<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">ch did lots of antisemitic and
anti-israel jokes. they lampooned everyone<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">"May this be the worst day of your life".
Old Irish blessing.</pre>
On 1/18/2015 1:29 PM, 'David Johnson' <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:davidjohnson1451@comcast.net">davidjohnson1451@comcast.net</a>
[sf-core] wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:00ac01d03355$03cd0930$0b671b90$@comcast.net"
type="cite"> <span style="display:none"> </span>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-mlmsg" style="position:relative;">
<div id="ygrp-msg" style="z-index: 1;">
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-text">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:#1F497D;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:#1F497D;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;"> <o></o></span></p>
<div id="ygrp-mlmsg">
<div id="ygrp-msg">
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">[<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="#TopText"><span
style="text-decoration:none;">Attachment(s)</span></a>
from Julian included below]</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"> <o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">This appalling
action is the effect and the cause of truly
alarming developments. <br>
<br>
Islamic 'extremists' have caused vastly more
deaths of 'fellow' Muslims than of others.
Muslem 'extremism' also accounts for <br>
In the UK there have only been two successful
terror attacks since 2010, one by a Ukrainian
rightist, the other the Lee Rigby killing.
Less than 2% of attacks in Europe have been
the work of Islamic terrorists [most have been
separatists, some, like the Norwegian massacre
have been neo-Nazi].<br>
[See attachments for more details]<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, given the mass slaughter of
avowed Muslims, the occupation, bombing, and
ruination of avowedly 'Muslim' countries, the
destruction of ancient civilisations covering
a whole oil-rich region of the world, their
being turned over to marauders and gangsters
as 'failed states' - largely by nominally
'Christian' or 'Secular' ones - it is hardly
surprising that the Middle Eastern civil wars
are causing dangerous ripples in the 'West'. <br>
<br>
This is one cause for alarm. Much more serious
to us in Europe and the USA is the danger from
the extreme right which has not only the
Muslim 'community' within its sights, but all
the gains made by the labour movement and all
the hopes for future generations. <br>
<br>
This is particularly terrifying because the
State is their ultimate backer. It has moved
within hours - or even in advance of the CH
attacks - to a magnifies concerted attack on
civil liberties - the extra arming of police,
the mobilisation of tens/hundreds of thousands
of troops, preparation of new legislation for
further snooping powers on the part of the
secret state. <br>
<br>
(Is it naive 'conspiracy theory' stuff to
suggest that [EDLleader] Tommy Robinsons'
'conversion' to non violence - under the
influence of a prison-sentence and the Home
Office backed anti-Muslim Extremism Quilliam
Foundation - was the result of a brutal deal
or thuggish 'gentlemen's agreement'[most
likely with money changing hands]. to exchange
info and work on more sophisticated policy
planning etc. ...? He claimed he was going to
learn about lobbying and intends to start a
new party......)<br>
<br>
Here [for those who can see them] are links to
two documentaries shown on UK TV where [at
around 52+ mins on episode 2] one perceptive
billionaire [Nick Hanauer] points out that he
earns $10-20,000 an hour: "You show me a
highly unequal society and I'll show you
either a revolution or a police state" - and
they go on to show clips of a fair pay
protest in Boston, the London riots of 2011
etc.]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04yn2yq/the-superrich-and-us-episode-2">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04yn2yq/the-superrich-and-us-episode-2</a><br>
<br>
But Nick Hanauer is not necessarily cleverer
than the professionals who manage his affairs,
his person and his property and that of his
kind. What he understands and the media are
not afraid to display to the public is
certainly well understood by the state.<br>
<br>
The State is now strutting about grandly and
parading itself proudly with "Je suis Charlie"
banners while preparing for war against its
populations. <br>
<br>
Islamophobia and Islamophilia are almost
irrelevant details - useful ideological pawns
for rival reactionary forces<br>
<br>
Sonja Engelhardt <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sonjaengelhardt69@gmail.com">sonjaengelhardt69@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion] wrote:<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"> <o></o></span></p>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">I agree with
Dave. <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">A German
newspaper accidentally printed an
anti-semitic cartoon the other day it
thought was one of CH's out of
solidarity with this paper. They didn't
know it was a fake, it looked pretty
much the same as a lot of other cartoons
of CH. <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">Somebody from
the Israeli embassy in Germany noticed
the anti-semitic cartoon and complained.
The German newspaper had to apologize.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">This and
seeing a lot of the CH's cartoons
myself, show two things to me: first
several of the cartoons in this paper
are definitely offensive and racist (in
my opinion) and secondly to be offensive
against Muslims seems to be "your right"
and part of exercising "free speech" but
you cannot be offensive against Jews or
Israelis. (And I am not saying you
should be). <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">I don't know
CH and I don't have any interest in
getting to know this magazine. All and
all I am still shocked that the killing
of 12 people in France brought 2 million
on the streets and the killings of 2000
and more in Nigeria none. <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">I do think
that these are serious issues the left
has to deal with.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">Comradely,<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">Sonja<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">On Sat, Jan
17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Dave Savage <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsavage_1960@yahoo.com">dsavage_1960@yahoo.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion] <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"
target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;"> <o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">"The font chosen (serif) is
reminiscent of traditional
right-wing political
posters. Left-wing and
communist posters in France
usually use a sans-serif
font. This is the first hint
that the cartoon is mocking
a right-wing element."<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I'm sure the average Muslim
immigrant in France is aware
of the particular fonts used
by the left. All Algerians
would know this I'm sure.
But from what I've read,
this magazine had a tiny
ciurculation, almost
nothing. How come the
immigrant population hasn't
been drawn to such a
defender of their rights in
droves?<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Dave<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white;"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<hr align="center"
size="1" width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
"Richard Evans <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 17, 2015 4:59 PM
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[socialistdiscussion]
Between Islamophobia
and Islamophilia<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Here's
the
explanation
for that
particular
cartoon:<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<h3
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Rassemblement Bleu Raciste [ </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">link</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
]<o></o></span></h3>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Themes:
Racism, Front
National<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Publication
date:
12/11/2013<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Author:
Charb (1967 -
2015)<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><b>Error!
Filename not
specified.</b><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<h4
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Translation<o></o></span></h4>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">“RACIST
BLUE UNION” <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<h4
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Symbols<o></o></span></h4>
<div>
<ul
type="disc">
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;">The
font chosen
(serif) is
reminiscent of
traditional
right-wing
political
posters.
Left-wing and
communist
posters in
France usually
use a
sans-serif
font. This is
the first hint
that the
cartoon is
mocking a
right-wing
element.<o></o></span></li>
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;">The
blue and red
flame logo on
the
bottom-left is
the logo of
the </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">Front National</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">,
a far-right
political
party in
France.<o></o></span></li>
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;">The
person
depicted is
Justice
Minister </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">Christiane Taubira</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;">,
drawn as a
monkey. This
is referencing
various
occasions of
far-right
activists
depicting
Taubira as a
monkey (online
sharing of
photoshops,
sound
imitations,
calling out,
etc.).<o></o></span></li>
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;">The
title is a
play on words
of Marine Le
Pen's slogan
“Rassemblement
Bleu Marine”
(Navy blue
Union).<o></o></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Satire<o></o></span></h4>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">The
cartoon was
published
after a
National Front
politician
Facebook-shared
a photoshop of
Justice
Taubira, drawn
as a monkey,
and then said
on French
television the
she should be
“in a tree
swinging from
the branches
rather than in
government” [</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">Le Monde</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">]
(she was later
sentenced to </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">9 months of prison</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">).
The cartoon is
styled as a
political
poster,
calling on all
far-right
“Marine”
racists to
unify, under
this racist
imagery they
have chosen.
Ultimately,
the cartoon is
criticising
the
far-right's
appeal to
racism to gain
supporters.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">The
cartoon was
drawn by </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:navy;">Charb</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">.
He
participated
in anti-racism
activities,
and notably
illustrated
the poster
(below) for
MRAP (Movement
Against Racism
and for
Friendship
between
Peoples), an
anti-racist
NGO.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Richard<br>
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white;" align="center"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<hr
align="center"
size="1"
width="100%"></span></div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> "Richard Evans <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> "<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"
target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Sunday, 18
January 2015,
0:55<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[socialistdiscussion]
Between
Islamophobia
and
Islamophilia</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">This
webpage
explains the
meaning of the
cartoons:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist">http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist</a><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Richard<br>
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white;" align="center"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<hr
align="center"
size="1"
width="100%"></span></div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> "John Reimann <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com" target="_blank">1999wildcat@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"
target="_blank">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Sunday, 18
January 2015,
0:12<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[socialistdiscussion]
Between
Islamophobia
and
Islamophilia</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Then
there is this
CH cartoon
which depicts
a black
administration
official as a
monkey. And
you're telling
me CH is not
racist? <o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 1:49
PM, John
Reimann
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com"><1999wildcat@gmail.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
agree with
Roger. CH did
not push the
envelope or
test the
limits in the
way that I
would support.
As with Roger,
when I was in
Egypt and
everybody
asked me my
religion, I
said I was an
atheist and I
got into
several
debates about
"god". As I've
recounted,
when somebody
suggested I
read the Koran
I suggested he
read the
Communist
Manifesto. And
I've written
strongly
attacking the
muslim
fundamentalists,
like in my
recent article
on Boko Haram.
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">There
is one point,
though, and
that is that
in criticizing
the
fundamentalists,
I do think
socialists
have to
explain why
they have
gotten a base.
I believe that
base is due to
the collapse
of the
workers'
organizations
as an
independent
mass force in
society. As a
result, it is
difficult for
many workers,
especially in
the
underdeveloped
world, to see
the class
struggle as an
avenue. That
was clearly
the case for
one of the
brothers who
carried out
the attack in
Paris. He was
an unemployed
youth, in and
out of prison,
who was
recruited to
fundamentalism
while he was
locked up. Why
wasn't he
recruited to
the class
struggle and
socialist
revolution?
And by the
way, there
have even been
a few
prisoners here
in the US who
were recruited
to Islamic
fundamentalism
and terrorism
while in
prison.
Compare that
to George
Jackson,
Eldridge
Cleaver and
others in the
60s and 70s.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
don't support
the approach
of CH at all
and I agree
with Roger
that it could
play into the
racists'
attitudes. And
I also think
that in
general we
have to be
sensitive to
different
cultures'
traditions and
beliefs. If
Guatemalan
indians
believe that
taking their
photo steals
their soul,
then as much
as I don't
agree, I won't
take their
picture. And
if Muslims are
insulted by my
painting a
cartoon of
Muhammed, then
what does it
serve to paint
it? It simply
makes it more
difficult to
discuss our
differences,
including my
atheism vs.
their belief
in Islam. And
that has
nothing to do
with banning
others from
drawing
cartoons of
Muhammed, no
more than my
attacks on
Christian
fundamentalists
here means I
support
banning them.
I oppose
banning them,
either by law
or by physical
assault on
them. But I
also don't
agree with
their approach
at all.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John
Reimann<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 11:41
AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RSilver100@aol.com">RSilver100@aol.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
agree.
Socialists
should make no
concessions to
religious
superstition.
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">For
many years I
was teaching
at a secondary
school in the
East End of
London where
the majority
of the
students were
Muslims
(mostly from a
Bangladeshi
background).
Flushed with
the success of
their Stop The
War campaign,
the SWP were
busily
constructing a
blatantly
communal
Muslim party
alongside
George
Galloway.
There was an
SWP member
based at the
school who
tried hard to
cultivate
support among
the students
by constantly
assuring them
of his
“profound
respect for
their faith”,
etc. I took a
different
approach. When
students asked
me my
religion, I
would say I
was an
atheist. When
one of them
told me: “I
believe there
is only one
God and only
one prophet”,
my reply was:
“Sorry,
Nabeel, to me
that’s just a
load of
mumbo-jumbo.”
Where the
patronising
condescension
of the SWP-er
gained him no
credibility at
all, I won
their respect
by treating
them seriously
and honestly.
Many of them
became
enthusiastically
involved in
the left
student
journal that I
established
(which is
still going
strong twelve
years later).
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">We
support
unconditionally
the democratic
rights of the
Charlie-Hebdo
cartoonists.
Of course they
shouldn’t be
banned, let
alone
executed. But
satire is a
weapon of the
oppressed
against their
rulers; this
is something
quite
different. The
poem quoted by
Richard
offended the
religion of
the ruling
establishment. Mohammed
is a very soft
target for
these
cartoonists.
Their
provocative
images were
published
against the
background of
a growth of
support for
the Front
National, the
banning of the
burqa, racist
attacks on
immigrants,
etc. Whatever
their
intention,
their cartoons
end up playing
into the hands
both of the
Islamophobic
FN and the
Islamic
fundamentalists.
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Roger
Silverman<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">In
a message
dated
17/01/2015
18:55:27 GMT
Standard Time,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com">socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com</a>
writes:<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left:solid
blue
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
0in;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Censorship
by public
pressure is
almost as bad
as banning. We
all
self-censor to
a certain
extent in our
dealings with
others but we
should defend
the right of
others who
want to go
further. They
are the ones
pushing back
the
boundaries. In
Britain in
1977, Gay
Times was
convicted of
Blasphemous
Libel for
publishing a
poem that
hinted a Roman
soldier had
sex with
Christ on the
cross. To my
mind it wasn't
a great poem
and I wouldn't
read it out to
Christians but
as a result of
them pushing
the
boundaries,
blasphemy is
no longer a
criminal
offence in
Britain.<br>
<br>
Richard<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
"John Reimann
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com">1999wildcat@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Nobody
is proposing
banning
Charlie Hebdo
or any journal
like that. <o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 9:48
AM, Richard
Evans
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John,
I think you
were
absolutely
right in
taking a
principled
stand against
supporting the
religious
charter
school,
despite the
accusations of
racism.<br>
<br>
On the point
of whether it
is right to
use ridicule
against
religion;
generally we
should be
sympathetic to
people who
have these
backward
illusions. I
don't go
around
personally
attacking
(verbally or
otherwise)
those with a
religious
belief and
generally I am
in favour of
using reason
to combat
religious
mythology. But
in a society
where this is
possible, it
is certain
that some will
use satire to
lampoon
religion.
Charlie Hebdo
had a
circulation of
60,000 in a
country of 60
million, 0.1%
of the
population
read it. It
was on the
edges of any
debate on
religion in
France. No-one
was forced to
read it. Yet
if we were to
ban it,
rational
debate would
also be
censored. Once
we give people
the right not
to be
offended, then
they will
assume they
have other
rights, such
as having
their children
'educated' by
religious
charter
schools and
they will see
those who
oppose this
'right' as
being racist.
If we want to
live in a
secular
society where
public
education is
non-religious,
then we have
to defend the
right to
offend.<br>
<br>
Richard<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
"John Reimann
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com">1999wildcat@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">During
the first Iraq
war, we had an
anti-war
coalition here
in Oakland. It
was mainly run
by the ISO,
which has more
or less the
same politics
as the SWP. An
Islamic group
came to the
coalition
asking for
support. They
were running a
private school
chartered by
the Oakland
school
district. I
opposed it on
the grounds
that (1) I'm
against
chartered
schools; and
(2) I'm
especially
against
religious
chartered
schools. The
ISO called me
racist for
opposing
supporting
them. I think
I was right
then and I'd
take the same
position now.
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">However,
it's one thing
to take a
clear,
principled
position on
religion,
especially
fundamentalist
versions of
it. And it's
something
entirely
different to
belittle it in
the way CH
did. The
former is an
appeal to
reason, to
thinking
things
through, to
class
solidarity and
class
interests. The
latter is
simply aimed
at
humiliation.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
am not Charlie
Hebdo and I
don't support
them. That has
nothing to do
with the
attack on
them, of
course, which
I unreservedly
condemn. I
also
completely
oppose all the
claims in
France about
the French
Republic's
traditional
values for
equality,
fraternity,
etc. What
nonsense.
Where were
these values
when France
was invading
Vietnam,
Algeria,
Tunisia, etc.?
Where were
those values
when their
military was
slaughtering
families
there? French
capitalist
society is
just as riven
by class
interests, and
the French
capitalists
just as much
determine the
course of
society as
their
counterparts
do everywhere
else
(including the
mainly Islamic
societies).<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 6:56
AM, Richard
Evans
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">Thanks
for posting
this Farooq. I
particularly
like the
phrase, “<i>each
religion is
‘differently’
flawed</i>”.
Whilst there
is a need to
be sensitive
with
believers, we
must always
remember that
religions are
reactionary
ideologies
that exist to
ameliorate
oppression
and, as such,
should be
criticised and
opposed.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">The
post raises
some important
issues:</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“I
am not here to
refute or deny
the West's
(continuing)
history of
imperialism
and
Islamophobia.
It is also an
unfortunate
reality that
Muslim
immigrants in
Europe
continue to be
marginalized.
However, even
though most of
liberal
response took
a conscious
effort to add
caveats
against direct
causality, one
couldn't help
but notice an
implicit
argument that
had the West
not been
Islamophobic/imperialistic,
such massacres
would not have
happened. I
beg to
disagree”……</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“…
by failing to
adequately
criticize, or
in many cases,
even mention,
the role of
Islamic
fundamentalism,
progressive
opinion has
virtually
given
right-wing
conservative
opinion the
monopoly on
criticizing
organized
religion,
specifically
Islam.</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB"> Progressive
voices, for
fear of being
censured, and
being labelled
'Islamophobic'
have allowed
the right
-wing to
engage in a
crude
demonisation
of a religion
and its
followers. The
aftermath of
Paris would
have been a
good time for
the Left to
promote a
reasoned
critique of
organized
religion and
fundamentalism.”……</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“Islamic
extremism is a
problem, and
imperialism is
at best, a
catalyst.
These attacks
were the
handiwork of
lunatics but
lunatics too
do not exist
in a vacuum.
Paris apart,
there are
Muslim
societies
where there is
tacit support
for violence
against heresy
(real or
alleged).”</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">All
of us who have
lived and
carried out
political work
in the inner
cities have
had to make
compromises
(on a daily
basis) to
engage with
the Muslim
community. But
have we made
too many
compromises?
In the desire
for unity have
we been too
prepared to
drop our
criticisms of
a religion
particularly
in its growing
reactionary
Salafist
guise.
Islamophobia
should mean
that we fight
discrimination
and prejudice
against
Muslims; it
should not
mean that we
give up the
right to
criticise the
religion. Much
of the left in
Britain has
gone too far
in crossing
this divide,
especially the
SWP, who have
made
opportunist
alliances with
some pretty
reactionary
Muslim
leaders.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">As
a result, a
section of the
Anglophone
left were
looking for a
reason to
downgrade the
assassinations
at Charlie
Hebdo and so
have an excuse
not to join or
be lukewarm
towards the
campaign in
support of the
right to
criticise
Islam. A few
days ago, Tim
posted a link
that explained
the meaning
and the
background to
the cartoons
and Charlie
Hebdo, showing
it uses satire
to oppose
racism as well
as religion,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left">https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left</a>
.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">In
Britain, as
seems the case
in France and
the rest of
Europe, there
has been an
increase in
the
religiosity of
Muslims (at a
time when
British
society, as a
whole, is less
religious than
ever). As an
example, when
my children
went to an
inner-city
primary
school, the
Muslim mothers
who came to
collect their
children, were
dressed in
western
clothes or
saris. Now, a
generation
later at the
same school,
where I’m
still involved
as a governor,
the present
mothers, who
in many cases
were the same
girls that
were being
collected
then, are
often turning
up in the
hijab, with
their faces
covered. I
have no
objection to
people
choosing what
to wear and
there are
those who
claim that the
wearing of the
hijab is
liberating but
I can’t think
other than
these British
women are more
oppressed than
their mothers
were. The
reasons for
the greater
religiosity
and therefore
oppression are
many, but we
have to accept
a certain
amount of
blame on the
left because
we have
with-held
criticism of
Islam and its
practices.
Many of these
women would
undoubtedly
like to live
under a more
liberal family
regime and
should have
had the
expectation
that the left
would fight
their
religious
oppression.
But, by and
large, we have
turned our
backs on them
by censoring
ourselves in
the criticism
of their
religion.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">One
of the gains
of the
Enlightenment,
epitomised by
the French
Revolution,
was the right
to criticise
religion. We
should not go
back to the
days where
religion was
beyond
criticism to
the extent of
risking a
death penalty.
The tradition
of French
anti-clerical
satire,
including
Charlie Hebdo,
is part of the
progress of
society.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">Richard</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white;" align="center"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<hr
align="center"
size="1"
width="100%"></span></div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> "farooq sulehria
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mfsulehria@hotmail.com">mfsulehria@hotmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a><br>
<b>To:</b>
Farooq soas
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:294785@soas.ac.uk"><294785@soas.ac.uk></a>
<br>
<b>Cc:</b>
socialistdiscussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>;
moderates
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:the-moderates@googlegroups.com"><the-moderates@googlegroups.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Saturday, 17
January 2015,
8:27<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
[socialistdiscussion]
Between
Islamophobia
and
Islamophilia</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h2
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Between Islamophobia and
Islamophilia<o></o></span></h2>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia">http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Source:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.viewpointonline.net">www.viewpointonline.net</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
the morning of
6th of
September,
1929, a man
stood waiting
outside the
shop of
Mahashay
Rajpal, who
hadn't arrived
yet. As soon
as Rajpal
arrived, the
man, Ilumuddin
took out a
dagger and
stabbed
Mahashay
Rajpal. The
reason: Rajpal
was the
publisher of a
book known as
<em><span>Rangeela
Rasool</span></em>
(The Colourful
Prophet),
which, as you
can understand
from the title
offended a lot
of Muslims.
When Rajpal
was tried in
the court, a
wine drinking,
ham eating
lawyer (and
hence presumed
'secular'),
otherwise
known as
Mohammad Ali
Jinnah,
appealed on
behalf of the
man and urged
that "as
extenuating
circumstances,
that the
appellant is
only 19 or 20
years of age
and that his
act was
prompted by
feelings of
veneration for
the founder of
his religion
and anger at
one who had
scurrilously
attacked him."
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Less
apologetically,
Allama Iqbal,
the <em><span>Shair-e
Mashriq </span></em>(Poet
of the East),
praised
Ilmuddin as a
"great
warrior". In
modern day
Pakistan, his
name carries
the title
Ghazi/Shaheed
and there is a
Pakistani
movie (</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:#1155CC;background:white;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/">http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/</a></span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">) that was made glorifying his
vigilantism. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Around
seventy one
years later,
another
follower of
Ilmuddin was
garlanded by
lawyers for
murdering a
governor in
Punjab. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
the other side
of the
spectrum, the
Pakistani
Taliban
recently
attacked a
religious
congregation,
in Rawalpindi
on January 9,
for taking
part in
festivities of
<em><span>eid-e
milad</span></em>
(the prophet's
birthday). It
seems that not
only is
satirising the
Prophet
dangerous, but
revering him
can also land
you in
trouble. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">To
those from the
subcontinent,
the old maxim
of 'Bakhuda
deewana
bashud, ba
mohammad
hoshyar' (Take
liberties with
God, but not a
word against
Mohammad)
rings
painfully
true. Charlie
Hebdo wasn't
the first case
of religious
intolerance,
or the
apologia that
consequently
followed. And
I do not think
it will be the
last.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">As
I write these
lines, I am
painfully
aware that my
cultural
background
puts me in a
tough spot,
and I could
all too easily
be mistaken
for a
chauvinist
Hindu who
takes a
certain glee
in putting
down
Islam/Muslims,
and thus
invite
allegations of
being
Islamophobic.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> It
did occur to
me that I
should
probably make
my
introductory
paragraph more
balanced, and
include a few
examples of
Hindu
extremism so
as to convey
my
impartiality
and avoid
censure of
some readers.
Another
closely
related
rhetorical
trope often
used by people
like me to
convey
neutrality is
to mention
that all
religions are
equally
'evil', but
that would
mean being
intellectually
dishonest.
Neither is my
position the
opposite: that
some religions
are more evil
than others.
Rather, as a
skeptic, I
hold the view
that each
religion is
'differently'
flawed (I find
the phrase
evil too
problematic),
and each has
its own
peculiarities.
For instance,
Hinduism's
dehumanisation
of half of its
followers by
way of a
sophisticated
philosophy of
segregation is
problematic in
a very
different
manner
compared to
Christianity's
history of
inquisitions
or its anxiety
about sex. It
is inane to
debate which
is a greater
'evil'. Since
it was the
horrific
massacre of
Paris that led
me to write
this, my focus
is
disproportionately
on Islam
compared to
other faiths.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">The
massacre in
Paris gave
rise to a
predictable
reaction.
Understandably,
a lot of
people
expressed
solidarity
with the slain
cartoonists,
many well
meaning, but
also quite a
few who felt a
certain
vindication of
their
Islamophobia.
Sometimes the
two
overlapped.
Then came the
liberal
response,
which can be
summed up as
follows: Yes
we are sad,
and it
shouldn't have
happened. But
Charlie Hebdo
wasn't dyed in
the wool
either. But
Islamophobia.
But
imperialism. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
am not here to
refute or deny
the West's
(continuing)
history of
imperialism
and
Islamophobia.
It is also an
unfortunate
reality that
Muslim
immigrants in
Europe
continue to be
marginalized.
However, even
though most of
liberal
response took
a conscious
effort to add
caveats
against direct
causality, one
couldn't help
but notice an
implicit
argument that
had the West
not been
Islamophobic/imperialistic,
such massacres
would not have
happened. I
beg to
disagree. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">First,
as the
examples from
British India
and Pakistan
demonstrate,
religious
fundamentalists
are often
waiting to be
provoked.
Religious
fanatics may
use any
pretext to
justify their
actions
(imperialism
is
particularly
fashionable in
the context),
but the bottom
line is that
those who want
to be
provoked, will
be provoked
(As the
RSS/Hindu
right in India
does with
impunity).
Further, had
imperialism
been the
target, it
would have
made far more
'sense' to
attack
government
offices rather
than
cartoonists.
Attributing
their actions
to imperialism
is not only
erroneous, but
also obscures
the agency of
those who
commit such
massacres. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Secondly,
it provides
cannon fodder
to
fundamentalists
within a faith
to justify
their actions
on real or
perceived
injustices.
For instance,
it is well
known that
American
involvement
was
instrumental
in formation
of the
Taliban, but
the Taliban
itself
couldn't have
been conceived
in a vacuum
without the
agency of the
Pakistani
government and
religious
organizations,
who continued
to support
such groups,
long after the
withdrawal of
American
support.
Further, such
arguments also
disempower
those working
from the
inside to
reform
religions/communities.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Next,
coming to the
issue of
Western
hypocrisy
towards free
speech. There
are ample
examples of
hypocrisy as
far as free
speech is
concerned, the
right wing
trash <em><span>Jylland
Posten </span></em>is
what comes to
mind
immediately
due to their
refusal to
caricature
Jesus Christ,
despite
publishing
cartoons of
Prophet
Mohammad (As
an aside, it
is not
satirising
Prophet
Mohammad that
I have a
problem with.
Only that the
<em><span>Jylland
Posten’s</span></em>
cartoon was
neither
intelligent,
nor
satirical).
But <em><span>Jylland
Posten</span></em>
is not the
representative
of European
media. Just as
the assassins
of the
cartoonists
aren't
representative
of the 1.7
billion
Muslims of the
planet, the
same
discourtesy
should also be
extended to
the Danish
magazine. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Another
issue raised
by an article
I read on the
Huffington
Post was the
Western double
standards in
maintaining a
law against
Holocaust
denial while
continuing to
print cartoons
ridiculing the
Prophet. I
agree that
while the law
forbidding
Holocaust
denial is
perhaps not
the wisest
(Even if
neo-Nazis are
allowed to
publish their
hogwash, I
doubt many
people will
believe it),
but equating
satire against
a religion
with denial of
a historical
incident is
perhaps not on
the same
footing. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Lastly,
by failing to
adequately
criticize, or
in many cases,
even mention,
the role of
Islamic
fundamentalism,
progressive
opinion has
virtually
given
right-wing
conservative
opinion the
monopoly on
criticizing
organized
religion,
specifically
Islam.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> Progressive
voices, for
fear of being
censured, and
being labelled
'Islamophobic'
have allowed
the right
-wing to
engage in a
crude
demonisation
of a religion
and its
followers. The
aftermath of
Paris would
have been a
good time for
the Left to
promote a
reasoned
critique of
organized
religion and
fundamentalism.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Between
the extremes
of
Islamophobia
and the
uncritical
acceptance of
Islam as being
peaceful,
there is a
middle ground
of critique
(Let's call it
Islamo-criticism,
or generally,
religio-criticism)
that
progressives
could have
engaged in
without
feeling the
need to be
apologetic.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> Islamic
extremism is a
problem, and
imperialism is
at best, a
catalyst.
These attacks
were the
handiwork of
lunatics but
lunatics too
do not exist
in a vacuum.
Paris apart,
there are
Muslim
societies
where there is
tacit support
for violence
against heresy
(real or
alleged).
There is a
reason why no
Pakistani
government has
dared repeal
the blasphemy
laws. Because
it knows that
any such move
will be too
unpopular. To
give another
example from
the
subcontinent,
the spread of
Hindutva as an
ideology isn't
solely the
work of
right-wing
lunatics. It
requires the
tacit approval
(or fearful
silence) of a
substantial
segment of the
population to
sustain it.
Babri Masjid
was demolished
in the minds
of millions
some time
before it was
actually razed
to the ground
in 1992. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">This
takes me back
to 2011. After
Salman
Taseer's
assassination,
many well
intentioned
Pakistani
friends said
that killing
for blasphemy
is un-Islamic,
and accused
the extremists
of selective
interpretation.
The point is,
as vast (and
often
contradictory)
the corpus of
Islamic law
is, the
liberals can
also be
accused of
picking those
interpretations
that suit
them. Neither
has the
monopoly on
the truth. My
question to
them was:
Assuming for a
second that
the extremist
interpretation
is indeed
correct and
killing for
blasphemy is
sanctioned in
the religion,
would that
make the
assassin's
actions any
more
justifiable?
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br
clear="all">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">--
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">"Poems
don't belong
to those who
write them;
they belong to
those who need
them" - from
movie "Il
Postino"<br>
Check
out:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https:http://oaklandsocialist.com">https:http://oaklandsocialist.com</a>
and
//www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br
clear="all">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">--
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">"Poems
don't belong
to those who
write them;
they belong to
those who need
them" - from
movie "Il
Postino"<br>
Check
out:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https:http://oaklandsocialist.com">https:http://oaklandsocialist.com</a>
and
//www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Censorship
by public
pressure is
almost as bad
as banning. We
all
self-censor to
a certain
extent in our
dealings with
others but we
should defend
the right of
others who
want to go
further. They
are the ones
pushing back
the
boundaries. In
Britain in
1977, Gay
Times was
convicted of
Blasphemous
Libel for
publishing a
poem that
hinted a Roman
soldier had
sex with
Christ on the
cross. To my
mind it wasn't
a great poem
and I wouldn't
read it out to
Christians but
as a result of
them pushing
the
boundaries,
blasphemy is
no longer a
criminal
offence in
Britain.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
"John Reimann
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com">1999wildcat@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Nobody
is proposing
banning
Charlie Hebdo
or any journal
like that. <o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 9:48
AM, Richard
Evans
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John,
I think you
were
absolutely
right in
taking a
principled
stand against
supporting the
religious
charter
school,
despite the
accusations of
racism.<br>
<br>
On the point
of whether it
is right to
use ridicule
against
religion;
generally we
should be
sympathetic to
people who
have these
backward
illusions. I
don't go
around
personally
attacking
(verbally or
otherwise)
those with a
religious
belief and
generally I am
in favour of
using reason
to combat
religious
mythology. But
in a society
where this is
possible, it
is certain
that some will
use satire to
lampoon
religion.
Charlie Hebdo
had a
circulation of
60,000 in a
country of 60
million, 0.1%
of the
population
read it. It
was on the
edges of any
debate on
religion in
France. No-one
was forced to
read it. Yet
if we were to
ban it,
rational
debate would
also be
censored. Once
we give people
the right not
to be
offended, then
they will
assume they
have other
rights, such
as having
their children
'educated' by
religious
charter
schools and
they will see
those who
oppose this
'right' as
being racist.
If we want to
live in a
secular
society where
public
education is
non-religious,
then we have
to defend the
right to
offend.<br>
<br>
Richard<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
"John Reimann
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1999wildcat@gmail.com">1999wildcat@gmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">During
the first Iraq
war, we had an
anti-war
coalition here
in Oakland. It
was mainly run
by the ISO,
which has more
or less the
same politics
as the SWP. An
Islamic group
came to the
coalition
asking for
support. They
were running a
private school
chartered by
the Oakland
school
district. I
opposed it on
the grounds
that (1) I'm
against
chartered
schools; and
(2) I'm
especially
against
religious
chartered
schools. The
ISO called me
racist for
opposing
supporting
them. I think
I was right
then and I'd
take the same
position now.
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">However,
it's one thing
to take a
clear,
principled
position on
religion,
especially
fundamentalist
versions of
it. And it's
something
entirely
different to
belittle it in
the way CH
did. The
former is an
appeal to
reason, to
thinking
things
through, to
class
solidarity and
class
interests. The
latter is
simply aimed
at
humiliation.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
am not Charlie
Hebdo and I
don't support
them. That has
nothing to do
with the
attack on
them, of
course, which
I unreservedly
condemn. I
also
completely
oppose all the
claims in
France about
the French
Republic's
traditional
values for
equality,
fraternity,
etc. What
nonsense.
Where were
these values
when France
was invading
Vietnam,
Algeria,
Tunisia, etc.?
Where were
those values
when their
military was
slaughtering
families
there? French
capitalist
society is
just as riven
by class
interests, and
the French
capitalists
just as much
determine the
course of
society as
their
counterparts
do everywhere
else
(including the
mainly Islamic
societies).<o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">John<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
Sat, Jan 17,
2015 at 6:56
AM, Richard
Evans
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk">redrichardevans@yahoo.co.uk</a>
[socialistdiscussion]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>
wrote:<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">Thanks
for posting
this Farooq. I
particularly
like the
phrase, “<i>each
religion is
‘differently’
flawed</i>”.
Whilst there
is a need to
be sensitive
with
believers, we
must always
remember that
religions are
reactionary
ideologies
that exist to
ameliorate
oppression
and, as such,
should be
criticised and
opposed.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">The
post raises
some important
issues:</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“I
am not here to
refute or deny
the West's
(continuing)
history of
imperialism
and
Islamophobia.
It is also an
unfortunate
reality that
Muslim
immigrants in
Europe
continue to be
marginalized.
However, even
though most of
liberal
response took
a conscious
effort to add
caveats
against direct
causality, one
couldn't help
but notice an
implicit
argument that
had the West
not been
Islamophobic/imperialistic,
such massacres
would not have
happened. I
beg to
disagree”……</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“…
by failing to
adequately
criticize, or
in many cases,
even mention,
the role of
Islamic
fundamentalism,
progressive
opinion has
virtually
given
right-wing
conservative
opinion the
monopoly on
criticizing
organized
religion,
specifically
Islam.</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB"> Progressive
voices, for
fear of being
censured, and
being labelled
'Islamophobic'
have allowed
the right
-wing to
engage in a
crude
demonisation
of a religion
and its
followers. The
aftermath of
Paris would
have been a
good time for
the Left to
promote a
reasoned
critique of
organized
religion and
fundamentalism.”……</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><i><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">“Islamic
extremism is a
problem, and
imperialism is
at best, a
catalyst.
These attacks
were the
handiwork of
lunatics but
lunatics too
do not exist
in a vacuum.
Paris apart,
there are
Muslim
societies
where there is
tacit support
for violence
against heresy
(real or
alleged).”</span></i><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> <o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">All
of us who have
lived and
carried out
political work
in the inner
cities have
had to make
compromises
(on a daily
basis) to
engage with
the Muslim
community. But
have we made
too many
compromises?
In the desire
for unity have
we been too
prepared to
drop our
criticisms of
a religion
particularly
in its growing
reactionary
Salafist
guise.
Islamophobia
should mean
that we fight
discrimination
and prejudice
against
Muslims; it
should not
mean that we
give up the
right to
criticise the
religion. Much
of the left in
Britain has
gone too far
in crossing
this divide,
especially the
SWP, who have
made
opportunist
alliances with
some pretty
reactionary
Muslim
leaders.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">As
a result, a
section of the
Anglophone
left were
looking for a
reason to
downgrade the
assassinations
at Charlie
Hebdo and so
have an excuse
not to join or
be lukewarm
towards the
campaign in
support of the
right to
criticise
Islam. A few
days ago, Tim
posted a link
that explained
the meaning
and the
background to
the cartoons
and Charlie
Hebdo, showing
it uses satire
to oppose
racism as well
as religion,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left">https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left</a>
.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">In
Britain, as
seems the case
in France and
the rest of
Europe, there
has been an
increase in
the
religiosity of
Muslims (at a
time when
British
society, as a
whole, is less
religious than
ever). As an
example, when
my children
went to an
inner-city
primary
school, the
Muslim mothers
who came to
collect their
children, were
dressed in
western
clothes or
saris. Now, a
generation
later at the
same school,
where I’m
still involved
as a governor,
the present
mothers, who
in many cases
were the same
girls that
were being
collected
then, are
often turning
up in the
hijab, with
their faces
covered. I
have no
objection to
people
choosing what
to wear and
there are
those who
claim that the
wearing of the
hijab is
liberating but
I can’t think
other than
these British
women are more
oppressed than
their mothers
were. The
reasons for
the greater
religiosity
and therefore
oppression are
many, but we
have to accept
a certain
amount of
blame on the
left because
we have
with-held
criticism of
Islam and its
practices.
Many of these
women would
undoubtedly
like to live
under a more
liberal family
regime and
should have
had the
expectation
that the left
would fight
their
religious
oppression.
But, by and
large, we have
turned our
backs on them
by censoring
ourselves in
the criticism
of their
religion.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">One
of the gains
of the
Enlightenment,
epitomised by
the French
Revolution,
was the right
to criticise
religion. We
should not go
back to the
days where
religion was
beyond
criticism to
the extent of
risking a
death penalty.
The tradition
of French
anti-clerical
satire,
including
Charlie Hebdo,
is part of the
progress of
society.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"
lang="EN-GB">Richard</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white;" align="center"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<hr
align="center"
size="1"
width="100%"></span></div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> "farooq sulehria
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mfsulehria@hotmail.com">mfsulehria@hotmail.com</a>
[socialistdiscussion]"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a><br>
<b>To:</b>
Farooq soas
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:294785@soas.ac.uk"><294785@soas.ac.uk></a>
<br>
<b>Cc:</b>
socialistdiscussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com"><socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com></a>;
moderates
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:the-moderates@googlegroups.com"><the-moderates@googlegroups.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Saturday, 17
January 2015,
8:27<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
[socialistdiscussion]
Between
Islamophobia
and
Islamophilia</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h2
style="background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Between Islamophobia and
Islamophilia<o></o></span></h2>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia">http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Source:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.viewpointonline.net">www.viewpointonline.net</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
the morning of
6th of
September,
1929, a man
stood waiting
outside the
shop of
Mahashay
Rajpal, who
hadn't arrived
yet. As soon
as Rajpal
arrived, the
man, Ilumuddin
took out a
dagger and
stabbed
Mahashay
Rajpal. The
reason: Rajpal
was the
publisher of a
book known as
<em><span>Rangeela
Rasool</span></em>
(The Colourful
Prophet),
which, as you
can understand
from the title
offended a lot
of Muslims.
When Rajpal
was tried in
the court, a
wine drinking,
ham eating
lawyer (and
hence presumed
'secular'),
otherwise
known as
Mohammad Ali
Jinnah,
appealed on
behalf of the
man and urged
that "as
extenuating
circumstances,
that the
appellant is
only 19 or 20
years of age
and that his
act was
prompted by
feelings of
veneration for
the founder of
his religion
and anger at
one who had
scurrilously
attacked him."
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Less
apologetically,
Allama Iqbal,
the <em><span>Shair-e
Mashriq </span></em>(Poet
of the East),
praised
Ilmuddin as a
"great
warrior". In
modern day
Pakistan, his
name carries
the title
Ghazi/Shaheed
and there is a
Pakistani
movie (</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:#1155CC;background:white;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/">http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/</a></span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">) that was made glorifying his
vigilantism. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Around
seventy one
years later,
another
follower of
Ilmuddin was
garlanded by
lawyers for
murdering a
governor in
Punjab. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">On
the other side
of the
spectrum, the
Pakistani
Taliban
recently
attacked a
religious
congregation,
in Rawalpindi
on January 9,
for taking
part in
festivities of
<em><span>eid-e
milad</span></em>
(the prophet's
birthday). It
seems that not
only is
satirising the
Prophet
dangerous, but
revering him
can also land
you in
trouble. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">To
those from the
subcontinent,
the old maxim
of 'Bakhuda
deewana
bashud, ba
mohammad
hoshyar' (Take
liberties with
God, but not a
word against
Mohammad)
rings
painfully
true. Charlie
Hebdo wasn't
the first case
of religious
intolerance,
or the
apologia that
consequently
followed. And
I do not think
it will be the
last.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">As
I write these
lines, I am
painfully
aware that my
cultural
background
puts me in a
tough spot,
and I could
all too easily
be mistaken
for a
chauvinist
Hindu who
takes a
certain glee
in putting
down
Islam/Muslims,
and thus
invite
allegations of
being
Islamophobic.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> It
did occur to
me that I
should
probably make
my
introductory
paragraph more
balanced, and
include a few
examples of
Hindu
extremism so
as to convey
my
impartiality
and avoid
censure of
some readers.
Another
closely
related
rhetorical
trope often
used by people
like me to
convey
neutrality is
to mention
that all
religions are
equally
'evil', but
that would
mean being
intellectually
dishonest.
Neither is my
position the
opposite: that
some religions
are more evil
than others.
Rather, as a
skeptic, I
hold the view
that each
religion is
'differently'
flawed (I find
the phrase
evil too
problematic),
and each has
its own
peculiarities.
For instance,
Hinduism's
dehumanisation
of half of its
followers by
way of a
sophisticated
philosophy of
segregation is
problematic in
a very
different
manner
compared to
Christianity's
history of
inquisitions
or its anxiety
about sex. It
is inane to
debate which
is a greater
'evil'. Since
it was the
horrific
massacre of
Paris that led
me to write
this, my focus
is
disproportionately
on Islam
compared to
other faiths.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">The
massacre in
Paris gave
rise to a
predictable
reaction.
Understandably,
a lot of
people
expressed
solidarity
with the slain
cartoonists,
many well
meaning, but
also quite a
few who felt a
certain
vindication of
their
Islamophobia.
Sometimes the
two
overlapped.
Then came the
liberal
response,
which can be
summed up as
follows: Yes
we are sad,
and it
shouldn't have
happened. But
Charlie Hebdo
wasn't dyed in
the wool
either. But
Islamophobia.
But
imperialism. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">I
am not here to
refute or deny
the West's
(continuing)
history of
imperialism
and
Islamophobia.
It is also an
unfortunate
reality that
Muslim
immigrants in
Europe
continue to be
marginalized.
However, even
though most of
liberal
response took
a conscious
effort to add
caveats
against direct
causality, one
couldn't help
but notice an
implicit
argument that
had the West
not been
Islamophobic/imperialistic,
such massacres
would not have
happened. I
beg to
disagree. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">First,
as the
examples from
British India
and Pakistan
demonstrate,
religious
fundamentalists
are often
waiting to be
provoked.
Religious
fanatics may
use any
pretext to
justify their
actions
(imperialism
is
particularly
fashionable in
the context),
but the bottom
line is that
those who want
to be
provoked, will
be provoked
(As the
RSS/Hindu
right in India
does with
impunity).
Further, had
imperialism
been the
target, it
would have
made far more
'sense' to
attack
government
offices rather
than
cartoonists.
Attributing
their actions
to imperialism
is not only
erroneous, but
also obscures
the agency of
those who
commit such
massacres. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Secondly,
it provides
cannon fodder
to
fundamentalists
within a faith
to justify
their actions
on real or
perceived
injustices.
For instance,
it is well
known that
American
involvement
was
instrumental
in formation
of the
Taliban, but
the Taliban
itself
couldn't have
been conceived
in a vacuum
without the
agency of the
Pakistani
government and
religious
organizations,
who continued
to support
such groups,
long after the
withdrawal of
American
support.
Further, such
arguments also
disempower
those working
from the
inside to
reform
religions/communities.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Next,
coming to the
issue of
Western
hypocrisy
towards free
speech. There
are ample
examples of
hypocrisy as
far as free
speech is
concerned, the
right wing
trash <em><span>Jylland
Posten </span></em>is
what comes to
mind
immediately
due to their
refusal to
caricature
Jesus Christ,
despite
publishing
cartoons of
Prophet
Mohammad (As
an aside, it
is not
satirising
Prophet
Mohammad that
I have a
problem with.
Only that the
<em><span>Jylland
Posten’s</span></em>
cartoon was
neither
intelligent,
nor
satirical).
But <em><span>Jylland
Posten</span></em>
is not the
representative
of European
media. Just as
the assassins
of the
cartoonists
aren't
representative
of the 1.7
billion
Muslims of the
planet, the
same
discourtesy
should also be
extended to
the Danish
magazine. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Another
issue raised
by an article
I read on the
Huffington
Post was the
Western double
standards in
maintaining a
law against
Holocaust
denial while
continuing to
print cartoons
ridiculing the
Prophet. I
agree that
while the law
forbidding
Holocaust
denial is
perhaps not
the wisest
(Even if
neo-Nazis are
allowed to
publish their
hogwash, I
doubt many
people will
believe it),
but equating
satire against
a religion
with denial of
a historical
incident is
perhaps not on
the same
footing. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Lastly,
by failing to
adequately
criticize, or
in many cases,
even mention,
the role of
Islamic
fundamentalism,
progressive
opinion has
virtually
given
right-wing
conservative
opinion the
monopoly on
criticizing
organized
religion,
specifically
Islam.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> Progressive
voices, for
fear of being
censured, and
being labelled
'Islamophobic'
have allowed
the right
-wing to
engage in a
crude
demonisation
of a religion
and its
followers. The
aftermath of
Paris would
have been a
good time for
the Left to
promote a
reasoned
critique of
organized
religion and
fundamentalism.
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">Between
the extremes
of
Islamophobia
and the
uncritical
acceptance of
Islam as being
peaceful,
there is a
middle ground
of critique
(Let's call it
Islamo-criticism,
or generally,
religio-criticism)
that
progressives
could have
engaged in
without
feeling the
need to be
apologetic.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"> Islamic
extremism is a
problem, and
imperialism is
at best, a
catalyst.
These attacks
were the
handiwork of
lunatics but
lunatics too
do not exist
in a vacuum.
Paris apart,
there are
Muslim
societies
where there is
tacit support
for violence
against heresy
(real or
alleged).
There is a
reason why no
Pakistani
government has
dared repeal
the blasphemy
laws. Because
it knows that
any such move
will be too
unpopular. To
give another
example from
the
subcontinent,
the spread of
Hindutva as an
ideology isn't
solely the
work of
right-wing
lunatics. It
requires the
tacit approval
(or fearful
silence) of a
substantial
segment of the
population to
sustain it.
Babri Masjid
was demolished
in the minds
of millions
some time
before it was
actually razed
to the ground
in 1992. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;">This
takes me back
to 2011. After
Salman
Taseer's
assassination,
many well
intentioned
Pakistani
friends said
that killing
for blasphemy
is un-Islamic,
and accused
the extremists
of selective
interpretation.
The point is,
as vast (and
often
contradictory)
the corpus of
Islamic law
is, the
liberals can
also be
accused of
picking those
interpretations
that suit
them. Neither
has the
monopoly on
the truth. My
question to
them was:
Assuming for a
second that
the extremist
interpretation
is indeed
correct and
killing for
blasphemy is
sanctioned in
the religion,
would that
make the
assassin's
actions any
more
justifiable?
</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;color:black;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;"><span
style="color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><br>
<br
clear="all">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;">-- <o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><br>
<br
clear="all">
<o></o></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><o> </o></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;">-- <o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o></o></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:1.0pt;color:white;">.<o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="padding:0in;"><img
id="Picture_x0020_11"
src="cid:part18.09020601.05040903@comcast.net"
alt="Description: Image removed by sender."
border="0" height="1" width="1"></span><br>
<span style="padding:0in;"><img id="Picture_x0020_12"
src="cid:part18.09020601.05040903@comcast.net"
alt="Description: Image removed by sender."
border="0" height="1" width="1"></span><o></o></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:white;"><o></o></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<div style="color: #fff; height: 0;">__._,_.___</div>
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
<div id="fromDMARC" style="margin-top: 10px;">
<hr style="height:2px ; border-width:0; color:#E3E3E3;
background-color:#E3E3E3;"> Posted by: "David Johnson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:davidjohnson1451@comcast.net"><davidjohnson1451@comcast.net></a>
<hr style="height:2px ; border-width:0; color:#E3E3E3;
background-color:#E3E3E3;"> </div>
<div style="clear:both"> </div>
<table style="margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; color:
#2D50FD;" cellspacing="4px">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 12px; font-family: arial;
font-weight: bold; padding: 7px 5px 5px;"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" style="text-decoration: none;
color: #2D50FD"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/messages/5314;_ylc=X3oDMTJwYXBjcGE1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzUzMTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2?act=reply&messageNum=5314">Reply
via web post</a> </td>
<td>•</td>
<td style="font-size: 12px; font-family: arial; padding:
7px 5px 5px;"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:davidjohnson1451@comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20Between%20Islamophobia%20and%20Islamophilia%20%5B2%20Attachments%5D"
style="text-decoration: none; color: #2D50FD;">
Reply to sender </a> </td>
<td>•</td>
<td style="font-size: 12px; font-family: arial; padding:
7px 5px 5px;"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sf-core@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Between%20Islamophobia%20and%20Islamophilia%20%5B2%20Attachments%5D"
style="text-decoration: none; color: #2D50FD"> Reply
to group </a> </td>
<td>•</td>
<td style="font-size: 12px; font-family: arial; padding:
7px 5px 5px;"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJldXBuOXVtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQyMTYwOTM0Ng--"
style="text-decoration: none; color: #2D50FD">Start
a New Topic</a> </td>
<td>•</td>
<td style="font-size: 12px; font-family: arial; padding:
7px 5px 5px;color: #2D50FD;"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/topics/5314;_ylc=X3oDMTM0N2s2MjhvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzUzMTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2BHRwY0lkAzUzMTQ-"
style="text-decoration: none; color: #2D50FD;">Messages
in this topic</a> (1) </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<!------- Start Nav Bar ------>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-vital" style="background-color: #f2f2f2;
font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;
padding: 10px;"> <span id="vithd" style="font-weight: bold;
color: #333; text-transform: uppercase; "><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJldnUyNmljBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQyMTYwOTM0Ng--"
style="text-decoration: none;">Visit Your Group</a></span>
<ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0;
display: inline;">
</ul>
</div>
<div id="ft" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px;
margin-top: 5px; padding: 0 2px 0 0; clear: both;"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdXBkb2UyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2"
style="float: left;"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://l.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/email/new_logo/logo-groups-137x15.png"
alt="Yahoo! Groups" style="border: 0;" height="15"
width="137"></a>
<div style="color: #747575; float: right;"> • <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html"
style="text-decoration: none;">Privacy</a> • <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sf-core-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"
style="text-decoration: none;">Unsubscribe</a> • <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/"
style="text-decoration: none;">Terms of Use</a> </div>
</div>
<br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --> </div>
<!-- ygrp-msg -->
<!-- Sponsor -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-sponsor" style="width:160px; float:right;
clear:none; margin:0 0 25px 0; background: #fff;">
<!-- Start Recommendations -->
<div id="ygrp-reco"> </div>
<!-- End Recommendations --> </div>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div style="clear:both; color: #FFF; font-size:1px;">.</div>
</div>
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=7892663/grpspId=1705060375/msgId=5314/stime=1421609346"
height="1" width="1"> <br>
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=10001310322279&js=no&resp=img"
height="1" width="1">
<div style="color: #fff; height: 0;">__,_._,___</div>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<style type="text/css">
<!--
#ygrp-mkp {
border: 1px solid #d8d8d8;
font-family: Arial;
margin: 10px 0;
padding: 0 10px;
}
#ygrp-mkp hr {
border: 1px solid #d8d8d8;
}
#ygrp-mkp #hd {
color: #628c2a;
font-size: 85%;
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 122%;
margin: 10px 0;
}
#ygrp-mkp #ads {
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad {
padding: 0 0;
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad p {
margin: 0;
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a {
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
font-family: Arial;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd {
margin: 10px 0px;
font-weight: 700;
font-size: 78%;
line-height: 122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad {
margin-bottom: 10px;
padding: 0 0;
}
#actions {
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 11px;
padding: 10px 0;
}
#activity {
background-color: #e0ecee;
float: left;
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 10px;
padding: 10px;
}
#activity span {
font-weight: 700;
}
#activity span:first-child {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
#activity span a {
color: #5085b6;
text-decoration: none;
}
#activity span span {
color: #ff7900;
}
#activity span .underline {
text-decoration: underline;
}
.attach {
clear: both;
display: table;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 12px;
padding: 10px 0;
width: 400px;
}
.attach div a {
text-decoration: none;
}
.attach img {
border: none;
padding-right: 5px;
}
.attach label {
display: block;
margin-bottom: 5px;
}
.attach label a {
text-decoration: none;
}
blockquote {
margin: 0 0 0 4px;
}
.bold {
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 700;
}
.bold a {
text-decoration: none;
}
dd.last p a {
font-family: Verdana;
font-weight: 700;
}
dd.last p span {
margin-right: 10px;
font-family: Verdana;
font-weight: 700;
}
dd.last p span.yshortcuts {
margin-right: 0;
}
div.attach-table div div a {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.attach-table {
width: 400px;
}
div.file-title a, div.file-title a:active, div.file-title a:hover, div.file-title a:visited {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.photo-title a, div.photo-title a:active, div.photo-title a:hover, div.photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration: none;
}
div#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts {
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 10px;
font-weight: normal;
}
.green {
color: #628c2a;
}
.MsoNormal {
margin: 0 0 0 0;
}
o {
font-size: 0;
}
#photos div {
float: left;
width: 72px;
}
#photos div div {
border: 1px solid #666666;
height: 62px;
overflow: hidden;
width: 62px;
}
#photos div label {
color: #666666;
font-size: 10px;
overflow: hidden;
text-align: center;
white-space: nowrap;
width: 64px;
}
#reco-category {
font-size: 77%;
}
#reco-desc {
font-size: 77%;
}
.replbq {
margin: 4px;
}
#ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
/* border-right: 0px solid #000;*/
margin-right: 2px;
padding-right: 5px;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, helvetica,clean, sans-serif;
*font-size: small;
*font: x-small;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size: inherit;
font: 100%;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {
font: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {
font:115% monospace;
*font-size:100%;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height: 1.22em;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo {
padding-bottom: 10px;
}
#ygrp-msg p a {
font-family: Verdana;
}
#ygrp-msg p#attach-count span {
color: #1E66AE;
font-weight: 700;
}
#ygrp-reco #reco-head {
color: #ff7900;
font-weight: 700;
}
#ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding: 0px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a {
font-size: 130%;
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li {
font-size: 77%;
list-style-type: square;
padding: 6px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 0 0 8px;
}
#ygrp-text {
font-family: Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p {
margin: 0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt {
font-size: 120%;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right: none !important;
}
-->
</style>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
<!-- end group email -->
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>