ‘tolerated’! not if you want to go to heaven anyway.
Anyway, at the end of the day we know full well ( or we ought to by now) that very few people actually pay heed to so-called core beliefs of religions, not many people care really, its all about paying lip service to an ideology your folks believe and then pitting ourselves into ‘whose side are you on anyway?’ some are more honest about this than others, there are a few sweet idealistic souls around who think their co-religionists think like they do. as far as i am concerned, its just an extension of the usual group/nation-state thing. the ‘god’ thing is really a sideshow as far as i can see, just a ‘king’ in the sky rather than earth. who would flatter themselves that a ‘god’ would bother writing ‘books’ to humans? i mean really, what anthropocentric arrogance. As if. (Surely god if it exists would find some more advanced form of communicating, you’d think anyway. At least a computer~! Or the internet or SOMETHING) Ha ha, still if it comforts people to think there is a cosmic being out there patting their heads and writing notes to them via old men in the middle eastern desert ( or the indian subcontinent etc.) i guess that’s their right. why should we deprive people of their comfort fantasies eh, given its such a miserable world and we are all drowning in existential angst…
now we’re *really* into the conspiracy theories. perhaps you’d like to give examples of how there is a “jewish” agenda to portray muslims negatively and keep them out of politics? and what is the “own interest” that you’ve identified? i only ask because you seem to have a very clear idea about this stuff and i feel i would have at least noticed it in the community before now.
this is why it must be possible to cause offence and not have this prevented in the name of “respect”. goodness knows people seem to be able to cause offence to jews without it being outlawed - look at ken livingstone’s “concentration camp guard” comment; he managed to avoid sanctions - if not censure - over it.
polygamy was outlawed in judaism (at least in christendom) in the C13th (the famous “ban of rabbenu gershom”) because it was felt it gave rise to even worse feeling than was already the case. it continued in some parts of the islamic world up until the C20th (although most people couldn’t afford it) when the remaining eastern and sephardi communities signed up to the C13th ban. incest and other sex crimes have always been a problem, of course, which is fully reflected in the legal and other discussions around those parts of the tradigion. concubinage continued up until the rise of christianity and then gradually died out, although there have been periodic attempts to resuscitate it, nachmanides for instance was quite keen on the idea as he felt it might be a solution to the problem of sex outside marriage. concubines have, in jewish law, a set of enforceable rights somewhat akin to “palimony”; in this respect it has always been somewhat more advanced than modern secular law. so, no, it’s not just a muslim thing - but it needs to be addressed if it hasn’t previously been.
as for child marriage, you become halakhically an adult at the moment you have “two [pubic] hairs”. so, consequently, if you are sexually mature, those laws apply to you. now, obviously there are young people who are not sexually active at this time and that is all to the good. jewish law has to abide by the law of the land in any case, so if child marriage is illegal here, it’s illegal halakhically. i think any point i may make here may be a little too general, so if someone would mind pointing me to a specific biblical example, i can describe how it might work in practice. i think the point is that, as with the islamic position, it really does depend - blanket condemnations are hardly going to be accurate or helpful.
no it wasn’t. he was acting in direct contravention of the Torah law which says a king isn’t allowed loads of wives (or horses, or palaces) and, moreover, these politically convenient marriages involved the wives concerned bringing their idolatrous religions with them and the Tanakh is highly, highly displeased with this. in fact, it is one of the reasons that there is a discussion about whether solomon thereby forfeited his place in the World to Come or not.
i think christians should self-police too (and they kind of are, look at the furore going on over GAFCON) and i think jews, too, should self-police. i think to a certain extent that does go on, but in many cases doesn’t go far enough. we do tend to excuse our own extremists, which i personally often (although not always) see as a failure of nerve and morality - there, avi, you see, you haven’t understood my position at all.
precisely.
this should certainly be discussed - as should the jewish batei din - but obviously there’s a sensible way to do it and a hysterical way to do it. i am for the sensible way.
this i find highly ridiculous and nonsensical. the accusation of “dhimmitude” i think has a certain truth to it sometimes, particularly as regards left-wingers (the respect party leaps to mind here) but i would hardly say it is par for the course, it’s just one piece of a very complicated puzzle.
er…. i don’t see leftie commentators being restricted from pushing *theirs*. and both pale beside the amount of media time and column width given, say, to the public meltdown of amy winehouse. what are we to infer from the obsession of the british public with celebrities, in that case? i’d say it was far more serious in terms of the healthiness of public debate.
the fact is that a lot of people in the community do not disagree with what melanie phillips says. she is entitled to say it, isn’t she? you have this rather odd assumption that whatever she says is going to be by definition wrong and extreme and the rest of the community should distance ourselves from it - but all i am saying is that a) that just isn’t realistic and b) your assumptions are quite questionable in the first place. NB - and i’ll say it yet AGAIN - that does NOT MEAN I THINK SHE IS ALWAYS RIGHT OR EVEN RIGHT MOST OF THE TIME.
gosh, avi, you are a hoot, aren’t you?
i don’t see why he should shut up. i do see why his points of view on religion should be publicly ridiculed. on the other hand, he seems to be completely unaware of how useful he is as a recruiting-sergeant for fundamentalism - he is creating more enemies for science and that can’t be a good thing.
to be precise - if they can find reasonable (not necessarily rational) grounds on which to refute his criticisms.
judaism doesn’t.
judaism is unable to “impose” on individuals if they are prepared to go their own way; it doesn’t have any physically coercive power (at least not outside the most ultra-orthodox enclaves) unlike islam or christianity.
agreed - and there are other adherents of judaism, such as myself, who oppose this as completely wrong.
i will oppose this to the last. our opposition to evangelism is one of the only things that gives us moral credibility.
no it isn’t. we gave up evangelism for very good reasons - namely, that wider society is no longer idolatrous in the sense that the Torah understands it. if everyone is obeying the 7 noahide laws (and virtually everyone does nowadays) then there is no need to convert anyone - particularly to judaism. you are simply wrong about this.