[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia
Astrid Berkson via Peace-discuss
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sun Jan 18 17:41:34 EST 2015
ch did lots of antisemitic and anti-israel jokes. they lampooned everyone
"May this be the worst day of your life".
Old Irish blessing.
On 1/18/2015 1:29 PM, 'David Johnson' davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net
[sf-core] wrote:
>
> *[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Julian included below]*
>
> This appalling action is the effect and the cause of truly alarming
> developments.
>
> Islamic 'extremists' have caused vastly more deaths of 'fellow'
> Muslims than of others. Muslem 'extremism' also accounts for
> 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].
> [See attachments for more details]
>
> 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'.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> (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......)
>
> 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.]
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04yn2yq/the-superrich-and-us-episode-2
>
> 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.
>
> The State is now strutting about grandly and parading itself proudly
> with "Je suis Charlie" banners while preparing for war against its
> populations.
>
> Islamophobia and Islamophilia are almost irrelevant details - useful
> ideological pawns for rival reactionary forces
>
> Sonja Engelhardt sonjaengelhardt69 at gmail.com
> <mailto:sonjaengelhardt69 at gmail.com> [socialistdiscussion] wrote:
>
> I agree with Dave.
>
> 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.
>
> Somebody from the Israeli embassy in Germany noticed the
> anti-semitic cartoon and complained. The German newspaper had to
> apologize.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> I do think that these are serious issues the left has to deal with.
>
> Comradely,
>
> Sonja
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Dave Savage
> dsavage_1960 at yahoo.com <mailto:dsavage_1960 at yahoo.com>
> [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> "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."
>
> 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?
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*"Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk
> <mailto:redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk> [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>>
> *To:* "socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 17, 2015 4:59 PM
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and
> Islamophilia
>
> Here's the explanation for that particular cartoon:
>
>
> Rassemblement Bleu Raciste [ link]
>
> Themes: Racism, Front National
>
> Publication date: 12/11/2013
>
> Author: Charb (1967 - 2015)
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
>
> Translation
>
> “RACIST BLUE UNION”
>
>
> Symbols
>
> * 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.
> * The blue and red flame logo on the bottom-left is the logo of
> the Front National, a far-right political party in France.
> * The person depicted is Justice Minister Christiane Taubira,
> 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.).
> * The title is a play on words of Marine Le Pen's slogan
> “Rassemblement Bleu Marine” (Navy blue Union).
>
>
> Satire
>
> 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” [Le Monde]
> (she was later sentenced to 9 months of prison). 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.
>
> The cartoon was drawn by Charb. 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.
>
> Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*"Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk
> <mailto:redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk> [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>>
> *To:* "socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 18 January 2015, 0:55
> *Subject:* Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and
> Islamophilia
>
> This webpage explains the meaning of the cartoons:
> http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist
>
> Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*"John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com
> <mailto:1999wildcat at gmail.com> [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>>
> *To:* socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 18 January 2015, 0:12
> *Subject:* Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and
> Islamophilia
>
> Then there is this CH cartoon which depicts a black administration
> official as a monkey. And you're telling me CH is not racist?
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, John Reimann
> <1999wildcat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> John Reimann
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, RSilver100 at aol.com
> [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> I agree. Socialists should make no concessions to religious
> superstition.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> Roger Silverman
>
> In a message dated 17/01/2015 18:55:27 GMT Standard Time,
> socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> "John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" wrote:
>
> Nobody is proposing banning Charlie Hebdo or any journal like
> that.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Richard Evans
> redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> John, I think you were absolutely right in taking a principled
> stand against supporting the religious charter school, despite
> the accusations of racism.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> "John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Richard Evans
> redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this Farooq. I particularly like the
> phrase, “/each religion is ‘differently’ flawed/”. 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.
>
> The post raises some important issues:
>
> /“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”……/
>
> /“… 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./
>
> / 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.”……/
>
> /“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).”/
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
> https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left
> .
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*"farooq sulehria mfsulehria at hotmail.com
> [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
> *To:* Farooq soas <294785 at soas.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* socialistdiscussion
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>; moderates
> <the-moderates at googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 17 January 2015, 8:27
> *Subject:* [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and
> Islamophilia
>
>
> Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia
>
>
>
> http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia
>
>
> Source: www.viewpointonline.net
>
>
>
>
> 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 /Rangeela Rasool/ (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."
>
> Less apologetically, Allama Iqbal, the /Shair-e Mashriq /(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
> (http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/) that
> was made glorifying his vigilantism.
>
> Around seventy one years later, another follower of Ilmuddin
> was garlanded by lawyers for murdering a governor in Punjab.
>
> 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 /eid-e milad/
> (the prophet's birthday). It seems that not only is satirising
> the Prophet dangerous, but revering him can also land you in
> trouble.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 /Jylland Posten /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 /Jylland
> Posten’s/ cartoon was neither intelligent, nor satirical). But
> /Jylland Posten/ 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Poems don't belong to those who write them; they belong to
> those who need them" - from movie "Il Postino"
> Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com and
> //www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Poems don't belong to those who write them; they belong to
> those who need them" - from movie "Il Postino"
> Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com and
> //www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
> "John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Nobody is proposing banning Charlie Hebdo or any journal like
> that.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Richard Evans
> redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> John, I think you were absolutely right in taking a principled
> stand against supporting the religious charter school, despite
> the accusations of racism.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> "John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]"
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Richard Evans
> redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this Farooq. I particularly like the
> phrase, “/each religion is ‘differently’ flawed/”. 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.
>
> The post raises some important issues:
>
> /“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”……/
>
> /“… 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./
>
> / 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.”……/
>
> /“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).”/
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
> https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left
> .
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*"farooq sulehria mfsulehria at hotmail.com
> [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
> *To:* Farooq soas <294785 at soas.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* socialistdiscussion
> <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>; moderates
> <the-moderates at googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 17 January 2015, 8:27
> *Subject:* [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and
> Islamophilia
>
>
> Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia
>
>
>
> http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia
>
>
> Source: www.viewpointonline.net
>
>
>
>
> 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 /Rangeela Rasool/ (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."
>
> Less apologetically, Allama Iqbal, the /Shair-e Mashriq /(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
> (http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/) that
> was made glorifying his vigilantism.
>
> Around seventy one years later, another follower of Ilmuddin
> was garlanded by lawyers for murdering a governor in Punjab.
>
> 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 /eid-e milad/
> (the prophet's birthday). It seems that not only is satirising
> the Prophet dangerous, but revering him can also land you in
> trouble.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 /Jylland Posten /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 /Jylland
> Posten’s/ cartoon was neither intelligent, nor satirical). But
> /Jylland Posten/ 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> .
>
> Description: Image removed by sender.
> Description: Image removed by sender.
>
> __._,_.___
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted by: "David Johnson" <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reply via web post
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/messages/5314;_ylc=X3oDMTJwYXBjcGE1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzUzMTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2?act=reply&messageNum=5314>
> • Reply to sender
> <mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20Between%20Islamophobia%20and%20Islamophilia%20%5B2%20Attachments%5D>
> • Reply to group
> <mailto:sf-core at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Between%20Islamophobia%20and%20Islamophilia%20%5B2%20Attachments%5D>
> • Start a New Topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJldXBuOXVtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQyMTYwOTM0Ng-->
> • Messages in this topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/conversations/topics/5314;_ylc=X3oDMTM0N2s2MjhvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzUzMTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2BHRwY0lkAzUzMTQ->
> (1)
>
> Visit Your Group
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sf-core/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJldnUyNmljBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQyMTYwOTM0Ng-->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdXBkb2UyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDIxNjA5MzQ2>
>
> • Privacy
> <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
> Unsubscribe
> <mailto:sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> •
> Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150118/37a80f6e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 332 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150118/37a80f6e/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list