Ridley: Islamophobia in the West
Aug. 30th, 2006 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qatarperegrineI was going to write about Yvonne Ridley's talk on Islamophobia, but I don't feel I have much to say. I agree with a colleague who said Ridley just didn't add much to the dialogue. Her speech consisted largely of outrageously unsubstantiated claims that most of the audience agreed with anyway, and that was about that. It didn't really fuel intellectual discussion.
There's not much to refute when everything she said was couched in vague sentiments like "we should develop a zero-tolerance approach to anyone who'd try to dilute our faith" without specifying who is diluting the faith or (more importantly) exactly what a zero-tolerance approach would mean.
Much of the talk was actually from her recent article Beware the Happy Clappies, so if you did not hear her speak, reading that will give you a gist of her rhetoric.
The only major section of her speech not appearing in the article was on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Specifically, she lifted up the Muslim world's response to that incident as an ideal display of Muslim values and solidarity. She said that the Muslim response sent the message "We can be strong; you can only push us so far." As proof of this she said gleefully that "You'd have to have an editor with suicidal tendencies to publish a cartoon [like those] again." I found this rather stunning. I don't know any Westerners who feel they have a more positive understanding of Islam as a result of the Mohammed cartoon controversy.
Harking back to my blog entry about about pacifism in Islam, she also said, "Muslims are not pacifists. We're peace-loving people, but we're not pacifists."
There's not much to refute when everything she said was couched in vague sentiments like "we should develop a zero-tolerance approach to anyone who'd try to dilute our faith" without specifying who is diluting the faith or (more importantly) exactly what a zero-tolerance approach would mean.
Much of the talk was actually from her recent article Beware the Happy Clappies, so if you did not hear her speak, reading that will give you a gist of her rhetoric.
The only major section of her speech not appearing in the article was on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Specifically, she lifted up the Muslim world's response to that incident as an ideal display of Muslim values and solidarity. She said that the Muslim response sent the message "We can be strong; you can only push us so far." As proof of this she said gleefully that "You'd have to have an editor with suicidal tendencies to publish a cartoon [like those] again." I found this rather stunning. I don't know any Westerners who feel they have a more positive understanding of Islam as a result of the Mohammed cartoon controversy.
Harking back to my blog entry about about pacifism in Islam, she also said, "Muslims are not pacifists. We're peace-loving people, but we're not pacifists."
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-08 05:30 pm (UTC)Could you tell me how on earth can the arabs be antisemitic when they are semitic nation themselves ?
The Arabs are anti- izraeli - and this is not the same thing .
There are Jews - who are against Israel - claiming that it is forbidden by the Torah - to create a Jewish state . And most of the Arabs say ;" these are nice guys ".
When i entered the sate of Qatar nobody asked me if I was Jew or not .
I am sure that there are a lots of Jews working and living here in Qatar .
And one more word : I do not like Israel -either . You can call me now antisemitic ...
Alma Wad
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-09 08:00 am (UTC)But please don't assume that I am using "anti-Semitic" to mean "opposed to the state of Israel" and then deride me for using a definition that you imposed on what I said. I don't think it's at all anti-Semitic to dislike Israel and, in fact, I dislike Israel.
When I say there are anti-Semitic things printed in the Arab media, I am not referring to articles that oppose the state of Israel; I am referring to cartoons that dehumanize and demean Jewish people as much as the cartoon of the niqabis demeaned Muslim people. And I'm referring to editorials that deny the holocaust, that promote the blood libel, that say that Israel was responsible for 9/11, etc.
Possibly you missed the thread a few weeks ago discussing local concern over the fact that there may be Jewish people working at Education City.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 02:39 pm (UTC)The essence of the Danish cartoons were that they were all racist and if they had been poking fun at black people, or Jewish people they would never ever have been printed.
Sadly taking a swipe at Muslims is the last refuge of the racist scoundrel.
This isn't about censorship at all or freedom of speech of discussion. it is about racist cartoons ripping apart one section of a community because of their faith. The Nazis used exactly the same sort of propaganda when they set about depicting all Jews as money-grubbing, hook-nosed, subversive individuals who had bombs hidden in their clothes.
Do you really want to see Muslims being dragged down the same route as the jewish people in 30's Europe? Unless you have Nazi tendencies I think we already know the answer.
You simply don't like Ridely because she makes you feel uncomfortable. She holds a mirror to your face and you really dont like what you see. You can take it from a Muslim but not a 'Western' Muslim who was once like you.
Infact you probably want our women to remain quiet and subjigated because you prefer that image. As muslims we simply can not win, can we? You dont like us to stand up for ourselves and speak out and then you attack us for saying our women are oppressed and quiet. Be honest with yourselves. Look back in the hand mirror Ridely held up to your face.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:00 pm (UTC)That doesn't mean I want another Holocaust. The line between between printing demeaning cartoons and killing six million people is not THAT fine.
I don't like Muslimahs to stand up for themselves? And then I attack you for saying Muslimahs are oppressed? Who on earth are you talking to here? Telling me what you think I believe and then attacking me for believing it may feel satisfying, but it's pretty pointless when I've never espoused any of the contradictory viewpoints you accuse me of.
Please refrain from psychoanalyzing me and telling me how I "really" feel. It does not further your arguments.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:22 pm (UTC)There were some stupid cartoons published in a magazine that was not really well-known. Muslims who believed themselves "so united " made it famous . Despite the fact that the Koran writes clearly- that God will punish those - who make fun of the faith .
Now Ridley came back to remind everybody how wonderful united we Muslims are . Which is a simple lie .
We are not united - we are divided .
Most Muslims can be so easily manipulated here . it is simply pitiful .
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:13 pm (UTC)I do not believe the official version -about 9/11 - I do not believe the official version of the Holocaust . does it make me antisemitic ? The only thing that I feel I have the right to the free-thinking ?
I do not know what is the situation like in the USA - but in Europe - some person got prison becausee they claimed that holocaust could never happen in the way as it is taught us nowadays . And his arguments were not answered . just he got prison .
Two years ago i was at home in my country - and most people do not believe 9/11 .
Are they all antisemitic ?
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-12 08:56 am (UTC)So what don't you believe about the "official versions" of the Holocaust and 9/11?
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-15 05:41 am (UTC)I would like to suggest you some pages where these things are described in detail - but they are always destroyed .
I also read some memoires of survivors. They tell themselves - that there was puppet show for the children - and in the hospital the German tried to cure them. Somehow such things do not fit into image of the death factory .
the history is always written by the winners . They had to create az awful image of the defeated German . they had to do so partly - to make the world forget Hiroshima ,Drezda etc .
And why do we have to remember always about the Jews mass-killings ? In my country a Jewish writer published a book - claiming- that the number of Slavs killed in WW II was much greater - than the Jews.(even if we believe the death factory ) Tiny Belgium is the responsible for the biggest massacre of the Modern history - in Belgian Congo . But we never commemorate the victims of mass-killings unless they are Jews .
WHY ?