Keepers of the Faith

[NGONGE]

Up you go once more..

[-Nomadique-]

Excuse me for deviating, I can see there is/was a lively debate going on between Ngonge v Others. Here is my two cents.

 

The idea that muslims demonstrating about the actions of others would lead to the deaths of their own countrymen and damage to their own property is rightly baffling and obviously shows there are some real problems in muslim nations. This isnt new nor should we make the mistake and assume it is restricted to muslims alone . The race riots in the US are a perfect example the black and hispanic population didnt go on some rampage in the suburbs but caused millions of dollars worth of damage in their own ghettos. Doesnt make much sence either?. Guess someone should write a book The problem with ethnic minorities? In all honesty we could debate Irshad Manji and the like till the cows come home. Since im not willing to do so. I will just sit back and watch everyone who is.

[Blessed]

Salaams,

 

I don’t see the point of deleting that article; providing that Ayaan Hersi who is even more antagonistic towards Islam and Allah is often given platform in SOL. If we’re anti-blasphemy, we should be consistent about it.

 

 

Ngonge,

I don't know dear. You must enjoy getting yourself into trouble

 

Anyway, did you see Irshad Manji on News Night the other night?

 

It just demonstrated the trouble with Manji. Her whole argument against Islam is that the followers aren’t allowed to practice ijtihad.

 

Yet, on that debate with Iqbal Sacarni (I love this man); she states that the Quran is so vague that terrorists can misinterpret it for their own benefits. Duh! That is exactly why personal ijtihad is not allowed in Islam! Iqbal explained it to her that you need both the Quran and the established traditions to come to an Islamic verdict.

 

I do agree with Ngonge, her ilk shouldn’t be ignored as there are many who lack the knowldge of Islam and can get misguided by it. I've seen other websites where she is actually praised - by 'contenporary' (I want my own version of Islam) type of Muslims

[NGONGE]

The problem is that if you listen carefully to her words, Ayan Hirsi’s, Ibn El Waraq’s (he’s done a couple of articles for the Guardian newspaper) and a dozen other former Muslims, you will notice a very peculiar similarity. You will also realise that many non-Muslims peddle these exact arguments.

 

There is a biography of our prophet written by a non-believer (in fact, there are several). This can be found in any ordinary bookshop or can be bought online (try Amazon). The ideas that Irshad, Ayan and Salman try to flog us are mostly found in such books!

 

Many of us are fortunate enough to have come across the “right†literature and interpretation of our faith before we had to face any of the vomit that Ms Hirsi & co spout. When we’re faced with these people and their rhetoric, it’s easy for us to dismiss them and refuse to engage them (they’re plainly wrong). But, how many potential Irshad or Ayan live amongst us? How many enquiring minds are there that are not satisfied with these empty dismissals and would want to know why people dismiss such ideas?

 

In all the threads on SOL about such people (Irshad, Ayan, etc) how many people actually dealt with the ideas instead of the people? How many can?

 

Sometimes, silence is the worst ever policy.

[Bambina]

Salam Alaykum ,

 

I completely agree with Blessed ,if blasphemous articles against Islam are deleted on the SOL ,there shouldnt be no exception to this rule and that includes articles posted about Ayan Hirsi too. After all ,should she get more coverage on the SOL because she's a Somali? Be fair.

 

Frankly , we can bury our heads in the sand ,but let me tell you, Muslims should watch for Irshad Manji and her likes. By twisting Islam , she had indeed shown her skills by poisoning some of the weakest minds , Muslims or not.I bought her book " The trouble with Islam and oh boy!it took me patience and perseverance not to even rip each page before I finished the entire book.

 

Well, after I was done , what the hell did I learn ? Asides from Irshad's unhappy childhood and her quest to get her homosexuality recognized in Islam ( which will never happen ),she made me realized that we needed to get some work done before she does the job for us.You might think what the heck with that?

 

Let me remind you that some of us live in non-Muslims countries and still to this date ,Im pretty sure Islam is to some people an exotic and barbaric religion no matter how many times they're told the opposite. Worst, when your religion sounds strange to other Muslims who do not even reply to your "casalamu calaykum" ,then you know a wake-up call is needed urgently.

 

My theory to why Irshad and her colleagues are so successful can make some sense ,depends on how you look at it.As a Muslim , I notice our tendency to be predictive in our anwswers. We keep repeating that Islam is so peaceful , which by the way is true , but never satisfy the refuseniks or non-Muslims. People need to hear why Islam ,which is a peaceful religion ,is the favorite word uttered by suicide bombers ,why Islam as women's freedom fighter is ranking low in women's rights in majority of Muslims countries and so forth? The lame excuse of the corrupted Muslim governments doesnt appeal anymore given the fact that local communities should've improved ,but doesnt always happen.

 

Sad to say but non-Muslims are not looking for easy answers ,which can be a real pain in the *** , when it becomes repetitive.I think Muslims are not yet ready to tackle Irshad and her gang ,although some mullahs are doing a terrific job at defending Islam and spreading its true meaning. A piece of advice if you want to fight know your enemies first. Ranking how much attention you want to give to Irshad on a scale from 0 to 10 is up to you , nomads but give it a thought!

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Bambina:

I bought her book "

The trouble with Islam

and oh boy!it took me patience and perseverance not to even rip each page before I finished the entire book.

Nowadays, when you want to buy a product, you read its reviews. Reviews will tell you if it's a prospective product you want to buy. Not only that, reviews will tell you if it's the kind of product that could appeal to you. You don't just buy it outright. You can read a book's reviews at many sites, like Amazon.com. This is an excerpt from the reviews of the site mentioned:

 

I recently read a book named, "The Trouble with Islam" by Irshad Manji. It was quite a piece of work. She is basically a self-professed lesbian Muslim "Refusenik". (Whatever that is supposed to mean.) Her premise was that she was questioning the validity of Islam because some Muslims have done bad things, chiefly her parents, but also ordinary Muslims in third world countries. I'm not kidding. This is the entire crux of her argument: some Muslims are bad so Islam must be bad. Try that standard with Christianity and ordinary Christians! It would fare far worse. In chapter after chapter she berated one ignorant cultural custom after another, cited terrorist activities here and there and traced a meandering path through the ideology of the Wahhabis and came away saying that she was "on the brink" of stepping out of Islam and that Islam was darn lucky she was giving it one thread of a last chance.

 

Conversely, she had nothing but praise for the Western world. Nothing bad ever happened or happens. Western religions are noble and kind. Everyone is a free thinker and savvy human rights pacifist. Women are well respected and they have complete freedom and equality and the civil liberties and rights of all are sacred. So, in her conclusion, Islam had better shape up or she would leave it. There is a word for arguments such as hers and anyone who has ever taken a course in logic and rhetoric will know it: fallacy. A fallacy is an argument that is not only not proved but ill-conceived at its core. It is contradictory, disingenuous and easily disproved with logic that will uncover where the mistakes in reasoning occurred. Sadly, however, Ms. Manji is not the first to use this odd type of mis-logic.

 

If we turned her logic on its head we could make the case for every Christian to leave Christianity and convert to Islam. She, and others like her, point to ignorant customs in the Muslim world as a sign of Islam's invalidity, well then, let's look at the opposite side of the mirror. Let us judge the West in as likewise a shallow fashion. Hmmm. Let's see. Where do we begin? I know, let's start with ignorant superstitious customs. In the modern Western world, a huge percentage of the population believes in astrology. They look for their horoscopes in the newspapers and even call "psychics" to get their future predicted. Each year millions of rabbits lose their feet so Americans can carry "lucky charms" in their pockets. In all American urban centers one can find storefront Tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers and even places to go to get a spell put on someone. Oh my gosh! Westerners are backward, superstitious fools! (Don't even get me started on the billion dollar drug trade or gambling.)

 

In 2004 the Catholic Church put out the figure that 3,900 priests (these are "representatives" of the religion) have been convicted of being child molesters. Imagine how many have not been caught in the last thousand years! United States government crime statistics report that a very large number of children are molested by non-priests every year as well. Incest is also widespread. Oh my gosh! Does Christian culture teach, or condone or tacitly support child molestation? Every few minutes a woman is raped in the United States by fellow Christian and Jewish citizens. It is so pervasive that it has been called an epidemic. Are Christian values really that depraved? And let's not forget the thousands of annual beatings, murders and abuses of women and girls by spouses and boyfriends. It is an everyday fact of life. Does Christian culture encourage spousal abuse? The Bible does say that women must submit to their husbands. The Bible also says to kill all the men, women, children and even babies of your captured enemies, (but to save the virgin girls as slaves). It's all there in the Bible, have you looked lately?

 

Then we turn to the real shocker: slavery. Christianity (and Judaism) explicitly encourage slavery in their holy books. It was just 150 years ago that slavery was perfectly legal here. But that was the past. What about today? There is still a lively slave trade in America with over 20,000 men, women and children sold yearly as slaves in the United States, according to the United States government. They are mostly involved in the sex trade...what! What kind of trade? Oh, pornography, prostitution, nude art, public sex, nude beaches, vulgar rap music promoting images of violence towards women...Oh the West is quite a depraved place! How else do you explain the conduct of "professional" American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq? And hey, weren't they all Christians, the Germans who killed 6 million Jews just sixty years ago? How about the French killing 1 million Algerian civilians or the Italians killing the Libyans or the British massacring people in India or the Crusaders who killed everyone in Jerusalem in Jesus' name? (I could list many more examples of Christian atrocities and even many where the Bible was used and clergy encouraged violence. Hey, the Catholic priests in Rwanda actually directed massacres!)

 

Now, if I were to follow Irshad Manji's kind of reasoning, I would have to say Christian culture is backward, women are oppressed, the Bible is flawed and filled with human rights problems and that Christianity better feel pretty darned lucky that we haven't given up on it yet. We could examine the extremist views of the Christian Right as an example of how the religion was "hijacked" and we could cite the enlightened attitude of Islam on all the above listed issues. Now I know the world is not so simplistic as to say I don't want to stay on the team because a few players are lousy, but a lot of people are just not that aware that they are making that kind of fallacious leap.

[Medley of extemporanea]

NGONGE, you said

 

“Those that read the article were probably shocked, disgusted and puzzled as to the reasons that led me to post such an amazing piece of trash on this site! From the few replies that I read, I was astonished to find most people dismissing the author and her sexual orientation instead of tackling the good (yes good) points she raised in that article!â€

 

I ask you this, why should you expect someone to over look the grave wrongs that Miss Manji commits to focus on miner statements she makes, statements I should point out that don’t even need to be made because they are so basic, obvious, and excepted. The fact is Miss Manji cannot be taken seriously to speak on behave of Muslims or about Islam because she does not keep the most fundamental of Islamic conduct. There is no reason to even debate her and people such as her. They are tools for the patrons of Satan.

[Medley of extemporanea]

Seven,

 

You said, "With all due respect brother QL, the subject is not the woman, her morals or lack of. It’s the issue she raised. Are we willing to accept that we are disorganized? We are hypocrites who support the govt and regimes that punter to the whims of the west? The ones so ever ready to dissect people of the same faith based on minor differences? "

 

These issues are issues raised by people better qualified and with more right to discuss them then she. So if you want us to discuss those issues, then bring up the issues and don't make Manji out to be the source or initiator the discussion.

 

Manji’s point in mentioning these issues, as NGONGE so nicely pointed out, is not to actually discuss the issues in an attempt to resolve them, but to merely use them as a cover for her treacherous plot to mislead people away from the mercy of God.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Haniif:

NGONGE, you said

 

“Those that read the article were probably shocked, disgusted and puzzled as to the reasons that led me to post such an amazing piece of trash on this site! From the few replies that I read, I was astonished to find most people dismissing the author and her sexual orientation instead of tackling the good (yes good) points she raised in that article!â€

 

I ask you this, why should you expect someone to over look the grave wrongs that Miss Manji commits to focus on miner statements she makes, statements I should point out that don’t even need to be made because they are so basic, obvious, and excepted. The fact is Miss Manji cannot be taken seriously to speak on behave of Muslims or about Islam because she does not keep the most fundamental of Islamic conduct. There is no reason to even debate her and people such as her. They are tools for the patrons of Satan.

But, she does speak on behalf of Muslims and about Islam. She does it all the time and receives amazing coverage for it. That is the point I am making.

 

Hate her, hate the semantics, hate the arguments, and find the mention of her name distasteful and her sexual activities abhorrent. The fact still remains that she IS a self-declared keeper of our faith.

 

Let me save you the time, and mention the idea of the dark satanic powers that fund her, encourage her and allow her work to reach all parts of Western media. THEY DON’T MATTER. Mentioning them is not a valid answer to this problem.

 

Right now, in the West, her and her kind are the faces of Islam. The many young boys and girls that hardly understand their own faith are more likely to be impressed with someone like Ms Manji (a free, outspoken, lesbian ‘Muslim’) than accepting anything from some aggressive and fake mullahs that stalk nightclubs and parties for wayward Muslims.

 

We are not in the Middle East; we are not in Somalia. We are here in the West. We know that many of your young talk about having girlfriends/boyfriends. We know that many drink, use drugs and engage in all sorts of sins. We also know that many of our good Mullahs shun the limelight and one has to actively seek them out rather than easily find them.

 

The ones that our young get to meet and mix with are almost always also young and very aggressive. It is either Hezb-Et-Tahrir that rather than focusing on teaching go on about Khilafa and pipe dreams. Or it’s the sincere but excessively overzealous ones that want (mistakenly) to force people into adhering to the rules of Islam. Young people in general don’t like to be told what to do by their peers. But, when a sweet talking lesbian talks to them......

 

I was under the impression that websites such as this one would be some sort of sanctuary from these sort of groups. We already had endless discussions about Hezb-et-tahrir, the Salafi movement and the many others. Some thought them bad and some thought them good. Nonetheless, discussions took place and readers of this site got (for all it’s worth) some idea about these groups.

 

Whenever the discussion moved to the Manjis, Rushdies et al, the ceeb, ceeb, ceeb shouts drowned out the whole discussion! Strange! We’re not discussing Angelina Jolie’s vital statistics here; we (I foolishly thought) are discussing a movement that promises to have a great impact on us and our loved ones.

 

I already know all I need to know about Manji, Rushdie and their type. I really don’t need to discuss this topic and doubt (for the most part) that anyone on here would introduce any new ideas or illuminating thoughts. Still, it would be silly of me to assume that everyone else had given the subject as much thought. Now, when I start the topic and I’m faced with the usual screech of CEEB, CEEB, CEEB. I don’t think I’d be far of the mark if I concluded that not many people have given such topics enough thought.

[Medley of extemporanea]

OK, let’s then over look the semantics and the personalities. We’ll just talk of the issues.

 

The issue are as I’ve understood them to be:

1. Groups that claim to represent muslims and are covered extensively by the media as ‘representatives’.

2. approaching them or countering their ideas, when they are objectionable

3. what the impact of these groups is on the lives of muslim.

 

This is a huge problem. These people are all over the place. I personally FLEE from them all on sight. I think those of them that are truly a danger to Muslims should be countered at all levels.

 

I don’t think Manji, Rushdie and their type are a spiritual danger, a danger to the religion of the muslim. This is because they do not address a muslim audience. They mostly address non-muslims and that is their audience. I think they are a danger to the political, social, and physical well-being of the muslims in that they misguide non-muslims about islam and encourage non-muslims to fear and become hostile toward muslims; and that is a real problem.

[NGONGE]

^^ I agree with almost all you said, saaxib. The only point of contention is the part where you think that Rushdie and Manji do not address Muslims. They do, saaxib. Manji more so than Rushdie.

 

I did not refer to them as the ‘keepers of the faith’ for nothing. What such people do so well is that they petition everyone (not just Muslims). They talk about Islam and what faults they think it has but at the same time, they show how eager they are to fix the problems, clean the tarnished image and (dare I say it) reform the faith.

 

Read Rushdie’s article in the Camel Milk Debate section. Watch how he proposes his nine steps to deal with Islam’s problem areas (thought I’ll play it safe and drop the word reform this time). He even suggests that those that will eventually ‘reform’ Islam are going to come from the West! He’s not talking about non-Muslims here and is clearly addressing ’disaffected’ Muslims as you can see.

[Medley of extemporanea]

Hi NGONGE,

 

I assume you live in the UK. I think things maybe different in the UK then they are here in the US as far as the influence of groups that claim to represent Muslims.

 

Here in the US the there are between 5 to 10 million Muslims. A large percentage of them are African Americans. The immigrant Muslims are mostly not born in the US but moved here. The immigrant Muslims also identify more with their race or nationality of origin then with the greater Muslim community, and since most immigrants from the same country tend to live in the same neighborhood and cities, many masjids are ‘ethnic’ in nature. Because these communities are thus divided, most ‘Muslim’ organizations are in fact very local and ethnic in nature. The ‘big’ Islamic organizations that cut across ethnic lines tend to be political in nature and are mostly dominated by Palestinian politics or are legal/civil rights organizations run by American (African American or white) Muslims.

 

Spiritually the Muslims are either Muslims that practice Islam or that don’t. The Islam bashers like Rushdie and Manji never address Muslim audiences because 1. They never address ethic communities (can you imagin Rushdie at one of those Somali conventions) 2. They never address masjids audiences.

 

People like Rushdie and Manji get airtime on the news, talk shows, and get books and articles published but that does not mean they have a Muslim audience. A very small minority among the Muslims may read their work but the wider Muslim community in the US is not an audience to them because:

 

1. They don’t access English language media

2. They do not attend venues where people such as Rushdie or Manji present their works or

3. Do not watch or read the media, such as talk shows or major English language newspapers where the views of these people are presented.

 

Most Muslims here access primarily ethnic media. And people like Rushdie are not featured on ethnic media. People like Rushdie address audiences that already agree with their ideas. Basically they preach to their quire. Rushdie and his ‘Muslim’ supporters are so far outside the views of the vast majority of Muslims (and other mainstream religious groups), for examples from the Rushdie article you posted I quote “reformed Islam would reject conservative dogmatism and accept … that differences in sexual orientation are not to be condemned, but accepted as aspects of human natureâ€, I think you will agree that this is such a radical idea and so fundamentally at odds with Muslim thought that it’s not even an issue for discussion among the majority of Muslims.

 

But acceptance of homosexuality and such issues are in discussion in some Christian churches and among gay activists. I believe when Rushdie makes such suggestion; he is looking to get the attention of these churches and gay activists and is not addressing the Muslims. Another time that he addresses his audience of antimuslim conservatives or gay activists while pretending to be addressing Muslims is when he talks of Muslims being in “intellectual ghetto of literalism and subservience†with regards to their religious believes or suffering from “defensive paranoiaâ€. Anyone who does the most basic of research will learn that Muslims are richly diverse in their understanding of religion (regardless of whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s a fact). Rushdie and his like insult Muslims and aid antimuslim groups by holding Muslims accountable for political developments or actions that do not involve them.

 

Because Rushdie and Manji do not have THE (not some) muslims as their audience, their ideas do not reach the muslims. But Rushdie and Manji and their like are featured on some western sources and when they are they address the groups that access those news sources, which do not include a significant numbers of muslims.

 

The muslims who do access these sources, if they are at all literate, know not to take any pundits statements at face value and to carefully observe the motives of any writer that suggests ‘reform’ of anything.

 

I am not worried about anyone who might fall for Rushdie and Manji’s ideas because of ignorance about Islam. There is no excuse for ignorance when one has access to sources of knowledge.

 

With regards to the well known, factual, and serious problems of illiteracy, civil strife, injustice and economic misdistribution that many muslim communities and nations around the world suffer from, Mr. Rushdie and Miss Manji can not be considered serious or honest enough to be worthy of partaking in a discussion of those issues; because their motives and interests would be considered antagonistic to the interests of Muslims.

 

Those problems of illiteracy, civil strife, injustice and economic misdistribution don't affect all Muslims and they don’t affect only Muslims. These problems are human problems which humanity has to constantly keep fighting. These problems are a component of the human condition because their causes are rooted in the nature of man. As such these problems are NOT going to go away regardless of what religion, if any, people express. These problems are not caused by the tenets of Islam; in fact there is strong argument and reason to believe the tenets of Islam hold the solutions to these problems. The VAST MAJORITY of people on earth are affected by these problems. Look at Africa and south America... central Asia and south Asia, south east Asia. Even in north America and western Europe large numbers, tens of millions of people of various religious persuasion; counted among minorities (non white); live with the problems of poverty, illiteracy, injustice and economic exploitation. Observe the plight of Hispanic emigrants in the US and that of African Americans; and events like the recent fires in Paris. The fact is the vast majority of humanity is suffering from poverty, illiteracy, civil strife, injustice and economic oppression. And until the true causes and true victims of these ills are correctly identified there will be no viable and sustainable solutions to them.

[NGONGE]

At least you’re embracing the debate, saaxib. It’s a start I suppose.

 

We are both making assumptions here. Your assumption is that the vast majority of Muslims usually pay no attention to arguments, ideas and thoughts of people like Rushdie and Manji. This, with all due respect, is a form of intellectual lethargy. You also assume that most Muslims don’t read national newspapers and that those who do would dismiss such arguments anyway! You’re probably correct, however, what if only one Muslim read the Rushdie and Manji comments and was hoodwinked by them? Can we really afford to sacrifice that pawn? Very well, let us lose the ‘non-practising’ Muslims that were (at best) on the periphery of Islamic society (we are still talking Western Islamic society). Some hasty people might even argue that such ‘non-practising’ Muslims were likely to abscond anyway (with or without a Manji urging them on).

 

Saaxib, as of yet, we have not really tackled this subject. We are still quibbling over the importance of refuting it or ignoring it. So, let me carry on with my depiction and let us see if we can get anywhere. Now, having sacrificed the dead wood (non-practising Muslims) we’re left with a solid and unbreakable mass. A new group guards the peripheries. These ones are probably the fluctuating Muslims (the Friday prayer crew). They are not that far from the first group, are they? How long do you think it will take them before they too yield to the sweetened and very topical appeals of Manji and her ilk? Bear in mind that so far in this ‘assumption’ of mine, the only Muslim reply is ‘forget Manji, the vast majority of Muslims don’t listen to her’.

 

Now, let us speed things up a bit and tackle the new hastily put up border forces. This time, the ones on the furthest margins of Islam are the women (read the last sentence in its intended context please). They have genuine complaints about the way they’re being treated and most attempt to deal with it in an Islamic way. Yet, how many do you think will give way when faced with the juicy argument for women’s liberation and a bit of Manji flavoured feminism? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Or maybe just one woman? Wouldn’t you agree that even ONE is one too many?

 

Indifference is really not an option and I am shocked, saddened and outraged to see that many (on this site at least) can’t even see that. I could have easily written a five thousand word refutation to Manjis (and Rushdie’s) arguments and posted it on here. Alas, it would have been pointless and ineffectual.

 

You say:

 

“I am not worried about anyone who might fall for Rushdie and Manji’s ideas because of ignorance about Islam. There is no excuse for ignorance when one has access to sources of knowledgeâ€.

 

Though I disagree with that statement in its entirety, I shall indulge you and ask where are these sources of knowledge?

 

If you read this thread again, you will notice that the overwhelming majority of respondents have wasted their words on telling us how bad Manji is. If you read the Rushdie thread you will also notice the same trend. The personalities of these people (Rushdie and Manji) are dissected at length, yet hardly any of the respondents thought it appropriate to include a footnote directing the readers to the ‘sources of knowledge’ you speak of. Furthermore, if the sources of knowledge you have in mind are only the Quran and Sunna, then you’re really not being helpful. Neither ‘science’ can be fathomed or understood at one reading, or by a passing Muslim, and to direct people to them without any instructions is like giving a drowning man a life jacket and leaving him in a vast ocean without telling him in what direction does land lie! He might make it or he might not. It’s all left to random chance.

 

The problem in all of these discussions is that many assumptions are made at the outset. People let their prejudice rule their sensibilities. Pedantry, semantics and unnecessary secondary arguments take over. A case in point is your hearty refutation of illiteracy and poverty and the way you’re connecting it to the comments of a Manji or a Rushdie. It’s a good argument, a valiant argument indeed but it, sadly, does not relate to this subject much.

 

Another problem is the total lack of awareness and unwitting adoption of duplicitous attitudes. It’s quite fortunate that someone else on this site has decided to start yet another thread about Ayaan Hirsi. There, he inadvertently, displayed and exposed an amazing malady that’s overtaking the Nomads here. The ‘despicable’ link he posted concerned Ayaan Hirsi’s video. A good number of the Nomads followed the link and watched the video whilst covering their eyes with their hands, and, like a young and inexperienced bride about to be deflowered by her new husband, cried despicable and acted shy and coy (ceeb, ceeb, ceeb springs to mind)! Others were disappointed that the video was not more explicit, blasphemous or aggravating! And yet, despite the endless threads about Ms Hirsi, nobody really said what it is she’s advocating and why they oppose it (it is assumed that everyone KNOWS). I still, for the life of me, don’t understand why any of them would even watch such a video! Wrong or right, at least Manji and Rushdie are promoting ideas, albeit weak ones. Ideas can be tackled and shown to be wrong, weak or insipid. The Hirsi video is blasphemy for blasphemy’s sake (though some might call it art). I have not watched the video but I’ve read the manuscript and would conclude that it was indeed despicable. What is more annoying and even more despicable is the lack of any self-awareness of the Muslims that felt the need to watch it, having already heard what it contains. People really should stop being lazy when thinking and consider all ideas, actions and eventualities before embarking on anything. Do not assume.

 

I put it to you that assumption is not enough. Only clear, unambiguous refutations will suffice.

[NGONGE]

The contrast between the Ayaan Hirsi incident (that I mention in my post above) and the Manji and Rushdie stories here reminded me of Orwell’s doublethink concept in his novel 1984. Here is how his hero describes such duplicity:

 

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

How many, I wonder, get the hint!

Source

[NGONGE]

I noticed a thread titled ‘open letter’ and thought it’s time this one was revived. The Keepers of the Faith are at it again I see.