tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post1698682818082923618..comments2023-05-03T09:05:55.102-07:00Comments on Jacobinism: Day of the DemagogueUnrepentant Jacobinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09256579083755037018noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-69478927717965656452013-07-08T22:49:35.396-07:002013-07-08T22:49:35.396-07:00An excellent post - and efficient skewering of HnH...An excellent post - and efficient skewering of HnH - though after Nick Lowle's pathetic performance in a radio debate on BBC Asian Radio with Nihal it almost seems like taking a baseball bat to an incontinent puppy. Or would be if it were not for the fact that the Home Secretary apparently takes heed of and acts upon such drivel.<br /><br />Your point about Robert Spencer (I can't comment on Geller as I don't read her)likening him to the Islamists he criticises is not, I think, entirely fair. When David Toube used to post at HP he would accuse Spencer of essentialisng Islam, and I think you are making a similar point. I read Jihad Watch fairly regularly and would be the last to claim it is fair and balanced. That there is a pattern posts that dismiss Moderate Muslims as wolves in sheeps clothing or engaging in Theological wishful thinking or accusing them of Taquiya is undeniable.<br /><br />The problem is that pointing out such a pattern of posts does not really answer whether Spencer's dismissal of such moderates is just or not. To take three prominent examples - Tariq Ramadan, Mehdi Hassan and Ed Husein I think there is a good case for saying each is not simply illustrative of the three different objections to claims of a Moderate Mainstream Islam , but emblematic of it as well. Tariq Ramadan and to a lesser extent Mehdi Hassan do say very different things to their Muslim and non Muslim audiences - and these are sharply at odds. Sometimes - as in the case when confronted by Sarkozy on stoning the Pablum wears thin, or in Mehdi Hassan's case we get a helpful tape recording. Now it might not be deliberate taquiya they are engaging in - and the dichotomy might be explicable as the confusion and dissonance that face the devout in a secular society> but the reason why I don't think it's the same as the devout Catholic who must acknowledge the secular law on abortion rights is because the devout Catholic is prepared to say that whilst they hold abortion to be a sin they accept the right of secular law to govern this. That said I do think that, despite being strongly pro choice and believing a woman to be the absolute sovereign of her own body, that abortion is an issue on which reasonable people may disagree in a way that I don't think that it is reasonable to hold stoning adulterers to death merits a moratorium rather than condemnation or regarding kuffr as ignorant cattle. <br /><br />The other dismissal, namely that a moderate Muslim is ignorant of his own theology, did get a bit of a demonstration on the same Radio spot reffered to earlier - an Immam invited on to the show to refute Spencer remarkably claimed that the debate was unfair because Islam is Spencer's speciality. but Radio stunts aside I think there is a real problem with someone like Ed Husein - who I believe is entirely sincere in his (newfound - well not so new now) commitment to a genuinely moderate anti-islamist position. I think it was best exposed when he debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Google Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husein). You can't help feeling that Husein is fooling himself.<br /><br />But where I think you are being unfair to Spencer is that he has another pattern of posts relating to what might be called Muslim reformers. Now it would be true to say that these reformers only ever manage to come to Spencers attention when other Muslims are trying to kill them. On the one hand this is a distressingly common occurence - so much so that you can tell if a Muslim is proclaiming an Islam that is genuinely moderate by whether they need armed protection or must live in hiding or under psuedonyms. On the other hand Spencer certainly loses points for only noticing these peoples peril rather than what they are saying. genwolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737312486482258877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-46893851189380149962013-07-05T18:58:20.024-07:002013-07-05T18:58:20.024-07:00I think with the way things are going, it seems th...I think with the way things are going, it seems that it will lead to either the UK becoming an Islamic country governed by Shariah, or to outbreak of violence against Muslims, unless people will start addressing real issues. <br /><br />You are saying that Robert and Pamela engage in rhetoric very similar to Anti-Semitic theories used to justify persecution of the Jews. I disagree: I think that addressing the issues in the way they do might prevent violence against Muslims in the future. It's the double standard that breeds resentment, and resentment makes it easy to push people into violence, assuming a truly Anti-Muslim (not to be confused with Anti-Islam or Anti-Islamism) leader would emerge. Pamela and Robert and Tommy are all fighting against that double standard. <br /><br />I agree with you on the point that censoring the ideas is not the solution. I think the problem will be lowered once Islam will be a fair game for criticism and ridicule like all other religions are without having to fear violent retribution, as well as when any and all issues that concern Muslim community will be addressed in a straightforward manner and without having to sugarcoat things (aka "asian gangs"..) in order no to offend someone. Unfortunately, we are going to the opposite direction now, and this can't be good.<br /><br /><br />P.S. I don't understand why people make denying Holocaust illegal. You know, if I'd be concerned about this idiocy, I'd organize a big debate, invite both legitimate historians and holocaust deniers, let historians wipe the floor with deniers, and broadcast it for everyone to see. Why make it illegal and therefore romanticize it or give food to conspiracy theories when you can make holocaust deniers a laughing stock by letting them embarrass themselves on air?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-15472722325569613932013-07-05T18:57:45.700-07:002013-07-05T18:57:45.700-07:00It is correct to say that "moderate" Isl...It is correct to say that "moderate" Islam doesn't exist, because there's only one Islam: the one that was taught by Muhammad and recorded in Quran and Haddith. Sure, there are moderate Muslims, but in this case, "moderate" simply means that they are not following their own religion closely. Also, I suggest you to read up on Taqiyya, since that is what I believe Pamela and Robert are referring to when they are suspicious about mass deception.<br /><br />I think the main reasons why people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, or Tommy Robinson speak out is because there are real issues that are not being addressed. <br /><br />It's not conspiracy theory, it's a fact that both media and politicians apply double standards to Muslims and non-Muslims: Robert and Pamela banned, Saudi hate preacher allowed, someone threatens a Muslim, police is all over it, Tommy Robinson gets death threats everyday, police does nothing, extremists are allowed to protest holding provocative signs that call to violence ("Behead those who insult the Prophet", etc.), police does nothing, Tommy Robinson wants to do a charity walk, police arrests him for being in a "Muslim" area, TellMama causes panic in media over the wave of attacks against Muslims, yet no one cares that more than 50% of racial crimes victims are white, Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are named as "Asian" gangs in the media (have you ever heard that say, Lithuanian gang would be named as "European" in the media? No wonder all non-Pakistani non-muslim Asians are outraged about this), anyone who criticizes Islam is immediately called a racist (which is weird considering it's a religion not a race), etc. etc.<br /><br />I think that these double standards are the main issue here. You see, when Islam clearly gets a special treatment, of course people are not happy about it, and when they feel that their voices and legitimate concerns are not being heard, the resentment grows, and if it continues going that way, I'm afraid it might lead to an outbreak of violence. There would be no EDL (who address real and serious issues that no one wants to address) in UK if not for this double standard. It's not like Tommy Robinson's life is so much fun with all those death threats, assaults, arrests, and slandering. He's just saying what almost no one else dares to say.<br /><br />As Pamela Geller says, "Truth is the new hate speech", and that's a very bad sign. Sure, me saying that Muhammad was a pedophile might offend many Muslims, but that's how we call a 53 year old man who rapes a 9 year old girl, isn't it? It's the same with talking about other troubling things within Islam: sex slavery, wife beating, war against infidels, or addressing crimes prevalent in Muslim communities, such as honor killings etc, the fact that something is ugly doesn't make it less true. Yet for some reason it seems that even quoting verses from the Quran that are less than favorable to the "religion of peace image" is considered hate speech nowadays.<br /><br />(to be continued in next comment)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-6909781417483878232013-07-05T18:53:33.439-07:002013-07-05T18:53:33.439-07:00I disagree with your point on Pamela Geller and Ro...I disagree with your point on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.<br /><br />You have to make a clear distinction between ideology (Islam) and people who follow that ideology (Muslims).<br /><br />Robert and Pamela criticize ideology (Islam) and people who follow that ideology very closely and therefore are violent (extremist Muslims).<br /><br />Now, if you want to evaluate ideology, you have to look at the sources, in this case, the Quran and Haddith, not at the people who follow that ideology, since there is a wide spectrum of behaviors in any ideology. <br /><br />When you take a look at Quran, Haddith, and Shariah, it becomes clear that yes, Islam as an ideology allows child marriage, slavery, sex slavery, wife beating, violence, and oppression of people of different religions, and, in fact, calls the believers to wage war against infidels and establish a wordwide Islamic caliphate. <br /><br />It's accurate to say that, although most Muslims today don't engage in behavior like that, a Muslim person can find justification in this religion for raping a child, beating his wife, killing infidels, or belonging to a terrorist organization that seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate<br /><br /><br />Yes, of course Quran is not the perfect and unchangable word of god, and therefore can be changed, and Muhammad was not a perfect human being, and therefore shouldn't be perceived as such, but..<br /><br />In Islam, Quran is considered to be the perfect and unchangeable word of God, Haddith are considered to be reliable sources of information about the life of the prophet, and Muhammad is considered to be an example of excellent conduct. <br /><br />Therefore yes, if one wants to reform Islam, and condemn practices such as child marriage, slavery, wife beating, religious oppression, and waging war against infidels, and Shariah law, then one has to pretty much invent their own religion, since that would require to denounce the perfect word of God, and condemn the actions of his prophet, the example of excellent conduct. Is it still Islam then? Probably not, since that means changing the main tenets of Islam, don't you think?<br /><br />It's a mistake to think that reforming Islam is like reforming Christianity.There's a vast difference between the New Testament and Quran: for starters, Jesus didn't marry a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she turned 9, he didn't own slaves, he didn't wage military campaigns, he didn't condone keeping captive females as sex slaves, he didn't commit genocide, etc. Everyone likes to say "Well, Christianity also had witch hunts, inquisition, crusades, etc.", but the difference is that none of these things are in the New Testament. Reformation in Christianity meant going closer to the original teachings, reformation in Islam would mean going away from original teachings, since extremists are the ones that follow the original teachings of prophet Muhhamad and the Quran very closely (btw, there are "reformist" sects, check out the Ahmadiyya sect, which is persecuted by other sects and are not allowed to enter Mecca, since they are not considered Muslims anymore because of their "reform"). Please not that I'm non-religious, therefore I don't say this because of some Christian agenda, I'm simply comparing to religious texts.<br /><br />(continued in next comment..)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-76831862614212230372013-07-04T15:54:35.039-07:002013-07-04T15:54:35.039-07:00An excellent piece. And I am glad to see that it h...An excellent piece. And I am glad to see that it has been cross-posted at Harry's Place, though not before HP had already had an article from Nick Lowles calling for HP readers to sign the HOpe not Hate petition to "keep Spencer and Geller out." <br /><br />I wanted to reproduce what I commented on HP here, but your comments section only allows a maximum of 4,096 characters. But it does make me think of how Harry's Place quotes in its banner from Orwell's proposed preface to Animal Farm - http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go - but is now dealing with so much propaganda. And bizarrely, where Orwell is here so insightful, he misattributes the "Voltaire quote" you refer to above.<br /><br />Great blog, by the way.<br /><br />Adrian MorganA. Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683891234947014409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-68570070165889532132013-07-04T14:12:00.751-07:002013-07-04T14:12:00.751-07:00Yes, I know. I did in fact acknowledge that with a...Yes, I know. I did in fact acknowledge that with a link in the post. :)Unrepentant Jacobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256579083755037018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-26345498404971332292013-07-04T14:03:48.398-07:002013-07-04T14:03:48.398-07:00"I disapprove of what you say, but I will def..."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."<br /><br />Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.[11]<br /><br />http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#MisattributedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-63972686445636576002013-07-04T13:49:41.509-07:002013-07-04T13:49:41.509-07:00And thank you for the thoughtful, eloquent comment...And thank you for the thoughtful, eloquent comment. Much appreciated.Unrepentant Jacobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256579083755037018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-3482213493816143542013-07-04T13:46:30.028-07:002013-07-04T13:46:30.028-07:00Personally I wasn't bothered whether Geller an...Personally I wasn't bothered whether Geller and Spencer came over or not. Certainly the bru-haha has given them useful publicity because I'd never heard of them before the ban. What did bother me though was that a controversial Saudi cleric, Mohammed Al-Arefe, whom many Muslims community leaders warned could stir up anti-Shia sectarian tensions in the UK (something that is already being provoked by the civil war in Syria) was allowed to enter the UK. Where was the HNH petition to stop them? It's the lack of even handedness in dealing with ALL extremists that bothers me and the EDL are milking it.<br /><br />You only need to read the comments beneath an article on the EDL on the Huffington Post to see how much sympathy they get. The fact that apparently Tommy Robinson receives his own fair share of death threats that are never acted on by the police, and any negative comment, however benign, against Muslims on Twitter/Facebook is recorded by TellMAMA as an 'Islamophobic hate crime' allows the EDL to claim that a 2 tier system of justice is being operated, and with some justification.<br /><br />The banning of Geller and Spencer but not the banning of Mohammed Al Arefe also allows them to claim a 2 tier system of censorship. And this helps the EDL to garner more support from a disaffected, aggrieved British public who are still hurting from the gruesome murder of an unarmed British soldier in broad daylight on a London street in the name of Islam.<br /><br />To be fair, both TellMAMA and the EDL are exaggerating to further their own aims. As you rightly point out, there have been very few high level anti-Muslim attacks. Also, if you consider that only 4.8% of the UK population is Muslim, even if 50% of them wanted a caliphate & sharia in the UK, that would leave 97% of the UK who'd be against it. So the chances of it happening are zero, but we must still curtail the threat and stay vigilant.<br /><br />So I couldn't agree with you more. Hope Not Hate need to be much more vocal and robust in speaking out against Islamism. They claim they address all extremism but I see very little evidence of this. That is why the EDL is thriving in the void.<br /><br />Another well written, thought provoking post Jacobin. Thank you :-)<br /><br />JDSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com