Why are expert criticisms of Islam always from white Christians?

[donotpassgo]

It seems that every book that's been released about the evils of 'Islamo-facists' or how 'Islam is not a religion of peace' has been written by a man who isn't a Muslim. Sure they know the Quran verse for verse, and deconstruct it as a work of literature, and love to point out its contradictions...but they never have lived the experience. They don't know the people or the cultures, truly.

I find it frightening, that conservatives, and some of the mushy middle take what these people have to say as, no pun, intended, gospel and base their narrow, ignorant, view of 1 Billion people's religion on what these shitheads have to say.

What do you think DU?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I totally agree with you

I never ever see Muslims talking about other Muslims. I only see people like Daniel Pipes who believes in racial profiling and other White Scholars talk about Islam like they grew up in it, which they really didn't

[moz4prez]

6. yes

you're right, how many of these white christian scholars are actually criticizing islam itself (as opposed to these irregular extremist factions of islam that have suddenly become the subject of much heated debate within the past couple years)? i bet you my room and board most of these schmucks haven't thoroughly studied the Qu'ran. and yet suddenly they're authorities on muslim studies.

That said, to those of you who have read the Qu'ran, what are your thoughts on it?

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Because white fundamentalist Christians are the leading experts on Islam

Coincidentally, they are also the leading experts on all matters related to human reproduction, crime prevention, law enforcement, and firearms.

[jfxgillis]

3. I dunno and it pisses me off

There a a strong case to be made that fundamentalist radical Islamism is the most ILliberal functioning ideology in the world at this time.

Paul Berman is the only public intellectual I've seen make this case, though, and heonly had his literal fifteen minutes when his book came out a few months ago.

Maybe Christopher Hitchens counts, too, but he's so odious on so many other counts that his persuasive potential is severely limited.

[Some Moran]

43. That's a close call...

Stalinism (yep, that shit still exists) is probably as bad and Chinese red fascism (I hate the term "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." As these so-called "Chinese" characteristics are fascist, the term is insulting to the vast majority of Chinese people, who either oppose the CRFP or only support it out of fear or brainwashing, much like Repukes and fundies) and neo-conservatism aren't that far away.

[jfxgillis]

71. I tend to agree on "Chinese Fascism"

But I think Stalinism is at most stagnant, and I think Chinese Fascism is marginally less illiberal than radical Islamism.

However you make fair point, it IS a close call.

Radical Islamism, though, strikes me as more vital.

[liberalcapitalist]

4. Why I'm Not A Muslim-- book by an Arab atheist

Good reading, I have a signed copy.

[Nay]

5. They aren't. Salman Rushdie and several others from Islamic

cultures have published books and articles critical of Islam. It has been their experience, though, that fundamentalist Muslims go into a fury over criticism of the religion and put prices on the heads of Muslims or former Muslims who dare criticize the religion.

As a second point, outsiders are often better at criticizing what insiders are too close to. This certainly isn't always the case, but it often is. And sometimes the outsiders have an axe to grind -- that's why I'd never give credence to anything a fundamentalist Christian minister wrote about Islam, for example.

[htuttle]

7. Coincidentally, Germany used to have a lot of 'experts' on Judaism, too...

About 60 years ago, or so.

Then again, maybe it's not a coincidence...

[DrWeird]

8. I'll give you a clue. It's a seven letter word that begins with B

and ends with igotry.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. One word: ENVY.

They are pissed off they can't oppress their people the way Islamic theocracies do.

[zonmoy]

39. Oh

they are trying to get the power through their puppets the repukes. already major republicans are writing books claiming persecution if fundamentalist christians cant coerce their beliefs on everybody else.

[youngred]

10. Because they are the loudest screamers

the most bigoted and hateful, and they play well to the fears that lie at the heart of Bush and company's scapegoating success

[grok]

11. Everybody should have a say!

The sad truth is, muslims are quite frequently cowed by stating ANY criticism of islamic thought. Particularly against strident/violent ideologues. A clear heresy among the "believers" is VERBOTEN. Remember Salman Rushdie? He is still in hiding. And all he did is write.

Nobody and no religion/ideology should be above criticism. If you are silent and you have problems with what you see, you are part of the problem. You are cowed. Don't just let the conservatives say what they think. If you see a wrong and you say nothing, you mean nothing. You give conservatives too much strength in your silence.

Grok

[Scott Lee]

13. Actually, Rushdie is not in hiding anymore

The Fatwah against him was rescinded some time ago.

But besides that, your post was pretty accurate.

[rasputin1952]

52. I can almost guarantee...

that Rushdie is still a target. As in any religion or philosophy, there are zealots that will NEVER let some things go.

The "death sentence" for Rushdie may well have been rescinded, but that certainly doesn not take him off the 'hit list'. There are some out there that wouold take him out if the opportunity arose.

:kick:

[htuttle]

53. A lot of doctors in the US seem to have the same problem...

...if they've conducted abortions in their practice.

[Scott Lee]

68. Well if you have an facts to back up your "feeling"

Please let the London police know. I believe Rushdie still lives there.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

12. there are many critics of Islam that are non-christian

Edward Said, for example. There is also a vast source of Middle Eastern studies from anthropologists and sociologists. The best answer to your question is that the social sciences don't yield fantastic conclusions on the superiority of one culture over another, so Fundies step in and make qualitative, comparative, assesments - viewed from a rather etic perspective.

The other answer is that the social sciences tend to be more analytical, and less "change-oriented". In other words, a social scientist will examine the culture and illustrate it's components - but will never say, outright, "this is what's dysfunctional" or "this is what's functional". They are only to analyze the culture before them.

Fundies do something different, they say "here's what's dysfunctional about Islamic society, and here's what we need to do about it right now" <cue missile launch scene>. This feeds the need to do something about it, ANYTHING!

The whole point that Fundamentalist Christians miss is that, without allies from the VAST MODERATE MAJORITY of Islam, we will never win this war. Instead, they (sometimes openly) believe that what is before us is a crusade, rather than a fight against a very small group of fundamentalists.

[Aidoneus]

14. Said -- Anglican Christian

Lapsed and philosophically left & secular, but Palestinian Christian by origin.

[Blitz]

15. Expand your reading list

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
by Bat Yeor

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0838639437/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-2043847-4052922

The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century
by Bat Ye'or

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0838636888/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-2043847-4052922?v=glance&s=books&st=*

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World
by Srdja Trifkovic

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1928653111/qid%3D1068579234/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-2043847-4052922

Why I Am Not a Muslim
by Ibn Warraq

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591020115/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-2043847-4052922?v=glance&s=books

Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam
by Anis Shorrosh

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785264647/ref=pd_sim_books_5/102-2043847-4052922?v=glance&s=books

The Rage and The Pride
by Oriana Fallaci

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847825043/ref=pd_sim_books_3/102-2043847-4052922?v=glance&s=books

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
by Ibn Warraq

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157392945X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-2043847-4052922?v=glance&s=books

Wahhabism: A Critical Essay
by Hamid Algar

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188999913X/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-2043847-4052922

These are just a few of many books about Islam authored by people who are not WASP males. Happy reading.

[Isome]

61. If the goal is to find authors...

who are not white or Christian, your list has to be pruned a bit.


This is Srdja Trifkovic; he is German I believe.

Oriana Fallaci is an Italian (born in Florence), and most Italians are white (as opposed to Italians from Sicily who, according to my friend Giuseppe, are multi-racial/ethnic -- Greek, Arab, African).

And, then there's Hamid Algar. He was born in England, and received formal training in Islamic studies at Cambridge. It could just be me, but those factors may bias him a bit. The initial post of this thread did mention that those deemed experts in the U.S. are unfamiliar with the culture --didn't live it, but perhaps only learned about it through academic avenues. Given his upbringing...

[Scott Lee]

16. I've dealt with this first hand

Not because I'm Muslim, but because I speak Arabic and have attempted to read the Qur'an in it's original language - which I found damn near impossible but eye opening.

I then tangled with a series of hateful BS articles by a Christian conservative writing on all the "evils" of Islam. When I tried to point out several areas in which his interpretations were erroneous based on his ignorance of the language/culture of the people he was addressing, he went ballistic. He ended up calling me a terror supporter (what a shocker).

In the end, it pointed up a phenomenon I've seen exhibited in American culture over and over again - a near zealous tenacity to a point of view crafted only from reading a book or an article. For example, how many "Feng Shui" masters have you read about or encountered from this nation? After spending a few years working and living in Asia (China and Japan), I found out that becoming a Feng Shui "Master" was a life long pursuit and the true masters were elderly people. How is it 20 and 30 somethings, who read a book, suddenly become a "master"?

How is it, consequently, that so many non Muslims are sudden experts on Quranic Law and the Arab people?

I've whittled it down to pure hate. Rightwing conservatives (and sadly, even some so called Liberals) have gone to great lengths to glean anything negative about Islam they can find and distill it down to a singular screed against that religion, which they wield like truncheon of righteousness over your head...and Allah help you if you should disagree.

[patdem]

67. OMG...yes...I say...I do not have an imaginative cell in my brain to even

think about how the people of Iraq feel...I have no notion of their culture...NONE...not their language, not their religion, not their hopes, dreams and cares. I know only they love their families as much or more than I love mine and cry and mourn every death. Beyond that I am at a loss.

In fact to even know the bible one must dream in the language in which it was written, because any interpertation is just wishful thinking.

Margaret Meade..that wonderful anthropologist talked about how certain cultures did not have words for certain feelings we use as everyday words...pain...cold...heat... facts of life were never discussed as complaints. And certain cultures had many words for simple things....like snow...the Eskimoes had many words for snow to describe what layer of snow they were describing ..fresh..etc...

I cannot imagine the language of the Iraqis...I do not dream in their language. I want them to be free and happy even if they do not have a word for 'democracy'..:grr:

[Scott Lee]

69. You're a helluva lot more honest than the "experts". Well done.

.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Adherents to a belief system need to take responsibility

for all actions of their fellow believers.

Sure, it's obvious that the extremists in Christianity want to discredit all competing belief systems, just as there are some serious fulminations about Christianity written by their counterpart reactionary Muslims.

What few seem to want to take responsibility for is that belief systems condone/provide for/tolerate many versions of proselytizing, violence, conquest and close minded intolerance. Some (like the Jews) don't proselytize, but most religions have an inextricable xenophobia to them, and that causes much of the problem. Most people tend to trumpet the beauty of their particular guess-system, and gloss over its ills. Christians do it, Muslims do it, Jews do it, Hindus do it; it's all the same problem.

I love the blinkered silliness of statements like the one repeated by a young American Muslim woman on "Politically Incorrect": "women and men are equal in Islam." I wish I could have been there; I would have asked her: "Oh yeah? So how many husbands can you have?"

Islam's got a lot of 'splainin to do; maybe no more than Christianity, but surely no less.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. Actually, it was Islam that limited it to four. If you notice, the Bible

places no limit.

"you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have.." (Koran 3:4)

The context of the passage has to do with what to do with the mothers of orphans (widows). You may recall that the Bible says widows must marry their brothers in law.

Now if you take into consideration that just as was the case in "Bible times," in the time that Mohammed was alive, it was the custom for men to have many, many wives, women had zero rights, and it was nothing less than revolutionary for somebody to come along and put a limit on how many wives you could have, tell you that women had the right to earn money, and once they did, it was THEIR money, and you couldn't just marry women off, they had to consent to it.

So when people say that Islam liberated women, they are correct.

However, as is the case always and everywhere, when culture and religion conflict, religion loses.

The Catholics are better skilled at working around this than anyone else - almost every Christian festival is a syncretinization of one from some previous religion that was Christianized, and if you go to a church in rural Latin America, you will see people bringing corn to the altar and doing the same dances and chants that they did for thousands of years before there was a Spain.

In fact, the Patron Saint of Mexico is the Virgen of Guadalupe, who just coincidentally happened to appear to Juan Diego demanding a temple on the exact spot where the temple of Tonantzin the Corn Goddess was before the Spanish tore it down, and you will notice that the Virgen is surrounded by what you may think are rays of heavenly light until someone explains to you that they are corn leaves.

Do I have a point? Oddly enough, yes.

It is important when reading sacred texts of any flavor to remember the historical and cultural context, remember that all religions agree that God gave man a brain, and remember that any argument you want to make, as well as its rebuttal, can be found in any and all of them.

"verily, in that is a lesson to those endowed with sight." (Koran 24:44)

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Okay, but that doesn't make women "equal"

This advancement(which I didn't know, so thanks for that) is an improvement, surely, but still doesn't measure up to that woman's statement. She didn't say that women were liberated, she said that they were EQUAL. A woman can't have four or more husbands, ergo the sexes are not equal under the faith. It's very simple. Maybe they get a better shake in the core scripture, and maybe it can even be argued that they get an overall "better" deal than in Christianity, but they are not equal, and this is the issue I took.

Everyone wants to heighten the flaws and evils of those "others", but they tend to want to gloss over the same in their own guess.

Tilt tilt tilt.

What we ARE proving is that endless time can be spent splitting hairs and obfuscating.

It's mostly just cringing terror in the face of the unknown that causes people to convince themselves that they actually DO know. They'll often kill or die rather than part with that certainty. Along the way, they see the handy tool for oppression as what it is, and off we go.

[rasputin1952]

54. Bhurkas and female genital mutilation...

pretty well killed the idea of women being equals in some aspects of Islam.

:grr: for inequality

[rasputin1952]

55. Bhurkas and female genital mutilation...

pretty well killed the idea of women being equals in some aspects of Islam.

:grr: for inequality

[Isome]

62. Sickening isn't it?!

But you can chalk that up to a perversion of Islamic scripture, much like wife beating & child beating are perversions of the biblical text (spare the rod). You can find freaks to distort the message in every religion.

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. Both covering heads and FGM predate Islam by millennia

If you notice in the Middle East, Muslim women are not the only ones with covered heads. Some Orthodox Jewish women cover their heads, interestingly, with wigs, subsequent to shaving their heads when they marry, but it is the same principle, and if you go to rural Mexico and Guatemala you will see women covering their heads with rebozos.

St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians was not going hey I just had this really neat idea, he was affirming and approving of a custom that had existed already in that and other areas of the world for a long, long time.

For those who are interested in facts as opposed to Crusade propaganda, reading scripture, history and even talking to religious leaders in your community are all great ways to learn.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. The Koran says they are equal under God more definitively than the Bible

Although there are Biblical scriptures that can be interpreted that way, there are others that can be interpreted that they are not, as the Southern Baptist Convention recently noted.

Whether women had souls at all was a legitimate subject of debate among Christian theologians up until a couple of centuries ago.

In fact, the notion of women as standalone human beings as opposed to property is a fairly new notion.

The oppression and subjugation of women has traditionally been an almost universal practice. Asia, Africa, Europe - long, long before Mr and Mrs Abraham even had a little boy.

The reason is obvious - it is the most effective means of social control that anyone has been able to devise.

Literate women teach their kids to read. Economically empowered women are more likely to spend their money to further the progress of their children and their community, as opposed to enriching the King or feudal lord.

And it also enhances the economy, as women as a commodity are a profitable product which is produced by someone else!

That is true to this day, and while many places on earth have made some progress away from women as a commodity, each in it own way, including the west, even today, in the United States, a brilliant and talented young woman seeking a part-time job to pay for college can make more money as an exotic dancer or nude "model" than she can as a research assistant in her chosen field, or almost any other job.

Have there not been threads on this board discussing the relative beauty of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson?

In the east, a woman's greatest value is as a producer of children.

In the west, her greatest value is as an object of sexual desire.

Neither can claim to place the highest value on the talents and abilities she has as a unique human being.

[PurityOfEssence]

73. Okay, so maybe Islam sucks less than Christianity; strike up the band

That's a pyrrhic victory if I ever heard one. Let's also say that, bloodsoaked and intolerant as Christianity is, Islam seems a tad more nasty. From a safe distance, Islam seems more readily pervertable into suicide killing and extremely violent intolerance, but to be fair, maybe that's just a cultural/whatever influence on an otherwise somewhat-less-odious delusion. Big damn deal. Say that to the survivors.

Regardless, faith, with its fertile ground for absolute certainty in one's superiority is a scourge. Religions with a fanciful afterlife negate one of the essential glues of humanity: the fear of death. It's bad enough when it allows individuals to endure tyranny for some Sugarcandy Mountain reward, but it's downright unacceptable behavior when it's so readily adapted to murderous rampage in the service of crushing other beliefs.

Who cares which is less horrible? They're both shockingly dangerous in their fringes. Remember: it only takes one or two weirdos to mess up an already untidy biosphere; do you feel safe?

[DuctapeFatwa]

75. LOL they all have the potential to suck or not suck, the trick is

look at the basic message. It's pretty much the same for all of them.

Love God, love each other.

Now once you start putting your own interpretations onto words, even if you accept that those words are divinely inspired, and the ever-popular selective literal interpretation of them, that's when you get in trouble.

For instance, how many times have you heard the "eye for an eye" bit used as an argument in favor of capital punishment?

But how few of the most zealous proponents of that scroll down an inch and call for literal interpretation of the part about how and when to sell your daughter into slavery?

And just look at all those fundie Christian and Jewish women who call themselves virtuous and they aren't wearing purple!

Use common sense. Again we are going to assume that they are all divinely inspired, for the sake of argument.

Well, hey, I've got some cheese-inspired powder to sprinkle on your beef-inspired burger!

Another easy way to think about it is like something in a sterile package. Once I open the package and hand it to you, it is no longer sterile! It may have come from a sterile package, but I opened it, I touched it, and now you have touched it too.

There is no scripture, not the Koran, not the Granth, Bhagavad-Gita, Bible, none - that has not passed through the mouths and minds and hands of human beings.

[PsychoDad]

78. Love God, love each other.

This is the basis of most all world religions "Love God, love each other." Jesus and Mohammid both taught this message. Christanity and Islam were founded on this creed. It's a shame that after 2000+ years we have yet as residents on this small world taken this advice to heart.

"There is no scripture, not the Koran, not the Granth, Bhagavad-Gita, Bible, none - that has not passed through the mouths and minds and hands of human beings." Or, may I add, used to justify some of the most henious actions of humanity.

[DuctapeFatwa]

80. Here is the World's Most Useful Prayer - good for all religions

"Oh, Lord, please save me from your followers"

;)

[PurityOfEssence]

81. I'll go ya one further:

I'm operating on the assumption (I say that, because I'm an agnostic with the presumption of no "big whozawhatzit", not an atheist) that these scriptures ALL came from humans, passed through other humans and were nothing but guesses/dreams/blueprints for subjugation/parables and such.

Presuming more than we can possibly see and sticking to it is the curse of belief, and it's anti-thought.

To my view, they all bring much more pain, suffering and delusion than they solve, and they shouldn't be accorded the respect they get. The assumption when dealing with religions is more or less that they have problems and mistakes and can be easily perverted to evil ends, but they're so inherently good and necessary that they deserve our collective blessing and endless accomodation. I don't buy the start of the contention that "given: they're good...", so the resulting breaks are doubly unwarranted.

It's superstition. It's a bunch of guesses that demand to be treated as more truthful than things that we can obviously prove. It causes all sorts of mental problems when one tries to square the cosmology with reality, and it doesn't pay its own way.

Quite simply: religion is not inherently good. It is inherently bad. Many good lessons and rules come from it, but the essential effect is to glorify the destruction of thought. Uncertainty in this mindset is bad, whereas it's a very noble human mode.

Yes, these are huge generalizations, but I am very concerned by all of the silliness and abuse stemming from the assumption that religion is good, thus the peripheral ugliness is justified. The concept of "belief" is not a good one, and the dangerous crap that comes from it is not at odds, but a straight and consistent flowering of a bad plant.

Evil that comes from twisting of precepts held in unquestioned faith are the fruit of unquestioned faith.

[DuctapeFatwa]

83. You might like reading Martin Buber and Kierkegaard

They both have some interesting things to say about the nature of faith.

I don't think it has to do with a presumption. Buber, in particular thought it is an act of will, which makes sense.

Kierkegaard will show you how it goes all twisty and that agnostics may actually have more and purer faith than previously supposed ;)

[Scott Lee]

70. Where are women "equal" in the JudeoChristian world?

This is amazing news that I seemed to have missed!

[PurityOfEssence]

72. You're definitely reading something into what I said

They aren't, and I never claimed that they are. I'm also no apologist for Christianity, and walked away from the faith at the age of six. (Let's add here that I walked away from the notion of other faiths at the same time, although I was too young to realize what I was doing.)

Religion, although it salves many emotional rashes and wounds, is a pox on mankind and the enemy of thinking and acceptance. Nary a pleasant word passes my lips on the subject except as a modifier and qualifier of my core beliefs.

I jumped into this little brouhaha because it had the distinct flavor of another of those "why are all those bad guys so mean to my innocent superior belief" threads, and I wanted to wade in and remind one and all of the perils of religion.

Go back and trace my posts in this thread in light of this one, and I think you'll see more of a fellow traveller than you thought when you posted.

[Scott Lee]

76. I am a bit defensive on this - because its a hot button for hate

I went back and read some of your other posts, and yes I strained at my leash a bit, but let me explain something.

Shortly after taking Arabic in High School and then some in college, I fell in with a lot of Arabs who became my friends. After learning about them and their families, I came to the conclusion that for some weird reason, this culture and many of the movers and shakers in the media love to lie about Arabs and Muslims. I still cannot figure out why. Since I'm not antisemitic, I don't fall for the "Israeli control" excuse either.

I still haven't found a satisfiable answer to this, but definitely notice the hate amped up after 9/11. So much so that now we regularly spew outrageous falsehoods about Islam and Arabs under the guise of factual reading. It's so ponderous and sickening. I take every opportunity I can to defend Arabs because they tend to be so malaigned in our culture and media.

If I went overboard in reacting to your post, I apologize. Understand where it comes from.

[PurityOfEssence]

77. That was very nice; here's my take

Your mild rebuke was quite civil, so don't worry about that. Yes, I understand your position here, and it's a valid one.

As for the anti-arab issue: sometimes the first impulse is correct. Israel is largely given a blank check in this country, and that (along with garden variety racism) is responsible for much of the anti-arab sentiment. Obviously, one will take heat for anti-semitism saying such things, but it's real and pretty undeniable. The PNAC/Israel link is also clear.

Unfortunately--and in light of the holocaust, understandably--there will be vehement defense of Israel regardless what happens. Many U.S. Jews are heartbroken by this too, and it's a very divisive issue.

You'll note that many otherwise liberal/progressive/left/whatever politicians cleaved quite obviously on the Iraq issue because of Hussein's past support of the Palestinians. Here in Los Angeles, Harman, Berman, Schiff and even Waxman (local Congresspeople, all Jewish) voted for the war resolution. Saying that this is the reason will cause one to draw fire, but a spade's a spade.

On a more simple (and less inflammatory) line of thought, the fact that Jews are a fairly known group in virtually all of the country, it's logical that if they're at loggerheads with another group that's not familiar, the other group will suffer in public opinion. This is just human nature: it's xenophobia, since the Jews--even to anti-semites--are part of the big "us" and Arabs are just a "them".

Sad.

[pnb]

18. Well...

It could possibly be the fact that if someone has issues with Islam, they wouldn't be practicers of the religion. The biggest opponents of any religion are always going to be another religion.

[KG]

19. they aren't experts, they are propagandists.

[_Jumper_]

20. Because the religious right is as white as a Trent Lott cocktail party

Why are religious groups racially segregated in America?

[Isome]

22. Why are expert criticisms of Islam always from white Christians?

As much as it may pain some people to hear, the truth is simple: intellectualized white supremacy. Not the kind of supremacy espoused by the Aryan Nation, the KKK, or even the CCC, but the kind that propels books like The Bell Curve into national prominence, and allows its author, Charles Murray, to be interviewed by 60 Minutes and treated as an unbiased expert. (In what field isn't clear to me.)

Though many people don't recognize or acknowledge that they hold these views, it's intensely obvious to others. Much of the U.S.' foreign policy is tainted by white supremacy.

[iverglas]

23. one that might interest you

(I think much what you think, of course.)

Irshad Manji -- a woman who is a Muslim. And ...
http://www.ryerson.ca/rrj/content/print/2003/Spring/HabibManji.htm

Writer-broadcaster Irshad Manji admits that she's a radical, that she's a lesbian, that she's a Muslim reformer. But don't dare label her a radical-lesbian-Muslim reformer.

("Admits"? So much for journalism school ...)

I personally dislike Manji intensely, having been exposed to her, personally and publicly, over the last decade. (She's a fixture on Ontario public television, and was once the squeeze of a good friend of mine.) She reminds me of Camille Paglia -- a monstrous ego, pronouncing things that are apparently novel and brilliant to her, but are actually just mundane. The media here tend to fawn over her.

Nonetheless, the thing is that she's saying them, and not many others are. (This would be why she travels with bodyguards.)

She has a book out. You might find it interesting. I haven't read it, but the Globe & Mail liked it.

The book -- The Trouble With Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty andChange (Random House) -- may well become to non-fiction what Salman Rushdie's 1988 novel The Satanic Verses was to fiction. Not just explosive but, in all likelihood, in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists from Tehran to Jakarta, blasphemous.

...
In a breezy conversational tone that disguises the revolutionary nature of her ideas, if not the intellectual rigour of her argument, the 35-year-old first documents and then challenges her faith to rid itself of what she sees as anti-Semitism, antifeminism, slavery and homophobia. Worse, from the vantage point of fundamentalist Islam, she dares to question the assumed perfection of the Koran itself.

The Islamic holy book, she writes, "is not transparently egalitarian for women. It's not transparently anything except enigmatic. ... It's Muslims who manufacture consent in Allah's name. The decisions we make on the basis of the Koran aren't dictated by God; we make them of our own human free will." The Koran's insistence on absolute submission, she further maintains, is an express train to "brain-dead."

... As Manji sees it, extremists have seized control of Islam because "we moderates have turned our back on independent thinking and let them." And that control, she's convinced, is being exercised not only in the mosques and madrassas of Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria and other centres of Muslim culture, but among diaspora Muslim communities in North America as well.

She has a website: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com

.

[Yupster]

24. I think your thesis is plain untrue

From the Nobel winner Naipal to legions of works in India and elsewhere, there can be found criticism of Islam all over the world.

The next question would be explaining this urge on DU to jump on top of white Christians with any criticism, whether it has any basis in truth or not.

[donotpassgo]

25. I'm not speaking of the entire breadth of Islamic scholarly criticism...

I'm talking about the books that Sean Hannity or Michael Savage read and pass off to their listeners as 'the truth'.

I'm talking about the guests on talk shows who's main agenda is "You know what the Muslims' problem is?" that is taken and turned into a general mistrust of all Muslims.

And in response to: "The next question would be explaining this urge on DU to jump on top of white Christians with any criticism, whether it has any basis in truth or not."

I want to know what this urge by many White Christians to feel persecuted at every opportunity even at the slightest bit of probing is all about?

My question was intended not to dump on Christians but to stress the point of where legitimate criticism of the Muslim faith should come from.

[central scrutinizer]

26. and let's keep it that way

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/06/middle_east/print.html

excerpt:

By Michelle Goldberg
Nov. 6, 2003 | On Oct. 21, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that could require university international studies departments to show more support for American foreign policy or risk their federal funding. Its approval followed hearings this summer in which members of Congress listened to testimony about the pernicious influence of the late Edward Said in Middle Eastern studies departments, described as enclaves of debased anti-Americanism. Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think tank, testified, "Title VI-funded programs in Middle Eastern Studies (and other area studies) tend to purvey extreme and one-sided criticisms of American foreign policy." Evidently, the House agreed and decided to intervene.

[Character Assassin]

27. Well, name some names, then.

It seems that every book that's been released about the evils of 'Islamo-facists' or how 'Islam is not a religion of peace' has been written by a man who isn't a Muslim.

Does it? Or is that simply your perception?

Sure they know the Quran verse for verse, and deconstruct it as a work of literature, and love to point out its contradictions...but they never have lived the experience. They don't know the people or the cultures, truly.

Who are 'they', and when pointing out contradictions in any relgious text, why is it necessary to have 'lived the experience'?

I find it frightening, that conservatives, and some of the mushy middle take what these people have to say as, no pun, intended, gospel and base their narrow, ignorant, view of 1 Billion people's religion on what these shitheads have to say.

Who are 'they'? Who is taking this as 'gospel'? What would it matter if one billion people believed it, or just, say, 12,000?

Who are these 'shitheads'?

[donotpassgo]

28. Robert Spencer: Islam Unveiled

Serge Trifovic: Sword of the Prophet

Bernard Lewis: What Went Wrong

Anything that comes out of Pat Robertson/ Jerry Falwell/ Sean Hannnity/ Michael Savage's mouth.

[Character Assassin]

29. So three books equate to 'every book that's been released'?

OK. Sure.

[donotpassgo]

30. Ummm....why don't you add the IT SEEMS in front of that partial quote

and then you'll get the full effect of the statement you are trying to misrepresent.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donotpassgo]

33. Do you want to address the question or just insult me?

IT SEEMS IT SEEMS IT SEEMS IT SEEMS IT SEEMS IT SEEM IT SEEMS

That's what I started the question with...I exaggerated to stress a point I wanted to bring up...or should I go to Amazon and bring up the Dozens upon dozens of Anti-Islam books for you?

[Character Assassin]

34. I am addressing the question

You made a statement that I consider overbroad, unsupportable and far too general, thus making your point, until further support, untenable.

Are those 'dozens and dozens' all the books published criticizing Islam?

Do you know how many books there are in total representing your parameters?

Do you know how many are written in the same time period by those outside your parameters?

Are all such books of both sample sets available at Amazon?

You haven't been insulted yet; you've been called on a hasty generalization that is unjustified. If that makes you uncomfortable, tough.

[donotpassgo]

37. Ask any Freeper

or any of the Hannitized, or those that listen to AM talk radio, what they think about Islam.

Where do they get their 'expert' info from? I just named a couple of well drawn upon sources that many folks use as their basis for hatred. There are people on this thread that disagreed with me and gave sources to counter mine and witheld the temptation to get into some snit.

You did neither. Provide sources or convincingly debate the point of my topic. You basically said 'your wrong. whaddya gonna do about it?' and

[Character Assassin]

38. No, I'm asking you.

Ask any Freeper or any of the Hannitized, or those that listen to AM talk radio, what they think about Islam.

Why would I? It's irrelevant to the topic that you yourself brought up.


Where do they get their 'expert' info from?

Neither I nor you have an exact answer to that.

I just named a couple of well drawn upon sources that many folks use as their basis for hatred. There are people on this thread that disagreed with me and gave sources to counter mine and witheld the temptation to get into some snit.

I've given you an opportunity to make your case. Thus far, you haven't, but you have started to dodge.

You did neither. Provide sources or convincingly debate the point of my topic. You basically said 'your wrong. whaddya gonna do about it?'

No, I've said "You haven't supported your own case, and your generalizing fails to convince me that you're going to do so in the first place."

[donotpassgo]

42. No...it IS the topic...

books like Islam:Unveiled are held up as THE definitive word re Islam. The talking heads (Hannity, Savage, Scarborough) all refer to it and point their readers to this incredibly biased view of the Muslim faith. They do that to the point where much of their viewr/listenership believe that Islam is an inherently evil or violent religion. That's why in freeper land Muslims are Islamo-facists and "religion of peace" is always referred to smugly.

These people aren't using Muslim sources to justify their sources, but slanted history and theology in the guise of sholarship.

That is dangerous. That breeds a mistrust of the Muslims in our community. So when I ask, if Christian criticism of Islam is valid, I am coming with the above thoughts in mind. Especially when many Christians are themselves engaged in a holy war.

Now, what is your case? Your wrong nany nanny boo boo? If you are just poo pooing the parameters of my question, fine. But don't realte to me like I'm an idiot because you don't agree with how I framed the thread.

[Character Assassin]

48. Mmm-hmmm.

books like Islam:Unveiled are held up as THE definitive word re Islam.

By some people, sure. But so what?

The talking heads (Hannity, Savage, Scarborough) all refer to it and point their readers to this incredibly biased view of the Muslim faith.

And you are assuming that (a) the viewers/listeners all take it as gospel and (b) they are unable to parse the differences between it and other volumes about Islam.

They do that to the point where much of their viewr/listenership believe that Islam is an inherently evil or violent religion.

Prove your case. Just saying that it's so doesn't make it so.

That's why in freeper land Muslims are Islamo-facists and "religion of peace" is always referred to smugly.

You're quite incorrect. They were saying that long before that book ever came out. There is a contingent there that believed this sinced the founding of that site.

These people aren't using Muslim sources to justify their sources, but slanted history and theology in the guise of sholarship.

Quite frankly, so what? One doesn't need Muslim sources to read the Koran, to criticize the Koran or to write opinions about the Koran.

That is dangerous. That breeds a mistrust of the Muslims in our community.

I see zero evidence that publishing without Muslim sources 'breeds mistrust'.

So when I ask, if Christian criticism of Islam is valid, I am coming with the above thoughts in mind. Especially when many Christians are themselves engaged in a holy war.

Many Christians are engaged in a holy war? That's rather an imaginative stretch.

Now, what is your case? Your wrong nany nanny boo boo? If you are just poo pooing the parameters of my question, fine. But don't realte to me like I'm an idiot because you don't agree with how I framed the thread.

I'm not treating you like an idiot. I'm questioning the validity of your claims and how you structure your arguments.

[donotpassgo]

51. so what????

When we have a General saying Osama=Satan and that our enemies are evil and that God is on our side in this struggle and that Christianity is better than Islam...so what?

When the pResident of the United States considers himself annointed by God and his sheep followers are more than willing to follow him into battle vs. the evil doers...So what?

Are you misguided into the belief that many christian don't see the war on Terror as a Holy War? Or at least a clash of civilizations (theirs being wrong or wicked)? So what?

When a large group of people with certain voting interests take a few select and biased sources as the definitive view of a segmant of civilization...that is dangerous. And not something you can just shrug off.

When a whole foreign policy is devised with the idea that Christ himself is at the driver's seat and our enemies are extensions of Satan and pure evil, THAT is something take action against.

[Character Assassin]

56. Yes, quite succinctly: so what?

When we have a General saying Osama=Satan and that our enemies are evil and that God is on our side in this struggle and that Christianity is better than Islam...so what?

Well, that's one general. It does not, however, constitute the entirety of the forces currently engaged in Iraq, nor the leadership.

When the pResident of the United States considers himself annointed by God and his sheep followers are more than willing to follow him into battle vs. the evil doers...So what?

So him considering this makes the actual soldiers on the ground shell mosques? Burn piles of Korans? Bayonette Red Crescent workers? His professed belief makes this a crusade, despite the evidence to the contrary?

Are you misguided into the belief that many christian don't see the war on Terror as a Holy War? Or at least a clash of civilizations (theirs being wrong or wicked)? So what?

I know some do. That does not, however, make it a holy war.

When a large group of people with certain voting interests take a few select and biased sources as the definitive view of a segmant of civilization...that is dangerous. And not something you can just shrug off.

I do not see that as being the case, and I do not see you as having demonstrated that it is. I also do not see the works that you cited as particularly being as you describe them. As such, I am indeed shrugging off your contentions, and do not consider your concerns as validated.

When a whole foreign policy is devised with the idea that Christ himself is at the driver's seat and our enemies are extensions of Satan and pure evil, THAT is something take action against.

You'll be sure to let me know when that happens, won't you?

Thanks.

[donotpassgo]

59. "You'll be sure to let me know when that happens, won't you?"

Its called election day.

"constitute the entirety of the forces currently engaged in Iraq, nor the leadership."
It constitutes the commander in chief and that's big enough for me.

[Isome]

79. Validate this...

It's just silly that anyone would consider their approval as necessary to validate someone else's opinion on DU. Though you may view someone's argument as lacking in substance, that person may view your argument as lacking in substance as well. Posturing and condescension aren't substitutes for backing up your argument.

---

"When a large group of people with certain voting interests take a few select and biased sources as the definitive view of a segmant of civilization...that is dangerous. And not something you can just shrug off."

This has happened in the aftermath of 9/11. To deny it, is to ignore what's currently going on, and what's being said, all around us in this country!

[Character Assassin]

88. Got your validation right here....

It's just silly that anyone would consider their approval as necessary to validate someone else's opinion on DU.

I agree. But no one is demanding anyone else's approval, so what's your point?

Though you may view someone's argument as lacking in substance, that person may view your argument as lacking in substance as well.

Irrelevant.

Posturing and condescension aren't substitutes for backing up your argument.

I haven't offered any particular argument, Ms. Manners, I've criticized what I consider to be a poorly constructed and unsupportable one.

"When a large group of people with certain voting interests take a few select and biased sources as the definitive view of a segmant of civilization...that is dangerous. And not something you can just shrug off."

This has happened in the aftermath of 9/11. To deny it, is to ignore what's currently going on, and what's being said, all around us in this country!

To make such a claim and not support it is indicative of the same problem the original poster encountered.

[donotpassgo]

89. you just don't get it...

What's supporting your condescending assertions? There are dozens upon dozens of other posts actually discussing many different things on this thread.

A lot of great information is being passed back and forth between DUer's and instead of either engaging in the dicussions, you're just content to pick fights.

[Character Assassin]

90. Have it your way

What's supporting your condescending assertions? There are dozens upon dozens of other posts actually discussing many different things on this thread.

I tend to to that when people fail to recognize what's staring them directly in the face.

A lot of great information is being passed back and forth between DUer's and instead of either engaging in the dicussions, you're just content to pick fights.

Really? As you wish, then.

[donotpassgo]

32. LET ME CLARIFY...

I AM NOT CALLING WHITE CHRISTIANS, SHITHEADS.

I am making an observation that it bothers me that certain people defining themselves as expert shape the opinions of highly suggestable people.

[Kamika]

36. This is gonna look really un-PC

But I think that it's hard for a muslim to not be biased towards his own religion.


Al quaida has done for Islam what Bush has done for America.. and your average Joe Shmoe will just see a religion of torturers.. rapists.. opressors.. anti-semitis etc.. just like the rest of the world have started to think of us as imperialists.

Maybe a white fundie christian isn't the right person to write a book about islam, but a muslim isn't either.



Ask yourself what the average guy on the street thinks of Islam instead. That really is the best way to meassure it.

[PsychoDad]

84. This is gonna look really un-PC.....

I don't think so... But then again, "PC" or what people want to hear, or not hear, is not always correct or prudent.

"But I think that it's hard for a muslim to not be biased towards his own religion." - I would agree with that. Sorta like someone who loves the color red writing a book about how the red crayon isn't the best in the box :silly:

We all have biases (is that a word?), but if we are open minded and honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that there are colors beside red in the crayon box, and that maybe sometimes, just once in a while, another color may be ok too. And going farther, maybe we will realize that red isn't allways the right color for everyone all the time.

The prophet instructed his followers to learn and become educated, to question what they saw. So, even someone who is biased toward Islam, should be able to take an educated and critical look at the subject. There is always room for improvement, in ourselves and in our deen. The first step is taking that look at ourselves and our religion.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. some of the biggest defenders of Islam are also white christians

check out the presbyterian church and it's policy and work with palestinians.

[Some Moran]

41. I'm a White liberal agnostic...

And I believe that Islamofascism and Islamostalinism are as real as the Christofascism that has poisoned the United States and Africa.

I also believe that they are not identical to Islam.

[donotpassgo]

44. A lot of people can't separate the radical elements from the general

core beliefs. They think that you have to be a bad Muslim to be a true Muslim and that's where it gets bastardized by many of these authors.

[Isome]

47. "...they are not identical to Islam."

Agreed!

I recall the number of followers of Islam being six billion. It's not surprising to me that the entire religion is characterized based on the actions of an undeniably small number of its followers, because it fits a pattern. Christianity has yet to be treated to the same mischaracterization.

[Blitz]

50. Um, SIX BILLION???

I suggest that you check your math before making such a bold statement.

[PVnRT]

58. Uhhhhhhhh

There are only six billion people on the planet, dude. And I know I'm not Muslim.

[Isome]

64. Dude!

I would apologize for my sloppy proofreading, but I don't feel any motivation to do so, given the tone & tenor of the two posts responding to it. Instead I'll point out that crux of my "bold" statement remains unaddressed, and it's boldness is only slightly diminished with the corrected number of 1.2 billion.

.::Religious Tolerance Site::.

[BonjourUSA]

45. Many muslims talked and wrote about Islam diseases.

They were moderate, democrat and above all reformating. But we never heard them nor helped them because they didn't serve the foreign policy of the West, the US foreign policy in particular. Osama is the product of this policy.

Many of these moderate, democrat and reformating muslims decayed in the jails of the muslim dictators helped by the CIA in a total disinterest. Now the consequences of this foreign policy are exploding in our face with an Islam more and more in the extremist hands.

[LeahMira]

46. The ones who do this...

It seems that every book that's been released about the evils of 'Islamo-facists' or how 'Islam is not a religion of peace' has been written by a man who isn't a Muslim.

... are the ones that are most frightened by what they see of themselves in fundamentalist Islam.

[Isome]

49. It's projection... yet again! n/t

[NashVegas]

57. How About a Criticism from a White Muslim?

Richard Thompson, reknowned guitar player, to be specific, regarding the Taleban: "if that's Islam, I'm a Buddhist."

[Sufi Marmot]

86. Thompson is a interesting case...

(Disclaimer, I'm a devoted RT fan and lurking Amateur Critic..]

Richard Thompson's practice of Islam has always seemed to me very internalized compared to most practitioners in predominantly Muslim countries - although he no longer identifies himself as a Sufi, his practice appears to manifest itself as a quiet, personal spirituality rather than any kind of strict Koranic dogma. After all, he's married to a non-Muslim American woman, spends half his life in Southern California, and has embraced and celebrated western (Anglo/Celtic/American) culture throughout his entire career. Other than his "Sufi" albums with Linda, Pour Down Like Silver and First Light, there are very few explicit references to Islam in his music, "Outside of the Inside" notwithstanding (lots of subtle allusions to Muslim literature/spirituality, if one knows where to look, though...)

He does allegedly pray towards Mecca and I seem to recall interviews in which he expressed displeasure (but not to the extent of murderousness) at Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". Nevertheless, his liberal/humanistic approach to his faith and his western lifestyle would probably scandalize the majority of Muslims in non-western countries.

-Sufi Marmot, whose interest in Sufism is directly attributable to RT's music...

[kiahzero]

60. Happens all the time

You'll see tons of these books about any religion that isn't Christianity.

[MrPrax]

66. Inherent racism!

The 'christian' thing is as irrelevent as casting the ME conflict in religious terms, either by Islam or Christianity.

Just in the same religion was irrelevent in conqueroring say South America...
It is we're just too polite or stupid to acknowledge it...post is typical:"Sure they know the Quran verse for verse, and deconstruct it as a work of literature, and love to point out its contradictions...but they never have lived the experience."
Bullshit...even a racist like Bernard Lewis has had his scholarship destroyed...
And crackpots like Christian Zionists are just fueling zealots and writing 'hate literature' which is fashionable these days and there are few laws in the US or Opposition to it. The hope is to create a 'where there is smoke, there must be some fire' notion in the minds of moderate Christians...same rationale behind anything Coulter or Hannity writes.

[TrogL]

74. There's lots of contradictions in the bible

(busted link)

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[JCMach1]

82. Live in a Muslim (or Arabic) Society for awhile

and you will understand about the peace part.

There is NO crime here. The people are kind and tolerant and view life more in terms of community than self. Fathers take VERY active roles in their children's lives. Simply go to a mall and count the fathers take their children out for the day (an almost unknown sight in the U.S.). Society here treats children like they ACTUALLY are the future and not just a piece of rhetoric for politicians to use.

Because of this, I think there will be a VERY NEGATIVE reaction to the recent attacks (bombings) by the average Saudi citizen.

Of course, what do I know-- I just live here...

[gate of the sun]

85. because "white" christians

at least a portion of them believe the lies and hype about Islam ...for goodness sake they believe that anything that doesn''t fit their bible stories is from the devil.......It's really quite simple.

[donotpassgo]

87. interesting topic bump...

n/t