tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post3231499065098292479..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Islam and the New Atheists Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87450784317266120142013-08-09T21:31:38.223+01:002013-08-09T21:31:38.223+01:00That last comment of mine was a late night copy an...That last comment of mine was a late night copy and paste from an OP I was writing. It should be deleted, thanks.<br /><br />Proper comment:-<br /><br />"Think of it like this. Imagine the new atheism arrived in Britain three or four decades ago. The Provisional IRA's campaign on the British mainland was in full swing. Irish people living here have to put up with a press backlash, which gives succour to occasional bouts of harassment, victimisation and violent assaults. Now, if the Dawkins analogue or one of his apostles went out of their way to attack Catholicism in the name of secularism and atheism, what are the likely consequences of those arguments? No effect at all? Or, when among the more backward and lumpen elements of the population, Catholicism and 'being Irish' is synonymous; will it add to the climate of hostility Irish residents had to face?"<br /><br />First of all, Irish nationalism does not bear the same relation to Catholicism as Islamism to Islam. There is certainly a religious-cum-tribal element to the Northern Irish disputes, but the Provos weren't cheering for the Pope or reciting Hail Marys after an atrocity. Their struggle was nationalistic.<br /><br />Secondly, according to this argument, if the revelations of sexual abuse among the priesthood and its cover up by the Vatican and other scandals like the Magdalene laundries had come up three or four decades ago they should have been downplayed or ignored in case it might make Catholics look bad and reinforce prejudices against them. Well, it's always the weakest who suffer, isn't it? Never mind the abused child or the laundry slave - we won't make anything of them in case it gives more fuel to religious bigots on the other side. Which means being very soft on religious bigots on this side. <br /><br />So the Muslim who wants to leave their religion will receive no aid or comfort from the left because any revelations they have about bullying imams, jihadists and preachers who preach sectarian murder, antisemitism or contempt for women will just make Islam look a bit bad - which is nice for the bullies, the jihadists and the preachers but not for those who would like to escape them. It's the left siding with the strong against the weak - which makes the left look craven and duplicitous.<br /><br />How about telling the truth, however politically inexpedient? <br /><br />James Bloodworth quotes Orwell. I Imagine he has seen the glaringly obvious parallels with the old left's double standards re the USSR & communism and the new left's double standards re Islam and Islamism. There isn't even the excuse of hopes for a radiant future. KBPlayerhttp://www.rosiebell.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-19184490401373285792013-08-06T21:47:04.963+01:002013-08-06T21:47:04.963+01:00Akkari’s days as an imam are now behind him and he...Akkari’s days as an imam are now behind him and he says that he is “no longer a part of the Islamic mission". He further claims that many of his former colleagues are hypocrites with a mindset that is “horribly wrong”.<br /> <br />“The world doesn’t need a lid on human expression. That also goes for people you might disagree with. There was something deep-seated in the mentality of the group I belonged to, which I just didn’t notice. There was this fundamental idea that people were not allowed to express themselves freely, and that is just wrong,” said Akkari.<br /> <br />Were the cartoons misused?<br /> <br />“The way I see it today, yes. Behind all the talk of protecting religious imagery, there is always power and abuse," he said. "It is simply revolting.”KBPlayerhttp://www.rosiebell.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-25502136551133387192013-08-02T21:13:54.024+01:002013-08-02T21:13:54.024+01:00Wow, where do I begin? I guess the best place is n...Wow, where do I begin? I guess the best place is not to and promise a post replying to some of these critical comments on a quiet day.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-36828736828021740392013-07-31T22:12:02.158+01:002013-07-31T22:12:02.158+01:00Phil says: the reactionary and the bigoted can use...Phil says: <i>the reactionary and the bigoted can use the critiques of Islam by the trendy atheists for their own ends. Hence the latter have culpability for their arguments. After all, the right to free speech comes with the responsibility for it.</i><br /><br />I contend that this so-called 'nuanced' statement is itself quite reactionary and counter-enlightenment, if not bigoted against freethinkers, critics, and Muslims themselves. It would be akin to saying back in the 18th century that any criticism of the Church and Catholicism can be used by the "reactionary and bigoted"to attack the so-called "working class" because the working class is by and large Catholic (as in France), and hence it would be an attack on the poorest strata of society, that serves the benefits of the bourgeoisie and the wealthy class.<br /><br />If Voltaire and Diderot were alive today, they would find Phil's statement utterly reactionary, counter-enlightenment, and even comic.<br /><br />Islam is oppressing a billion Muslims worldwide. But Phil's 'nuanced' position is to hell with them, because if we criticize the doctrine, then we are condoning the EDL and racism. Does Phil find the EDL in Pakistan too? How about Iran? EDL under everyone's bed? How did Phil arrive at this reductionist cause and effect is beyond my comprehension. How would saying Mohammad was a historic person committing crimes, results in Muslim discrimination at the workplace? In fact Phil takes a bigoted view by painting ALL Muslims with the same brush that they invariably love Islam and have no misgivings or criticism of this doctrine, and that ALL Muslims are so daft that they have no desire to see Islam harmonized with modernity and be reformed. <br /><br />This sweeping generalization by Phil and many others on the left is very curious and certainly reactionary. Is it truly the case that Phil wants to prevent another March by the EDL in Pakistan, by telling us to shut up and not mention that Mohammad was a paedophile and slaveowner?<br /><br />Or is it more the case that as a socialist Phil respects the authoritarianism in Islam, and he finds that congruent to his own leftist ideology that all of history is reduced to a class conflict between the guy who has a BMW and the guy who only has a bicycle, which can only be rectified through totalitarianism? And why does Phil sound so much like the counter-enlightenment movement of the 18th century trying to ban criticism of religion?<br /><br />"trendy atheists"? Since when was this evar a trendy? Humanism and atheism is not a dogma to be trendy to begin with, and anything based on logic and empiricism by definition defies trendiness.<br /><br />I hope Phil would take the time to respond.Glasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-56145973334790197662013-07-31T11:41:23.206+01:002013-07-31T11:41:23.206+01:00I'm not sure I would embrace Glass' termin...I'm not sure I would embrace Glass' terminology but I completely agree with the essence of the argument in his last post.<br /><br />Worldwide Muslims, non-Muslims and ex-Muslims in Islamic countries and the Muslim community are struggling against oppression by patriarchs, clerics and the religious state. Criticism of Islam is, far from being an attack on Muslim people (and non- and ex-Muslim people), it is an act of solidarity with them.Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-58306298407196461202013-07-30T20:28:00.352+01:002013-07-30T20:28:00.352+01:00Muslim signifies an ethnicity based on an Islamic ...Muslim signifies an ethnicity based on an Islamic upbringing and located primarily in the middle east and south Asia.<br /><br />But the left consistently conflates a Muslim with an Islamic. Muslims by and large are not Islamic. Some Muslims hate Islam passionately and there are many good examples of that. Some Muslims consider Prophet Mohammad, the perfect man unto eternity, a lowlife and a charlatan.<br /><br />When the Left says that by criticising Islam, all Muslims are being denigrated, they are absolutely wrong and commit a category error. Many Muslims in particular the educated ones have no problem criticizing Islam. It is the minority of Islamics that react to such criticism in negative ways.<br /><br />So why is the Left trying to support a bunch of relgious bigots, i.e. the Islamcics, at the expense of other Muslims? What is it about Islam and Islamics that the Left favors? That it is an authentic sigh of the masses?<br /><br />The support of the minority of Muslims known as Islamics, who have hate and racism ingrained in their beliefs, just goes to show the nature of Leftism - that it can commune with totalitarian ideologies, including Islamic fascism, as its primary function is to oppose liberalism and democracy.Glasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-8687401224928805822013-07-30T20:01:30.112+01:002013-07-30T20:01:30.112+01:00Sarah AB: I think it is also possible to support...Sarah AB: <i> I think it is also possible to support ex-Muslims and the right of Salman Rushdie to publish what he wants, in safety, without opposing Islam.</i> <br /><br />So why not oppose Islam that has a stranglehold on 1.6 billion Muslims, brainwashing their innocent children to garbage and dogmatism, totalitarianism, and potential of violence?<br /><br />Why do you like Islam to the point that you do not wish to criticize Islam? Have you studied Islam?<br /><br />Isn't the misogyny of Islam enough for you? What about slaveownership and islamic racism and supremacism? What about glorifying a charlatan murderer as an example of the most perfect human being ever lived that has to be emulated till eternity?<br /><br />Are you so apathetic that you will renege on your enlightenment duties and "not oppose Islam" for all the atrocity and dogma that it imposes on innocents? Or is it Leftist dogma that opposing the wrong will give succor to the enemies of the "proletariat", whatever that is?<br /><br />This article BTW is incoherent and evasive, and James Bloodworth is absolutely correct.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Glasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-43165404984662429192013-07-30T14:04:44.428+01:002013-07-30T14:04:44.428+01:00The short video does not specify any policy which ...The short video does not specify any policy which Anne Marie Waters advocates. This is the problem once again, the reader is left completely in the dark about what he/she is supposed to support. And it is not just this blog, this whole issue of 'left responses to Islam' and indeed the broad issue of Islam in Europe are talked about in such vague terms, that we simply don't know what people are saying.<br /><br />An example: Waters makes vague comments about people who 'don't support rights and freedoms' leaving Britain. Which rights and freedoms? Nobody knows. And does she mean they should be deported? And who exactly? Nobody knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38769877702654457602013-07-30T11:36:30.967+01:002013-07-30T11:36:30.967+01:00Can we stop pretending this has anything to do wit...Can we stop pretending this has anything to do with a clash of civilisations, please?<br /><br />The principle war isn't any which may be waged by western secularists against Islam but but the war being waged by Muslim and non-Muslim people in Islamic countries and communities against their oppression.<br /><br />Any one on the "left" who, in the name of "anti-imperialism", refuses to offer solidarity to those struggling against their oppressors isn't part of the same left as me.Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-31482125659754284632013-07-30T10:14:35.229+01:002013-07-30T10:14:35.229+01:00Sarah, Christianity IS indigenous to Europe. It wa...Sarah, Christianity IS indigenous to Europe. It was the Roman religion and goes back as far as anyone can remember. What's more it is the ultimate expression of European identity combining as it does Greek and Jewish tradition - ie a near east tradition merged with a "purely" European one. <br /><br />Of course there are many non-Christians - atheists or agnostics for example - but if you look at the history of European thought it has been indelibly shaped by Christianity. Hence "cultural Christian". Even Dawkins is a cultural Christian, as he may have admitted himself.Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-68369593170116800062013-07-30T10:12:52.015+01:002013-07-30T10:12:52.015+01:00Sorry - forgot to link to video, but it's link...Sorry - forgot to link to video, but it's linked bo in Andy's piece on SU.Sarah ABnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-75660545738104754642013-07-30T07:08:08.430+01:002013-07-30T07:08:08.430+01:00Speedy - no offence taken - perfectly happy to be ...Speedy - no offence taken - perfectly happy to be bourgeois and liberal! But I'm not sure why compromise should lead to censorship - and if my views seem to compromise, that's not a deliberate strategy, it's just where they fall. I don't think we should compromise on freedom of speech, for example.<br /><br />Anonymous - you implicitly set the barrier very high for finding someone objectionable. David Ward and Lord Ahmed don't, I'm sure, want to legislate in any antisemitic way, but it's still possible to think their words have been antisemitic. I assume Anne Marie Waters supports curbing the activities of Sharia law courts, and being tougher on forced marriage and FGM (which many would say had nothing to do with Islam, but are often associated with Islam). A good way to get a sense of her views is to watch this short video. It sends out slightly mixed messages - she seems opposed to anti-immigration rhetoric (and I certainly think she's anti-racist) yet, she talks of Islam as something foreign to Europe, which isn't entirely accurate, and in any case Christianity is hardly indigenous, and also talks of her fear of Islam - which is certainly a view she should be able to air, and she raises some reasonable points in support of that, but they would also be supported by secular and reform minded Muslims. At the very end of the clip she suggests that those who don't accept British freedoms should leave - and that's what I referred to earlier when I said she seemed to tap into far right tropes. But I think Andy Newman presents an exaggerated account of her as an anti-Islam extremist, as though she was a Pamela Geller<br /><br />http://socialistunity.com/anne-marie-waters-the-worst-possible-potential-labour-ppc/<br /><br />although I think Howard Fuller goes too far the other way.<br /><br />http://hurryupharry.org/2013/06/16/socialist-unity-attacks-secularist-activist/<br /><br />SarahABUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162666068166925393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-68716026079953857802013-07-30T04:34:57.869+01:002013-07-30T04:34:57.869+01:00Sarah AB:
"I think it is possible to try to ...Sarah AB:<br /><br />"I think it is possible to try to think about the dangers posed by both extremism and theocracy and by far right bigots/racists."<br /><br />Uhh, what about leftist bigots who respect religious fascism? Why is it always the right when most crimes and totalitarian politics are committed by the left, in the name of their God, the nebulous and comically named "working class"?Glasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-76917718039445347912013-07-29T11:17:48.805+01:002013-07-29T11:17:48.805+01:00Anonymous comments should not all be attributed to...Anonymous comments should not all be attributed to the same author.<br /><br />Anne Marie Waters seems a good illustration of the problem with policies. She is a controversial figure because of her views, but what are they exactly? What exactly does she advocate as government policy? It is very difficult to find that out, and this blog does not help because it does not say.<br /><br />Instead there are vague references to effects that might follow, from views that are not stated. This is an impossibly vague basis for discussion.<br /><br />It would be much simpler if this blog could simply write, for instance: "Anne Marie Waters advocates arresting all adult muslims and shooting them, and this blog opposes that policy". Now probably she does not advocate the execution of all Muslims, but we don't learn that from this blog, nor from the links provided, not anywhere else.<br /><br />What does she advocate, then? I don't know, and this blog does not tell me. Why not post that information? Is it a secret? How can she apply to be a candidate for parliament if she keeps her political views secret?<br /><br />It would also be helpful if James Bloodworth disclosed his policy preferences. This post is in reaction to an article by him, and he has commented here himself, but what does he think about issues such as Islam in Europe and policy towards Islam? He runs a political blog, but it is not explicit either.<br /><br />If readers don't know people's views, especially their policy preferences, then it is very difficult to form any judgement about those people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-24203912374674026372013-07-28T15:48:50.714+01:002013-07-28T15:48:50.714+01:00oh THAT anonymous. Well i hope you saw my response...oh THAT anonymous. Well i hope you saw my response to your Egypt comment, belated though it was. <br /><br />I don't know how I come off as an apologist for "decents". I was for Afghanistan, against Iraq, am pro-Palestinian, but not always agin Israel either. It's about "nuance" (our word of the week) see? <br /><br />I have articulated my views about Islam in this thread. I'm not going to add to them except to say Phil raised the topic!<br /><br />Blimey - "secularism"?! Basically most Western history since 1776 I'm sure has come up with some pretty inspiring, free-wheeling and intellectual debate at some point. I'm sure it hasn't been all about shopping - after all, this isn't, is it, but if I was a blogger in say Iran or MB Egypt I might have to mind my Qs and Ts. <br /><br />Arguably both the Caliphate and Catholic Europe developmentally declined precisely because they stifled debate (Galileo) and the secular states - including the UK, France and the US left them in the dust. Without secularism who knows where we might be - probably without the internet for one. <br /><br />Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-69706109066634799382013-07-28T14:16:12.842+01:002013-07-28T14:16:12.842+01:00The point at issue is what critics of Islam want t...The point at issue is what critics of Islam want to achieve. That ought to be obvious, but is usually ignored. No-one is criticising Islam simply to pass the time. People criticise Islam and its current position in European societies, because they aspire to some alternative for Islam, and for its current position in European societies.<br /><br />What are those alternatives? Generally, either some form of prohibition of Islam as a religion, or some form of restriction on the numbers of muslims. Out of a misplaced sense of political correctness, discussion of these alternatives is taboo, which does not help.<br /><br />It is much better to 'have it all out in the open'. The question for prominent critics of Islam such as Dawkins, should be: what policies do you advocate? Only if they answer such questions, is it possible to make comparisons with for instance the EDL, or its counterparts in other countries.<br /><br />If for instance Dawkins says: 'all mosques should be closed', and the EDL also says 'all mosques should be closed', then it is rational to conclude that they advocate identical policies. That is much better that vague speculation about 'playing into the hands of racists', and so on. Equally if Dawkins does not want mosques closed, and the EDL does, then we can conclude they do not share a policy on that issue.<br /><br />It ought to be that simple. However, that does require open statements of political goals, and that is surprisingly uncommon.<br /><br />Some people take the position that Islam is an evil religion, that all Muslims are intrinsically evil, and that they should be expelled from EU countries. Some people want them expelled from Bosnia too, and European Turkey, and indeed Anatolia. Some people want mosques closed. Some people want pornography banned. Some people want meat banned, and/or alcohol. Some people want to introduce Sharia law in Europe. Some people want the death penalty for gay sex.<br /><br />These are facts: some people have these aspirations. Whether the aspirations are desirable government policy, and what the government should do with people who do not share these aspirations, is a matter for assessment. However, the assessment is impossible if no-one is allowed to talk about the aspirations. To talk about the death penalty for gays or the expulsion of muslims from Europe, is not the same thing, as advocating the death penalty for gays, or the expulsion of muslims from Europe. There is a moral need to talk about these things, because they exist and because they can influence society, and indeed result in harm to third parties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-59886226903572753522013-07-28T12:09:29.450+01:002013-07-28T12:09:29.450+01:00"I also think secularism has a lot to answer ..."I also think secularism has a lot to answer for, rampant consumerism, total irresponsibility towards fellow humans and the environment and, at the moment, cretinous royalism. Oh and military despotism in Egypt!"<br /><br />Care to explain what these have to do with secularism?Abdallah the Aditenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-57817597910196126052013-07-28T10:53:18.081+01:002013-07-28T10:53:18.081+01:00Sarah AB - the authentic voice of bourgeois libera...Sarah AB - the authentic voice of bourgeois liberalism (actually no offence meant as I respect your contributions to HP). <br /><br />However your perpetual urge to compromise will lead directly down the road to division, conflict and censorship. <br /><br />What's desperately needed is a national debate about what England is and what it can be (and I use England advisedly being a fan of Tom Paine and the English liberal tradition). <br /><br />This will not happen because the bourgeois is busy quietly packing its bags economically, educationally and geographically speaking and leaving the lumpen proletariat to fight it out. Quite literally. Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-67838150666264331872013-07-28T10:52:48.228+01:002013-07-28T10:52:48.228+01:00Speedy,
there is no straw man, the decents on the...Speedy,<br /><br />there is no straw man, the decents on the left have been the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's war on terror, have you not been party to this decade long debate on the left? Have those disputes gone unnoticed by you? Though I think I have highlighted on previous threads how very selective your thought process is, I think you have been outed as an apologist.<br /><br />But let us put those to one side for a moment. Why this preoccupation with anti Islamism anyway? When the pressing problem, at least in the West, is secularist consumerist idiocy breeding apathy and obedience. Or attacks on Mosques by a rising tide of anti Muslim hysteria. Where are the left criticising secularist consumer mania, and the effect it has on billions of people throughout the world? What about their rights? Why is this not the primary focus of attention? <br /><br />Secularism hasn't led to a society of free individuals freely debating the meaning of life and discussing high ideals and concepts but has led to idiots consuming without responsibility or without question. Idiots consume and those in charge can spy on everyone, start wars, bailout out the rich at the expense of the poor and no fucker really bats an eyelid, nothing stops the relentless need to consume, consume, consume.<br /><br />This is what your secularism has led to. It isn't worth defending relative to anything and in the West this is the pressing problem.<br /><br />Outside the West, in places like Egypt, secularism has led to military despotism. Which should indicate that the problems of those regions go beyond Islam.<br /><br />The decent left criticism of religion is all superficial liberalism in my opinion. It never digs beyond the surface. It just reads like arrogant twats pontificating to deluded fools.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-75158776848017358532013-07-28T06:56:33.157+01:002013-07-28T06:56:33.157+01:00@James Curtis - I think the two situations are ind...@James Curtis - I think the two situations are indeed rather similar (though obviously not identical). Islam and Israel/Zionism are not people to be protected, but issues which should be debated. BUT both criticism of Islam and criticism of Israel/Zionism can be vectors for anti-Muslim bigotry and antisemitism. There's no scientific formula to work out when the line has been crossed - that's up for debate. Often it's about avoiding certain tropes rather than censoring any particular kind of criticism of anything substantive. It's tricky - Phil is arguing that the wider political context might make one not want to be the 'scourge of Islam' - and that could be read as a demand to go soft on Muslim individuals or groups, or on reasoned criticism of the religion. But I think nothing really important needs to be sacrificed - standing up for women's and gay rights, criticising extremist and reactionary groups, defending the rights of ex-Muslims, defending free speech. And you'll get plenty of Muslim allies for these positions. But I have specific objections to Dawkins and Waters (though I think they are probably driven by good impulses) and feel both could make all the important points they want to without producing a dog whistle effect tapping into fears about foreigners/immigration (Waters, and that's just my perception, and I'm sure it's not her intention) or giving every impression of trying to wind people up and recklessly retweeting unambiguous anti-Muslim bigotry (Dawkins). SarahABUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162666068166925393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-89749097970333980642013-07-27T17:13:08.851+01:002013-07-27T17:13:08.851+01:00Yes, it's not as though every brown person is ...Yes, it's not as though every brown person is the same. Inasmuch as we have a role to play, it's to support the likes of this gent in their struggles. There's no more fight for him, but there needs to be a world safe for the Malalas of this world.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/tunisia-protests-killing-leader<br /><br />You know these things about "which law would you repeal". I don't like prohibitions on drugs and sex work, or whatever it is that keeps agriculture barons in public money. But I would just utterly sweep away anything forbidding "blasphemy", including in the watered-down version Bliar was enamoured of. This is bad enough when used for its intended purpose, but it's used for economic and social reasons too. <br /><br />All so that those in power can stay in power. I am disgusted. And sometimes it's hard to see how to fulfil our goals, but it must be undeniable that they ARE our goals.asquithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246701347539264295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-9969071849869308272013-07-27T16:47:19.658+01:002013-07-27T16:47:19.658+01:00Good point James Curtis!
Thank you Anonymous for ...Good point James Curtis!<br /><br />Thank you Anonymous for providing an excellent example of the kind of straw men the "Left" generates to justify itself. <br /><br />Obviously any thinking person rejects attacks on Muslims, the knee-jerk support of HPers for the war in Iraq and the policies of Israel, and the idiots in Egypt. <br /><br />However they've got bollocks to do with this debate except to illustrate the intellectual poverty of "oppositionalism". <br />Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-63780939158401464102013-07-27T14:11:31.587+01:002013-07-27T14:11:31.587+01:00Can we cut through the bollocks please and get to ...Can we cut through the bollocks please and get to the nitty gritty:<br /><br />We criticise the decents for their support of imperialist wars, fought in the name of 'liberation'. The Neo Con clash of civilisations. Anti Islamism is the liberal wing of neo liberalism, at least when in the hands of decents. I personally have no problem with Dawkins and how he expresses himself. I just hate leftist pro imperialists.<br /><br />I support the Palestinians against what decents would call the only genuine 'democracy' in the middle east, and I support them whether they vote Hamas or not.<br /><br />I also support the Muslim community against fascists and anti immigrants<br /><br />I also think secularism has a lot to answer for, rampant consumerism, total irresponsibility towards fellow humans and the environment and, at the moment, cretinous royalism. Oh and military despotism in Egypt!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-53913849471691538442013-07-27T12:39:49.629+01:002013-07-27T12:39:49.629+01:00Given that anti-Semitic attacks across Europe peak...Given that anti-Semitic attacks across Europe peaked during operation Cast Lead back in 2009, does the author think the same thing about criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism? In the Swedish city of Malmo things apparently got so bad that a Swedish Minister told the city’s Jewish population to “distance themselves from the foreign policy of Israel.”<br /> <br />When among the more “backward and lumpen elements of the population” as you put it, being Jewish is synonymous with the state of Israel, should we therefore mute our criticism of Israel because of the risk of fomenting anti-Semitic attacks? No, of course not, and neither do other people on the Chomskyite left like Glenn Greenwald and Owen Jones who have made a career out of attacking Israel. Which shows that this line of argument is more about ideology than some pragmatic attempt to prevent the spread of Islamophobia. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16304165725609181384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-53281816039304783472013-07-27T09:21:25.763+01:002013-07-27T09:21:25.763+01:00'Nuance' might include flagging up the Eur...'Nuance' might include flagging up the Eurocentric presumptions around secularism, a recognition that radical left thinking and activism has a long neglected its global history, a genealogy of the concept of religion that many academics locate squarely within the European colonial project, a recognition that Islam is neither monolithic nor a sole defining social category of Muslims, that Islamism is such a woolly term some academics won't touch it with a barge poll, and an admission that atheist discussions about 'religion' - that includes Dawkins and especially Hitchens - are risible. Don't expect any of that from LFF, even on a good day.Yakoubhttp://www.tasneemproject.info/shariah.htmnoreply@blogger.com