Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Huffington post has a great piece exposing the spin and lies behind the myth that Muslims are waging a global war against Christians.

It tackles head on the arguments put forward by career hatemonger Aayan Hirsi Ali in a recent article which eh posted on this forum.

John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University, exposes the deception in his piece here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-es ... 96330.html


There's also a good article on the subject, which also shows the same deception - but from a slightly different perspective:
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/42 ... i-alis-war

Facts vs Fiction - facts always come out in the end.

Cheers,
Shafique

What would those facts be?

It tackles head on the arguments put forward by career hatemonger Aayan Hirsi Ali in a recent article which eh posted on this forum.

It speaks volumes when religious fanatics like yourself lie about others. It's no longer "checking" their arguments. You can't. You need to rely on complex questions and other logical fallacies to get your foot in the door then smear people you disagree with.

Hirsi Ali becomes a "career hatemonger" - ? care to qualify that ? - meaning you rely on character assassination because you lack the capacity for intelligent discussion. Honestly, you're a lazy writer and intellectually shallow. Character assassination is what people of your ilk depend on. Complex arguments and nuanced thinking is beyond your ability.

I'm reminded what one blogger wrote on your method of smear attacks:

Adjectives are vital to American cultural and political discourse. Pamela Geller is not just the owner of a blog, she is a "rabid, shrill, extreme, right-wing conservative, hate-mongering Islamophobic blogger." Barack Obama is not just our President, he is a "Muslim-appeasing, socialist, teleprompter bound, uncaring, empty suited, corporate America lackey, Chicago syndicate President".

I learned in high school that adjectives are words used to describe nouns. They are much more than that to those conveyers of opinions whose words tumble from our television screens and car radios, through our blogs, newspapers and magazines, and across the Internet. Adjectives are the soil used to grow an idea the communicator favors, the paint used to adorn the canvas of a personality he or she finds attractive. These same adjectives are the poison that tear down ideas and the darts that destroy the people this same communicator does not like.

Some people find it important to attach a label to everything, whether it be a person or an idea, like a scientist labelling a specimen in her laboratory. Having attached the label, they then relate to the person or concept in light of the label they have given it. Right or wrong, accurate or misguided, once labelled the target will never be viewed as anything else. Anything they have to say will be interpreted through the label put on them.

The result is that real communication does not take place. Speaker B waits impatiently for Speaker A to stop talking, so he can use his adjectives to tear down everything she has said without even being able to accurately rephrase it.

So my solution is to launch the War on Adjectives. Force talking heads and pundits to express their ideas clearly and succinctly without giving them an unlimited use of adjectives to cover the shallowness of what they are actually saying. It might take a while for them to learn to discuss Sarah Palin's ideas if they are unable to describe her as "polarizing", or to articulate Nancy Palosi's goals if they cannot minimize her as a "progressive liberal", but it would be worth the wait.

Your brain has become so atrophied over the years that every member you've engaged in discussion immediately notices that you are not able to even stay on topic or correctly understand the discussion. You actually don't have the ability to "accurately rephrase" the conversation. It's not trolling anymore than being crippled is laziness. Your brain fried away a long time ago.

You're the alcoholic who burnt out his last functioning brain cell twenty years ago but still thinks he's as fresh as the day he drank his first shot of hard liquor.

eh, you are easily confused and are extremely gullible. You imagined that a racist, pro-EDL mob were rioting in support of rapists, all because you chose to not read what was written. Same appears to be the case here - facts are given, but you want to believe the opposite.

Professor Esposito has debunked the myth you so dearly want to believe is true. The spin that you rely on is exposed.

Your reaction - to rant about me.

Why not tackle the actual points the two linked articles make which demolish the myth? Did you even read the two articles?

Cheers,

Shafique

Shaf, care to explain why you call Ayaan a hatemonger, and a Muslim calling to kill all jews or a Muslim threatening to take the wives of Denmark as war booty, not?

I think the real question is why the smear attacks against Ayaan Hirsi Ali have been written.

The answer becomes obvious once we look at the content of her article and her detractors.

But I'll be happy to address the so-called points against Ayaan's article by her smear merchants.

Professor Esposito has debunked the myth you so dearly want to believe is true. The spin that you rely on is exposed.

Your brain is so fried that you're literally unable to write a simple sentence without turning it into a fallacy.

Shaf, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was not talking about a global war on Christians period, it was a global war on Christians in Muslim world - as the title of her article says. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... world.html There are many factors involved in those countries but groups of extremists on both sides seem to be drawing lines and attacking each other based on religion with Islamic groups being the main instigators.

I don't think she is fear-mongering that Muslims all over the world want all Christians dead, and I take exception to her being described as a "career hatemonger". She has her biases, after all, look what she lived through which was couched in the name of Islam. There are still people who want to kill her because she has gone against Islam. Yes, we have discussed before that practices flouting human rights being justified by interpretation of religious texts is not exclusive to Islam; however, I'm still on the fence about the extent of what is caused by Islam and what is caused by other cultural/societal factors and the interplay between both. Clearly, some groups believe that Islam should dominate and non-believers should be pushed out or eliminated completely.

In Hirsi's article I see her defending the right of Muslims in the West to practice their religion freely and in safety because she emphasizes that everyone deserves the right to practice their religion freely without persecution. That doesn't sound to me like she wants to spread Islamophobia and encourage persecution of Muslims. She is standing up for Christians who are being persecuted and slaughtered in Muslim countries, because they are!

This comment in the Esposito article was quite poignant,

Chike Chukudebelu wrote:"There is an immediacy to this problem. People are dying or are being denied their rights as we speak.

A typical liberal response to the problem usually starts with a paragraph mentioning it in passing, then claiming that the "Southern Baptists are just as bad", then going on a long journey proving the moral equivalence between Christian and Muslim actions. If a reader makes it to the middle of the article, he/she dismisses any thought that (a) Christians are being persecuted in the Muslim World and (b) there is any serious problem.

And that is precisely why many people in the West either don't care about or don't know that Christians are being persecuted in the Muslim World.

I am Nigerian, a Christian and a few days ago I saw the faces of 12 women and their children who lost their husbands/fathers, simply because they happened to be Christian. Or the seven blinded and forty-something killed for the crime of attending a Christmas service in central Nigeria.

If the West is to be jolted to the reality of persecution of Christians, Ayaan's kind of article is needed. The tepid, politically correct, liberal apologist defense of Islamic fundamentalism your types so easily subscribe to is of little use to myself or my children."

kanelli, the critique of Hirsi is that she is applying the discredited tactic of extrapolating real issues and generalising. Certainly the fans on this forum who quote her employ the rhetoric that this is what Islam teaches and what Muslims would/should do if they weren't hiding their true beliefs etc.

What Esposito has done, which I think is very fair, is highlight the truths underlying the hype. Yes there is some persecution of Christians and minorities in some Muslim lands - but this is not the norm. Far from it. Some of the loudest voices against this oppression of minorities are Muslim voices - saying that any abuse of human rights is immoral and indeed unIslamic.

Take Nigeria for example - the Muslim and Christian leaders there have come out strongly and vocally denouncing the violence against Muslims. All the Muslim organisations in Nigeria publically and loudly condemned the terrorism as wrong and unIslamic. The majority of Muslims in Nigeria are against the violence.

When I posted this news here, eh decided that this was damage control - again showing that facts are left behind when wanting to believe the myth that there is a 'Global war against Christians' in the Muslim world. This is hype that is not helpful in tackling the areas where some Muslim nations are limiting the rights of others to worship.

Cheers,

Shafique

So tension, persecution, and attacks between Muslims and Christians in Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria isn't the norm in some areas? They are only recent and isolated incidents?

Yes, they aren't the norm and are indeed recent. There are over a billion Muslims and over history the persecution of minorities is the exception rather than the norm when Muslims are in power.

Persecution of Christians in Indonesia is a recent phenomenon, and in Pakistan and indeed in Nigeria. Nigerians have had Muslims and Christians living together for centuries - and tribal differences are greater than religious ones.

In all 3 countries, prominent and vocal Muslim voices are speaking out against the violence and persecutions. The majority are not in favour of the discrimination and violence.

Cheers,
Shafique

So several decades doesn't matter because a thousand years ago Muslims were benevolent rulers? That's what I'd call minimizing and glossing over what is a serious problem in parts of these countries. The Islamic PR can go too far Shaf.

Yes there is some persecution of Christians and minorities in some Muslim lands - but this is not the norm.

You're beyond delusional, just a liar.

Christian discrimination in the Muslim world is the norm. Equal rights are the exception.

Far from it. Some of the loudest voices against this oppression of minorities are Muslim voices

Really? Which Muslim voices are demanding that Christians have the right to proselytize in the Muslim world?

Name one organization. Name one high profile individual.

The OIC? CAIR? Muslim Council of Britain?

saying that any abuse of human rights is immoral and indeed unIslamic.

How is the abuse unIslamic if it's derived from Islamic law?

This is hype that is not helpful in tackling the areas where some Muslim nations are limiting the rights of others to worship.

Some nations is actually the majority of Muslim nations.

You're part of the problem.

You and your ilk belong in the dust bin of history along with Nazism, fascism and communism so the rest of the world can advance and prosper.

There are over a billion Muslims and over history the persecution of minorities is the exception rather than the norm when Muslims are in power.

Flat out lie.

The majority are not in favour of the discrimination and violence.

Name one prominent voice in Pakistan that speaks out against laws banning Muslims from converting to Christianity or for Christians to convert others to their religion.

One. Just name one.

kanelli wrote:So several decades doesn't matter because a thousand years ago Muslims were benevolent rulers?

'Thousands of years ago' there weren't any Muslims!

My point is that by all means we need to call out the repression of minorities - but it is just not factually correct to characterise the incidents in Nigeria etc as representative of a global war against Christians.

Indonesia, Pakistan etc have really only recently, and in isolated pockets turned on their Christian neighbours.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:'Thousands of years ago' there weren't any Muslims!

Responding to:

kanelli wrote:So several decades doesn't matter because a thousand years ago Muslims were benevolent rulers?

Your brain is beyond fried.

If my brain is beyond fried - aren't you therefore silly to discuss issues with me in that case! e

I trust that kanelli will read all of my post - even if you didn't. Now what was your excuse for confusing a racist EDL mob for one that was supposedly rioting in favour of rapists? Was your brain beyond fried when you got that so wrong?

Cheers,

Shafique

--- Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:23 am ---

event horizon wrote:Name one prominent voice in Pakistan that speaks out against laws banning Muslims from converting to Christianity or for Christians to convert others to their religion.

One. Just name one.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/novsps966.html

And just for good measure, he speaks out against the blasphemy laws as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... phemy-laws

This is from your first website on blasphemy (I assume Javed endorses the articles if they are published on his website):

"The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from alternate sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom, save those who repent before you overpower them for [in this case] you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful." (5:33-34)

In our consideration, defaming personalities as revered as the Prophets amounts to spreading disorder in an Islamic state and, therefore, an Islamic State should deal with such criminals according to the above mentioned Qur'anic verse. In this regard, there must be no discrimination between the Prophets. All the Prophets deserve equal respect. For Muslims, in particular, the exalted position held by the Prophet (sws) demands profound regard. According to the Qur'an, the Prophet's rights on the believers are greater than they have on each other; he is entitled to more respect and consideration than even blood-relations. The Qur'an stresses that it is imperative on the believers to honour him and assist him in his mission as much as they can; such is his lofty position that the believers must not even raise their voices above his voice lest all their deeds would be reduced to nothing without they even being aware of this tremendous loss.

The above quoted verse spells out a wide range of punishments which can be administered to such criminals, depending upon the intensity and nature of a particular instance of such a crime. These punishments include taqteel, tasleeb, amputating limbs from alternate sides and nafee. In Arabic, taqteel means to execute someone in such a way that there is severity in the process of killing. The punishment of rajam (stoning to death), in our opinion, is one form of taqteel. The punishment of tasleeb (crucifixion) in which a criminal is nailed on an erected framework through his hands and feet and abandoned there till death and the punishment of amputating his limbs from alternate sides are also severe forms of physical chastisement. The punishment of nafee (exile), it is obvious, is the least in intensity. The first two punishments end a criminal's life; the third though does not end his life, makes him an example in the society; however, the fourth punishment without harming his body in anyway, only deprives him of his house or city. The last part of the verse 'save those who repent before you overpower them' must also be carefully analyzed. It implies that if such criminals come forward and give themselves up to the law before the government is able to lay hands on them, then they should not be given the punishments mentioned in the verse. Instead, they should be treated as common criminals, and even forgiven if they deserve any lenience.

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issu ... spx?id=955

Actually, the author, Dr. Shehzad Saleem, was/is a student of Javed Ghamidi.

http://www.javedahmadghamidi.com/index. ... d-saleem/7

And Javed himself doesn't oppose blasphemy laws. He opposes Pakistan's version of the blasphemy law but believes blasphemers who do not "repent" are liable to punishments in the Koran or lighter sentences of the judge's discretion (even though that is outside the Koran and hadith and therefore contradictory to his belief that fiqh should be rejected):

1. A person regarded as guilty of blasphemy be invited to repent and reform and be repeatedly warned that, if he is a believer, he should not destroy his own fate in the Hereafter and should submit to God and the Prophet (sws), and, if he does not believe in God or the Prophet (sws), he should show regard for the feelings and sentiments of Muslims and abstain from persisting in this grave offence.

2. His case be filed in the court only if he refuses to change or repent, persists in his blasphemy with defiance, causes disruption, pushes away all efforts to convince him and, instead of showing remorse, actually resorts to belligerence and hostility.

3. Instead of having the option of capital punishment only, room for lighter sentences be left in consideration of any extenuating circumstances related to the actual nature and circumstance of offence and the capacity and state of the offender.

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issu ... px?id=1265

So, unrepentant blasphemers should face a wide range of punishments - from painful killing (taqteel) to crucifixion, to hand-limb chopping, to banishment to "lighter sentences" (presumably prison time).

That's not opposed to blasphemy. He's opposed to one form of a blasphemy law.

Your article on apostasy (if you even read it) is even less underwhelming - non-Muslims could be killed during prophet Muhammad's time but can't today! Wow.

Not sure if Javed would tolerate Christians converting Muslims in Muslim nations - as apostasy is sinful and converting Muslims would be a sinful act. The Koran 'commands what is right and forbids what is wrong'.

event horizon wrote:(I assume Javed endorses the articles if they are published on his website)

Why go around the houses? The second link has his views on the blasphemy laws. You asked for a prominent Pakistani scholar/cleric who spoke out against the persecution - QED.

You really haven't had a good time lately with understanding what you cut and paste (usually getting the meaning totally wrong - even when it is from an English newspaper) - but even you shouldn't be confused by the Guardian's article.

Cheers,
Shafique

No need to assume. Javed supports blasphemy laws.

1. A person regarded as guilty of blasphemy be invited to repent and reform and be repeatedly warned that, if he is a believer, he should not destroy his own fate in the Hereafter and should submit to God and the Prophet (sws), and, if he does not believe in God or the Prophet (sws), he should show regard for the feelings and sentiments of Muslims and abstain from persisting in this grave offence.

2. His case be filed in the court only if he refuses to change or repent, persists in his blasphemy with defiance, causes disruption, pushes away all efforts to convince him and, instead of showing remorse, actually resorts to belligerence and hostility.

3. Instead of having the option of capital punishment only, room for lighter sentences be left in consideration of any extenuating circumstances related to the actual nature and circumstance of offence and the capacity and state of the offender.

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issu ... px?id=1265

He has specific issues with Pakistan's blasphemy laws (as explained in the article).

He supports penalties for unrepentant blasphemers - ranging from painful execution and crucifixion down to "lighter sentences", probably prison time. But that's for "extenuating circumstances":

extenuating circumstances n. surrounding factors (sometimes called mitigation) which make a crime appear less serious, less aggravated, or without criminal intent, and thus warranting a more lenient punishment or lesser charge (manslaughter rather than murder, for example). (See: mitigating circumstances)

So if the unrepentant blasphemer were disabled, that would be an extenuating circumstance.

Oh yeah, he opposes those blasphemy laws.

Fail.

He not only opposes the blasphemy laws, but says they are unIslamic. Did you not read the Guardian article?

Cheers,

Shafique

Javed opposes Pakistan's blasphemy law and says Pakistan's blasphemy law is unIslamic.

That's in line with his belief that legal opinions / commentary of scholars should be rejected for what is in the Koran and precedent of Sunnah only.

He supports blasphemy laws against unrepentant blasphemers.

Did you not read his own article I posted?

What part of his final conclusion that unrepentant blasphemers should be subject to punishment by the state did you not understand?

You are the one that is having your customary failure of comprehension.

Javed is clearly stating that only in cases where blasphemy results in hostility is any punishment merited - not for the blasphemy.

As I said before, it is no surprise you get into these muddles - you fail to even understand simple English in newspapers, let alone the finer points of Islamic jurisprudence.

Cheers,

Shafique

--- Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:00 am ---

You are the one that is having your customary failure of comprehension.

Javed is clearly stating that only in cases where blasphemy results in hostility is any punishment merited - not for the blasphemy.

As I said before, it is no surprise you get into these muddles - you fail to even understand simple English in newspapers, let alone the finer points of Islamic jurisprudence.

Cheers,

Shafique

Anyone literate can read that Javed supports punishing unrepentant blasphemers in the article I quoted from him.

You should start another topic arguing what Javed really said but this thread - which you are trolling - is about the global war on Christians in the Muslim world.

Care to explain this then (I presume you are counting yourself as someone who is literate):

Although other Islamic scholars share Ghamidi's views on blasphemy, none dared air them so forcefully. "Ghamidi is a voice of reason in a babble of noises seemingly dedicated to irrationality," said Ayaz Amir, an opposition politician and opinion columnist.

Ghamidi's voice stands out because he attacks the blasphemy law on religious grounds. While secular critics say it is abused to persecute minorities and settle scores, Ghamidi says it has no foundation in either the Qur'an or the Hadith – the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. "Nothing in Islam supports this law," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... phemy-laws

QED

Cheers,

Shafique

Take it to another thread.

Anyone literate can read that Javed opposes Pakistan's version of the blasphemy law but supports a blasphemy law that punishes unrepentant blasphemers.

That's directly laid and fully explained in Javed's own article on the blasphemy law - not snippets from a news article.

This thread is about the global war on Christians and the laws persecuting Christians in the Muslim world.

Are you trying to argue that laws discriminating against Christians are not the norm in the Muslim world?

You asked the question in this thread - and asked for only one Pakistani critic (prominent) in response to my factual point that Muslims are indeed speaking out against the recent persecution of minorities.

You have your example.

He's against the persecution of minorities and says it is unIslamic, he's prominent, and he's Muslim and he's from Pakistan. QED

But moving on, here's another piece which explains why this is a myth:

..
In her article, Ali does identify a worrisome reality -- violence against Christians occurring in some Muslim-majority nations. This phenomenon needs to be named, publicized more widely than it has been and stopped. Unfortunately, the way she addresses the issue fuels identity-based division and, potentially, conflict. This is particularly troublesome because Ali's piece received substantial support in social and online media. People began picking sides, ignoring complex realities and facts.

Ali's analysis of the conflicts in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia is brief, simple and borders on manipulative. Each of these countries is experiencing conflicts that have a range of contributing social, political, economic and cultural factors. Christians are being targeted, as are other groups, including diverse followers of Islam and indigenous peoples. There is nothing new here. Throughout history, members of minority groups, whether religious, racial, economic or otherwise, have been targeted during times of social and political instability.

To focus exclusively on one dimension -- violence against Christians -- misses the nuances and complexities at play, few of which are due to religious difference alone. However, it is only by providing a one-dimensional analysis that Ali can justify her thesis that there is a global war against Christians. Of the many lamentable armed conflicts around the world, she handpicks instances of violence against Christians and emphasizes factors that buttress her argument.

Ali blends this selective research with menacing generalizations and language. She argues, for example, that anti-Christian violence is, "a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities." Her inference? That the collective unconscious of the Muslim world is driving conflict against Christians. But, of course, we know this is not true.
...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joyce-s-d ... 86040.html

Cheers,

Shafique

Sorry, what is a "myth" in Ali's piece and what parts are you actually showing that make her argument a myth?

The only thing I agree with the author is the following:

Similarly, her use of the word "Christophobia" is divisive, as is its predecessor "Islamaphobia." Phobias are an irrational and extreme fear of something. Hatred and violence based on a person's religious identity is qualitatively different. Indeed, anti-Christian violence and anti-Muslim hatred are more akin to anti-Semitism. Let's name the problem properly and then focus on solutions.

So are you going to take your own author's advice?

No? That part you disagree.

So basically you pick and choose what you want to claim the author has debunked.

The author "debunked" Ali's article but has not debunked the term Islamophobia.

Why? Because you say so.

But what's really interesting here, as I said before, is the backlash against Ayaan's article. She writes something that is long overdue and previously ignored. The reaction from Leftists and Muslims was predictable.

There are of course no smear attacks from Leftists and Muslims when a Leftist or Muslim claims Israel or the West / United States is committing genocide against the Muslim world - or as Leftist smear merchant, Glenn Greenwald has claimed - waging war against the Muslim world.

These Left smear merchants were silent then. Strange that.

But what I find most illuminating about the article is that the author criticizes Ali for supposedly "cherry-picking" examples of violence against Christians which the author then goes on to do herself in reverse. She selectively cites a handful of individuals who work for supposed interfaith harmony in Pakistan and elsewhere while acknowledging that Pakistani society is intolerant of Christians:

Indeed, in Pakistan, where Christians face state and societal discrimination, solutions to violence can come from within Islam. The International Center for Peace and Diplomacy and Pakistani-American peacemaker Azhar Hussain, for example, engage madrasa leaders in discussions about principles of Islam (like the Golden Rule), moving them to reflect on teaching curricula that values love and respect for the neighbor. The program has been effective in bringing interreligious understanding and human rights into formerly hostile classrooms.

Sorry, Joyce. Didn't you just accuse Ayaan of:

Ali's analysis of the conflicts in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia is brief, simple and borders on manipulative.

???

So Ayaan is guilty of writing a brief and simple analysis but you aren't?

Sure.

Next our author takes issue that an article on Christian violence and persecution focuses on Christian violence and persecution:

To focus exclusively on one dimension -- violence against Christians -- misses the nuances and complexities at play, few of which are due to religious difference alone.

Imagine writing about "Islamophobia" (a term the author opposes) and being criticized for having the gall to write about anti-Muslim sentiment. Apparently writing about the topic of your paper warrants condemnation and smear attacks. That's liberal logic.

Ali blends this selective research with menacing generalizations and language. She argues, for example, that anti-Christian violence is, "a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities." Her inference? That the collective unconscious of the Muslim world is driving conflict against Christians. But, of course, we know this is not true.

Is this the myth that is debunked? "But, of course, we know this is not true" and then the article fails to follow through with proving Ali's statement as being untrue.

He's against the persecution of minorities and says it is unIslamic

No. Sorry. The author didn't speak out against anything more than Pakistan's blasphemy law in the article you quoted.

Please don't try to manipulate more of what people say to what the didn't say and vice-versa.

Just like your claim that Javed doesn't support blasphemy laws when he clearly supports a blasphemy law for unrepentant blasphemers. It's really admirable to lie in the open like this. Anyone can read the quote I posted and see you're deliberately claiming Javed didn't say what he clearly says.

Gas lighting indeed.

I also see Chike left another poignant comment in the Esposito article:

Chike Chukudebelu wrote:
This is the second of such articles in the Huffington post - an article about Ayaan's article.

The zeal to get Ayaan to shut up is not matched by a zeal to highlight the problem of religious persecution in the Muslim World, and that is worrying.

Speaks volumes.

shafique wrote:

kanelli wrote:So several decades doesn't matter because a thousand years ago Muslims were benevolent rulers?

'Thousands of years ago' there weren't any Muslims!

My point is that by all means we need to call out the repression of minorities - but it is just not factually correct to characterise the incidents in Nigeria etc as representative of a global war against Christians.

Indonesia, Pakistan etc have really only recently, and in isolated pockets turned on their Christian neighbours.

Cheers,

Shafique

I didn't say thousands of years She wasn't only focusing on Nigeria, and again wasn't claiming a global war on Christians, but a global war on Christians in the Muslim World. It is quite relevant that some countries have been seeing a shift towards attacking Christians recently and people should be asking why. As Hirsi has pointed out, the governments are not doing enough. Of course there are some small groups of people speaking out saying that attacking each other is not the Islamic/Christian thing to do. That still doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem of intolerance.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Shaf, care to explain why you call Ayaan a hatemonger, and a Muslim calling to kill all jews or a Muslim threatening to take the wives of Denmark as war booty, not?

Hirsi didn't indoctrinate her child to want blow up Jews.

Otherwise, he would have nothing but praise for Ayaan and claim her article was moving.

Writing about Christian persecution = hatemongering

Indoctrinating children to kill Jews = touching

Terrorist in a suit, indeed.

kanelli wrote:I didn't say thousands of years She wasn't only focusing on Nigeria, and again wasn't claiming a global war on Christians, but a global war on Christians in the Muslim World.

Let me hone in on what has been labelled the 'myth' part of her article.

Unfortunately, the way she addresses the issue fuels identity-based division and, potentially, conflict. This is particularly troublesome because Ali's piece received substantial support in social and online media. People began picking sides, ignoring complex realities and facts.

Ali's analysis of the conflicts in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia is brief, simple and borders on manipulative. Each of these countries is experiencing conflicts that have a range of contributing social, political, economic and cultural factors. Christians are being targeted, as are other groups, including diverse followers of Islam and indigenous peoples. There is nothing new here. Throughout history, members of minority groups, whether religious, racial, economic or otherwise, have been targeted during times of social and political instability.

I agree with this assessment - and also with the general point that the incidents highlighted and extrapolated are indeed real and indeed should be tackled. I further argue that they are indeed being tackled and condemned by Muslims themselves - and that I don't agree that this constitutes a 'global war against Christians in the Muslim world' - any more than the persecution of Shia or Bahais in different countries constitute a 'global war against Shia in the Muslim world'.

The articles linked to in this thread (3 in total) explicitly lay out the reasons why the articles conclusion is effectively a myth. I think you are rather focussing on the underlying real examples of persecution - the argument is not that these are not happening, but rather her extrapolation of these is just part of her general anti-Islam polemics.

Cheers,

Shafique

Yes there is some persecution of Christians and minorities in some Muslim lands - but this is not the norm.

Really? Still waiting for you to back this up with facts.

Name the Muslim majority nations where Muslims and Christians have equal rights.

Then we'll determine if persecution of Christians is indeed not the norm.