Wait, what? You are seriously claiming that hate crimes and murder-for-blasphemy are two fundamentally separate categories?
So when Hindu Rashtra Sena vigilante terrorists murder a Muslim man because they’re upset about some unflattering caricatures of venerated Hindu figures, that’s “just” a “hate crime”, but when Islamist-extremist terrorists murder somebody because they’re upset about an unflattering caricature of Muhammad, that’s somehow a whole different type of atrocity?
Are you even pretending to listen to yourself anymore?
The topic of “being killed for hurting someone’s feelings with a column” was indeed what we are talking about. Not hate crimes or crimes in general.
I find it amusing that you think that the distinction between “constantly libeling and boycotting a crime victim” and “justifying the crime” is a bright line, but can’t follow this.
Islamophobia is not even a negative word IMO if it means fear of Islam.if not fearful, one should at least be aware that it is a cancer that preaches hate and intolerance, incomparable to any other religion or sect in the world. But needless to say, Muslims as human beings should be treated with love and respect that every human being deserves.
It’s a brilliant rhetorical achievement, actually – any criticism of Islam is labeled with a word engineered to make it equivalent to racism or homophobia and then write it off. It’s like if Mitt Romney based his whole campaign on shouting “you’re just a capitalismphobe” at all his critics, and people actually bought into it.
I guess people are more apt to go along with bad rhetorical strategies when they know they might be decapitated if they don’t, though.
Or when you want to talk about violence against women in Muslim societies. Which also has nothing to do with “being killed for hurting someone’s feelings with a column”.
And that’s only up through the start of page 6 of this thread. I could post many more examples if I kept going.
In short, the Haberdash Thread Relevance Rules seem to be “if it’s any kind of hate crime committed by Muslims, it’s relevant to the thread topic, but if it’s any kind of hate crime committed against Muslims, it isn’t”.
If you made the same statements and blanket condemnations about Judaism that you do about Islam, you would (rightly) be called an anti-Semite.
You know, if you’re just going to spend time arguing against the strawman caricatures in your head instead of addressing what we’re actually posting, why are you even here?
That’s what I’ve been wondering myself. It’s one thing to lie about what someone else has said, but it takes a special kind of stupid to lie about it to that person. Like he thinks he’s going to trick us into thinking we said something we didn’t actually say.
This is as poignant a confirmation of the OP as one could hope to find.
At this point, the OP should simply be taken as literal truth.
That this “protest” occurred in 2013 and people still today wish to deny the struggle between secularism and Islam should render the reasoned man apoplectic.
But, of course, to the enlightened liberal, Islam has nothing to do with it.
At which point Haberdash changed the subject back to whining about Teju Cole.
[QUOTE=Stringbean]
That this “protest” occurred in 2013 and people still today wish to deny the struggle between secularism and Islam should render the reasoned man apoplectic.
But, of course, to the enlightened liberal, Islam has nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Look, sweetcheeks, nobody at all is trying to deny that there is a serious and very destructive struggle going on within global political Islam between liberal/secularist thinking and various strains of oppressive Islamic fundamentalism.
We are perfectly willing and even eager to discuss that. We think it is one of the most important issues affecting global religion and politics today. We keep telling you that we wholeheartedly agree with your concern for the dangers to free speech and even human life posed by radical-Islamist violence and oppression.
But we’re not putting up with your sloppy/ignorant/stupid/bigoted inability to use accurate terminology for what you’re talking about. And when you continue to insist on such sloppiness and inaccuracy, we’re going to continue calling you out on your bullshit.
If, after all this time and discussion, you can’t figure out how to complain about oppressive radical-extremist Islamist fundamentalism without just calling it “Islam”, then you are either too dumb to be in a conversation with rational grownups or else you’ve got an agenda of your own.
There’s no wonder. He’s here to troll on this issue. The real question is…
Wait a moment, if I were to ask this question in ATMB, since it’s about the board’s management/administration, would I get warned for accusing him of being a troll, such accusation not permitted outside of The BBQ Pit?
…back to the real question: Why has he not been warned, or even banned, for trolling?
I didn’t see “but the Muslims lived in a different city than where the protest took place” as a relevant rebuttal to “this is 100,000 Muslims demanding death to those who criticize Islam, not a few ‘extremists’'” because it isn’t one; it’s totally irrelevant.
There is no rebuttal to the fact, backed by polls and everyday news events, that most Muslims believe that the penalty for criticizing or leaving Islam should be execution, other than bigot-shrieking and irrelevancies.
The narrative that the apologists would have us believe is that everything was fine until (the Wahhabists/the Shia/ISIS/Sayyid Qutb/whoever the scapegoat is) came along, and if we just return to the “true Islam” of Mohammad (CR) everything will be fine. This is why they are so ready to fly off the handle at any suggestion that Mohammad (CR) was not so great, or that it’s okay to make fun of Mohammad (CR), or that there isn’t anything from the 7th century that can hold a candle to Western secularism in 2015 and the whole thing should be rubbished. It’s not about being “liberal/secularist” because the only acceptable appeal in Islam is to play the “more conservative than thou” game by accusing your opponents of bid’ah and saying that you hold the real mantle of 622. The premises of Islamic debate – Islam – itself are what make it incapable of reform.
This is a specific claim. It’s bullshit. Start here.. Consider that there are about 1.6 billion Muslims. We’ll be extremely generous and say that “most” can be 1 billion of them, a little more than 60%. Use the linked research to reach your 1 billion goal.
That’s not to say that it’s not totally fucked up how many folks in Egypt support this result when asked in a poll. But you need to separate polls in Egypt from polls in the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, where it’s a still-fucked-up but much smaller 1 in 5.5 who give that answer.
This wasn’t a spontaneous protest by “Muslims” angry about those who criticize Islam. It was members of an Islamist political party at a planned political rally in the nation’s capital, where supporters had to be bused in from around the country to attend it, as part of a long-running dispute between said political party and the secular government. It had as much to do with what Muslims really want as a Fox News-promoted Tea Party rally in Washington DC whose attendees were bused into the capital from around the country has to do with what Americans really want.
You’ve already shown that your knowledge of Islam is somewhere between “zero” and “no really, * zero *.”
Haberdash made any particular points he had hundreds of posts ago, has been repeating pretty much the same lines over and over again, and has amply demonstrated to anyone with a reasonable command of English that he is fundamentally incapable of formulating an argument without making hilariously clumsy and absurd misrepresentations of replies to his unending firehose of bullshit.
AFAIC, he can rant to himself all he wants; there’s nothing further worth commenting on here, and hasn’t been for many pages.
Of course, if this sort of thing is entertaining for you, please continue to have at it. I should point out, though, that you seem to be dealing with a complete fucking lunatic with plenty of time on his hands. I hope those trying to match him post for post brought a lunch, is all I’m saying.
This is complete bullshit. In the first place, liberal non-Islamophobes are not thereby “apologists” for Islam or any variant thereof.
In the second place, liberal non-Islamophobes are certainly not arguing in favor of any “return” to any naive ideal of “true Islam” from the time of Muhammad or any other period. That kind of simplistic fundamentalist nonsense is a laughably childish misunderstanding of the complex historical realities of religion.
What we liberal non-Islamophobes in general believe is that Muslims in the modern world need to embrace (and be encouraged in embracing) an interpretation of their religion that allows for political secularism and modern views of human rights.
Mind you, we’re not arguing that modern non-Muslims are entitled to impose such interpretations on majority-Muslim societies at gunpoint, or anything like that. If a Muslim society chooses to be a repressive theocracy, that doesn’t entitle us to declare war on them or assassinate their leaders, etc. But it does entitle us to criticize them and oppose their tyrannical practices, and strive to influence them in the direction of modern liberal ideas.
It does not, however, entitle us to promote stupid ignorant bullshit to the effect that their chosen form of repressive theocratic tyranny is innately the same thing as Islam in general.
And here goes Haberdash’s Radical Mullah Cheer Squad waving its pompoms again:
Gimme a T! Gimme a Y! Gimme an R! Gimme an A! Gimme an N! Gimme an N! Gimme a Y! What does it spell? ISLAM!!!
*
:rolleyes: Fortunately, those of us not on the Radical Mullah Cheer Squad maintain that it’s not only the radical-extremist fundamentalist Muslims who get to decide “what Islam is”.