Join 3,498 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


January 3, 2002
12:35 PM   Subscribe

The Salman Rushdie Redux: How CAIR, an American-Muslim advocasy group, put a hit on Khalid Durán because they did not like his book.
posted by Rastafari (54 comments total)

 
May be true, but this guy sounds a bit too wild eyed to be true.
posted by phatboy at 1:45 PM on January 3, 2002


To be fair, CAIR may have villified and otherwise defamed Khalid Duran but they did not "put a hit" on him. Others did that. Your title is misleading.
posted by laz-e-boy at 2:39 PM on January 3, 2002


hmm I get a CAIR newsletter in my email every day. I dont remember reading about this.

Also, does that make me an Islamist ?

Were we getting tired of the loaded term Fundamentalist that we have to use Islamist. Is that even grammatically correct ?

I am a peace loving Muslim in America who follows Islam as a daily routine of life. Is that being Islamist ?

Salman Rushdie and this case is different. Salman Rushdie defamed, and slandered and abused the messengers of God in his book The Satanic Verses. As a pillar of Islam, we muslims MUST respect and believe in all the messengers of God including but not limited to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So, that directly went against our Muslim beliefs. I did read excerpts from the book cuz i needed to see to believe.

That also means I surf away when Jay Leno tells Jesus jokes. Eeevil Guyy that he is. lol
posted by adnanbwp at 3:02 PM on January 3, 2002


Today CAIR came out defending the islamic secret service agent who got kicked off a plane for carrying a gun, acting nervous, running back off the plane to retrieve an item and three times failing to properly fill out the paper work.

adnanbwp: Did you just now actually endorse the killing of Salman Rushdie? yes or no will do just fine.
posted by Real9 at 3:10 PM on January 3, 2002


A dead give away for wild-eyeism is the use of footnotes.
All uppity muslims seeking to use this country's 1st amendment rights to discuss the common origins of now warring religions deserve whatever wrath is brought upon them. So I'm with phatbot all-the-way on this.

Futher evidence of the author's wild eyes can be nuanced from his consorting with a known PBS documentarist. Everyone knows PBS docs are only a half notch less wild eyed than The National Enquirier.

But to be fair, OBL didn't bring down the WTC. Others did that. Death to all misleadists!
posted by BentPenguin at 3:10 PM on January 3, 2002


Today CAIR came out defending the islamic secret service agent who got kicked off a plane for carrying a gun, acting nervous, running back off the plane to retrieve an item and three times failing to properly fill out the paper work.

President Bush said he was "madder than heck" that this Secret Service agent was treated so badly. This agent is still standing by the President's side, armed, protecting him. Do you have some knowledge about this agent that President Bush doesn't?

If so, there's some men in suits outside your house that would like to speak to you...
posted by laz-e-boy at 3:41 PM on January 3, 2002


laz-e-boy, check your reference. Bush said he would be mad as heck if the agent was treatedly badly because of his race. Didn't you read the link I provided?

In a shameless thread hijack, I'm still waiting for our self-identified Muslim friend adnanbwp to disavow the advocated murder of Salman Rushdie. And, judging from your recent posts I gather that you might share his opinion of the proper treatment of so-called apostates of islam. So, I'll be interested to see your answer to that question.

yes or no. Do you support the murder of Salman Rushdie.
posted by Real9 at 4:18 PM on January 3, 2002


Any group or member of that group that can not immediately disown some cleric in some foreign oland who pronounces a death stence on an author is a fool of the first order. Rushdie has every right in the world to do what he wants as a novelist without some crazy ordering him killed. Disown him, yes. Revile him, yes. But killed: That, for me, is not a religion. It is a faascist order of the worst kind and those who accept such stupidity are dolts.
posted by Postroad at 4:25 PM on January 3, 2002


yes or no. Do you support the murder of Salman Rushdie.

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?
posted by Doug at 4:30 PM on January 3, 2002


Hear hear, Postroad and Real9!

Real9 isn't on a McCarthyistic witch-hunt, Doug. He wants clarification from adnanbwp. For, if a self proclaimed "peace loving Muslim" endorses the death sentence of someone who disagrees with their religion and prophets, I'd hate to see what a "war loving Muslim" thinks about it.
posted by aacheson at 4:36 PM on January 3, 2002


adnanbwp's post is unclear, certainly, but it's a stretch to think that he is endorsing the murder of Salmon Rushdie. To then ask the question in a beligerant manner just one hour later seems a bit uncalled for to me.

Secondly, I think the issue is a bit more complex than Postroad would have us believe. I agree with his sentiment, but the world isn't that black and white.
posted by Doug at 4:49 PM on January 3, 2002


No.1) When was Salman Rushdie murdered ? Why doesnt some one tell me these things ?

No.2) I made an effort to differentiate between Salman Rushdie and Khalid Duran. He is trying to gain media momentum by juxtaposing himself with Rushdie which is unfair because both issues are different.

No.3) If I say NO would ya believe me ? Have you the moral depth to take an answer for an answer and let wither your already reached upon and self-confirmed conclusion. That Sirs, is my question. Do you accept me as an American. Yes or No. You have three days to think if you may.

Are we playing a lets jump to generalized conclusions game here ?
posted by adnanbwp at 5:28 PM on January 3, 2002


laz-e-boy, check your reference. Bush said he would be mad as heck if the agent was treatedly badly because of his race. Didn't you read the link I provided?

I sure did. Seeing as your post implied that the agent was somehow guilty because he was acting suspicious, could you explain why he is still armed and by the President's side?

In a shameless thread hijack, I'm still waiting for our self-identified Muslim friend adnanbwp to disavow the advocated murder of Salman Rushdie. And, judging from your recent posts I gather that you might share his opinion of the proper treatment of so-called apostates of islam. So, I'll be interested to see your answer to that question.

Absolutely oppose advocating SR's murder. I've said so on TV, even. Next red herring...
posted by laz-e-boy at 5:34 PM on January 3, 2002


Hey adnan, answer the fucking question: Do you or don't you advocate Rushdie's death sentance? And what's this bullshit about his case being different? Salman Rushdie wrote a fucking book. A lot of Muslims -- including you -- took offense. That calls for a fatwah? Get real, dude!

You asked if you are accepted as a peace-loving Muslim American. If you want to be accepted that way, you should point out what Rushdie did that was wrong, but you should be angry as hell for ANYONE who would put out a hit on him. And for the record, CAIR is a fundamentalist, racist, anti-semetic group.
posted by Rastafari at 5:43 PM on January 3, 2002


adnan, if you are indeed a Muslim American, and not some faker like John Walker putting on airs with a false online identity, then you know perfectly well that the term "Islamist" is the accepted jargon throughout the Middle East and most of Europe for the political movement that American media has for so long misleadingly labeled "Islamic fundamentalist". Since you're acting like you don't know this, I'm guessing you may be bullshitting us.
posted by dhartung at 6:06 PM on January 3, 2002


Rastafari... where didnt u get the answer ? didnt u read NO in capital letters ?

Salman Rushdie wrote a book. I personaly take an offense to the words of that book. Would I kill him, No way. Would I support some one who kills him, again No. But I will take every opportunity to point him wrong. Even if I have to take biased insult from people like you. And thats exactly what I did, point him wrong. The difference lies in the situation and its wide open. Khalid Duran is using a wrong analogy to support his claim.

As long as Fatwas go, I dont pay any attention to them. Some one gave a Fatwa right after 9/11 that OBL is not suitable to issue a Fatwa. No body paid attention to that cuz then it would break the Fatwa story chain.

In my daily life in USA, I look for Fatwas from our religiious leaders in the USA. Not for who to kill next. But how to adapt our daily life according to the environment. Fatwas like what fast food restaurant's food can be eaten as Halal or Kosher.

And the question was wether you accept me as an American. Peace loving or otherwise.

And mind your language please.
posted by adnanbwp at 6:07 PM on January 3, 2002


Fatwas like what fast food restaurant's food can be eaten as Halal or Kosher.

Try zabihah.com for a list of halal restaurants...
posted by laz-e-boy at 6:09 PM on January 3, 2002


haha @ putting on airs. I read that in some book I dont remember, may be its 'Tis, but I always thought it was a funny term.

Islamist and Fundamentalist in religion is what I as a Muslim strive for. What is Islamist and Fundamentalist. A person who clings on to the fundamentals of Islam. Who follows the basics rigorously ? Well I try to do that every other day.

1) Faith that there is one God alone and belief in Quran and all the previous books of God, belief in Muhammad as the last and final messenger of God and belief in all the previous messengers, and angels.

2) Prayer is for one God alone.

3) Zakat, the obligatory charity of wealth and goods.

4) Fast in the month of Ramadan.

5) Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, if I have health and the financed to do so, atleast once in life time.

These 5 are the fundamentals of Islam. called the Five Pillars of Islam. I try practice this. I am an Islamist. I am a Fundamentalist.

Those who pick and chose from the Quran and Faith are not Islamists, are not Fundamentalists.

No where in the Quran does it say to kill innocent, unarmed, defenseless human beings, animals or burn crops or damage place of worship. Proponents of such are terrorists. They are not Islamists and surely not Fundamentalists.
posted by adnanbwp at 6:20 PM on January 3, 2002


The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5, adds: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."
posted by Real9 at 6:29 PM on January 3, 2002


The first quote is totally out of place. 5:85 does not say that. So here is the real 5:85.

sura 5, verse 85

These verses talk about something different all together.

Sura 9 verse 5

Some context of the few verses prior and after the quoted verse. This is when Muhammad p.b.u.h came back to Mecca with his followers to the birth place he was once mistreated, nearly killed and forced to leave. This is a war situation. God almighty sets rules who to fight and who not to.

God has the ultimate knowledge.
posted by adnanbwp at 6:45 PM on January 3, 2002


adnanbwp, I don't find your citation any more comforting:

"[at-Taubah 9:5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Islam in my view is a war religion. You're welcome to believe whatever you want. But, if you're in the United States and you advocate murder, however artfully, that's illegal and is within the proper purview of the law.
posted by Real9 at 7:12 PM on January 3, 2002


Real9 :
Your earlier quote had "[in war] ", but this one doesnt, so i thought I would remind you that the verse does talk about a time of war. A time of decision. And even in that war time, God reminded the Muslims of their treaties, and mercy towards those who ask for protection etc.

Hope that you read the Quran completely so we can discuss in greater detail.

There lies a gap of understanding. You are blaming me of advocating murder, although I have specifically said i do not. But you insist that I artfully condone it.

Its a pity. But I can do nothing more than keep on with my effort of clearing misunderstandings amongst us OR I can just sit back and see small cracks end up as great canyons. I sincerely chose the first path.

God help us all
posted by adnanbwp at 7:25 PM on January 3, 2002


You're still trying to blur the lines. "I like Islam, so that makes me an Islamist"? A more accepted definition of Islamism is an anti-secular political movement seeking to institute shari'a law and replace democratic structures with religious shuras. That is what most people mean when they say "Islamism". The point of the suffix ism in English is often to set something apart as a political movement. (For my part, I'm liking the phrase that Christopher Hitchens has been popularizing: "Islamo-fascism".)

Adnan, from the way you've described yourself, I would perhaps call you simply a good Muslim. I have no freaking idea why you are trying to lay claim to emotionally-laden phrases like Islamism and fundamentalism, unless it is to weaken their meaning and broaden any attack on them into seeming to be a general attack on Islam. That is a trick of demagoguery and you should avoid it if your goal is to present an honest view of Islam.

CAIR has made great effort to present itself as a moderate organization, but articles like this give well-documented reasons why it should not be viewed that way. If your goal is to say that CAIR is moderate, using their own moderate publicity as a defense is not going to be very effective, because that mouthpiece is close to being discredited.
posted by dhartung at 7:37 PM on January 3, 2002


Well, I do want to see a downfall of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, also in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and the Gulf States. I think they are our major problem. If not democracy then some kinda government should be supported that has more of a role for the general public. I think the oil money should be spent within these countries on the education and social sector, rather than to provide for the royal families.

Where does that stand me ? You people don't accept me as an American, as a Muslim, as an Islamist or Fundamentalist ? Where do i Stand then ?

I am a peace loving American Muslim.
posted by adnanbwp at 7:59 PM on January 3, 2002


Islamism is a phenomenon primarily taking place in cities, and the most prominent members are young people with higher education, often with a modest background and often with parents living in the countryside. Islamists have often a feeling that despite the efforts they have put down in their studies, they have not managed to climb very much socially, that the jobs they were aspiring for are given to people with good social connections, but less qualifications.

Sounds like you Adnan, don't it?

I love the "I AM A PEACE LOVING AMERICAN" segment...
I am a peace loving Muslim in America who follows Islam as a daily routine of life. Is that being Islamist ?

Is that being american? Who are you trying to convince?

I am nobody, and by no god...
I feel really great about that...
when you migrate or immigrate...
you give up a past for a future...

Why do you pose as someone who did not...
american, no, you are a muslim first and you fool
very few!
posted by bittennails at 8:11 PM on January 3, 2002


so muslims can not be americans and americans can not be muslims ?

and you have no idea how much I make and what work I do. I just laugh at your supposition.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:19 PM on January 3, 2002


Man, all I did was condemn Rushdie. All of a sudden every one is attacking me personaly.

rriiiigghhhtt
posted by adnanbwp at 8:21 PM on January 3, 2002


and you have no idea how much I make and what work I do.

Who gives a shit, your income defines you??!!??

You are strange, aren't you?
posted by bittennails at 8:23 PM on January 3, 2002


Man, all I did was condemn Rushdie.

That was intelligent!

Personal, no,
Religious based stupidity, yes!
posted by bittennails at 8:25 PM on January 3, 2002


I can see why someone would do that, Dan, the same way conservatives sometimes claim to be liberals "in the true sense of the word." If you're offended that people you despise have taken ownership of a term, sometimes you want to fight back. A liberal Christian could object to the use of "fundamentalism" on the grounds that "what is truly fundamental to Christianity is love of Jesus" and then say "we are the true fundamentalists!" I understand Adnan's point as "it's honorable to be a 'fundamentalist' in the sense of living according to the 'fundamentals' of Islam (the 5 pillars).' It's an old rhetorical trick and I don't see any reason to take as

That is what most people mean when they say "Islamism".

I don't think "most people," at least in the US, have a very clear notion of what that term means or what differentiates it from "Islamic" or "fundamentalist." I also don't see why you're being so pedantic about it. It may be "the accepted jargon" in some places, but for many Americans it's a relatively new term. A "peace loving American Muslim" might be as ignorant of its nuances as anyone. Also consider that you may be dealing with someone whose native language is not English, for whom the niceties of -ic vs. -ist might be somewhat obscure.

Accusations of bad faith over this tiny point of usage seem unduly aggressive, and frankly, a little self-congratulatory. We all know you're well-read on this subject; no need to go on so about it.
posted by rodii at 8:29 PM on January 3, 2002


I'm uncomfortable with the tone in this thread and the way it's directed at adnanbwp, but shit like this crosses some kind of line, I think, even if one disagrees with him:

american, no, you are a muslim first and you fool
very few!


bittennails, you are out of line here.
posted by rodii at 8:32 PM on January 3, 2002


Rodii: Out of Line, me?

Salman Rushdie and this case is different. Salman Rushdie defamed, and slandered and abused the messengers of God in his book The Satanic Verses. As a pillar of Islam, we muslims MUST respect and believe in all the messengers of God including but not limited to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So, that directly went against our Muslim beliefs. I did read excerpts from the book cuz i needed to see to believe.

He respects the "FATWA", I am out of line?
And the "Koran" has the answers??

SR is a "novelist", if that is a word...
He must be allowed to speak/write...
for your future and for all humanity...

It's called FREEDOM, out of line indeed,
and he's politically correct with "ISLAMIC LAW"...

Read it well, " the koran" damn it sucks big time...
thats my opinion,
if he can have one
SO CAN I!
posted by bittennails at 8:50 PM on January 3, 2002


Damn that rum works...
posted by bittennails at 8:51 PM on January 3, 2002


Implying that someone can't be an American if he is a Muslim is bigotry, and that's out of line. And despite the baiting by you and others here, I don't see anywhere where Adnan endorsed the killing of Rushdie. Certainly it's not there in the passage you quote above; disliking, even despising Rushdie is not the same as advocating his death.
posted by rodii at 9:09 PM on January 3, 2002


I rest my case. Thankyou rodii for actually reading what i have been writing. I never endorsed or said I endorse any one's killing here or whereever. Where did I say that I respect that Fatwa ? If some one here reads it says that I dont care about those kinda Fatwas. Any ignorant fool gets up and gives a Fatwa ?

And disrespecting the Quran and calling it whatever without even reading it once, or getting informed knowledge from some one does not prove any thing.

I think the Rum has really worked its thingi. But atleast a person can be polite.
posted by adnanbwp at 9:18 PM on January 3, 2002


Adnan, Your tone has changed through the course of this thread. That is good.

History shows that Islam is tolerant only when it is confronted.
posted by Real9 at 9:26 PM on January 3, 2002


Yes my tone has changed. Not because of some confrontation. But I have had to simplify my words in order to explain what I said originally.

What history are you talking about ? Are you referring towards the crusades as confrontations ? Please correct and enlighten me
posted by adnanbwp at 9:31 PM on January 3, 2002


Maybe, just maybe, the attacks against adnan did get personal, but, rodii and adnan, you have to realize that adnan did bring it on himself by defending the fatwa against SR and defending a known racist and anti-semetic group like CAIR. Adnan may have backed off his earlier statements where he distinguishes this writers plight with that of SL, but why have that train of thought to begin with.

This article, in my opinion, is primarily about CAIR, and how extremist, Islamist, fundamentalsit and anti-semetic that group is, and how it uses the freedom of this country to censor/intimidate/harass people they don't like. Adnan, sorry about the personal attacks, and no one questions your loyalty to USA, but see if you can address this issue.
posted by Rastafari at 9:33 PM on January 3, 2002


Oh Man.. lols

The world is round. I did not defend the Fatwa against Rushdie. How you people get that sense from my posts is really out of my understanding. But there is a difference between Khalid and Salman.

Salman wrote a novel wherein he talked about the Messengers of God in a way that angered the Muslims. Should that have lead to calls for his death. No. People should have not read his book in protest. There are other ways of protesting someone. Maybe every one should have written a letter of protest to the publisher every day till something happened.

Khalid Duran has a personal grudge against CAIR and vice versa. Read the article. It says that this whole deal started when he replaced one of the CAIR people from some university seat.

All I said was that these are two different cases. And Khalid is using SR's name to draw media attention.

About CAIR I said only what I have experienced through the daily newsletters and there is no such thing as extremist or harassing in those newsletters. They do ask the readers to write polite emails of protest to editors of newspapers or congressmen/congresswoman who act or say things in a manner which is counterproductive towards the bridge building in the American society. But I have seen lots of other sites which ask people to send letters , emails or sign petitions.

Maybe you guys know more than I do but in the last 4-5 months I have never read any thing in those newsletters. If it was so controversial, mainstream media wouldnt have invited it. Anti Defamation League always protests the participation of a CAIR member in any forum, but uptil now no Forum organizer has asked or denied CAIR person to attend the forums.

Does that mean that ADL is anti-muslim, NO. Political rivalry is no sign of being anti-muslim and therefore not a sign of being anti-semetic.

Thats my personal experience. God knows best.

You guys can transcribe too from the website and see for yourself.

Now what here portrays me as a person who would like to kill Rushdie, or proves that I am anti-semitic ?
posted by adnanbwp at 9:49 PM on January 3, 2002


Rastafari, why should he address the issue of CAIR being a racist organization? Why don't YOU provide some proof for this. I have no idea if it is or isn't, and I'd like to know, but you are the one making the accusation, so the burden of proof should be on you.
Let's lay off adnanbwp. I know some of you have a lot of anger toward muslims, and it's nice and cathartic to get it out here in cyberspace, but in this thread, it's kind of boring.
posted by Doug at 10:26 PM on January 3, 2002


Maybe, just maybe, the attacks against adnan did get personal, but, rodii and adnan, you have to realize that adnan did bring it on himself by defending the fatwa against SR...

Great googly moogly. How is this statement -- "As a pillar of Islam, we muslims MUST respect and believe in all the messengers of God including but not limited to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So, that directly went against our Muslim beliefs." -- and endorsement of the call to kill Rushdie? It's an explanation of why that call was made, but it's not an endorsement of the call. If a Christian explains that she isn't reading Harry Potter because of Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft, does that mean that she endorses bookburning? One can be offended by something and wish to explain why one is offended without believing that the extreme recourses are appropriate or justified, and I think it's embarassing that this needs to be spelled out.
posted by snarkout at 10:26 PM on January 3, 2002


How can one bring bigotry upon oneself? You might say something that causes someone to reveal his/her bigotry, but you can't cause something to be revealed that isn't there in the first place.

What rodii said.

Oh, and BITTENNAILS IS DRUNK.
posted by colt45 at 11:02 PM on January 3, 2002


Rastafari, why should he address the issue of CAIR being a racist organization? Why don't YOU provide some proof for this. I have no idea if it is or isn't, and I'd like to know, but you are the one making the accusation, so the burden of proof should be on you.

Hey Doug, the reason you have no idea, is that you're not keeping up with the currant events, which is WHY he should address the issue of CAIR's anti-semetic history. Read the news. But since you want me to provide the burdon-of-proof, well, here it is:

First, some FACTS about CAIR.

Unholy Fundraising
The Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, and their allies in the U.S.


Islam's flawed spokesmen
Some of the groups claiming to speak for American Muslims find it impossible to speak out against terrorist groups


TERRORIST TIES OK AT WHITE HOUSE
posted by Rastafari at 4:53 AM on January 4, 2002


These debates always get slanted by those who want to make sure America is anti-Muslim, because of misguided fear that the United States, if it is not anti-Muslim, will not be pro-Israel. You will find that much of the anti-Islamic phobia in the United States is stoked by Pro-Israel bias.

This is not, of course, to say that CAIR or other Muslim groups are not just as bad, or that there are not truth to claims against them. Religious political advocacy by its very nature is un-American. It is a shame that other people's religious wars are being fought in our country-- I suppose its the price of freedom. Still, Americans should be educated on all the issues so they do not fall for the distortions and half-truths and lies of both sides.
posted by chaz at 6:41 AM on January 4, 2002


It is a shame that other people's religious wars are being fought in our country-- I suppose its the price of freedom.

Yes, and the prime example of "other people's religious war" was the attack on the WTC. The discussion here is about how groups like CAIR try and make distinctions between the like of bin Laden and Hamas, when there is none. Both are terrorists and kill innocent people. But I agree with you about how Americans should educate themselves.
posted by Rastafari at 6:58 AM on January 4, 2002


adnan did ask if being a peace-loving Muslim made him Islamist (see first post). He also asked if the word "Islamist" were grammatically correct. I answered.
posted by dhartung at 9:39 AM on January 4, 2002


Rastafari, he should address the issue of CAIR's anti-semetic history because I don't stay up on current events?

If you're going to be nasty, at least have your post make sense.
posted by Doug at 11:59 AM on January 4, 2002


I note that earlier in the discussion, people were quoting the Quran as "proof" that Islam is a religion of violence. To which I point you towards the violence in the Old Testaments...considered holy books by both Christians and Jews.

It's rife with daughter selling, incest, rape, races of people being exterminated...because of their race, slavery, murder, pillaging, plundering and other deeds most foul, all done in the name of God.

Now, the last time I checked, American Jews were not running amok slaying the sons of the Midianites, nor were American Christians selling their daughters off to the highest bidder. I think it's safe to assume that American Muslims are not running about hatching plans to "kill the infidels".

To take bits of text out of holy books, without a deeper understanding of when, where and how the books were written is to deny yourself the chance to understand the whole, and thus perhaps understand the culture which surrounds them.
posted by dejah420 at 12:46 PM on January 4, 2002


this may possibly be the most offensive thread i've ever seen on mefi.

first of all, i am pretty sure that this

You're welcome to believe whatever you want. But, if you're in the United States and you advocate murder, however artfully, that's illegal and is within the proper purview of the law.

is not even true, unless he is actively involved in a conspiracy to commit murder. if i were to say "i wish someone would kill george bush", is that really illegal?

even if i am wrong on that (and god help free speech if i am), adnanbwp at no point in this thread said he thought salman rushdie should be killed. he, in fact, said several times that, while he is offended by his words, he does not wish him dead. at one point, he asked if any of you would even believe him if he said no. it was clear to him (and to me, reading) that he was presumed guilty because he referred to himself as a fundamentalist and an islamist. to me, the spirit of his self-identification was "i am very devoted to my religion".

if he were a christian fundamentalist, would this thread be so full of vitriol? if he were a jewish man subscribed to an anti-islamic newsletter would you be so goddamned angry? it feels to me like this thread is a lot of people targeting one man who chose to identify himself as a follower of islam. it feels to me like many of you are taking out your anger over september 11th on adnanbwp.

if i'm reading too much into this, i apologize. but this thread made me feel sick to my stomach. rodii, thanks for being a voice of reason.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2002


adnan did ask if being a peace-loving Muslim made him Islamist (see first post). He also asked if the word "Islamist" were grammatically correct. I answered.

You sure did, and then some:

adnan, if you are indeed a Muslim American, and not some faker like John Walker putting on airs with a false online identity, then you know perfectly well that the term "Islamist" is the accepted jargon throughout the Middle East and most of Europe for the political movement that American media has for so long misleadingly labeled "Islamic fundamentalist". Since you're acting like you don't know this, I'm guessing you may be bullshitting us. (my emphasis)

The non-bold part answers the question adequately. The rest strikes me as unneccesarily hostile. And following it up with stuff like this:

I have no freaking idea why you are trying to lay claim to emotionally-laden phrases like Islamism and fundamentalism, unless it is to weaken their meaning and broaden any attack on them into seeming to be a general attack on Islam.

just adds fuel to the flames. In a thread this ugly, on a topic this volatile, I can't figure how why anyone would think that's contructive. All the guy did wasposted by rodii at 1:30 PM on January 4, 2002


if i'm reading too much into this

I'm afraid I don't think you are. I completely agree that this thread is MeFi's lowest moment. Thanks rodii, thanks snarkout, and thanks pikachulolita for speaking up.
posted by sudama at 1:41 PM on January 4, 2002


Whoops, the end got cut off there.

People argue more vehemently than this about things in MeFi everyday. However, they don't get acused of bullshitting, being "a muslim first", demagoguery, etc. In this context, it's disingenuous to act as if you're just innocently answering a question. Some people here are hardly even bothering to hide their anti-Muslim bias, but I don't believe that of you. But I'm surprised anyway.
posted by rodii at 1:51 PM on January 4, 2002


Adnan -- I think I remember you getting pummelled right after the WTC events for stating your Islam-sympathetic point of view in too emphatically a partisan manner. From the way you've conducted yourself today, I'm wondering if it was unwarrented. You've been calm and constructive in your comments and I'm glad you're a part of MetaFilter.
You shouldn't have to ex-ante make a statement of your beliefs on issues before people respond to your posts, any more than one of the raving Christians on here have to state their positions on abortion protests or virginity tests or whatever before they speak. But you handled it with dignity and forebearance - an example to religious adherents of all stripes. Please don't assume that 2 or 3 yahoos that use you as a terrorist whipping boy accurately represent the "you people" of the rest of MetaFilter. I, for one, stay out of the argumentative pissing contests, especially ignorant ones, out of disgust, not concurrence.
posted by dness2 at 4:40 PM on January 4, 2002


Thankyou all.
posted by adnanbwp at 11:24 PM on January 4, 2002


« Older New Contraceptive to Block 'Sperm and Germs.'...  |  Which Radiohead Collective Mem... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments