The ambassador was assassinated by radical Islamists that knew nothing about the faked anti-Islam video. It was an attack planned at least weeks before ANYONE knew about the video. Knowledge about the video occurred just after the assassination happened, and media outlets assumed the attack was caused by it. The fact that everyone wants to run this the opposite way is -telling-. In this dialogue it's important that we sell the image of the bearded foreigner that demands from 'us' our 'right' to do what we want to do.
When the Arab Spring occurred everyone was split between playing hope that the Ayrabs would -finally- become democratized or that the Ayrabs could never -really- embrace democracy, on account of being religious types, and now we see the latter position was always the real spirit of the former. You'd think that protest of people isn't in fact an act of democracy. And of course the fact that the only thing you see on television are the same cycle of images of a burning car, burning flags, and scary brown people with scary headbands and their flags, but never this , this, or this (from here (http://farhanist.tumblr.com/post/31425008275/muslims-in-libya-condemn-violence-apologize-to)), and certainly not any peaceable protests. Why is the default frame-of-mind that I'm seeing that bigots have the absolute right to be bigots but the offended don't have the right to voice their offense? It was okay when it was something you kind of agreed with, but not it's just too extreme? Please. Choose both or neither.
And as an aside, your critical history of Islam is outdated garbage, never mind hardly critical. There is not one Muslim in this world that thinks the Qur'an was given to Muhammad in one whole package, and there never will be. The process of revelation is key to interpretation of the Qur'an and understanding fiqh. The fact that the Qur'an as it is today was canonized at the end of Muhammad's life, and that there were recordings of ayat later deemed incorrect is not controversial, it's in the history. The controversy is the desire by Westerners to devise from this an infantile understanding of the book and the people who love it- a movement eerily similar to the desire to devise from inconsistencies in Gospel narrative that Jesus must simply have been a fictional character created by.. someone. This is controversial for fundies, of course, but any respectful text on the subject by a Muslim will explain how the Muslim interprets their history (one which you will disagree with, of course, but they DO have an intellectual tradition which is not mere grand-standing, naturally).
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 16/9/12 04:05 (UTC)When the Arab Spring occurred everyone was split between playing hope that the Ayrabs would -finally- become democratized or that the Ayrabs could never -really- embrace democracy, on account of being religious types, and now we see the latter position was always the real spirit of the former. You'd think that protest of people isn't in fact an act of democracy. And of course the fact that the only thing you see on television are the same cycle of images of a burning car, burning flags, and scary brown people with scary headbands and their flags, but never this
and certainly not any peaceable protests. Why is the default frame-of-mind that I'm seeing that bigots have the absolute right to be bigots but the offended don't have the right to voice their offense? It was okay when it was something you kind of agreed with, but not it's just too extreme? Please. Choose both or neither.
And as an aside, your critical history of Islam is outdated garbage, never mind hardly critical. There is not one Muslim in this world that thinks the Qur'an was given to Muhammad in one whole package, and there never will be. The process of revelation is key to interpretation of the Qur'an and understanding fiqh. The fact that the Qur'an as it is today was canonized at the end of Muhammad's life, and that there were recordings of ayat later deemed incorrect is not controversial, it's in the history. The controversy is the desire by Westerners to devise from this an infantile understanding of the book and the people who love it- a movement eerily similar to the desire to devise from inconsistencies in Gospel narrative that Jesus must simply have been a fictional character created by.. someone. This is controversial for fundies, of course, but any respectful text on the subject by a Muslim will explain how the Muslim interprets their history (one which you will disagree with, of course, but they DO have an intellectual tradition which is not mere grand-standing, naturally).