‘Je Suis Le Monde’

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Co-authored by Kilike Steyn

Last week, in “Je Suis Turkey,” I reflected on Western concerns for white, Western Christians but the lack of Western concern for olive- skinned, Turkish Muslims. I attributed our lack of concern to our very natural but equally lamentable bigotry. The next day, suicide bombers murdered 35 people in Brussels. White, Western, Christians from Iggy Azalea to the Boston Red Sox immediately tweeted their concern for Brussels and its innocent victims.

موضع جالب جیمز کلارک: من شارلی ابدو نیستم

My blog in Farsi!

يكشنبه, ۵ بهمن ۱۳۹۳، ۱۰:۰۴ ق.ظ
  مسعود صادقی: کلی جیمز کلارک استاد دانشگاه نوتردام است که برای مخاطبان ایرانی بیشتر با کتاب بازگشت به عقل و نیز بواسطه سفر اخیرش به ایران شناخته می شود. مقاله اخیر او تحت عنوان آیا من باید شارلی ابدو باشم؟” در واقع آخرین یادداشت نامبرده در سایت شخصی اش می باشد که حقیر به محض مطالعه و علیرغم وارد دانستن نقدهایی بر محتویات و برخی مدعیات آن بی درنگ و شتابان آنرا ترجمه نموده و نهایتا با اجازه و ترغیب کلارک تصمیم به انتشار آن برای استفاده فارسی زبانان گرفتم. اولین پیام مهم این مقاله برای حقیر در واپسین جمله آن نهفته است: اگرچه بر آزادی بیان صحّه می نهم اما من شارلی ابدو نیستم.صرف نظر از اختلاف با کلارک در تعریف حدود و معنای آزادی بیان من با این موضع اخلاقی او موافقت دارم که می گوید هرچه حق right است الزاما خیر یا خوب good نیست. کلارک در بخشی از مقاله اش می نویسد:

“پنج میلیون مسلمان فرانسوی یک اقلیت قدرت زدایی شده هستند. جوانان مسلمان دوبرابر غیرمسلمانان محتمل است که بیکار شوند(در برخی از مناطق مسلمان نشین نرخ بیکاری بیش از چهل درصد است). ممنوعیت پوشش سر به شکلی نامتناسب مسلمانان را (در اظهار آزادانه دین خود) تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد. عدم پذیرش اعطای مجوز به ساخت مساجد موجب کمبود اماکن عبادی شده است. مسلمانان با تبعیض در اسکان مواجه هستند و بسیاری در فقر آشکار زندگی می کنند. قوانین، سکولاریزمی را که به نظر می رسد مستقیما مسلمانان را نشانه رفته است تقویت می نمایند. کوتاه آنکه مسلمانان فرانسوی از حیث اجتماعی، دینی و اقتصادی در حاشیه قرار گرفته اند.

Should I Be Charlie Hebdo?

It’s been a couple of weeks since two Islamic terrorists attacked and killed 12 people for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. What lessons can we learn, when cooler headsB6wLoAvIEAAMZED prevail, from this horrific event?

The first lesson is theological. On that tragic and horrific day, Cherif and Said Kouachi, contrary to the most basic understanding of Islam, acted as gods. The first pillar of Islam is that there is just one God (Allah). And Allah alone has the authority to make ultimate decisions concerning human life. The Kouachi brothers, in assuming god-like authority over human lives, affirmed three gods – Allah, Cherif and Said.

Muslims for peace

Hedieh Mirahmadi

Last week I wrote about the most persecuted religion in the world — Christianity. So dire is the persecution of Christians, Christianity is in danger of disappearing from its homeland. Christianity is most in peril, I noted, in Muslim-majority countries where either by official policy or official laxity, Christians are discriminated against, persecuted, tortured, threatened and even killed (Christians are not alone in this; atheists, Jews, Baha’is, and Muslims judged heretical are likewise persecuted.) Since this impending threat to Christianity has been largely ignored in the West I called upon the Western media to report on these atrocities and so prod Western governments to act in support of the universal human right to the free expression of religious belief. Finally, I said it was not my place to speak for Muslims but that Muslim leaders needed to make a compelling case that Islam is not inherently intolerant.

The most persecuted religion in the world

Over the past year, I have written of the intolerance that Christians have shown to Muslims in the U.S. From Missouri to Murphreesboro, Christians have demonstrated both a lack of charity and a denial of the right to religious liberty by setting fire to old mosques and opposing new ones. But Christians in the U.S. are rank amateurs compared to the Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

Advice to the Sphinx: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Sheikh Murgan Salem al-Gohary recently called for the destruction of the Sphinx and Giza Pyramids in Egypt. In a television interview, he said, “Muslims are charged with applying the teachings of Islam, including the elimination of idols, as we did in Afghanistan when we destroyed the Buddha statues.”

How seriously should the Sphinx take the sheik?

“God ordered Prophet Mohammed to destroy idols,” he continued. “When I was with the Taliban we destroyed the statue of Buddha, something the government failed to do.”

My advice to the Sphinx: be afraid, be very afraid.

Burning Mosques and Building Mosques

On July 4 we celebrate our Independence — “we” being descendants of those scrappy colonists who insisted on the right to worship as they pleased. However, in this day and age, we are more likely to extol the colonial revolt against the tea tax. But many of the early colonists were escapees from religious persecution in England. Various assertions of the King’s authority on these freedom-loving Brits led to our declaration of independence. Two things have changed since 1776: coffee has replaced tea as the drink of choice, and threats to religious liberty loom large in contemporary America.

Creeping sharia: a saner understanding

In my last post I talked about the fear that Sharia laws would replace or subvert US Constitutional laws. The claim is that Sharia has creeped into the UK and, if we are not hypervigilant, will creep into the US. I said that the UK is not really tolerant of Sharia laws, it is mostly just indifferent to Arabs and Muslims. I argued that this is based on a lack of respect and that if Sharia laws should impact “proper” Brits, they would rise up in enthusiastic support of traditional British law. But as long as female genital mutilations and child brides are restricted to Arabs, no big deal (this is not my view, this is what I think is the attitude of most Brits and explains why there are zero child-bride convictions and few FGM convictions).

Why do they hate us?

In a recent article in Foreign Policy, Mona Eltahaway, Egyptian born journalist, gets us thinking about “they” and “us.” During the so-called Arab Spring, Egyptian riot police violated her sexually and broke both of her arms.

It’s not the usual Muslims vs. the US sort of article. In the article, “us” is women and “they” are misogynists and patriarchs in the Middle East.

Socially, legally, financially, educationally, and morally, women are treated very poorly in the Arab world. One shocking statistic: 90% of married women in Egypt, a socially and economically advanced country, have had genital mutilation.

How to be a Christian terrorist

 Suppose we concede that we have an irrational policy given that most attacks against the US have been by Muslims (or at least nominal Muslims).

It’s not clear, however, that we should make such a concession. Were all of the attackers Muslims in more than name? Here’s another way of putting it: did their Muslim beliefs motivate them or was it some other, say political, belief?

The Munich terrorists, for example, self-identified as Palestinians, not Muslims; their motivation was political not religious. I won’t belabor the point. Any time there is violence committed by an Arab, the West usually labels the perpetrator, “Muslim terrorist.” Socio-political considerations simply fall by the wayside.