Islamophobia
Via: Mick Hartley:
Where do you think these quotes, taken from teaching classes by Muslim preachers, were heard and recorded?
“We are not going to be like animals . . . or to be like the homosexuals, God save us from that, you understand? We have to take the judgment, the judgment is to kill them.”
“He is Muslim and he gets out of Islam, he doesn’t want any more. What are we going to do? We kill him, kill, kill.”
Umm Amira describes Christians as “vile”. Another preacher, Umm Saleem, tells her congregation not to take British citizenship or become friends with nonMuslims....
Pakistan? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?
It was here:
The London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, known as the Regent’s Park Mosque, ...one of the most respected centres for moderate Islam in western Europe.
Where
an undercover investigation by the Channel 4 Dispatches programme has found extremist preachers [which] have held study circles there and are teaching followers a hardline version of the faith followed in Saudi Arabia, known as Wahhabism.
You can read it all, here.
How does the Muslim Council of Britain, an affiliate of this mosque, react?
“Some of the statements are deeply offensive . . . [but] it would be very wrong, and quite unfair, to smear the whole centre.”
Never mind the preacing of hated for gays and nonMuslims. Offensive as these actions are, more offensive is the "smear"* to the mosque...
* What's a smear? Vilification or slander. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone.
posted by The Contentious Centrist @ Sunday, August 31, 2008
19 comments
19 Comments:
In Israel, Rabbi Lior has issued a fatwa against employing Arabs and renting houses to them. In November last year he had already called for the ethnical cleansing of Arabs. And this is a STATE-paid rabbi.
Israeli produce marketing company Otzar Ha'aretz has announced a boycott of Arab produce, to no objection by Zionist sites, including this one.
I agree that Umm Amira will tarnish the whole London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre until they expell her. But by the same standards, Lior will tarnish the whole state of Israel until he's dropped from the State payroll, and so will Otzar Ha'aretz until their marketing license is revoked.
Here's a case in which hate is a two-way street.
Yusuf says: "Umm Amira will tarnish the whole London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre ... But by the same standards, Lior will tarnish the whole state of Israel"
By the same standards?
I have not checked the veracity of your stories. I don't need to in order to see the logical flaw in your thinking.
A British mosque is tarnished by the teachings of its teachers. But the whole state of Britain is not even remotely blemished by these teachings. Does the state of Britain teach its citizens that gays should be killed and adulterers stoned to death?
Can you begin to see the structural flaw in your thinking, that which immediately identifies you for what you are??
Are you really an engineer? Scary thought.
2 way street indeed. LOL!
Have you seen this one yet Noga.
Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality
NAOMI WOLF
August 30, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html
Yes
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2008/08/support-for-repression-of-women-of.html
Oops!
;p
The whole state of Britain does not pay Umm Amira's salary. However, it can revoke the Center's license as an educational institution; and if it doesn't and Amira keeps spewing hate, yes, Britain would be complicit, although not as complicit as Israel is when it pays Rabbi Lior's salary.
Does the state of Britain teach its citizens that gays should be killed and adulterers stoned to death?
No. On the other hand, Israeli state schools teach Jewish girls not to date Bedouins.
I have not checked the veracity of your stories.
They're a click away. Just type in the proper names I mentioned on your web searcher.
Are you really an engineer? Scary thought.
Am I an engineer? Last I heard I was a linguist.
"A courageous and upright individual Jew does not make up for a State policy of supporting Jewish violence against Palestinians with troops, salaries and subsidies." says Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yitzgood/2619703985954651945/?a=26723
But the explicit ststements of a individual zealous rabbi does smear the entire state of Israel.
A good Israeli is an exception. A bad Israeli is the rule.
"And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew."
I'm sure Yusuf is familiar with the author of these words. He seems to take lessons from him.
I should add, for the edification of my readers that Yusuf is a fake identity of probably an Argentinian antisemite who believes that Arabs think and speak like he does, by his own account:
"Do you understand your objections lack any logic? I’m using the screen name Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf to say things that someone actually called Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf would be expected to say — what’s the problem? I’m not using a pseudonym to legitimate my criticism."
In the comments, here:
http://blog.z-word.com/2008/08/the-candour-of-mahmoud-darwish/
Over and over and over.
The "zealous," or, euphemisms aside, racist rabbi Lior smears the entire state of Israel because he's an employee of the Israeli state.
The individual Jew who saved two arabs from being lynched by a Jewish mob (and was himself stabbed by the mob), on the other hand, gets no salary from Israel for averting lynchings.
Don't you get it yet?
State pays salary → State is responsible.
State doesn't pay salary → State can't take credit.
Is that so difficult to grasp?
I should add, for the edification of my readers that Yusuf is a fake identity of probably an Argentinian antisemite who ...
Didn't they teach you at school that using ad hominems is bad manners?
You come here with an Arab name, making a lot of antisemitic statements. My readers may justly infer that these opinions are made by an Arab national. They need to be told that you are not an Arab national, but an imposter. And your opinions are not some Arab's opinion, but some Argentinian's opinion.
If your readers infer that I'm an Arab national, the Arabs have nothing to fear, because your readers are sensible folks who know that a single person's behavior does not tarnish a people.
Is this an acknowledgement that you are not a sensible person?
Is this an acknowledgement that you are not a sensible person?
No; it's a statement that whether I'm an Arab or not is a moot point.
And your opinions are not some Arab's opinion, but some Argentinian's opinion.
I never claimed to be a citizen of an Arab country. I claimed to be an Argentinian of Arab descent, which I am.
I'm also an atheist, and you may question the ethics of using an Islamic-sounding nick; but again, that's a moot point. No one ever said that one's pseudonym must accomodate one's reality; on the contrary, everybody (except Ben Cohen and you) agrees that it's perfectly legitimate to adopt a virtual personality different from your real one.
"..everybody (except Ben Cohen and you) agrees that it's perfectly legitimate to adopt a virtual personality different from your real one."
Who are those "everybody" who agree that lying is "perfectly legitimate"?
When you misrepresent yourself you deceive others.
Deception is the attempt to convince others to believe information that is not true.
It can be done easily and safely on the Internet. That means that you can pass yourself for whatever you want without being formally punished for it. But it is unethical to do so, and most message boards do not accept this breach of trust, and imposters are immediately banned.
It's widely accepted that your nick should reflect your personality on the web, not your real one. For instance:
"According to Danet (1996) choosing an Internet nickname achieves two different goals:
- To hide the real identity
- To draw attention to the virtual identity"
See here.
Deception is the attempt to convince others to believe information that is not true.
You have to be very childish to be deceived by a nickname. Moreover, deception is a relevant category when some kind of harm is effectively caused to the deceived person. If, say, you marry a person and conceal to them that you have AIDS, that's harmful deception. If, on the other hand, you tell them that you were chess champion of your school and you weren't, that's innocuous and no judge will accept that as grounds for divorce.
I'd like to know in what way my "deception" harms the people I debate over the web.
The Internet is a community like a any other, and the rules of community apply.
You are misleading people who think you are an Arab when in fact you are not. It's clear you choose that name for yourself because you wanted to create a certain impression of authority. It turns out you are not speaking from authority when you pretend to be an Arab. But you don't alert your interlocutors to this, so that means you are using it as subterfuge. You get something out of pretending to be an Arab which you wouldn't get if you presented your real self. That puts others, who are discussing with you in good faith, unaware of the ruse, at a disadvantage.
The fact that you can't even understand what's wrong with pretending to be what you are not should indicate that you are ethically challenged and not to be taken seriously in anything you say.
"JERRY
Let me call him back..
Hello?? Who is this?
Donna Chang? Oh, I'm sorry, I must o' dialed the wrong number.
ELAINE
Donna Chang?
JERRY
[is redialing] Should've talked to her; I love Chinese women."
"DONNA
Hi. Sorry I'm late.
JERRY
Who're you?
DONNA
I'm Donna Chang..
JERRY
[stands, in shock, it's not sinking in] What do you mean?
DONNA
I mean: I'm Donna Chang.
JERRY
[pause] You're Donna Chang?
DONNA
Did you think I was Chinese?..
JERRY
Oh. No. Oh, you mean because of the "Chang"?
DONNA
Actually, the family name wasn't originally Chang.
JERRY
I didn't think so.
DONNA
It used to be "Changstein."
_____
"ELAINE
She's not Chinese?
JERRY
No. Not Chinese.
Not even Asian.
ELAINE
So. What is she?
JERRY
Well, she's.. like you.
ELAINE
[pause] Oh, how.. disappointed you must have been. [walks to couch, with her cereal]
JERRY
Well, it's false advertising, see? And the thing is, I think she likes
people thinkin' she's Chinese. She suggests Chinese food. She always
introduces herself as "Donna Chang,"..
_____
GEORGE
So what made you change your mind?
ESTELLE
It was that Chinese woman.
-----------------------------------
[In Jerry's car. Jerry's driving, DONNA CHANG is with him.]
JERRY
So I'm curious. What'd you tell Mrs. Costanza that changed her mind?
DONNA
I mentioned a few bits of wisdom from Confucius.
JERRY
[pause] Confucius, huh?
DONNA
Yeah.
JERRY
[pause] You know, you're not Chinese...
_______________
ESTELLE
You're not Chinese!?!?
DONNA
[pause] No.
ESTELLE
I thought you were Chinese!!
DONNA
I'm from Long Island.
ESTELLE
Long Island?!?!
I thought I was gettin' advice from a Chinese woman!!
DONNA
I'm sorry..?
ESTELLE
Well! Then, that changes everything!
GEORGE
What?!
ESTELLE
She's not Chinese; I was duped!!
GEORGE
So what?! She gave you advice; what's the difference if she's not Chinese?!?!
ESTELLE
I'm not taking advice from some girl from Long Island!! [goes into
kitchen]
GEORGE
[chases her] Wait a minute! You're--now you're getting a divorce because she's from Long Island?!?!
FRANK
[from the living room, standing, shouts after them] You want a
divorce?!!? You got one!!!
JERRY
[pause, to DONNA] You know, you might wanna think about changin' your name.."
http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheChineseWoman.htm
It's clear you choose that name for yourself because you wanted to create a certain impression of authority.
Let's see. If I want to defend Argentina's position vis-à-vis the Falkland Islands conflict, and I present myself as an Argentinian, no one will understand I'm talking from a position of autority. On the contrary, it will be interpreted that my arguments are emotion-driven. The same happens if I adopt an Ärab nick and defend the Arab position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I fail to see why presenting myself as an Arab would confer on me any additional authority in that debate. Now; if I adopted a Jewish nick, then your accusation would make some more sense.
You get something out of pretending to be an Arab which you wouldn't get if you presented your real self.
This is the moment in which I have to ask you, madam: why on earth do you insist that I'm pretending to be an Arab? I'm an Argentinian of Arab descent -- are you denying this? Based on what grounds?
By your own admission:
"I’m using the screen name Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf to say things that someone actually called Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf would be expected to say — what’s the problem? I’m not using a pseudonym to legitimate my criticism."
http://blog.z-word.com/2008/08/the-candour-of-mahmoud-darwish/
AS I said, you seem incapable of understanding why taking on a persona which is not your true self, and for propaganda purposes, is unethical.
If you were impresonating someone and giving a testimony in a court of law, you would be indicted for perjury. As this is not a trial, what remains is to point out to this perverse notion of yours and cease all further discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home