- Pickled Politics - http://www.pickledpolitics.com -

Go somewhere else!

Posted By Al-Hack On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:07 pm In Media, Religion | Comments Disabled

Jews should be told quite clearly that our citizens have the legal right to criticise, lampoon, ridicule and mock Jewish leaders to their heart’s content, in any way that they wish: that Judaism and Jews have no special claim to protection from the rough and tumble of post-Enlightenment intellectual, political and social life. If they cannot live in a society in which this is the case, they should go somewhere else…

Outraged? You should be. Theodore Dalrymple in [1] the Spectator. Just substitute Jews for Muslims and Judaism for Islam. [[2] via ]


Comments Disabled To "Go somewhere else!"

#1 Comment By Sunny On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:11 pm

Lol. I wonder about Martin Sullivan’s blood pressure sometimes.

#2 Comment By mirax On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:23 pm

No I am not outraged at all. In fact I think that many, many jews can take this on the chin and move on.That despite centuries of pogroms and a holocaust in living memory.
However I am REALLY sick of how so many muslim commentators invoke the Jewish strawmen- why? Are you incapable of actually engaging with the argument on its own merits?
You are pathetic.

#3 Comment By Siddharth On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

mirax,
In the current climate, I think the substitution is absolutely valid. If you don’t want to substitute with the Jew/Judaism “strawman”, then feel free to go with Hindu/Hinduism, Sikh/Sikhism or Japanes/Shintoism alternatives into Dalrymple’s entire opus, and not just this or that article in the Spectator, and you might just see the point.

#4 Comment By Bopper On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

Surely the substance of the post is exactly what the Jews have done, there’s a lot of anti semitic rubbish out there that doesn’t provoke this reaction. Is that not a major flaw in your analogy?

Not to mention the fact that Jews can be Jews without following Judaism, which doesn’t apply to Muslims. cartoons offensive to Jews don’t show Abraham in a compromising position, they show hook nosed devils eating babies (the worst ones at least)

The biggest flaw in Dalrymple’s argument is in assuming that all muslims are mortally offended and wish to silence. most are (rightly) offended but are keeping their response in proporion to the offence. So no to death threats, no to arson, yes to complaint, yes to debate.

#5 Comment By mirax On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:51 pm

I don’t give a flying fuck about Dalrymple. It is about how muslim commentators have INVARIABLY been bringing up the jews/holocaust as if that lot are somehow sacrosanct or enjoy special protection In Europe when history so clearly teaches us otherwise. How come, if there there are so many other examples to draw from, none of these are actually used? How come the kneejerk response is always to pick on the jews?

It is especially offensive to use the jewish analogy because the jews had to put up with much more than mere offence to their religious sensibilities.

For me personally, you can substitute any other faith, that is still fair comment. Even the you-can-leave-if-you-don’t-like-it part.

#6 Comment By Al-Hack On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

Take it on the chin Mirax? Curious, given that many still get upset over that cartoon with Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby.

A lot of criticism in the west is concerned with Israeli army actions and politicians rather than an attack on Judaism, but there is no mention of the anti-semitism straw-man.

“Pathetic” is a bit harsh. Yes, many brothers are obsessed with the Jewish comparison but that does not make it entirely relevant. We are talking about usage of language here, not technicalities on who is Jewish and who is not. Right?

#7 Comment By Jay Singh On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:54 pm

Al Hack

Does Dalrymple refer to the behead them crowd or Muslims generally?

#8 Comment By Old Pickler On 10th February, 2006 @ 5:59 pm

Which bit of this, from Dalrymple’s article is (a) not true and (b) true of Jews:

Furthermore, open intellectual criticism of Islam is not welcomed in Muslim countries. A man who stood up in public and stated in a Muslim country that there is no God and Mohammed was not his prophet would be suspected of suicidal tendencies

Dalrymple’s article is extremely well balanced. Furthermore, it is the inability to take criticism that has led to the Muslim world being so backward.

#9 Comment By Old Pickler On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:01 pm

Just substitute Jews for Muslims and Judaism for Islam.

This argument is really silly. Take the sentence below:

“Some Muslims stone rape victims and fly planes into buildings, and behead people.”

(Notice, I don’t say all Muslims.)

Now, if you substitute Jews for Muslims the sentence becomes untrue, whereas previously it was true.

Th

#10 Comment By Al-Hack On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:05 pm

What about the some Israeli soldiers who shoot Palestinian girls in the head and leave them for the dead? But you have a justification for that right?

#11 Comment By Don On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

Al Hack,

your point might be more valid were it not for this;

[3] http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_printed/P180102/wk.1801.1.1.jpg

and this;

[4] http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/independent-sharon-toon.jpg

I know they are both familiar, but the implication that jews are given a protection from criticism not available to moslems just doesn’t hold water.

And there is no avoiding the fact that the response of much of the moslem press to annoyance with Denmark was to have a go at the jews.

Are you saying that the UK press would never make jokes about Moses? The suggested parallel just doesn’t work.

#12 Comment By mirax On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:14 pm

See Al-hack, you just proved my point. You have- kneejerk is the word afterall- seemlessly segued into the I-P conflict and pointscoring against the Jews. How long did that take?

So, like all the ‘bros’, you share the jewish obsession too. You just have to drag them into any and every argument dontcha?

#13 Comment By Al-Hack On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

Don, you do know that the New Statesmen had to apologise for that front cover, and the Indy was taken to the PCC for that cartoon, and is still regularly cited as “anti-semitic” by many.

The people who criticise Muslims, do they apply the same rules to other states such as the IDF treatment of Palestinians?
The cartoon controversy has no relevance. Talking about British press here mate.

#14 Comment By Al-Hack On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

That was for Old Pickler, Mirax.

#15 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

However I am REALLY sick of how so many muslim commentators invoke the Jewish strawmen- why? Are you incapable of actually engaging with the argument on its own merits?

Im not a muslim commentator and i draw parallels with judaism, the freedom of speech issue (regarding the holocaust) as well as the sustained villification that lead to the holocaust are pretty good reasons. Since judaism and islam also share a common religious history its easier to draw comparisons.

That isn’t necesarily to imply anything negative on judaism itself, although i accept that some do just that.

There are plenty of other ways to make points regarding the lack of freedom of speech/expression and the need for journalistic standards to avoid offence, being arrested for walking naked and not showing budd dwyer type footage on tv are just two.

Its easier to choose a cause someone has a lot of solidarity or understanding with and use that to create parallels than to pick something, that although relevant isn’t as emotinally hardhitting.

Anywho Dalrymple’s ‘OMG WE CAN SAY WOT WE WANT AND AND U CAN SHUT UP AND GO AWAY IF YOU DONT LEIK IT’ rant is so predictable. I wouldn’t mind so much if they carried their arguments forward and allowed people to hold completely hostile views whilst still staying in the country, but the

‘OH YEH YEH IF U DON AGREE WIV ME WHY DON U JUST LEAVE THE COUNTRY!!!’

is so repulsively authoritarian i lose the will to take them seriously.

#16 Comment By Jay Singh On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:27 pm

Well, if he was referring to those people who say behead and kill and Sharia is best and England is a rotten disgusting society, I admit that in my private moments, I too have whispered, ‘So what are you doing here then?’

But the rhetoric gets transformed easily into Fuck Off Back to where you come from Paki Bastard by those less eloquent than the author (not just racists, but Old ‘The Japs deserved to be interned’ Pickler)

#17 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:31 pm

Which bit of this, from Dalrymple’s article is (a) not true and (b) true of Jews:

Furthermore, open intellectual criticism of Islam is not welcomed in Muslim countries. A man who stood up in public and stated in a Muslim country that there is no God and Mohammed was not his prophet would be suspected of suicidal tendencies

The statement is pointless without defining what he exactly means by muslim countries, but if we are to make comparisons with jews (he started it mirax!!!!) i doubt anyone standing up in israel and stating there was/is no Yahwe that the entire notion of a state for people of the jewish faith is fairist bollocks and that israel should stop being the jewish state and start being the all-encompassing-non-denominational-faith-of-the-middle-east would be looked at funny. And since the ultra-orthodox have shown their willingness to defend their homeland at all costs (including assasination) any such person could well be said to have suicidal tendencies.

#18 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

Fascist.

joking bwana,

it isn’t enough to say ‘go away then’ to anyone, everyone from the suffragettes to those fighting for gay-rights have been told to ‘fuck off then’ by society. You may not agree with what they say but unless you live an utterly un hypocritical life where the your wee is nectar you can’t claim someone elses hypocrisy is enough to cast them out.

#19 Comment By Don On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

As for defining Muslim countries, lets take KSA, Pakistan and any other of your choosing.

So, a jewish Israeli publishes an article which says ‘I am an atheist and I believe zionism is wrong. Jaweh does not exist and the jews have no special status in the world.’ You are probably right, he would get looked at funny and run into hostility.

A Pakistani raised as a moslem publishes an article which says, ‘ There is no Allah, Mohammed was not a prophet and Islam is not a superior way of life.’

Equally suicidal? Really?

#20 Comment By Jay Singh On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:51 pm

I am with Don on this one.

#21 Comment By Jay Singh On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:53 pm

I mean in so far as it is unlikely that many Jews would bomb and burn and call for beheadings if someone did that.

Notwitstanding the Kahane tendency of course.

#22 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 6:59 pm

As for defining Muslim countries, lets take KSA, Pakistan and any other of your choosing.

I choose Turkey and India.

The point you’re trying to make is

‘in authoritarian nations you can’t say something the state won’t like’

well duh.

Equally suicidal? Really?

You’re changing the nature of the question (again).

#23 Comment By Don On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:11 pm

Ok, fair enough. I gave you a free choice and you chose india as a muslim country. Fine. Also secular Turkey. I think the point still stands. Criticism of Judaism and zionism, even within Israel, leads to heated debate and hostility. Criticism of Islam, as religion or ideology, even in non-moslem lands, lead to a credible threat to life.

I’m changing the nature of the question? Your point in #17, as I read it, was that Dalrymple’s assertion that ‘A man who stood up in public and stated in a Muslim country that there is no God and Mohammed was not his prophet would be suspected of suicidal tendencies’ was equally true of Israel and judaism. I suggest it is not. How is that changing the nature of the question? And what’s with the ‘again’?

#24 Comment By Old Pickler On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

doubt anyone standing up in israel and stating there was/is no Yahwe that the entire notion of a state for people of the jewish faith is fairist bollocks and that israel should stop being the jewish state and start being the all-encompassing-non-denominational-faith-of-the-middle-east would be looked at funny.

On the contrary. This kind of thing is printed in the Guardian every day and raises not a whisper.

Even within Israel, atheism is tolerated in a way that would be unimaginable in a Muslim country. And Jews don’t want theirs to be the “all encompassing faith of the middle east”. They just want 0.02%, yes, as little as that, of the huge land to live on in peace. Judaism has never sought converts at all, let alone at the point of a sword, as has Islam. And there is certainly no death penalty for leaving it.

#25 Comment By Sunny On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:29 pm

A man who stood up in public and stated in a Muslim country that there is no God and Mohammed was not his prophet would be suspected of suicidal tendencieswas equally true of Israel and judaism

Don - but both would be fine in the UK. Why does the debate keep veering towards opressive middle eastern states? We’re talking about British Muslims here generally, not those in KSA.

#26 Comment By Sunny On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:31 pm

Judaism has never sought converts at all, let alone at the point of a sword, as has Islam
And Christianity, in the past, remember?

#27 Comment By Old Pickler On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:33 pm

Salman Rushdie got fatwa’d for writing bad stuff about Mo. Hirsi Ali gets death threats for speaking against Islam, not in KSA but in Holland. If she were here she would get the same.

#28 Comment By Old Pickler On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:34 pm

Yes, but Christianity does not tell people to do this. Islam does. Islam still forces people to be Muslim, in nearly all Muslim countries.

#29 Comment By mirax On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

This is what was actually said : NO SPECIAL CLAIM to protection from the rough and tumble of post-Enlightenment intellectual, political and social life.

Presumably, all faiths/ethnic/special interest groups start on the basis of equal treatment- that is the social contract -and within the terms of this contract, they have full liberty to agree or disagree with one another, take the piss out of one other’s gods etc but NOT to deny this fundamental freedom to any other component of society. If you cannot live by this basic contract, then go somewhere like say Malaysia where the social contract is predicated on a ethnic/religious hierarchy that may be more to your inclination. Surely Dalrymple is not a crypto-racist for stating just this?

#30 Comment By mirax On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

Why does the debate keep veering towards opressive middle eastern states? We’re talking about British Muslims here generally, not those in KSA.

Ah Sunny, you see it starts with Al Hack and Kulwinder shifting the focus from British Muslims to Jews, then to Israel (naturally!), smack into the middle-east miasma. That is diversionary, that is why the jewish strawman is always taken out for an airing. My original point, hence.

#31 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:52 pm

Ok, fair enough. I gave you a free choice and you chose india as a muslim country. Fine. Also secular Turkey.

India has the second largest muslim population mang, and someone tell teh frogs turkey is a secular country, they’re fighitng entry into the EU - the bastards

no i meant muslim nations

id have thought the country with the second largest muslim popluation and turkey were good enough

no muslim nations

like what?!?!?!!?

nations where islam plays in politics

like india and turkey

no MUSLIM NATIONS india and turkey are secular, where religion doesn’t play a part in politics

…mang, i don’t think you know enough about india and turkey, i mean like really.

listen you obstinate bastard, muslim nations like saudi arabia and iran

AFAIK the saudis consider shias to be borderline muslims at the very best or more likely damned apostates, they can’t both be muslim??

saudi arabia and pakistan

Soooo what you’re saying is you’re choosing all the authoritarian regimes and saying if you don’t do as the state says you’re fucked.

You can’t critise islam

But everyone does Dalrymple does, littlejohn does, kilroy does, coulter and an assortment of nut jobs in america do, they’re all living (the bastards)

look i can’t walk up to a muslim and call muhammad a cunt without the risk of being punched

i know its terrible i can’t walk up to a black person and call him nigger without being punched, c’est terrible. And as for what gay people do when i call them faggots…

‘A man who stood up in public and stated in a Muslim country that there is no God and Mohammed was not his prophet would be suspected of suicidal tendencies’ was equally true of Israel and judaism. I suggest it is not. How is that changing the nature of the question?

You’re comparing an authoritarian nation to one that isn’t as authoritarian, I choose turkey and israel and yes its about as equally likely.

And what’s with the ‘again’?

People keep saying ‘muslim nations’ and i don’t have a clue what the fck they’re on about.

On the contrary. This kind of thing is printed in the Guardian every day and raises not a whisper.

The guardian isn’t printed in israel!!!!!!!!!!

Even within Israel, atheism is tolerated in a way that would be unimaginable in a Muslim country.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MUSLIM COUNTRY

And Jews don’t want theirs to be the “all encompassing faith of the middle east”. They just want 0.02%, yes, as little as that, of the huge land to live on in peace.

I couldn’t care less if it was 100% or 0.02% defining the existence of a nation based solely on a single faith and giving those of that faith greater rights than others is inherently a fascist and deplorable act, wether it be a moonie state a sikh one or a jewish one. Its all the more worse if you try to juxtapose that with ‘modern western liberalism’

#32 Comment By Clive On 10th February, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

Jews are an ethnic group. Judaism is a religion. To mock Judaism is one thing and perfectly acceptable - after all, no set of ideas should be immune from criticism, ridicule or parody.

To mock Jews is another, far more sinister prospect, picking as it does on an aspect of their personhood over which they have no control.

The analogy doesn’t work. Islam is not a race.

#33 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

NO SPECIAL CLAIM to protection from the rough and tumble of post-Enlightenment intellectual, political and social life.

Oh i couldn’t agree more, but the only way to have that system is to have no protection from the rough and tumble of post-enlightenment intellectual and social life.

I have always stated that verbalising a thought should not be illegal.

The problem is that certian post-enlightened intellectual and social nations in western europe do afford special exemption.

#34 Comment By Sunny On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:03 pm

Heh, killed it Kulvinder.

#35 Comment By Kulvinder On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:07 pm

Jews are an ethnic group. Judaism is a religion. To mock Judaism is one thing and perfectly acceptable - after all, no set of ideas should be immune from criticism, ridicule or parody.

To mock Jews is another, far more sinister prospect, picking as it does on an aspect of their personhood over which they have no control.

Nothing should be exempt from ridicule, criticism or parody, all you’re arguing is that freedom of speech should be limited to where you say it should be.

besides from the dictionary

Jew P Pronunciation Key (j)
n.
An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Where exactly is the trait you’re born with and don’t choose?

#36 Comment By Steve M On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

Look up ‘genetics’, in your dictionary.

#37 Comment By Jay Singh On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

Kulwinder

You are all over the place - I have never seen such a slippery relativist bullshitter in action like you before.

#38 Comment By Don On 10th February, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

Sunny,

I didn’t raise the issue of ME states, I was responding to Kulvinder’s point. ‘but both would be fine in the UK’. No they wouldn’t. Someone from a muslim background who publicly made such a statement would need protection, someone from a jewish background wouldn’t.

Kulvinder,

I said fine, didn’t I? I accept your choices. And I re-assert that an apostate muslim who openly criticised his/her former religion in either of these countries would stand in more danger than the jewish equivalent.

’someone tell the frogs turkey is a secular country,’ OK; Frogs, Turkey is a secular country. Touch of deja vu there, wasn’t that what I said?

Is the imaginary discussion you have in the next 15 or so lines meant to represent my position? Great debating technique, just you and a ventriloquist’s dummy.

‘Soooo what you’re saying is you’re choosing all the authoritarian regimes and saying if you don’t do as the state says you’re fucked.’ No, I’m not saying that. I am responding to your assertion that an atheist jew openly hostile to zionism is in no more personal danger than an apostate muslim openly hostile to Islam. That was your assertion, it is you who are changing the terms of the question. You claim that you have no idea what people mean by a moslem state, so I suggested a couple which have Islam as part of the fabric of their statehood. I invited you to choose others, you chose a secular state and one with a minority (although large) moslem population. I made no objection to that. Why do you characterise me as whining about it? I’m happy with the sample.

‘You’re comparing an authoritarian nation to one that isn’t as authoritarian, ‘ I am comparing a nation which defines itself as jewish with one which defines itself as Islamic. The degree of authoritarianism is relevant, I will concede, but I offered you the choice of ground and did not, as you imply, bitch about your choice.

And what’s with the ‘again’?

People keep saying ‘muslim nations’ and i don’t have a clue what the fck they’re on about.

What am I? suddenly resposible for what ‘people’ say? And the word is spelled ‘fuck’.

Kulvinder, I agree with about 80% of what you say, but your sophistry leads you into untennable positions. And kindly stop mis-characterising my position. Going to the pub now, catch you later.

#39 Comment By soru On 10th February, 2006 @ 9:25 pm

Jews are an ethnic group. Judaism is a religion.

Except that, for better or worse, in the UK, Muslim is unquestionably an ethnic group.

I vaguely suspect the reason for this is the same as the explanation why Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are all, in the UK, called ‘Asian’ - in a word, Kashmir.

soru

#40 Comment By Sunny On 10th February, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

Someone from a muslim background who publicly made such a statement would need protection,

Don - And you’re basing that on what? Irshad Manji has come on the BBC Asian Network more than a few times asking for reform, as a homosexual Muslim, AFAIK she is not dead yet.

Steve - Look up ‘genetics’, in your dictionary.
I really don’t buy that. Israel is quite racially diverse, as are Jews from around the world, specially those in India.
Despite the fact that most humans share the same genes anyway, I assume what you mean that all Jews are of the same racial origin. I don’t see how that is the case when you get Arabic Jews, Indian Jews, European Jews etc. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Jay - I understood his point perfectly, I don’t get what’s slippery about Kulvinder.

#41 Comment By martin On 10th February, 2006 @ 9:41 pm

One only has to consider Simon Schama and Jeff Goldblum to see that the claim that Jews are a race is nonsense; they might have been two thousand years ago but clearly, since then, an awful lot of Jewish women have been impregnated by non-Jewish neighbours in the various countries of the diaspora.

#42 Comment By Bikhair On 10th February, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

old Pickler,

“And there is certainly no death penalty for leaving it.”

Not anymore.

#43 Comment By Steve M On 10th February, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

I don’t keep up with all the research but my understanding is that there [i]are[/i] clear genetic links between European Jews and Arab Jews.

Martin, with Judaism the religion is passed via the mother. The maternal line is quite reliable.

#44 Comment By Steve M On 10th February, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

are ???

#45 Comment By Bikhair On 10th February, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

Clive,

You gotta explain something to me.

“Jews are an ethnic group. Judaism is a religion.”

People can convert to Judaism right, that would make them relgiously Jewish but not ethnically Jewish? But if a female convert to Judaism has a child, does that child become ethnically Jewish or just born of a convert to Judaism? Are Jews from all over the world, Eastern European, Western European, North African, East African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian ethnically the same?

#46 Comment By Bikhair On 10th February, 2006 @ 10:34 pm

Old Pickler,

“Salman Rushdie got fatwa’d for writing bad stuff about Mo. Hirsi Ali gets death threats for speaking against Islam, not in KSA but in Holland. If she were here she would get the same. ”

I’ve got to reveal something to you about Islamic law. I cant speak about Salman Rushdie’s case because I am not familiar with Shiaism. I can say that only scholars can pass fatwa. These fatwas cant extend beyound the borders of Muslim control. Now you can talk about Muslims threaten this, and Muslims terrorise that, but the Sharia is clear that the resposibility of coming to a judgement, passing judgement, and implementing judgement, is not the business of Muslims but that of the leader and those he has entrusted.

Now if Salman Rushdie, or Hirsi Ali went to the KSA talking all that, you know what, then the people of that country, the aforementioned people, would have the right, the obligation to deal with her according to the Sharia.

#47 Comment By Steve M On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:12 am

Bikhair,

If a woman converts to Judaism and then has children they would certainly be Jewish. If she has children when she converts I think that they would need to convert. However, I’m not sure about this as I’m not ‘religious’.

I don’t think that you could say that Jews from all over the world are ‘ethnically the same’. However, for the most part you could say that they have share common genes which are specifically associated with Judaism. An explanation for this perhaps is that firstly, the number of converts has been a relatively low proportion. Secondly, the majority of women who convert do it for reasons of marriage. Thirdly, once they’re living a Jewish life, their children are likely themselves to marry within the faith and thus strengthen the genetic links for future offspring.

‘Who is a Jew?’ can be a complex question. Throughout history, Jewish identity has been defined by the persecutors as well as from within. Those who hate the Jews don’t really care which parent is which. The NF say that they don’t support the England football team. This is partl;y because of the black players in the side but mostly because David Beckham has a Jewish grandfather.

#48 Comment By Don On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:17 am

Sunny.

‘Even at a conference in Oxford last week she felt unsafe — despite extra security — with police sifting through “disgusting e-mails” and threats after her appearance on Newsnight’

[5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968,00.html

If she feels unsafe, that is her call.

#49 Comment By mirax On 11th February, 2006 @ 1:47 am

“on the BBC Asian Network more than a few times asking for reform, as a homosexual Muslim, AFAIK she is not dead yet.”

This is the level of your thinking, Sunny? Death threats, police protection and the constant looking over your shoulder all A-OK as long as the woman AINT dead yet???!! Shades of Sid’s argument once that there is no real harmful anti-semitism (er,bar the holocaust of course).

No wonder you are so tolerant of a ‘debate’ that was supposed to be about civil liberties/freedom of speech but has slipped and slided into the vital discussion of who is a real jew and which jewish woman fucked her gentile
neighbour over the last 1000 years.

Yeah you get kulwinder and I am beginning to get you.

Steve - Look up ‘genetics’, in your dictionary.
I really don’t buy that. Israel is quite racially diverse, as are Jews from around the world, specially those in India.
Despite the fact that most humans share the same genes anyway, I assume what you mean that all Jews are of the same racial origin. I don’t see how that is the case when you get Arabic Jews, Indian Jews, European Jews etc. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Jay - I understood his point perfectly, I don’t get what’s slippery about Kulvinder.

#50 Comment By Kulvinder On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:30 am

You are all over the place - I have never seen such a slippery relativist bullshitter in action like you before.

I asked my dad, he can still beat yours up.

#51 Comment By Kulvinder On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:35 am

and i accept this thread is going off on a tangent so ill mumble off somehwhere else :(

#52 Comment By Sunny On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:45 am

Yeah you get kulwinder and I am beginning to get you.

FFS mirax, what exactly are you getting? Stop being so damn obtuse. What is this? A plan by two non-religious Punjabi males to subvert the world into their ideology of chauvinistic racism or something?

The whole judaism=race is something I haven’t really heard about until very recently, because to be honest most of my mates have been Asian, or Christians (and all fairly non-religious). So I’m asking a few questions and you’re suddenly starting to get me?? Stop patronising me, please.

I was having the same debate with a national (white) journalist a few weeks ago, who also said she couldn’t understand it why Jews were politically classified as a race.

Sikhs for example are too, and given that they’ve traditionally remained in the same area of India for the past 500 years, and its not a religion that encourages converts - you could make the same argument. Same goes for Hindus. You don’t get many Hindus in Mongolia or China for example…. So you can start calling them ethnic groups too… but you can’t because race and religion are too different things. You get white Sikhs from America… are they part of the same racial group?

And given the same line of thinking, surely Arab Muslims and Arab Jews share more traits and genes than Arab Jews and Indian Jews? It doesn’t seem logical. Why the touchiness, I’m just trying to ask because this is a forum to learn more about each other.

There isn’t a problem with Old Pickler coming here and telling us that the British Raj was a great thing for the uncivilised Indians, and that Muslims worship a warmongerer etc, but you seem to be getting more uptight than Steve is when I ask why Jews are classified as a race.

As for:
This is the level of your thinking, Sunny? Death threats, police protection and the constant looking over your shoulder all A-OK as long as the woman AINT dead yet???!! Shades of Sid’s argument once that there is no real harmful anti-semitism (er,bar the holocaust of course).

This is toally absurd. My line of thinking is that there are plenty of Muslim nutters out there, specially the fuckwits who were marching around last Friday. But how much of this is imagined and how much is real? Do you know? Since you seem to be clued up on British life, maybe you do… but for a person who’s been harassed more by Hindu and white fanatics than actually Muslim fanatics (though I see the MPAC lot are having a friendly ‘discussion’ about me), I wonder how much is rhetoric and how much is real.

Now excuse me for throwing in some cynicism here but this does not have any relation to whether she’s a woman, and certainly not to anyone Jewism or the level of anti-semitism. So I don’t know why you brought it up… but you need to drop that chip on your shoulder before you have sane discussion.

#53 Comment By Clive On 11th February, 2006 @ 7:47 am

Except that, for better or worse, in the UK, Muslim is unquestionably an ethnic group

How do you work that one out? With Muslims in Britain coming from Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia and Eastern Europe, not to mention white British converts, there’s no way they’re an ethnic group.

But for me, this raises another thought. It seems to me that the whole idea of “the Muslim community” is something that has arisen over the past ten years or so. Previously, people would have been defined by their ethnicity rather than their religion. Where has this sudden shift in thinking come from?

To my mind, there’s no more a “Muslim community” than there is a “gay community” - collections of disparate people who share one defining factor are not “communities”. It’s as nonsensical as talking about “the redheaded community” or “the left-handed community”.

#54 Comment By Vikrant On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:19 am

Oh wait i got an idea… lets make this blog solely dedicated to Israel and Palestine. Forget the fact that most of us here are British Asians.

#55 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:34 am

Here are the lovely boys and girls of the message board of MPACUK on our Sunny.

+++++

Thread title: Who’s Sunny?

Who is this Sunny guy? By any chance is he that lunatic that was on Islam Channel with Asghar and I think Abdul Wajid from HT discussing why HT shouldn’t be banned

he hates muslims thats for sure, i had sumfin on this ill get it very soon n show who he is.
he is another guy who needs exposing no doubt!

Yeah, his name is Sunny Hundal, from Southall. He is a moron of the highest order. He clearly has issues with Mulsims.

i caught a bit of it when he was on islam channel…agree with solid snake “moron of highest order”…wa’salaam

sunny boy showed himself to be intellectualy decrepid, prepared to lie, prepared to distort and unable to accept/learn from his mistakes. no wonder this joker is going to ’succeed’ in his line of journalism

++++

#56 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:34 am

Sunny = My Hero ;-)

#57 Comment By Vikrant On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:39 am

Looool. Sunny this shows ye are on a right track.

#58 Comment By Don On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:40 am

They’ve got sumfin on Sunny?

#59 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 11:41 am

Clive

You are right that Islam has become the prime political identitt factor for Muslims in Britain, most of whom are from Pakistan/Bangladesh, and previously they would say that they were primarily Asian, thus having a kind of secular, ethnic identity, along with Sikhs and Hindus.

In the last 17 years, since the Rushdie affair, this has changed, and Islam has been priveliged over race.

Personally, I HATE this, for a number of reasons, not least because it has meant the marginalisation of Sikhs and Hindus to a certain degree, as well as a quickening of religious identity being asserted amongst those communities.

I HATE it too because religious and communal politics stinks, is unruly, and poisonous.

But you have to deal with it because Muslims view themselves in that way and they are not going to change for the foreseeable future, so your comparing of this with a nebulous ‘identity’ such as ‘Red Headed Identity’ is facile and doesnt really help you to understand the dynamics of what is happening.

#60 Comment By Old Pickler On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

intellectualy decrepid

They’ll be saying next that he can’t spell.

Sunny must be getting “sumfin” (sic) right if these idiots - the same who said Yusuf Smith was a Zionist - have got it in for him.

#61 Comment By Bilal McDaniel On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

Old Picklestein,

Reading your posts about Israel caused my jaw to hit the floor, the double standards and the ad homiam attacks against Muslims truely left me shell shocked.

I think we can all agree that the Palestinians have suffered one of the worlds biggest historical injustices, whatever one may think of the competing claims to the holy land. Until this is recognized, discussion of the Middle East crisis cannot even begin. Moreover, I think we can be reasonably confident that if Jews had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. Of course their is “terrorism” I prefer the word resistance, but it’s very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli state terrorism. Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It’s not unusual. State terror is almost always much more extreme than retail terror, and this is no exception.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president (or for British Prime Minister)would have been hanged(of course, the bombing of Serbs to save the Bosnians and Kosavars is different matter.)

In light of what the Jews and America have done or plan to do in the Middle East Iran would be crazy not to develop nuclear weapons. America’s and its Jewish lackeys in the Middle East have even radicalized me, after watching the Genital mocking at Abu Gharab the Quaran mishandaling at Gautanamo, the Mosque shooting in Faluja, and the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed during the “liberation” or Iraq and Afganistan, all killed by BuShaitan and his Yahood ally in Jersualem, I become enranged and play one of Brother Zarkawi’s DVD’s the one of the fat infidel in the orange jumpsuit squealing like a crusader pig as his head is removed (according to the Holy Koran’s instructions), I laugh so hard.

#62 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:42 pm

Ah, the old troll impersonating white converts to Islam is back!

#63 Comment By Bilal McDaniel On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:43 pm

Just saw “The Syrian Bride” last night with the missus. What a great movie, the soundtract from Cyril Morin is sublime and Clar Khoury, despite her very prominant semitic nose, is very hot. Some of you whose taste in cinema is less serious and more bollywood might not enjoy it, (there is no dancing or singing)

#64 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

Sunny must be getting “sumfin” (sic) right if these idiots - the same who said Yusuf Smith was a Zionist - have got it in for him.

Old Pickler, I feel the same whenever one of your type starts bawling at him.

#65 Comment By Bilal McDaniel On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

Jay,

Why would a sikh get upset about a troll impersonating Muslims? In fact I was shahadized a while a go and enjoy my new faith thank you very much.

So fuck off!

#66 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

Bilal

Yoo’re the same man that was impersonating Yusuf Smith, Yahya Birt, and Michael Muhammad knight, arent ya? And you chat like a parody of a froth-at-the-mouth Richard Reid but the fact is, you’re just a troll ;-)

Dude, sort out your issues.

#67 Comment By Old Pickler On 11th February, 2006 @ 1:16 pm

one of your type …

I don’t have a type. I’m uniquely wonderful. And Sunny loves me really.

#68 Comment By j0nz On 11th February, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

Well going back to the original article, what’s wrong with the point Theodore Dalrymple is actually making?

I mean I kind of expect that typical reactions of Islamophobe from Al-Hack/Siddarth. But let’s face it, who hasn’t pondered why people who hate this country so much, and love the utopia of Shari’a, I mean why the fuck should everyone else have to suffer their whinging, and condoing of violence to otherthrow government?

Why don’t they go and live in some hell-hole in the Mddle East and give us some peace?

In summation of what most others have said on this thread, it is indeed facile to attempt to equivocate Judaism, Muslims, Jews, and Islam.

Jews didn’t blow up the tube, Muslims did. Jews didn’t fly airliners into buildings, Muslims did. This is patently obvious. Anyone who lives in this country and is proud ot their country (be they any colour, any religion) has the right to remove elements from society that pose a threat to others. If that means deporting nasty characters who preech haterd, then so be it!

P.s. Sunny; hater of Muslims!!! Some MPACers are twisted fucks, if you don’t mind me saying. Maybe not twisted, just delusional and low on common sense.

#69 Comment By soru On 11th February, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

How do you work that one out? With Muslims in Britain coming from Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia and Eastern Europe, not to mention white British converts, there’s no way they’re an ethnic group.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. An ethnic group given an arguably bad or misleading name remains an ethnic group, as does a political movement.

Has anyone seen someone like, say, Richard Thompson invited along to a panel discussion of what british muslims think?

The [6] Somali community in Cardiff is always referred to in that way, to avoid misleading people by saying they are Muslims. Obviously religiously they are, but ethnically they are not. I think the same is generally true of Turks , Arabs, Kurds, etc.

English is a bitch of a language sometimes.

soru

#70 Comment By Bilal McDaniel On 11th February, 2006 @ 3:45 pm

Jay

“Yoo’re the same man that was impersonating Yusuf Smith, Yahya Birt, and Michael Muhammad knight”

Ah, no. Yusuf is a zionist, never heard of Yahya and Mcihael “Muhammad” is an apostate who only converted to Islam to improve his chances in shagging a desi.

“arent ya?”

Honestly Jay, I have to sometimes refer my Fritz Spiegl’s “Lern Yerself Scouse.” to understand you.

“And you chat like a parody of a froth-at-the-mouth Richard Reid but the fact is, you’re just a troll .”

Why bring brother Reid into this? The poor man is suffering and all you can do is mock him.

It seems hat all you want to do is submitt all problems to the cold to the cold lifless scrutiny of reason not elightened by the Quran and Sunnah. I think your the one in need of help

#71 Comment By Sunny On 11th February, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

Bili - please STFU and stick to the topic. And Jay, there’s no need. I’ll handle the trolls. I don’t want everything turned into a slagging match.

#72 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 3:54 pm

Alright Sunny - but watch this cat’s tail - he has serious issues!

#73 Comment By Clive On 11th February, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

An ethnic group given an arguably bad or misleading name remains an ethnic group

So why not just be clear and say Bangladeshi or Pakistani rather than Muslim?

#74 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 4:01 pm

So why not just be clear and say Bangladeshi or Pakistani rather than Muslim?

Clive, did you read my earlier post?

Ultimately, Muslims are going to say that it is up to them how they want to be defined, primarily by their religion or ethnicity.

#75 Comment By Bikhair On 11th February, 2006 @ 4:18 pm

I’ve got to ask why countries in the Middle East are always described as hell-holes?

#76 Comment By raz On 11th February, 2006 @ 4:35 pm

PP is getting way too bogged down with ‘Islam in the UK’ issues these days. I’d like to see some more diversity in the stories covered here *yawn*

#77 Comment By Bilal McDaniel On 11th February, 2006 @ 5:31 pm

Bikhair I thought you were from ameriKKKa?

“I’ve got to ask why countries in the Middle East are always described as hell-holes?”

Well who controls the media? I think if you connect the dots your question will answered right away.

I live on a higher moral plane than most. All I have seen on the right-wing media ( ccn, msnbc,cbs,abc nbc, bbc) is all of the fake rioting, or killing going on in the middle east. this is just a plot to get bushitlerhaliburton a reson to drop naplam on more arab kids. Don’t fall for it!

WE MUST CONTINUE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!

#78 Comment By Sunny On 11th February, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

Raz - given current controversies, it is relevant and not surprising, is it? I would like to cover other stories, but firstly there is a demand for them, and secondly I think its important we also provide a diff perspective on issues rather than just ignore them and hope they go away. I don’t want to overkill the Danish cartoons controversy, but as there was a protest about them today too, it is still very much current affairs. The spotlight on Muslims is there, and some issues need discussing.

Bilal - How exactly do you live on a “higher moral place”? If you want to peddle conspiracy theories, please do it somewhere else.

#79 Comment By raz On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

Sunny, don’t get me wrong. If something is worth discussing then it should be brought out into the open. This isn’t about shielding the Muslim community from criticism. But I think there is a danger of Pickled Politics becoming Muslim Politics. Also, given that many of these stories are also being repeated ad nauseam in the media, isn’t there a case for PP trying to highlight some less well publicised topics which SHOULD be getting attention but don’t, rather than sticking to the flavour of the week e.g. cartoon controversy.

#80 Comment By Rohin On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:33 pm

Have you guys seen this?

[7] http://littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/

#81 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

That is really funny Rohin!

#82 Comment By Don On 11th February, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

I want to buy those dudes a drink.

#83 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 7:01 pm

There is no reason why Pickled Politics can’t include both Raz - maybe they just need more people to write for them.

#84 Comment By Rohin On 11th February, 2006 @ 8:11 pm

Well Raz I do concede that a lot of the posts involve Muslim stories, but that’s not because we have any agenda. I think it’s important that Sunny, I and Al-Hack have posted up threads about the cartoons as it’s an attempt to put forward a viewpoint that is under-represented in the media at large. That is, an Asian and non-extremist view. There have been interviews with Asian and Muslim figures, but with PP being quoted in the Times and around the blogosphere, clearly people ARE keen to find out what regular Asians are saying about the big topics. However we will also try to highlight overlooked stories too - like Sunny’s [8] latest post.

#85 Comment By soru On 11th February, 2006 @ 8:56 pm

So why not just be clear and say Bangladeshi or Pakistani rather than Muslim?

One reason is, as I said, Kashmir - the English way is very much not to bring up any political topic over which people are likely to have strong views. Much more polite to classify people based on how they dress, and what they say when you offer them a beer or burger.

The other is that the commonest racial slur when I was growing up was ‘paki’ (applied equally to indian hindus, sikhs, etc) , so saying ‘Pakistani’ feels a little bit like saying ‘he is from Niggerland’.

A realted case is ‘Israeli arab’, just about always used to describe people of a muslim religion in israel, despite the fact that they (beduoins excepted) are almost entirely the descendants of jews who converted to islam some time since the arab conquest.

soru

#86 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 9:20 pm

but with PP being quoted in the Times and around the blogosphere, clearly people ARE keen to find out what regular Asians are saying about the big topics

Rohin, what are the average visitor figures? Per day?

#87 Comment By Sunny On 11th February, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

About 6000 - 8000 pages a day viewed. I think probably around 1000 unique visitors a day, though I haven’t been tracking the stats too closely yet.

#88 Comment By Jay Singh On 11th February, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

Impressive Sunny - congratulations! Lets hope it goes from strength to strength.

#89 Comment By Rohin On 11th February, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

You can tell I have no time as I’m not making full posts out of these - but here’s another link for you to enjoy:

[9] http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2006/02/10-commandments-yesterday-night-i-had.html

#90 Comment By Clive On 12th February, 2006 @ 10:44 am

Ultimately, Muslims are going to say that it is up to them how they want to be defined, primarily by their religion or ethnicity.

Which is of course fair and right. But which Muslims, where? And who does the deciding? I am white British, baptised a Methodist. If someone, somewhere decided for me that I was to be described as a member of the Christian community, I would be somewhat miffed.

#91 Comment By Jay Singh On 12th February, 2006 @ 12:42 pm

Clive

On balance, through their actions, attitude and politics of identity, the majority of Muslims have made it so.

Is it asphyxiating for dissenters, arbitrary, and skewed? In my opinion, yes. In fact I would go as far as to say that it is deeply divisive and has been disastrous.

But we can’t avoid it, and have to engage Muslims on their own self-defined terms TO A CERTAIN DEGREE

So it is best to accept in good faith this phenomenon - and lay down the points of issue and concern accordingly.

#92 Comment By jamal On 12th February, 2006 @ 6:34 pm

Any attack on Islam is deemed acceptable or ignored, but when it is focused at judaism there is outrage.

I remember when Ken Livingstone compared a reporter to a concentration camp guard there was outrage resulting in him nearly losing his job. In comparison, over the past 5 years politicians haqve constantly negatively referred to Islam without redress.

Then theres the cartoons that were ignored since september 2005, despite a slow burning campaign. If it was against jews an apology would have been issued following the first round of complaints.

However the links between Xenophobia, Anti Semitism AND Islamophobia are now being made, recently focused on by the OIC.

#93 Comment By dougal On 12th February, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

A Jew writes…
I am so okay with all of that.

#94 Comment By Sunny On 12th February, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

To be honest Jamal - the OIC has no credibility in telling Europe to tackle Islamophobia before they tackle the anti-semitism that comes out of their own media. The countries involved are a bunch of hypocrities.

Europe would deal with Islamophobia based on its own values, not those dictated by the Middle East of all places, where religious freedom is rarer than gold.

#95 Comment By kippers On 13th February, 2006 @ 4:41 pm

I can’t see that anyone has brought this up yet so here goes..

Why should I be outraged? I fully agree with Dalrymple. Jews, HIndus, Muslims, Christians, Scientologists and any other sort of supernaturalists should accept that their leaders will indeed be criticised and lampooned. And rightly so. That is the principle of Freedom of expression on which the secular West is based.

If they really cannot stand to be surrounded by what they consider to be blasphermy, then there will be places where they can live in peace from the “heretics”. Just as I wouldn’t live in Finland because I can’t stand the cold, they don’t have to live where people *might* just take the piss out of them and their teapot worshopping weirdness.

You should all stop being so sensitive. This is not cryto-fascism, it is common sense.


Article printed from Pickled Politics: http://www.pickledpolitics.com

URL to article: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/288

URLs in this post:
[1] the Spectator: http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7316&issue=2006-02-11
[2] via: http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2006/2/10/muslims-go-home.html
[3] http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_printed/P180102/wk.1801.1.1.jpg: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_printed/P180102/wk.1801.1.1.jpg
[4] http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/independent-sharon-toon.jpg: http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/independent-sharon-toon.jpg
[5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968,00.html: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968,00.html
[6] Somali community in Cardiff: http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/wales/w_se/article_2.shtml
[7] http://littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/: http://littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/
[8] latest post: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/289
[9] http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2006/02/10-commandments-yesterday-night-i-had.html: http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2006/02/10-commandments-yesterday-night-i-had.html