Getting published 2
Syntax corner
Getting published
The British Invasion
Salvador
The quality of sanity is not strained
Going round in circles
Where do you hide your money?
For film buffs
SteamboatsMuslim leader calls for happiness
The Washington Post has this:
Egypt’s grand Mufti Ali Gomma called on Muslims in his traditional Eid sermon to avoid wasteful spending and instead support charities.
“A good Muslim should bring happiness to the hearts of fellow human beings” he said.
That’s great news that Muslims are presumably being asked to reject:
# The takeover of Britain [they'll have to fight the EU in this];
# Beslans and similar;
# Infibulation;
# Getting their children to kill;
# Silence from the feminists on the oppression of women;
# Attempts to curtail free speech through threats;
# Theft of property of those disliked;
# Mass murders;
# Officially sanctioned mob violence;
# Various throat slittings and beheadings;
# Using their own children as human shields;
# Armenia, Assyria, Indonesia, Hindu holocaust and so on.
Excellent then that Muslims are being asked to reject all that and “bring happiness to the hearts of fellow human beings”.
We can now all relax.
Filed under: Life issues & people
I feel a reciprocal warm glow coming on, James and I am getting into the bath with the Times sudoku and a large malt.
بِحَمْدِك ذِي الْإِكْرَامِ مَا رُمْت أَبْتَدِي ~~~~ كَثِيرًا كَمَا تَرْضَاهُ بِغَيْرِ تَحَدُّدِ
The timing of this post is ironic indeed and not lost on me.
It is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is representative of all Muslims. It is not, and you know better than this James. Or have you forgotten about your posts from Russia to do with your views on Muslims?
You and I have spent a great deal of time in the Muslim community and you cannot deny that, barring fanatics which come from all religious backgorunds, that the average Muslim are a warm,hospitable and peaceable peoples.
But no one writes that about them, do they?
As for your list, there were a few ‘crimes’ on it that are practised world wide,even amongst the horrid Brits.
“It is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is representative of all Muslims.”
Where does it say this? I had another look and can’t find anything about that.
However, moving on, are you going to support the oppression of women and remain silent on it, as the feminists have? I’m sure you wouldn’t do that.
You might like to go to NNWer and read about this:
“Some Imams ‘biased against women’” Many women felt they did not get a fair hearing under Sharia law A Muslim think tank has found some UK Imams discriminate against women when enforcing Islamic Sharia law.
http://theyrejokingarentthey.blogspot.com/2009/11/bbc-best-ever-headline.html
That couldn’t be right. could it?
Stop being a puppet for a moron,James.
I don’t need to spell out what is woefully wrong with this post and what it infers about a collective whole.
James I’m pretty sure Ubermouth would agree with both you and I that oppression of women is bad whoever does it.
Incidentally I don’t recognise what you say on feminist silence on this- there are some who are- but many feminists have written about this- see these articles
http://thefbomb.org/2009/11/honor-killings/
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/9/964
http://www.feministing.com/archives/006991.html
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/bibliog/honour.html is a bibliography including feminist works on honour killing
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/1998summer/su98goodwin.php the author has written a feminist analysis of how radical islam demeans women.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBD-4NMV05X-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1113223990&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b73df8cf98379e0c0edd16b003ce1b33
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n21/jacqueline-rose/a-piece-of-white-silk
http://www.kwrw.org/ kurdish women’s rights group with a campaign against honour killing
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/ Feminist organisation against Islamic violence against women.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/21/ourdirtylittlesecret Muslim women condemns Saudi Arabia
http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf
http://hubpages.com/hub/Hillary-Clinton-calleds Hillary Clinton making a statement against Extremists who think women aren’t humans.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qjuxOcAH5hYC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=sexism+islam+feminist&source=bl&ots=4zBd5L0Vre&sig=l5Rrl13jKurxjcjt-33rhlumvBo&hl=en&ei=u18RS5PrB8n54AbXnZiGBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sexism%20islam%20feminist&f=false asks why Islamic women would choose not to have voices.
I could go on but won’t- my point is not that some people say stupid things and are feminists- but that there are plenty of feminists who criticise Islamic regimes, people and ideologies for not abusing women physically or in other ways.
Uber – there it is. My case rests. Which article at the end of which link do your disagree with and could I have your evidence to support your contention?
The thrust of the post is clearly about the Muslim leadership. Or is it about racism that you’re concerned?
If the latter, then please explain how I have just left my local store where I’d been chatting for 20 minutes to my Pakistani friends? Why would the lady have smiled as I left? I’d only bought five pounds worth of goods.
Could that be because I’m not, in fact, a racist?
The thing is, that being against Islam taking over this nation and being against the radicals in the mosques does not constitute racism – it constitutes being worried about the country being taken over by alien laws and culture.
Racism is a much abused word these days.
“The thing is, that being against Islam taking over this nation and being against the radicals in the mosques does not constitute racism – it constitutes being worried about the country being taken over by alien laws and culture.
Racism is a much abused word these days.”
Spot on post and comment James! It does not matter whether or not the majority of Muslims are peaceful in the Western sense of the word since they are not calling the shots right now. The guys calling for the death of all infidels are. The being worried about being taken over by alien laws and culture over here deal with the Mexicans illegally here, and to a lesser extent, the Muslims as well.
Uber I don’t know your political leanings but I do know that the Left over here (I can only imagine that it’s worse on your guys side of the pond) uses racism for anything under the sun. The word, which I never thought was very useful to begin with, has been sapped to its maximum extent and is now nothing more than hot air.
That is my point EXACTLY James. I KNOW you’re not racist but you put this post up[which is but does not reflect your personal views] to continue an argument based on a fellow blogger’s racists slurs against Muslims which I objected to earlier and was ridiculed and silenced [in the UK ,imagine!]And you know it!That is my first objection,my seccond being that, whilst I agree with Muslim leadership and fanatics needing to be contained with a clear message sent that their Sharia laws are not welcome here, one should be EXTREMELY careful with such posts so as not to stigmatize all Muslims as accepting of or engaging in such barbarianism.
I also want to point out that silencing women and minorities and condoning violence against women[off the top of my head] is not solely a Muslim problem, not terror tactics.
Thank you Gracchi. You’re right, I don’t believe in silencing anyone.I often think that Feminists in their truest form do more harm than good[and often worry that I am mistaen for one.]
Matt-Well, according to James I am a socialist leaning towards Marxism, but I think we should take the best of all that socialism, communism and democracy have to offer and disregard the rest.
And for the record, I denounce Sharia Law and the infiltration of Muslim culture/laws/customs upon the Western world,but not Muslims as a people.
Further,’Racism is a much abused word these days’.
That statement is rich James given that you believe that aging wasps are the most discriminated against on the planet.
And just to poke you…..
… but then again, you believe that Israel is the true victim.
* laughing to self at how mad this makes you.
racists slurs against Muslims
This is the point made by Matt, Uber. It’s not racism. Which race are they? They are many races. Islam is a socio-religious blueprint for a totalitarian state when it’s allowed to expand. Have you heard of Sharia Law?
It’s not a race. It’s a system.
“Thank you Gracchi. You’re right, I don’t believe in silencing anyone.”
Thank you, Uber – that’s the whole point and that is precisely what Islam does when it gets a toehold. It seems we’re agreed after all.
When one makes any derogatory slur against a Muslim they are not simply slurring their religious beliefs but them as a people which are lumped together as being Middle Eastern in most people’s minds.
The word Muslim also encompasses their customs and lifestyles which are separate from their religion and you know it.
Stop being an ass like your ‘friend’ whose cause you took up with this post when he was so ungracious and lacking in couth that he was demeaning and belittling on his post when I objected to his inference that Muslims are paedophiles. It’s pathetic that you, who claims to be against such conduct,would take up the torch.
And this was exactly what this post was.
But then again, he told me you were a closet racist himself.
Sigh.
None so blind as … etc.
If you target the religion more than the people you will carry more with you. I was also wondering if, given the week’s report from the Catholic church, your blog might have carried some condemnation of the ongoing rape and abuse of children by priests in Christianity’s most prominent sect. They try to present it as a problem of the past, but it does continue. When I think of Islam I think of many of the same dreadful things as you do; but when I think of Christianity I think of the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, and all manner of murder and torture at home and abroad all the way up to the paedophile priests of today and the mental bullies that tell little kids what stories to believe in. Not the benign “moral code” that you so often tell us about. We should ask the victims of a religion if you want a more balanced perspective of what it means to us.
You’re the blind one, James.
This entire post was done as an ambush on your idiot ‘friends’ manipulation [becuase he lacks the intelligence to deal with a debate in any other manner than belittling and demeaning the woman who objects to his appalling blogging tactics and then leaves his factually incorrect uitterances up, refusing to moderate her comments]. Lord T indeed- Lord Tit.
Great comment, Andrew. Many of the atrocities over history and continuingn to present day come from many religions are not exclusive to Muslims.
And one only needs to go to Pro LIberi to find silencing of women, aggression against women[and he's no Muslim].
Uber – sigh.
Andrew – this is the standard error – it was not Christian in the least. It was the official “Church” linked with the State and it was for secular goals that the thing was funded. The religious aspect was always a blind.
One only needs read the gospels to see that there is zero justification there for any of it – the Crusades, the Catholic kiddy-fiddling etc. I’m no Catholic so it was certainly no conspiratorial silence on my part – just that I was addressing a specific comment by a specific Egyptian – something Uber doesn’t seem to have taken on board.
Not a problem.
As for the things done in Christianity’s name – they’re like the things done in Islam’s name. The difference is that the Qu’ran condones it and the Gospels condemn it.
Tiberius – good set of links – I’m working my way through them. Am currently on the Jacqueline Rose one. Thanks for those.
James thanks for the compliment- on the Quran versus the Gospel. I would disagree with you. Some interpretations of the Quran condemn this behaviour too- some interpretations of the gospels endorse it (I can find you plenty of people in the seventeenth century who genuinely believed in the gospels and also in killing other people- I know this is puffing my own website, but I recently wrote about toleration in this context for example). They may not have agreed with your conception of Christianity, but that does not mean that they were not Christians and did not take the Bible seriously. So I’m with Ubermouth, Christianity and Islam encompass a wide variety of beliefs from the barbaric to the kind- and neither one nor the other has a monopoly on virtue.
some interpretations of the gospels endorse it (I can find you plenty of people in the seventeenth century who genuinely believed in the gospels and also in killing other people
Show me where it is condoned, Tiberius, in the gospels. You used the word “interpreted”. I could interpret the Egyptian Imam’s exhortation to love his fellow Muslims as just that or I could interpret it as killing all Jews.
We can’t control people’s interpretations, especially when the State condones and promotes false interpretations.
“They may not have agreed with your conception of Christianity, but that does not mean that they were not Christians and did not take the Bible seriously”
Actually it very much means they are not Christians. No one, not even Constantine, can ignore key passages in favour of those “capable of interpretation” of the way he/she wants it to be.
Blake said that your god has a nose like yours and mine has a nose like mine and that is yet another inaccuracy. The gospels, which everyone talks of and quotes from but few have actually read in their entirety and understood in their historical context, abhor violence of the kinds that Suras and Hadiths specifically condone.
People trying to sheet home violence to Christianity and there are many groups who do, invariably resort to the Old Testament and then to Paul in his missals. Paul was an interpreter himself.
The gospels themselves, whether they prove the divinity of Christ or not, were designed to convey two messages – love the Lord your G-d and love your neighbour as yourself. All else was subordinate to that.
Not love fellow Christians but kill Muslims. Not “enslave the black man.” Nowhere are they mentioned.
Just read the things and you’ll see what I mean.
James we can argue about what the gospels mean till the cows come home and I’m not going to try and persuade you that your interpretation is wrong- just what I’m trying to say is that others have held equally sincerely other interpretations.
I’ll give you an example, the execution of Charles I was authorised because of Numbers 35.33, according to Moses God said to him
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
That was used as a justification to kill the Irish in 1649 as well.
I’m not saying that those people were right about the meaning of that text or the meaning of what God said to Moses, but what I am saying is that their interpretation is a possible one. Ultimately I think that Christian as a word means someone who accepts the resurrection and the core creeds of the faith, if it means those people who agree with James Higham about what Christianity is- then you are right no Christian would endorse any racism or sexism etc, but that’s not a useful definition because there aren’t many people who agree with every word you say- if it means something wider ie those people who accept and believe in a living God whose son died for humanity’s salvation, then it includes people like those who read Numbers 35.33 as a justification for murdering the IRish and executing Charles.
(Incidentally there are plenty of Muslims who argue that the Muslims you are talking about aren’t Muslims and that they, the peaceful tolerant sort, are the only Muslims- I would say the same thing to them).
Well said gracchi, I couldn’t be bothered to take the time to go over all the countless instances in the Christian’s book of stories that can and have been used by Christians to justify murder, torture, invasion and the endless pollution of young minds. I heard them myself, all through Sunday school and church until I gave up church aged about 14, having grown sickened by what I was hearing. That plus the realisation that for adults to tell young impressionable children that they should believe stories that no adult can possibly know to be true is simply evil.
try and persuade you that your interpretation is wrong
There is no interpretation. Just read the words, free of any interpretation. They are remarkably clearcut, giving rise to no ambiguities.
This is a constant attempt by non-Christians without ever reading the words themselves.
I have read them. I was brought up a Christian. Actually, the last time I ever attended church I walked out in disgust as the minister read out a dreadful bloodthirsty passage from the Christian Bible about God and his armies massacaring enemies in bloody fashion, and all the old ladies and fine gents and naive youngsters were just drinking it all in, either not comprehending what they were hearing or perhaps even approving of it. My disbelief and disgust had been building for a while but on that day that was me done with the nonsensical and bloodthirsty made up stories of the Christian story book for good. I’ve read the words, and I do not intend to read them again. I’ve also read the words in much of the Muslin story book, and I won’t be reading them again either. Both are books of nonsense invented by humans bent on mind control and embellished by tradition and used to justify pretty much anything. I won’t be digging out quotes because as I have said, I do not intend to read these words again, but I have lived the nonsense. I know what goes on in the believer’s mind, and I know that the only person who can ever shake one out of the nonsense is oneself. I shall not comment on religion in this blog again.
from the Christian Bible about God and his armies massacaring enemies in bloody fashion
Strange, I don’t recall that being in the gospels and as the gospels are the only source I use, I find this puzzling. As said earlier, we can never control or account for interpretations people choose to place on things, whether Christian, Voodoo or whatever it happens to be.
Even in our AA meeting just now, we discovered that someone who had supported leaving the EU now sees that as meaning talking about it in 5 years. Strange interpretation and not a construction we would have put on it but there you go.
It was not my intention to upset you, Andrew and sorry if I have but I equally have an emotional reaction to others’ [not your] misinterpretation of the message. As you know, I’m no evangelist but I do like the facts to be straight.
As you say, this is probably talked out now, this topic.
James do you not take the Old Testament therefore to be part of the Bible? You refer to the Gospels- but as I understand it normally that’s taken to be part of the bible- crucial but crucial alongside the Old Testament- Christ himself agreed, frequently quoting the Old Testament and arguing that his ministry should be seen in the context of those teachings.
And insofar as He did speak of them, they’re accepted but he brought a new message and that’s why it was called a New Testament which replaced the old, e.g. the need for sacrifices. A historical frame is a historical frame and that’s how he presented it. It was the history of the Jewish nation though.
You didn’t upset me at all James. You just reminded me how pointless it is “discussing” religion with people who believe.