Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumCarter ‘pleased’ with Egypt polls
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter gave the thumbs up on Tuesday to Egypt’s parliamentary elections, saying the people’s will was “expressed accurately.”
........
Egypt’s two main Islamist parties have scored a crushing victory in the seats declared so far, reflecting a regional trend since Arab Spring uprisings overthrew authoritarian secular regimes.
Asked about Islamists coming to power, Carter said: “I have no problem with that. The U.S. government has no problem with that either.”
more...
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/10/187567.html
===========
[font color = "red"]Yet another human rights expert who has no problem with Islamists in power enforcing sharia and discriminating against gays, women, and christians.[/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)It is distasteful when Western intellectuals, politicians, and journalists who pride themselves on their enlightened, humanitarian views watch people abroad fall subject to ruthless forces of dictatorship and dogma. When these same people actually cheer the new tyrannies, put their arms around the shoulders of those who despise them, and tell everyone else that there’s nothing to worry about, that’s actively disgusting.
Many in the West have so acted toward Egypt during the last year. They have also and previously done so for the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. Thomas Friedman has been one of them but perhaps no one else has been louder and more enthusiastic. In doing so, of course, he has echoed U.S. government policy.
Now, Friedman goes all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t radical, isn’t a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become even more moderate once it is in power.
more...
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/11/friedman-cheers-as-egyptians-are-enslaved/
shira
(30,109 posts)Every Arab understood.
Somehow the Western Press was led to believe otherwise, without any evidence backing their reports.
And now that they've been proven wrong, they're reporting that the Islamists in power are really 'moderates'.
Sickening.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)If "every Arab" knew, and if most people from the moderate Left to the Far Right knew, how is it that the elite of academia and the media did not? Or if they actually did suspect what would really happen, then why did they trumpet the exact opposite?
shira
(30,109 posts)...trying to portray him as a human rights advocate.
Guardian’s favorite Jihadist: Former al-Qaeda member Moazzem Begg published for 18th time at CiF
http://cifwatch.com/2012/01/13/guardians-favorite-jihadist-former-al-qaeda-member-moazzem-begg-published-for-18th-time-at-cif/
And why shouldn't the Guardian portray an extremely conservative and regressive rightwing fanatic as a human rights activist?
Amnesty International props this Taliban nutcase up, so he must be a fellow liberal/progressive who should be commended and cheered on for being a voice for oppressed groups everywhere.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The announcement by the CPS and Scotland Yard regarding the decision not to pursue certain individuals from British intelligence in relation to allegations of complicity in torture may, on the face of it, seem to have brought the matter to a close. That, however, is not quite it. While it is true that in the case of Binyam Mohamed criminal prosecutions may not be taking place there has been an admission, for the first time, that he was rendered and held in extrajudicial detention – which is a victory of sorts.
But there's more. Mohamed maintained – like many other torture victims in countries as diverse as Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh and Libya – that he was tortured with British knowledge and complicity but not in the presence of British agents.
Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo – who marked the 10th anniversary of his time in the US military prison this week with yet another hunger strike – has often claimed through his lawyers that his head was repeatedly smashed against the wall during an interrogation at the Bagram airbase prison in 2002, right in front of an MI6 agent. For the truth of these allegations to be fully investigated the police need to speak with Aamer.
In the cases of both Libyan rendition victims, Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi – both of whom I visited in Tripoli some weeks ago – the evidence is too compelling and the case too politically sensitive to even attempt to brush aside, like Mohamed's. Saadi, a key Islamist opponent to Muammar Gaddafi whose two brothers had been killed during the infamous Abu Salim prison massacre of 1996, told me how he was lured by the British into thinking that he could come back to the UK, where he had once lived, from Hong Kong. Instead, he was arrested along with his wife and four young children, hooded and shackled and put on an Egyptian-registered plane on a one-way trip to Tripoli. Saadi was greeted in prison by intelligence chief Moussa Koussa who personally made threats against him and ordered his torture in the same Abu Salim prison where his brothers were murdered.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/12/torture-victims-complicity
The Telegraph (Torygraph) also published a similar article by the same man yesterday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9010376/Moazzam-Begg-Torture-crimes-must-be-investigated.html
shira
(30,109 posts)...like rights of women, gays, etc., and still in favor of terror.
What are certain Leftists doing propping up this warmongering, bigoted, gay bashing misogynist as a human rights activist? Until he shows he is for liberal/progressive values and shows he's against all that al-Qaeda and Islamists stand for, then who the fuck cares what he demands WRT British torture or anything else for that matter?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or is it wehen the message is delivered by someone who doesn't apparently meet your standards? or is when it's the designated enemy being tortured? 
shira
(30,109 posts)...about what extreme rightwingers demand?
Would you give a shit if David Duke, Pat Buchanon, and Fred Phelps had demands WRT human rights violations?
I guess you wouldn't have a problem if they were portrayed as progressive human rights activists, correct?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so if they were to write an article against torture it would be a thing, does that change torture into a good(liberal) thing in your mind? the article was about investigating torture allegations against the British government nothing more nothing less
shira
(30,109 posts)...as human rights advocates.
Understand?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)myself I think it's (torture) a bad thing no matter who is condemning it
shira
(30,109 posts)...views being portrayed as human rights advocates.
Why not just say so?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and in that context no I do not have a problem with it
aranthus
(3,385 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in Afghanistan but you seem to suggest that he approves of torture when it is used on Western forces or Westerners (infidels?) is in general is that right? Do you have something where he states that a MEMRI translation or something perhaps? Maybe something from his days as a prisoner at Guantanamo? Or was this simply another "don't think of a blue horse" type statement?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)He's known to not actually be a fan of liberal values. And people like him are also knows to say the "right things" to be lapped up by all the useful fools (I dislike the term "useful idiots" because most aren't stupid). So, I'm suspicious of his agenda. Which is why I don't understand why certain segments of the Left feel the need to champion a bad guy who happens to say the right things to them.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)
Moazzem Begg was one of 4 UK citizens released from Guantanamo at the 'request' of the Uk government in 2005, he along with the 3 others were then flown back to the UK where they were questioned and released without charge by the UK's anti-terrorism unit , since then Begg has been quite vocal about the practices used by coalition members both in Afghanistan and outside 'renditioning' prisoners and the the indefinite detentions at Guantanamo
There has been 'controversy' over his release and subsequent work regarding the issues I described above with pundits from Rush Limbaugh to the late Chris Hitchens vocalizing basically the same things I've read here , apparently for some before one can speak out on such things one must pass a 'liberal test' of sorts it seems what is being advocated here is censorship or silencing a critic of the WoT
shira
(30,109 posts)...has been published at CiF a total of 0 times.
There were two Guardian pieces focusing on Islam which I was tempted to post on today.
The first, “Letters: We need an inquiry into anti-Islam press“, Jan. 24, is a call for a Leveson-style government inquiry into “negative, distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage of the Muslim community.” Signatories of the letter were accurately characterized by Harry’s Place as “a helpful list of Islamist activists connected to extremist political parties, and those on the far Left (and their hangers-on) who have made common cause.”
The second piece, a CiF commentary by Karen Armstrong titled, “Prejudices about Islam will be shaken by this show“, Jan. 22, cites an exhibition at the British Museum, Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, to argue that a respect for other faiths is central to Muslim tradition. Armstrong conversely berates the West for “succumbing unquestioningly to a medieval [anti-Muslim] prejudice born in a time of extreme Christian belligerence”.
In different ways, both pieces reflect the Guardian’s grand tradition of whitewashing the threats posed by militant Islam and the intolerance towards religious minorities in nations governed by the letter or spirit of Sharia law – and the Western self-flagellation which inhibits honest discussions of Islam’s social and political decline or, per the question Bernard Lewis posed, “What Went Wrong?”.
The question of how best to talk about Islam in the context of our mission (combating antisemitism, and the assault on Israel’s legitimacy, at the Guardian and ‘Comment is Free’) is indeed, at times, vexing. But, the more I read the Guardian the more I’m convinced that the institution’s greatest fault lay not in its unwillingness to critically discuss radical Islam but, rather, in its failure to champion those Muslims who passionately advocate for genuine liberal reform within Islam.
Irshad Manji, the Canadian born Muslim who I had the pleasure of meeting following a speech she gave at the Philadelphia chapter of the American Jewish Committee in 2002, will never be published at ‘Comment is Free’. But, her book, “The trouble with Islam today” (banned across much of the Middle East) is a must-read for those genuinely seeking a future Islam which is moderate, peaceful and tolerant.
In “The Trouble with Islam”, Manji addresses:
The inferior treatment of women by Muslims
The Jew-bashing in which so many Muslims persistently engage
The continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamist regimes.
Manji is a Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, and also directs the Moral Courage Project at New York University.
Her latest book, “Allah, Liberty and Love” attempts to explain the following:
What prevents young Muslims, even in the West, from expressing their need for religious reinterpretation?
What scares non-Muslims about openly supporting liberal voices within Islam?
How did we get into the mess of tolerating intolerable customs, such as honor killings, and how do we change that noxious status quo?
How can people ditch dogma while keeping faith?
http://cifwatch.com/2012/01/24/in-praise-of-irshad-manji-the-story-of-a-courageous-muslim-reformer-the-guardian-will-never-report/
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)See, I've got some major problems with what was written. The writer cites a letter to the editor speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry and an article about needing to take a balanced view and talking about an exhibition at the British Museum that's designed to help people gain an understanding of Islam as being 'whitewashing' and twists them into a support of militant Islam. They appear to have an issue with anyone expressing concern about anti-Muslim bigotry or of people being able to gain a balanced understanding of Islam and its history. And then to top it all off, they trot out an anti-Arab bigot who from what I've read doesn't do much else but attack moderate Muslims and express a deep and ugly hatred of Arabs. I know what the name is for someone who'd act that way about Jews, and when it's aimed at Muslims, it's just as bigoted and ugly.....
shira
(30,109 posts)Irshad Manji is not a Muslim hating bigot. She does have a problem, however - as all liberals and progressives should - with extreme vile rightwing conservative Islamists who you apparently believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) represent all Muslims.
Maybe you missed this part...
The inferior treatment of women by Muslims
The Jew-bashing in which so many Muslims persistently engage
The continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamist regimes.
Manji is a Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, and also directs the Moral Courage Project at New York University.
Her latest book, “Allah, Liberty and Love” attempts to explain the following:
What prevents young Muslims, even in the West, from expressing their need for religious reinterpretation?
What scares non-Muslims about openly supporting liberal voices within Islam?
How did we get into the mess of tolerating intolerable customs, such as honor killings, and how do we change that noxious status quo?
How can people ditch dogma while keeping faith?
How can you possibly have a problem with the above?
The 2 articles in CiF that you think are calling for tolerance towards Muslim views are in fact articles by Islamists and their enablers for tolerance towards extreme rightwing conservative Islamist viewpoints. Extreme rightwing Islamists do not appreciate criticism of their views and practices. I can assure you, however, that liberal reform minded Muslims (those for gay rights, women's rights, etc.) do not appreciate non-Muslims who are unwilling (perhaps out of fear) to stand up for, empower, and/or support liberal Muslims. Liberal Muslims are the first and primary victims of Islamists.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'll ask again. Do you agree with what was written in that thing you posted? Yes or no...
btw, you need to read what I write more carefully. I never said she was a Muslim hating bigot. I said she hates Arabs. There is a difference between the two, you know...
The 2 articles in CiF that you think are calling for tolerance towards Muslim views are in fact articles by Islamists and their enablers for tolerance towards extreme rightwing conservative Islamist viewpoints.
What absolute and utter bullshit! Here's a link to the letter and the article for anyone who didn't see them...
Over the past decade, a number of academic studies have indicated a worrying and disproportionate trend towards negative, distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage of the Muslim community. Recent research at Cambridge University concludes that "a wider set of representations of Islam would signify a welcome change to reporting practices. Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade." And according to a recent ComRes poll, one in three people in Britain today believe that the media is responsible for "whipping up a climate of fear of Islam in the UK".
The Leveson inquiry has so far failed to adequately address unfair media coverage as it relates to less prominent cases, including those relating to Muslims and Islam, focusing as it does on the impact of phone hacking on celebrities and other high-profile individuals.
An alternative inquiry is necessary to investigate what many regard as widespread and systematic discriminatory practices in reporting on Muslims and Islam in the British media. Victims – whether prominent or not – of alleged discriminatory media coverage have a right to have their testimonies catalogued and examined thoroughly by credible, independent assessors. Recommendations can then be made to improve ethical standards in the reporting of not solely the Muslim community but of all sections of society.
Imran Khan Human rights solicitor
Bianca Jagger Chair, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation
Michael Rosen Writer
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Jemima Khan
Navnit Dholakia Deputy leader, Liberal Democrats, House of Lords
Mohamed Ali Harrath Islam Channel
Hajj Ahmad Thomson Barrister
Jenny Jones Assembly member (Green), London Assembly
Andrew Boff Assembly member (Conservative), London Assembly
Rabbi Janet Burden
Walter Wolfgang
Hugh Lanning Chair, Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Sanum Ghafoor, blogger
Jean Lambert, MEP, London
Peter Murray Former president, NUJ
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari Chair, East London Mosque
Dr Omer El-Hamdoon Muslim Association of Britain
Massoud Shadjareh Islamic Human Rights Commission
Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy
Ahmed J Versi The Muslim News
John Rees Counterfire
Vivien Lichtenstein
Anas Altikriti Cordoba Foundation
Miriam Margolyes
Farooq Murad Muslim Council of Britain
Sarah Colborne Director, Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Dr Daud Abdullah Middle East Monitor
Moazzam Begg Cageprisoners
Phil Rees Out of Office Films
Nabil Ahmed Federation of Student Islamic Societies
Abdullah Faliq Islamic Forum of Europe
Rabbi Jeffrey Newman
Cllr Larry Sanders Oxfordshire county council
Diana Neslen
Shemiza Rashid Director, The Creative Muslim Network
Na'ima B Roberts Editor, Sisters Magazine
Asa Winstanley The Electronic Intifada
Richard Peppiatt Writer and former tabloid reporter
Shazia Arshad Human rights campaigner
Myriam Francois Cerrah Activist
Murtaza Shibli Journalist and author
Lindsey German Stop The War Coalition
Murad Qureshi Assembly member, London Assembly
Cat Smith Chair, Next Generation Labour (pc)
Robert Pitt Islamophobia Watch
Dr Alana Lentin University of Sussex
Robin Richardson Insted Consultancy
Cat Boyd Coalition of Resistance Glasgow
Baroness Pola Uddin
Sean Rillo Raczka University of London Union
Chris Nineham Enough Coalition Against Islamophobia
Mark McDonald Barrister
Dan Poulton Journalist
Yasmin Khatun Producer
Frances Legg Producer
Chris Bambery Journalist
Sadiya Chowdhury Journalist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/23/inquiry-into-anti-islam-press
Ever since the Crusades, when Christians from western Europe were fighting holy wars against Muslims in the near east, western people have often perceived Islam as a violent and intolerant faith – even though when this prejudice took root Islam had a better record of tolerance than Christianity. Recent terrorist atrocities have seemed to confirm this received idea. But if we want a peaceful world, we urgently need a more balanced view. We cannot hope to win the "battle for hearts and minds" unless we know what is actually in them. Nor can we expect Muslims to be impressed by our liberal values if they see us succumbing unquestioningly to a medieval prejudice born in a time of extreme Christian belligerence.
Like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and secularists, some Muslims have undoubtedly been violent and intolerant, but the new exhibition at the British Museum – Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam – is a timely reminder that this is not the whole story. The hajj is one of the five essential practices of Islam; when they make the pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually act out the central principles of their faith. Equating religion with "belief" is a modern western aberration. Like swimming or driving, religious knowledge is practically acquired. You learn only by doing. The ancient rituals of the hajj, which Arabs performed for centuries before Islam, have helped pilgrims to form habits of heart and mind that – pace the western stereotype – are non-violent and inclusive.
<snip>
Alas, all traditions lose their primal purity and we all fail our founders. But the British Museum's beautiful presentation of the hajj can help us understand how the vast majority of the world's Muslims understand their faith. Socrates, founder of the western rational tradition, insisted that the exercise of reason required us constantly and stringently to question received ideas and entrenched certainties. The new exhibition can indeed become a journey to the heart of Islam and also, perhaps, to a more authentic and respectful western rational identity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/prejudice-islam-hajj-british-museum
So, speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry and encouraging people to learn about Islam so they can form a balanced view makes them Islamists. If so, count me in!
on edit: I'm finding it disturbing that you don't appear to see a problem with that article you posted. Here's a simple explanation that you should be able to relate to. If someone were to write an article objecting to letters and articles objecting to antisemitism, and to go on and make out that anyone who has a problem with antisemitism is a radical Zionist, and then they trot out a Jew who has a habit of attacking other Jews as some sort of example of what should have been published instead, you'd see a massive problem with it. So why would you see it differently when the bigotry is aimed at Muslims and not Jews?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
...so the answer is 'yes'.
Many of the people (from that article at CiF) who are on that list of human rights activists calling for better media coverage are Islamists with extreme rightwing views and their enablers. They say (unconvincingly) that any criticism of their views is an assault against all Muslims. They believe they represent all Muslims, including liberal ones they hate like Irshad Manji. A parallel to that would be some of the most extreme, rightwing settler Jews (and their rightwing enablers) crying antisemitism at any legitimate criticism of their extreme views and/or actions. Extreme Rightwing settler Jews do not represent all Jews, just like extreme rightwing Islamists do not represent all Muslims. There's nothing wrong with legitimate criticism of their views and actions.
Where do you find that Manji is an Arab hating bigot?
Further, are there any liberal reform minded Muslims (for women's rights, gay rights, & against Islamists) you believe are better representatives for their cause than Manji?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And it's bigotry for exactly the same reason as if the same sort of thing had been written about Jews and antisemitism. The alarm bells should be going off well and truly when anyone objects to people speaking out against bigotry, and then goes on to label people who speak out against it as radicals. And on a blog that's purportedly been set up to speak out against bigotry, you'd be hard pressed to find a single thing where they either acknowledge anti-Muslim bigotry exists or speak out against it....
They say (unconvincingly) that any criticism of their views is an assault against all Muslims. They believe they represent all Muslims, including liberal ones they hate like Irshad Manji.
They said nothing of the sort. I assumed you may not have bothered reading the letter to the editor, so I posted it. Here it is again. Is there some bit in invisible font I'm missing?
'Over the past decade, a number of academic studies have indicated a worrying and disproportionate trend towards negative, distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage of the Muslim community. Recent research at Cambridge University concludes that "a wider set of representations of Islam would signify a welcome change to reporting practices. Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade." And according to a recent ComRes poll, one in three people in Britain today believe that the media is responsible for "whipping up a climate of fear of Islam in the UK".
The Leveson inquiry has so far failed to adequately address unfair media coverage as it relates to less prominent cases, including those relating to Muslims and Islam, focusing as it does on the impact of phone hacking on celebrities and other high-profile individuals.
An alternative inquiry is necessary to investigate what many regard as widespread and systematic discriminatory practices in reporting on Muslims and Islam in the British media. Victims – whether prominent or not – of alleged discriminatory media coverage have a right to have their testimonies catalogued and examined thoroughly by credible, independent assessors. Recommendations can then be made to improve ethical standards in the reporting of not solely the Muslim community but of all sections of society. '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/23/inquiry-into-anti-islam-press
Are you honestly trying to argue that there's no anti-Muslim bigotry in the British media? That it's all righteous opposition to 'extreme Rightwing Islamists'? See, the problem is that a tactic of bigots is to pretend that their bigotry is merely legitimate criticism and to try to make out that many or most Muslims are actually extremists.
And yr going to have to explain how Karen Armstrong is an Islamist with an extreme rightwing view because she wrote an article about an exhibition designed to bring people a more balanced view of Islam, because I'm just not getting it. She's written many books about different religions, and her book 'Islam: A Short History' is a really good and informative book. Have you read it? If you have, maybe you could point out all the extreme RW Islamism she stuck in there? But just like when it comes to Manji, I doubt you've read anything by Armstrong, and just rushed over here and posted an article that most people would recognise as expressing bigotry against Muslims....
shira
(30,109 posts)Whilst racism must be unequivocally condemned, the signatories – like the Guardian, confuse racism with a criticism of Islam. They are not one and the same no matter how many letters and articles the Guardian publishes.
Islamophobia is nothing but a political term used to scaremonger people into silence. (And yes I'm looking at you Islamophobia Watch.)
Well I am sorry but no can do.
You cannot attribute human qualities to a belief system or Islam and Islamism in order to rule out and deem racist any opposition or criticism.
Just in case they didn’t know, let me repeat. Criticism, mockery, opposition to and even hatred of a belief Is. Not. Racism.
Now if the signatories bothered to think rather than parrot Islamist propaganda, they would see that this is the case. In their own letter they refer to a poll commissioned by the ‘moderate’ Ahmadiyya Muslim community, in order to ‘inform its plans to counter the tide of prejudice against Islam and highlight strategies to promote better community relations.’
That’s what the term is there for – to protect Islam – from prejudice, not Muslims. Given the havoc Islamism (and its banner, Islam) are wreaking worldwide, a criticism is not just a right but a historical task and duty.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/01/24/islamophobia-is-to-scaremonger-poeple-into-silence/
You're doing the same thing Namazie is criticizing these signatories for. You believe it's bigoted or racist to attack hideously extreme Islamist rightwing conservative ideology and practices.
Also, I answered you but you didn't answer my questions at the end of my last post. How is Manji anti-Arab? Name a liberal Muslim reformer who is a better representatives than Manji.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Imagine the uproar if someone insisted that there's no such thing as antisemitism and it's merely a political construct, and that anyone speaking out against antisemitism is a radical extremist. That you'd label Karen Armstrong a 'RW Islamist' is extremely ludicrous. What you need to understand is that speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry in the media, or praising an exhibition on Islam for being educational and bringing more balance to things does not make people 'RW Islamists'. Anti-Muslim bigotry exists, however much you appear to want to deny it, and attacking people who are opposed to it is disgusting and DU shouldn't be a platform for it....
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, the article I just cited states the following:
Of course anti-Muslim bigotry must be confronted and condemned. Who the hell would argue otherwise? But Islamists and their ideology - which is the big elephant in the room here - needs to be condemned as well - and not be confused with racism or bigotry against Muslims. Many of the signatories are Islamist apologists who couldn't care less about Muslim victims of Islamists (women, gays, seculars, liberals, etc.).
======
You made a charge against Manji that you can't back up. You said she's bigoted against Arabs. I asked for evidence. You have nothing.
Further, and what's more troubling, is that it appears you can't name any liberal Muslims (who you prefer over Manji) calling for reform who have major problems with Islamist POV, policies, and actions. Why is that?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)'Islamophobia is nothing but a political term used to scaremonger people into silence.'
If someone were to say 'antisemitism is nothing but a political term used to scaremonger people into silence' you'd be leading the charge accusing them of being a bigot. But when it comes to anti-Muslim bigotry, there's a whole different standard.
I've got no fucking idea what you consider an 'Islamist apologist' to be, but from reading this sub-thread, it's becoming clear that it applies to anyone who dares to speak out against bigotry against Muslims, or who suggest people gain a balanced understanding of what Islam is. Why else would you label Karen Armstrong as a RW Islamist, if that's not it?
Again, here's the letter that yr objecting to. While you've made more than a few false claims about what it says, I'd like you to explain exactly what yr objection is to people speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry in the media...
'Over the past decade, a number of academic studies have indicated a worrying and disproportionate trend towards negative, distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage of the Muslim community. Recent research at Cambridge University concludes that "a wider set of representations of Islam would signify a welcome change to reporting practices. Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade." And according to a recent ComRes poll, one in three people in Britain today believe that the media is responsible for "whipping up a climate of fear of Islam in the UK".
The Leveson inquiry has so far failed to adequately address unfair media coverage as it relates to less prominent cases, including those relating to Muslims and Islam, focusing as it does on the impact of phone hacking on celebrities and other high-profile individuals.
An alternative inquiry is necessary to investigate what many regard as widespread and systematic discriminatory practices in reporting on Muslims and Islam in the British media. Victims – whether prominent or not – of alleged discriminatory media coverage have a right to have their testimonies catalogued and examined thoroughly by credible, independent assessors. Recommendations can then be made to improve ethical standards in the reporting of not solely the Muslim community but of all sections of society. '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/23/inquiry-into-anti-islam-press
I make the assumption (it appears I shouldn't have in this case) that when DUers post an article citing people, the DUer actually has some knowledge about who they are and what they've written. You clearly haven't read anything by Manji, and have absolutely no idea who Imran* and Jemima Khan are that yr gleefully labelling them as RW Islamist apologists. I suggest before posting articles in the future, you do a bit of googling in order to save some egg on face 
* I hate cricket, but when Australia played Pakistan me and my friends used to sit through entire five days of a Test match drooling. Oh, and he was one of the best cricketers of all time. Pretty shit as a politician, and he had that playboy reputation that sucked. But he's a Muslim, so I guess that makes him one of those RW Islamist types 
shira
(30,109 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)Ignore, divert, distort and impugn the opposition's motives.
shira
(30,109 posts)Aside from politics, what is the underlying philosophical argument used to justify this behavior. On one hand, it is asserted that only whites and Westerners can be bigots. This kind of argument was raised 20 or 30 years ago by the most extreme fringe groups is now an unquestioned article of faith that is hegemonic in the West. Challenging it will bring down a rain of abuse.
The second argument is that if one criticizes any action, institution, or belief of any non-Western or non-white person or non-Christian/Jewish person or group that makes one a racist (or similar sin) and thus critical thought becomes impossible. For example, historic modernization theory, which posited that underdeveloped countries must change their ways in order to succeed, is impermissible. Ironically, of course, progress in Asia and elsewhere is based on ignoring that concept.
The third argument is that raising criticisms might make someone else look down on non-whites, non-Westerners, or non-Christian/Jews and thus spread racism (and other hate sins). Thus, all such negative information or opinion must be filtered out.
These are three rules by which most of “mainstream” (“privileged,” to use the post-Marxist left word) discourse is conducted today.
Let me summarize it in one sentence: The purpose of academia and media is not so much to educate and inform people but to blind them to reality and to get them to shut up.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/16/the-three-rules-of-western-discourse-and-why-the-media-must-always-blame-israel/
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I think understand the reasons you have to drill deeper and look at what the Left is about and what it thinks. Here are a few observations.
First, the Left romaticizes revolution for its own sake and revolutionaries. This revolution has to be good because it's a revolution.
Second, the Left really does believe that any person or group that disagrees with its agenda is bad, not merely wrong, and that anyone who supports or aids the Leftist agenda is good.
Third, anyone who hates Israel and America can't be all bad.
Fourth, because the Left demonizes any ideological identification other than itself, it only has physical differences (race and sex) as a legitimate distinguisher among peoples. Since whites are primariliy Western and Western civilization is bad, racist, sexist and oppressive that means that dark skinned people , as the oppressed, are good, and not to be criticized.
shira
(30,109 posts)...no doubt working (even if very loosely) in cooperation with the fascist Right, both being totalitarian movements against Western liberal style democracy. Not only do the two movements hate Western Rightwingers, Republicans, and Conservatives, they also hate Western Liberals as well, ie, American Liberal Democrats. If liberal Democrats don't tow the line, they're as rightwing, racist, or evil as the Republicans.
Response to shira (Original post)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)jimmie
(318 posts)Just when you thought he couldn't get any lower...
Couldn't be the millions the Arab countries give ( payoff ) to the Carter center , could it ?
He is an empty disgrace.
Where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah...
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it seems strange but no one here seemed to mind all too much when Hosni discriminated against the same groups guess it was a "kinder gentler" discrimination or something or perhaps its the Egyptian people having self determination that's the problem
shira
(30,109 posts)Tell that to the genuinely liberal/secular and non-Muslim Arabs living under those regimes.
What do you think they'd have to say about that?
You think they're happy with Western reporters and politicos literally feeding them to the wolves?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when it was Hosni it was no 'problemo' but now it's "sickening" yada yada this is what Egyptians voted for to me it seems same shi^ different day , but it seems for here Arab self determination within the proscribed,declared , and internationally recognized borders of their own countries is truly a problem and perhaps 'something' should be done but what other than complain and criticize?
shira
(30,109 posts)...and the very same Leftists who are propping up Islamist dictatorships while portraying them as progressive were - for the most part - extremely silent WRT Mubarak's human rights violations within Egypt. So don't even go there...
So, you really don't give a shit about liberals, seculars, and non-Arabs living under a regime that many in the West are cheering on - right?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)first off you keep going on about dictatorships, but what is happening in Egypt would be the opposite of that and yes ProIsrael 'progressives' were for the most very silent about Mubarak's human rights violations but other Progressives not so much , especially when he was committing on the US's behalf
it becomes quite apparent that you do not approve of self determination for Arab's or is that the outcome has to your(?) standards?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)
1. Voting in a more extreme Islamist dictatorship is hardly the opposite of the last dictatorship. You really believe Egypt is now a democracy, don't you?
2. I don't know about proIsrael 'progressives', but I do know that proIsrael liberals and conservatives were labeled rightwing or Islamophobic if they ever criticized Arab dictators for human rights violations. Such criticism was nothing but a diversion from Israel's "crimes".
3. Progressives were too busy bashing Israel and couldn't be bothered with happenings in Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. Remember? You thought it was a groovy idea for Israel to get more criticism than all those countries combined. That was UN policy and it still is. HRW and Amnesty devoted more attention to Israel than any other mideast dictatorship. It never once seemed you had a problem with any of that.
4. Egyptians don't have self determination by electing a dictatorship into power for life. How will their lives change for the better now that you believe they have self-determination under MB rule?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)well you just stated voted in that would be indicative of a democracy, wouldn't it or is it only democracy when you like the outcome?
"2. I don't know about proIsrael 'progressives', but I do know that proIsrael liberals and conservatives were labeled rightwing or Islamophobic if they ever criticized Arab dictators for human rights violations. Such criticism was nothing but a diversion from Israel's "crimes".
well that is true when such accusation are being used as diversion as in "If you really cared about Palestinians start concentrating demonizing on the PA instead of the Israeli occupation" otherwise not so true and once again Arab HR violations only seem to carry weight when they are being carried out by a government that is an designated enemy of Israel
"3. Progressives were too busy bashing Israel and couldn't be bothered with happenings in Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. Remember? You thought it was a groovy idea for Israel to get more criticism than all those countries combined. That was UN policy and it still is. HRW and Amnesty devoted more attention to Israel than any other mideast dictatorship. It never once seemed you had a problem with any of that."
HRW amd Amnesty both criticize Arab governments quite a bit in fact Israel isn't even mentioned on their respective Middle East home pages
http://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa
http://www.amnesty.org/fr/node/29011
"4. Egyptians don't have self determination by electing a dictatorship into power for life. How will their lives change for the better now that you believe they have self-determination under MB rule?"
quite the crystal ball you've got there huh?
shira
(30,109 posts)...on women, christians, gays, seculars, and liberals there. In fact, you think that since they were democratically elected, that's a good thing.
Correct.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Egypt reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei ends presidential bid in a slap to military rule
Egypt’s reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei withdrew from the presidential race Saturday, saying a fair election is impossible under the military’s grip nearly a year after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. Many fear that the ruling generals will push through a candidate of their own to preserve their power.
The Nobel Peace laureate’s pullout is a slap to the military and the credibility of its plans for Egypt’s transition. He was seen as the most pro-revolution of the candidates and the strongest advocate of deep change in a country long under autocratic rule. His participation, therefore, gave a degree of legitimacy to the military-run election process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/egypt-reform-leader-mohamed-elbaradei-says-he-wont-run-for-president-to-protest-military-rule/2012/01/14/gIQAQbZQyP_story.html
hmmm it seems Egyptians may have simply traded one dictatorship for another but if it's one Israel's 'comfortable' with just like Mubarak who seems to so missed by some here who cares about what Egyptians want, right?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:26 PM - Edit history (2)
Not that I'm comparing the MB to Hitler. The point is that one election does not make a democracy, and certainly not a free liberal society. And your claim against Shira that he does not approve of self determination for Arabs is totally unfounded, false, and unworthy. Just because we have to respect their choice, doesnt' mean that we have to cheer it, especially when the choice is awful, and likely to lead to a worse dictatorship than existed under Mubarak. Not that I mean to pick on you, but your post proves my point in another thread, that this is how the Left argues. It claims that the opposition is bad, not merely wrong. People who support the death penalty are vengeful and racist. People who support lower taxes are selfish. People who oppose the rise of the MB are Islamophobic. On virtually every subject, the opposition is portrayed as having bad motives, hateful, etc. Here, you've resorted to claiming that Shira is essentially anti-Arab. And I understand that people on the Left really do believe that those in opposition are bad people. That doesn't make it true.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)good one though, wonder if someone could say that about National Union, Likud ,or Yisrael Beiteinu and have such a disclaimer be found apparently acceptable
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Also, that's all you have for a response? Again making my point.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)anything else was secondary to what was to be the initial impression which IMO negated the post itself in other words a cheap shot gets you nowhere
eta the foundations of my other claims are contained in the posts on this thread and many others
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Again you're making my point about the left arguing that its opponents are simply bad people.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)is this the 'self determination" that is happening in gaza under hamas, the same self determination that we see iran?
is that your definition of "self determination"....the manipulation of an ignorant public to vote in a dictatorship?
______
shira
(30,109 posts)...dictatorship.
Well, that's self-determination for the brown people, I suppose. It's "good enough" for them. And screw any liberals, seculars, and non-Arabs who are being betrayed by Westerners doing propaganda for these Authoritarian dictators.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the Palestinian Parliamentary vote in 2006 in both Gaza and the West Bank gave Hamas a majority in the Palestinian Parliament (self determination) nothing more or less, Hamas took Gaza by force in 2007 (not self determination) and perhaps the memory of much more recent Iranian elections and aftermath also eludes you but most of us remember the mass protests that were brutally quashed by Iranian government forces because the Iranian public felt the elections were rigged much like Egypt's under Hosni were ( apparently neither ignorance or self determination were much at play)
so neither the Palestinians or Iran exactly "voted in" a dictatorship did they, see the difference? Then again when it was Egypt's Hosni it did not seem such a problem
aranthus
(3,385 posts)First, Hamas was voted into a position of authority which helped make possible the coup. Second, the Iranian elections are irrelevant because Iran was already a theocracy, and the elections were a sham. What is happening in Egypt is more like Gaza than you want to admit.
Once again I don't get why you have to continue with false accusations. Just because Mubarak was tolerated by the West doesn't mean that we liked him. What you refuse to admit is that what is happening in Egypt is likely to lead to worse than Mubarak. Sober thinkers in the West knew that. That's why they predicted a MB victory when most of the Leftist press and academia were claiming that the secularists would win. Now the same people who were wrong about that are touting that the MB is actually moderate; that they will respect individual rights and liberties. For the Egyptians' sake I hope so.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)we did not like Mubarak we tolerated him that's why we wanted to disregard the wishes of the Egyptian people and have Mubarak stay in place it was for what their own good?
now as to present fact
MB may win the Parliamentary vote in Egypt but it is now in doubt that the Military dictatorship that the West helped take over the country will cede power in that event so once again the Egyptians will be stuck with an American/Israeli approved dictatorship
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Why can't you honestly deal with what I have actually written? You didn't put your spin on the facts. You fabricated what you want to accuse me of believing. Once again it is false. I don't think that we tolerated Mubarak for the good of the Egyptian people. I think that we tolerated him because there wasn't a viable alternative. He was a figurehead for the military, and there wasn't any serious replacement. We worked with the Egyptian military government because it supported our agenda, but if there had been a real democracy movement, we would have supported it. In fact, we did support that movement when it became viable. The problem is that most revolutions lead to something worse than they overthrough, so a dose of caution is a good idea.
As to your present fact. If the Egyptian military voids the results of this election it would be about as stupid a thing as they could do. I'm certain that our President is explaining to the military in no uncertain terms that such an act would have serious negative consequences. The military has to submit to the will of the people. You see the difference between us appears to be that while we both respect the right of the Egyptian people to have a choice, I don't like their choice, even though I want it carried through, because I think that the MB government is going to be hostile to Israel's existence and hostile to the interests of my country, the United States. Whereas you seem to like their choice despite (or because of) the fact that the government that they have elected is likely to be hostile to Israel's existence and hostile to the interests of the United States.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that is not spinning facts
aranthus
(3,385 posts)And the title of your post 44 is, "I stated facts you spun them so here is my spin on it" Now you say that you weren't putting spin on it? So which one of your posts is true?
Your continued sentence is, "we did not like Mubarak we tolerated him that's why we wanted to disregard the wishes of the Egyptian people and have Mubarak stay in place it was for what their own good?" You don't believe that we tolerated Mubarak for the good of the Egyptian people, do you? So your spin is to charge that I believe that; a claim that is totally false. And of course, you still haven't responded to the main point.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you do not like the response so you keep this up
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is a very fuzzy notion, which is why politicians love it, it's so malleable as to what it means, so easy to apply or withold.
But the basic idea of not being ruled by people you consider unlike you, of feeling misunderstood and abused, of feeling that you don't have a strong political voice, is the same for us all I think.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)excuse my "english" democracy by law (i.e. certain parties, and laws that curtail a democratic foundation shall not be allowed)
and yes i'm getting even fuzzier here, the concept being, not allowing a hitler to get elected and change the laws to allow become a dictator, a chavaz to be "president for life" and a system that allows religious parties to take power and use their religious foundations to change or make the foundation of a countries laws.
People, as we see in democracies vote left and right depending upon a host of reasons, so you can feel ostracize for a period, knowing full well that you'll get another chance in a few years....voting in a dictatorship as per the "voice of the people" curtails that "self determination.'
hence for those who defend voting in a dictatorship or theocracy as a "self determination" or the voice of the people" they have a rather limited view of "self determination" and have little concern for that "voice" as the people would like a change, but can't due to the rulers who have changed the rules of their "democracy."
Religious parties, having gods ear, inevitably will be doing this
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is worth remembering that the desire to rule over others is not restricted to people with religious convictions.
It is folly to give up the trappings of liberty in hopes of saving them. While I quite agree that religion and politics ought not mix, they often seem to do so anyway, and I don't see how to prevent it without introducing totalitarian methods. Look at the persistence of MB under colonial rule, a King, and decades of brutal military government.
Given that the political history of our species is largely a boring litany of exploitative despotisms more or less extreme, I see no reason to quit trying for something better just because we might fail again. We got nothing to lose.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)just give me absolute power of the earth today...and i'll just use my powers for only good and justice, i really promise..really.
____
It is folly to give up the trappings of liberty in hopes of saving them.
that obviously is the balance that will never really be balanced, the books and lectures written on that are endless full of nuance, details that only our intellectual elite care about (and get to have their students buy).
the battle between "chaos and control" is endless, MB and allies will never give up as they've god on their side, liberals only have a man made belief...i would say that is not as strong. In between you have the dictators that take advantage of both sides.
but there is no giving up, but there is a smarter way of going about things....and just voting does not make a stable democracy, there are too many examples of that.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I will observe and record your acts for posterity.
The thing is, there ain't no such thing as absolute power. That is a social fiction.
The balance between chaos and order is necessary, not merely endless, absolute chaos and absolute order are both uninteresting. Only in the in between (semi-orderly, semi-chaotic) state in which we exist are choice and action possible.
MB is just one among many, you got your own, so do we.
You are quite right that just having elections doesn't mean much, but it is a pre-condition for rule by the consent of the governed, hence necessary even if imperfect. It is the fundamental mechanism to enforce accountability of the rulers to the ruled (short of violence).
The fundamental point, in my mind, is that all the historical evidence gives no reason to prefer the mistakes and felonies of unaccountable power to those of democratic rule, so we might as well start with elections, understanding there are no guarantees, and work from there. What progress we have made over the centuries has been imposed from below, not freely given from above.