It didnt look that big in google images.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:





And what is the purpose of this deliberate campaign? Who has organised it and what do they get out of it?

(Don't tell me it's the joooos??)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:



Perhaps. I don't deny there's an intentional provocation. But most people have control over the manner in which they react to it. I don't think there was anything rational about the protests all over the word and those vocal, violent protesters drowned out the moderate voices that criticised the film. They did nobody any favours - particularly their Muslim brethren. The prophecy is self-fulfilling, the reaction self-defeating.

Quote:


I used to wear hijab. I know what attitudes towards Muslims are like. Even before 9/11 I was spat on a few times, physically assaulted once. My best friend is scarved and has suffered similar abuse. I agree - it is deeply hurtful and humiliating, but like I said before - calm, respectful dialogue and a focus on common ground rather than difference as a starting point to facilitate that is a good way to bridge the divide.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:



You misunderstand because you want to.
The point is about seeing things from another perspective. There are persepctives that are unacceptable. The criminal angle is just to highlight the point (just as a good crime novel is about human psychology, not just crime).

You said you were spat on when you had a hijab on. Did you see that incident from the spitter's perspective and if so, did that make you accept the behaviour and see how upsetting the hijab was?
No.

It is not about equating criminals with muslims. It is about putting yourself into every possible perspective, including the perspective of people whose perspective you reject.

Muslims of the vocally and actively repulsive kind want an islamic political and social system in the West. I do not see how it is in any way intolerant of me to reject this aim and all its manifestations. After all, they reject the political and social system they find here. Why do I need to tolerate their desire to subvert and wipe away the society I prefer?

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:


mainstream muslims and non-muslims alike reject these fanatics - so why are you even talking about them? The question is why do you refuse to try and understand the perspective of the mainstream - who have far more in common with you than with the "vocally and actively repulsive kind"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:



Because mainstream Muslims are not setting the agenda and reputation of Islam. They are not determining the direction of Islam. They are exactly powerless, except for post-hoc protestations saying either that the bad guys have nuffin' do wiv Islam or, if they can't deny the direct connection, that Islam is being misrepresented by a 'tiny minority'.

But if the fanatics are really, really such a tiny minority, why can they determine the shape and direction of Islam? Why doesn't the reputation and appraisal of Islam rest on th supposed majority who are not at all like the 'tiny minority'? And what does it say about the majority if it is so easily hijacked by a 'tiny minority'?

Stereotypes are caricatures - they both work only if they are recognisable.

Look at any Muslim majority country (and there are dozens of them) and they are either crap, really crap or smacking awful. There is not one single Muslim majority place that is an example to the world in anything. Not one. They are all cautionary tales of various frightfulness.

Anyone who wants to live under sharia (ie Islam) has rocks in his head.

PB - Muslims can't be pluralists. Submission is submission. As an arse bandit, you should know better than even Muslims. You either submit to Ramon or you don't. If you don't, you are not an arse bandit; if you do, you are. Same with Mohammed. WHether you think of it ironically, like all good post-structuralist, post-Marxist  queer theorists or not, the submission is what matters to Ramon and Mo. i

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:


overgeneralised, meaningless crap.

Indonesia is the largest muslim country and it is a thriving secular democracy. Extremist sharia advocates have been continually rejected at the polls in favour of secular parties. Malaysia is a thriving pluralist muslim majority nation. Both economies are improving in leaps and bounds, and embracing more and more democratic political reforms. Then we move to Turkey, a majority muslim country whose secular credentials are famous. Women are not even allowed to wear the hijab to work. Then we have Egypt and Tunisia, where people power have just overthrown dictators and elected democratic moderates in free and fair elections.

Perhaps you can start by explaining what you think is "crap, really crap or smacking awful" about these countries.