"DKleinecke" <dkleinecke@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:566cc3d6-dc39-46df-85b1-1af0c8236172@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 3, 5:05 am, "Zuiko Azumazi" <zuiko.azum...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<snip>...
>> What do regular readers make of this short article? Have the regular
>> "critics" of the Qur'an, in this forum, learnt anything?
<snip> ...
> You have scare quotes on "critics" for some reason. Perhaps you could
> explain why. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As you are a regular subscriber to this forum I would have thought you
would
have recognised that their are some so-called "critics" of Islam and
Muslim
beliefs who use the bland term "critic" as a euphemism for incitement to
rampant anti-Muslimism, the "New Racism", to make offensive remarks and an
artful cover for thinly veiled hate-speech.
The Geert Wilder episode is a primary example of this type of so-called
"critic" status. See these two forum links:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/825ec81c5b5aa45f
<Quote> ...
We condemn the tone and content of the online film by Dutch Member of
Parliament, Mr. Geert Wilders, which was released on the Internet
yesterday.
The film 'Fitna' illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims
exclusively with violence and terrorism. It is crucial that efforts be
made
by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent
incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace
and social cohesion.
"While on the one hand, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right
that must be respected, it does not extend to include incitement to racial
or religious hatred which is itself clearly a violation of human rights.
Public expressions that paint adherents of a particular religion as a
threat
to peace or global stability are irresponsible.
<Unquote> ...
AND:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/20142be9084a3656
<Quote> ...
Condemning 'offensively anti-Islamic' video, Ban Ki-moon appeals for calm
28 March 2008 - Secretary-General today led a chorus of United Nations
condemnation of the Internet broadcast of a video made by the Dutch
parliamentarian Geert Wilders, describing it as "offensively
anti-Islamic,"
while he also called on those upset by the film to remain calm.
In a statement issued by his spokesperson after last night's airing of the
film, entitled Fitna, Mr. Ban said "there is no justification for hate
speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at
stake here.
"We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and
Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small
minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in
stirring hostility and conflict."
<Unquote> ...
These are what the propaganda experts call euphemistic word games. When
anti-Muslimism propagandists [Islamophobes, racists, xenophobes, white
supremacists, and neo-Nazis, et al] use glittering generalities and
name-calling symbols, to vilify Islam and Muslim beliefs, they are
attempting to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive
words. In certain situations, however, the propagandist attempts to pacify
the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This
is
accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic. Are these
devious well-known propagandistic types critics or so-called "critics' in
your mind?
Yes, the word "critic" can by definition mean either "someone who
frequently
finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments" or "anyone who expresses
a
reasoned judgment of something". Nevertheless, the natural antonym for
"critical" is "uncritical", that is, "marked by disregard for critical
standards or procedures". But these kind of woolly verbal disputes and
ambiguities isn't the "uses" or dog-whistle connotation we are talking
about
in this particular forum is it? Remember, according to Ludwig
Wittgenstein;
"For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the
word meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in
the
language."
How many anti-Muslim posts do you think appear in this forum that are
based
on sound "criticism" principles, when often their authors have no critical
thinking or independent reasoning ability? So are these vociferous
interlocutors critics or so-called "critics"? Aren't they, in reality,
extremists (see above) who just want to maliciously incite hatred and stir
up hostility and conflict against Islam and Muslim beliefs, uncritically?
Is this explanation clear enough?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
