The desperation of neo-con and the “decent left” never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago a group of Muslims got together to launch a campaign called ‘Inspired by Muhammed‘ that wanted to challenge negative perceptions of Muslims. It features Muslims saying they also believe in women’s rights, protecting the environment and social justice (among other things) and so does their religion.
Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of their religion. I suppose someone like Anjem Choudhary might not care much for those ideals. Can’t see Abu Hamza caring much for the environment, nor Omar Bakri for women’s rights. But hey, isn’t it good that some Muslims do want to challenge those negative interpretations and say they also care for those ideals?
Oh nooooo. We can’t have that can we?
Over at Harry’s Place they are positively pissed off that Muslims even dare to talk about women’s rights. Edmund Standing, who previously wrote this shit report for the Centre for Social Cohesion very neatly spits out a range of Quranic verses that apparently illustrate the opposite. And he’s back at it again today.
Let me explain for those who do little to read religious texts why this is idiotic. Religious scriptures are very historical documents. Half the time they’re describing specific events, or they’re in verse and open to intepretation, or sometimes it’s just narration of history. The Koran has a mixture of all three. And not always in order. Anyone can read into it however they want to, which is why Islamic scholars have, sometimes violently (as with Christian history), fought over how verses are interpreted from the beginning of its publication. And then you have the Hadiths, which sometimes look like they’re contradicting the Koran. Interpreting the religion is not a neat process as many Muslims and their haters would like to admit.
Hell, even in Sikhism people argue over whether proper Sikhs should eat meat or not because in some cases it looks like the Gurus warn against it and in other cases it looks like they sanction it. As a general note, once Sikhs become baptised they stop eating meat. But this is by no means uniformly adhered to.
Anyway, that digression aside, this is why these people should be uniformly ignored when it comes to understanding religion.
Furthermore, Standing is interpreting the religion as how Abu Hamza et al would do and implying that this is how most Muslims approach their religion. It is as bigoted as it is ignorant – there are many feminist Muslims who have alternative interpretations.
And then there’s Douglas Murray, who coincidentally runs Centre for Social Cohesion which published Standing’s report earlier.
He asks Why don’t Catholics get taxpayer funding, like Muslims, to propagandise? – and where’s the evidence?
At least one taxpayer-funded Muslim organisation is promoting the “Inspired by Mohammed” campaign because it aims to “improve the public understanding of Islam and Muslims”. Why we taxpayers should be paying to change any understandings or misunderstandings of religion strikes me as the significant question here.
Promoting is of course different to ‘actively giving them money for that campaign’, isn’t it? Because the implication from the blog-post is that tax-payers are funding this campaign.
He wants to know why Catholics don’t get this kind of money, leaving out the Anglican Church which of course gets tons of government support to propagandise.
So which organisation is promoting this campaign and is he saying they are actively funding the IbM campaign from taxpayer money? The blog post doesn’t offer any such evidence sadly.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Media,Muslim,Organisations