dreamer_easy | Qatif rape case

I get very impatient with the constant call for moderate Muslims to decry the words and works of extremist Muslims, when moderate Muslims do that all the time: it's just not as headline-grabbing. And if you didn't happen to hear about it from the news sources you follow, it may as well not have happened. (The same rubbish is said about feminists, often without even the effort of a thirty-second Web search.) The aim is to tar with the same brush over a billion human beings, from different countries, speaking different languages, from different races, with different politics (even within Saudi Arabia), following different beliefs and practices... but they're really all the same, you see.

Some more recent Saudi commentary on the Qatif case:

From Arab News: How 'Culture' Is Defended in a Globalized World: "Time after time judgments such as that passed in the “Qatif” case mortify us as Saudi nationals by their appalling and overt misogyny that inevitably makes headlines in the international press. It is an urgent issue because these authorities keep catching us by surprise and exposing us to international ridicule and condemnation with their own narrow religious-political agenda."

The Real Issue Raised by the Qatif Verdict: "The morality of the Qatif girl is not (and should not) be the main discussion point. The real issue at hand is that of a due process within our judicial system."

British Muslims on the Sudan teddy bear case:

A bear called Muhammad is no blasphemy; Blasphemy caused by cuddly animals; There's far more to Islam than a teddy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hmm - did you and I read the same Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie) entry? The one which includes this bit:

On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, the Iranian government, then headed by moderate Mohammad Khatami, gave a public commitment that it would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."[12][13] Hardliners in Iran have, however, continued to reaffirm the death sentence.[14] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwa was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[15] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[16] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it[15], and the person who issued it is dead.

Would you still call that a supporting argument?

And by the way, Theo van Gogh is still dead.

Seriously, when folks publicly say "we'll kill people for speaking X," it pays not to dismiss them out of hand. Consider also that if a Christian preacher issued a proclamation saying that anyone who apostacizes will be killed, s/he would be shouted down by an overwhelming number of other Christians. The Muslims who react in a similar way to that very mainstream teaching (i.e. that the penalty for apostacy is death) are a tiny, tiny whisper amid the shouts for the blood of the heretics.

I encourage moderates, but I do not belittle the magnitude of their task.

Nonetheless, Rushdie came out of hiding in 1998.

forest. trees.

The point is that a NOVELIST is living under a death sentence. WTF?

Found quite an interesting article about censorship, free speech, and Islamic countries from earlier this year from a writer whose books were banned in Malaysia: "It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology."

Different article -- the one on The Satanic Verses controversy is the one which mentions Rushdie's 1998 declaration that he's come out of hiding.

And yes, it does still support my argument, because Kate's point -- and mine -- is that you're only hearing the "shouts" over your preferred news channels, and not actually hearing the facts which don't match what you're saying. As above, where you claimed he was still in hiding.

Part of the shoutiness is the megaphone effect of centralized media -- especially in nations with direct control of the press, which hide the alternate viewpoints within a country, but Kate's point is that the US is hardly immune from this either. (That's why she's highlighting these other comments.) It is indeed a struggle for moderates to make themselves heard... but we also need to struggle to listen for them. Maybe the reason it sounds like a whisper is because you're not listening?

Putting aside questions of media bias, "Mad beardy bastard decapitates teddy" is always going to be a better headline than "Moderate Muslim holds sensible opinion". :-)

My knowledge of Islamic attitudes comes from reading media published in the middle east, my graduate work in Middle Eastern History, and from the Muslims I know personally, not from Wikipedia.

I highly recommend getting to know some religious Muslims (in real life, not online), and evaluating whether their attitudes about things like the Rushdie fatwa would be well described by the word "moderate."

My point is a bit tautological - if the voice is so quiet that you have to struggle to hear it, then it's really, really quiet. The not-so-moderate voices are a hell of a lot louder, more prominent, and more dominant. Really, I feel like I'm being forced to argue that water is wet - moderate voices in Islamic countries are routinely executed or driven into hiding.

Qatif rape case

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation

Re: on moderation