h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Muslim who wrote a book was Salman Rushdie.

I don't think tiggy meant Rushdie since he did not declare anything of the sort.

I think ImranKhan you should re-read the post. "a British subject should die...because he had written a book"

Read things properly before you declare them 'silly'.

Tiggy wrote:

'But here's a thing: until 1989, I contend most English people thought of Muslims as something that happened abroad. It was only that year that it was forcefully brought home to us that if some bearded wacko in a foreign land did something called a "fatwa", there were over a MILLION of that wacko's soldiers living right here in this green and pleasant land, every man (and woman) jack of them keen to martyr themselves for Allah in the cause of suppressing freedom of speech.

Obviously the above is an egregious exaggeration - but the point is, Muslims were, to a large extent, irrelevant to this country, and then overnight they became a terrorist threat. And they became that terrorist threat NOT because of an illegal war initiated by a Prime Minister in thrall to a moron, or because long-standing historical sectarian rivalries and burning social inequities - they became that threat overnight because the nearest thing they had to a Pope decreed a British subject should die at the hands of a Muslim because he'd written a book. '


Wikipedia says:

'On 14 February 1989, a fatwā requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Satanic_Verses_and_the_fatw.C4.81


If you don't think Tiggy meant Rushdie, I don't know what you could possibly imagine was meant. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

And yes, he did mean Rushdie, even though he didn't name him. That's not too difficult to see.

O.k my bad, it's late.

That makes it an even more silly post and from someone who has little knowledge of Islam. The Ayatollah is nothing like the Pope. He is the leader of a sect which only represents 10% of Muslims.

You're missing the point.


Anyway, as I intimated in my first post, I don't think that this Spencer fellow has much to do with the way anybody important thinks about Muslims. What does have an effect is the way that Islamists behave.

To use my situation as an example, again. I have no problem with my French-Canadian neighbours -- but in 1970 I had a problem with the FLQ. I have fine times with my Hindu neighbours -- but I wish the Tamil Tigers had never invented the suicide belt. I am quite fond of the Sikh people in my neighbourhood -- but the Air India bombing was unconscionable. And, my Muslim friends and acquaintances are dear to me -- but the al-Shabob recruiters who have been murdering young men in my city are evil.


I don't care what this Spencer fellow says.





And, just as an elephant in the room aside -- can't Allah defend himself?

aangha

Your not doing yourself any justice by taking the actions of 000.1% of people and tarnishing nearly 2 billion people or the ideoligy they follow.

"can't Allah defend himself?"

There is no threat to Allah and never will be. The Creator is all powerful and does not have any faults or weaknesses.

'Your not doing yourself any justice by taking the actions of 000.1% of people and tarnishing nearly 2 billion people or the ideoligy they follow.'

Hold on, my friend.


First off, for a moment there I was trying to explain that someone else was talking about Rushdie, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with that comment.


Second, all of my other posts on this thread where about the fact that I do not tarnish any group with the actions of a few. I live happily in a wonderfully multicultural, peaceful city. There are, of course, some criminals here and those I heartily condemn. If a white guy commits a crime, I say that a man committed a crime. If a Cree man commits a crime, I say that a man committed a crime. If a Sikh man commits a crime, I say that a man committed a crime. If a Muslim man commits a crime, I say that a man committed a crime.

However, if a White Supremicist commits a crime *in the name of his ideology*, then I will say a White Supremicist has done it . . . and so on. And, if an al-Shabob recruiter murders a young man on the streets of my city, I will say that an Islamic extremist as committed a murder.

In no way am I 'tarnishing' a group (Muslim people) because of the actions of a minuscule portion of that group.

Again, I have gone to great lengths to emphasise that I do not believe that we should condemn Muslims for the acts of a few extremists.

Actually, to be honest, I would appreciate an apology for your insinuation.


And, have you read Mr. Fatah's book which I mentioned earlier? You should really have a look. It's full of constructive advice from a Muslim to Muslims.


I'm going to go back to ing. I don't see much of a conversation here.

"I will say that an Islamic extremist as committed a murder."

This is the crux of the problem buddy. There is nothing Islamic about extremism/murder or terrorism. When people of Jewish origin targetted the King David hotel nobody called them Jewish terrorist etc. This is one of the main causes of Islamaphobia because people link the persons religion with their actions.

Thanks for your recommended book, I will take a look.

'When people of Jewish origin targetted the King David hotel nobody called them Jewish terrorist'

That's always the way I've heard them referred to. And the Air India bombing was blamed on Sikh extremists.


I guess there were never any Catholic Extremists or Protestant paramilitaries in Ulster, either.


And, again, you have missed the explicit point. I said I if a White Supremacist committed a crime in the name of his ideology that I would call him a White Supremacist, etc.

Sorry, my friend, but if someone says 'I do this in the name of ' then *they* are claiming the title of Christian/Sikh/Hindu/etc. It is not the outside world putting the label on them.

Are you suggesting that I should not call him a White Supremacist? Are you suggesting that I should not speak of Hindu/Muslim riots in India? Should I not call The FLQ of my own country in the sixties and seventies a Quebecois terrorist organisation? Or is it just the extremists who claim the name of Islam who must be discussed without sectarian adjective?

'no true Scotsman'


I hope you enjoy and learn from the book.

I won't hold my breath for that apology.

You know, ImranKhan, I am feeling quite annoyed. Here I am, a guy who posted to this thread solely to point out, at length, with real world examples from the place I live, that it is inappropriate to blame an entire group for the actions of a few extremists who claim to act in the name of that group . . .

and then you have come down on me for supposedly doing that very thing.

Have you read nothing that I have posted?


Enough of this garbage.

You’re confusing the issue here. White Supremacism is a specific ideology which calls for a white only state and their actions are to fulfil this aim.

Others who are part of a religion don't do these acts for the sole purpose of following their religion. They do it for political gains and believe their religion allows them to use certain tactics to meet these gains.

Even Al-Qaeda don't believe their religion tells them to wipe out all non-believers just for the sake of it. They again do this for political gains and according to them their religions justifies their actions in achieving them. This has been proven to be false many many times.

So if one takes these small percentages of people and applies their religious denomination to their actions it then vilifies the rest of the people (majority) who also happen to follow the same ideology but are totally against their actions even if they agree with their aims.

I will apologise because I don't like to offend anyone but I'm not entirely sure what for?

If you don't know why anhaga is offended, then I will re-iterate what I said earlier: Read things properly.

1. Anhaga points out, with examples, in evocative prose, that he is careful to avoid tarnishing the many with the failings of the few.

2. You accuse anhaga, without any justification, of tarnishing the many with the failings of the few.

3. Anhaga points out again that he explicitly does not do so, and has said so before.

4. Anhaga requests an apology for the slur.

And you still don't know what you're apologising for?

TRiG.

with hygenicdispenser.

Yes, read things properly. It helps.

TRiG.

"Anhaga points out, with examples, in evocative prose, that he is careful to avoid tarnishing the many with the failings of the few."

I know he does but you have to see it from the opposite point of view. To define a criminal with the religion of millions is tarnishing the many with the failings of the few. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is the cause of his/her behaviour and the majority don't agree with the actions. So why use their religion in defining them?

Ah, so you're not apologising. So why did you say you were?

TRiG.

>>To define a criminal with the religion of millions is tarnishing the many with the failings of the few. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is the cause of his/her behaviour and the majority don't agree with the actions.<<

So why don't the many rise up in loud and forceful vilification of the actions of the few who claim to be acting in their name?