On May 15, another Bulgarian blogger wrote that religious denominations are unimportant for her, so the attempts of us her commenters to "convert her to anti-Islam" were to no avail. On the same day, I replied with a post on my Bulgarian blog where I asked what more had Muslims to do in the name of Islam in order to "convert her to anti-Islam", and wrote what Muslims, on the other hand, had to do in order to make me renounce my Islamophobia.
Now, I am translating those demands to English and publishing them here. This is blog action against Islamism as a reaction to the June 2 suicide attack against the Danish embassy in Pakistan which killed 8 people.
To renounce my Islamophobia, I demand from Muslims to recognize the right of existence of:
- Israel;
- former Muslims;
- critics of Islam;
- Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and all other people not belonging to any Abrahamian faith;
- homosexuals;
- clitores.
They must also recognize the equal rights of:
- non-Muslims;
- women.
I'd wish to add something about separation of religion from state, de-criminalizing food, alcohol and sex... but let's not be maximalistic.
The above listed demands are absolute, non-negotiable, and I think that no Westerner should ever consider any compromise regarding them. I reserve the right to make additions to the list if something appropriate comes to mind.
22 comments:
Maya, the spirit of true Islam is not the same as the atrocities in the name of Islam. That's what I hope you will realize.
Radical Islam should understand that the West is not only about lack of spirituality, low moral standards, mechanical strive for money and power, etc.
I have been searching "the spirit of true Islam" for years, and the results so far are very discouraging.
Of course most Muslims don't and wouldn't do any atrocities, but after all, how many Germans were directly involved in carrying out the "final solution"?
I see nothing wrong in lacking spirituality and striving for money and power. As for the moral standards, I think that they are much higher in the West than anywhere in the Muslim world. When Muslims criticize the West's low moral standards, what they really mean is that Western women decide when and with whom to make sex.
I normally find your blog interesting in one way or another but this post and the previous one is insulting to Muslims .
1. lumping us Muslims all together and not differencing us from the good and the bad I find offensive .
2.If memory and history serve me correctly , most of the last 2000 years ,the atrocities committed on this planet have majority been committed by Christians .
3.Christians against Christians
the Crusades
the massacre of the Huguenots in France
all the European wars through out the ages
the Spanish Inquisition
the massacre of the Jews in northern Europe
the near extermination of Gypsies
the near extermination of the American Indians
the killings of the America's indigenous people .. Aztex , Mayan
the enslavement of African people
trying to kill off all aborigines in Australia
Nazi's
Rowanda
Bosnia
need I go on ?
Anonymous, Islamophobia is one of the main themes of my blog. I am afraid that if you continue reading it, you will be offended again.
Of course it is possible to be a Muslim and a wonderful person at the same time (though it requires either ignorance about one's own religion or cognitive dissonance). Let's assume that 90% of Muslims are good people, which is certainly a gross exaggeration. If so, then we have 100 millions of bad Muslims. There were only about 80 millions of Germans at the time when they made World War II and carried out the Holocaust.
It is disturbing for me that you seem more bothered by my writings than by the deeds of "bad Muslims".
Then, you go on listing atrocities done by non-Muslims in the past, implying that, for the sake of justice, I must allow Muslims to catch up and do the same amount of atrocities before expressing any dislike. In other words, I will have the right to condemn Jew-murdering Muslims only after they murder more than 6 millions of Jews. This logic is often used by Muslims and Western pieceniks. I find it bizarre and very dangerous.
So your comment illustrates well why I, and many others, have a problem with Muslims.
Maya, I think your posts are too subjective and although you didn't mention it anywhere, it is clear you are a jew. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against jews but I am much against zionists' injustices and their supporters - not only because I am a muslim, but because I am for justice.
BTW, I find a lot of your articles offensive to muslims and muslim students at MU - Sofia and I consider them spreading hatred.
It is sad that you haven't allowed Yahweh to open your eyes by shedding the scales on them .
How about Israel recognizing the right of existence of its muslim minority first? Not to mention who's the indogenious population.
You're irrationally and offensively islamophobic. Extreme islam causes a lot of damage and noone can disagree with that but generalizing like that shows that some nonmuslims have also a long way to go. I'm Cristian if that matters.
I don't understand what you mean by your implication that Israel doesn't recognize the right of existence of its Muslim minority.
They have all rights I can think of, from the right to develop their culture to the right to elect members of Parliament. I am afraid, however, that too many members of that minority are not and do not want to be loyal citizens of their country.
From the viewpoint of the right to exist, it doesn't matter who the indigenous population is. Or it is OK to bomb immigrant districts in Europe because their inhabitants aren't indigenous?
I agree that some non-Muslima also have a long way to go. Many Christians, like you, don't fully accept the right of Israel to exist. As for me having to go a long way - at the moment when Muslims meet my demands, I will be ready to go a way the length of the Equator.
What about this then: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/israelandthepalestinians
You see, the statement that only muslims deny Israel (or more exactly the way it was founded and continues to spread its territory) is baseless. And even more baseless is your statement that they do it because of Islam.
I would like to quote the great intellectual Edward Said who said: " The Palestinian struggle for justice is especially something with which one expresses solidarity, rather than endless criticism and exasperated, frustrating discouragement, and crippling divisiveness. Remember the solidarity here and everywhere in Latin America, Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia, and remember also that there is a cause to which many people have committed themselves, difficulties and terrible obstacles notwithstanding. Why? Because it is a just cause, a noble ideal, a moral quest for equality and human rights."
You see, Maya, many muslims (and not only muslims) don't feel any hatred towards jews and don't deny their right of having their own country.
Nevertheless, they deny the way Israel dealt with the situation. It was very ugly.
There was something wrong with the link. I don't know why I couldn't post the whole of it. Anyway, I Think you know what it is about - the letters of jews who refused to celebrate the founding of Israel.
Love your "list". Should be included into constitutions of every half-decent country.
Thank you, Shlemazl!
Which Israel? the one based on 67 borders or 48?
Israel itself doesn't seem to have decided what/where it wants to be.
On the subject of homosexuals, the same could be asked of Judaism and Christianity. The illusion of the latter two religion's openness doesn't come from the religions themselves but from the separation of church and state in the west.
Thank you, Nizo, and welcome to my blog.
You are right that Israel hasn't yet definitive borders. However, I am troubled by the refusal of most Israel's enemies to recognize it in ANY borders. This is well illustrated by the continued attacks against Israel from Gaza.
Bulgaria was given independence in 1878 but didn't acquire its definitive borders until the end of WWII. However, none of the states with which we made wars over territories insisted on wiping Bulgaria from the map altogether, or on return of millions of descendants of refugees to Bulgaria.
Your remark about homosexuals touches things too important and complex for me to give them here the discussion they deserve. However, I'll try to summarize what I think.
Christians and Jews may think that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will eventually go to Hell. I guess this is what you mean when you write that "the same could be asked from Judaism and Christianity". However, only in extremely rare cases will Christians or Jews attack a person for being homosexual - and this is what is important for me.
Some Muslim-dominated states have punishments for homosexuality written in their penal codes. I wouldn't blame their citizens for this fact. It seems to me unfair to blame an individual for something done by his state even if the latter is a democracy (which the states in question aren't). However, my impression is that even if homosexuality is decriminalized, individuals demonstrating it would still be unsafe in Muslim-dominated societies. The latest post by Anglo-Libyan seems to confirm my fears.
In fact, an important difference between Muslims and non-Muslims is that most non-Muslims have transferred to the state all oppressive functions, while many Muslims feel free to take the law in their own hands. This can easily lead to de facto introduction of Sharia in historically non-Muslim states with new Muslim minorities, as is currently observed in Western Europe. So, even if Muslim-majority states proclaim separation of mosques from state and change their laws accordingly, this is unlikely to bring any real change until mentality of ordinary citizens is also changed.
Zdrave Maya,
You seem too intelligent a lady to be lapping up and regurgitating anti-islamic sentiment without digesting it first.
Who are the enemies who refuse to recognize Israel within any borders?
Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah.
Hamas, out of the three is the only party who would fit your description of israel's insatiable enemy, the other two use the anti-israel stance to justify the existence of their regimes whereby most of the hot air is for both internal and external consumption. Actually, the stance of the Mullahs is an aberration when one considers the relatively Jewish-friendly history of Iran. Up to this day, many Iranians in Iran and the diaspora do not toe the belligerent party line. Would Iran ever attack Israel? I sincerely doubt it, despite Njad's stance. That said, I do personally think that he is playing with fire and pushing Israel into a corner where Israelis will eventually demand that their government do something.
On the other hand, the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and the Maghréb would and have acknowledged an Israel within 1948 borders with modifications. Even Syria would be ready to recognize Israel if the Golan was returned.
Now let's be clear, (a cold) peace between Arab regimes and Israel doesn't mean the region's peoples (and I stress the plural) are particularly fond of Israel. Nor does it erase the (perceived) sense of injustice that has been enshrined in over 60 years of historical events where Israel almost invariably comes out on top.
Now if someone manages to find a magic potion that would make Israel vanish, they would enjoy a free round of drinks at every bar in Ramallah, Cairo and Damascus. But the picture of Arab hordes beating at the gates of Israel, clamouring to annihilate it, is far from true. Arabs have bigger worries and many more interesting passtimes - such as enjoying a dish of stuffed vine leafs while watching turkish soaps.
On the subject of homos, the Muslims are no harsher than the western nations once were vis-à-vis sodomy. As for your allegation that vigilante justice is the domaine of muslims, then perhaps kkk members who hung blacks from trees must have been muslims as well.
On the subject of sexuality, and I'm speaking as a non-muslim homo who grew up in the predominantly muslim middle east, I can tell you that sexuality has historically been infinitely more fluid than in the west. And if they ever had to apply the penal code, they would have to hang half the middle east.. not to mention they wouldn't be left with anyone to do the hanging..
The subject is worthy of (much) more discussion of course. If you're interested.
Nizo, I see your comment also deserves a special post (possibly more than one) as an answer. Let me just say for now that I disagree with you on some items and hope you are right on others.
With due respect I think you should stick to biology and stay away from subjects like Islam and the Middle East, about which you obviously know nothing.(did you state someplace that you'd rather not spout politically correct b.s?)
If you insist on voicing your oppinions on these subjects then at least try to educate yourself. Here are some reading suggestions: MUHAMMAD by Karen Armstrong;THE PASSIONATE ATTACHMENT by George & Douglas Ball; IT'S EASIER TO REACH HEAVEN THAN THE END OF THE STREET by Emma Williams. If you are interested I can suggest many more.
Regards
I have read the Koran. Some day, when I have the opportunity, I intend also to read some works of early Muslim historians related to Mohamed's life.
Why should I waste my time reading a modern apologist of Islam like Karen Armstrong? She hasn't even a degree in history. If you tell me to stick to biology, why don't tell Ms. Armstrong to stick to Enlish language studies and the poet Tennyson, her only documented areas of expertise?
One of the things I don't like about many Muslims is their habit to tell other people what to talk, write or draw, and what not to. However, I must admit that a legion of non-Muslims have the same habit.
Post a Comment