jul 24th, 2007
karen armstrong is one of those stealth mohammedans. if i remember, she's the one who accompanied bush to a mosque after 9/11, and she was fully veiled in mohammedan style. she's an academic who has either been bought with wah'abi money, or she's a convert who's doing this out of conviction.
there are several others in the west who are trotted out by mohammedans (or communists) as 'experts on mohammedanism'. since they are white, and have western names, and sometimes are academics, people tend to get the wrong impression of them. they are sleepers for the mohammedan cause, and presumably have salted away big bucks in their numbered swiss accounts as reward.
another excellent example is george galloway, a british mp.
one more would be william dalrymple, a 'historian' [sic]
all this reminds me of another 'expert', stephen cohen, an ill-informed nobody, but he's trotted out as *the* expert on india by various americans. sort of like that idiot banshee barbara crossette.
also note how karen armstrong has nothing to say about the torture of that poor hindu woman revathi in malaysia who's being forced to accept mohammedanism against her wishes and her best judgment. that's fine with karen "stealth-mohammedan" armstrong.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anand
| |
Karen Armstrong
Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides.
In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted." Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, aut hor of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian Government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony." This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Its position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.
...
| |
3 comments:
"But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others."
Wonder if the same arguments can be applied in the context of M.F.Hussain and if the Hindu would have published such an article.
Anon
>>>Inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values
What is a western value and why it is only a western value?
@siva,
Recall Ghandi's answer to this question by a pompous englishman.
Limey: "What do you think of western civilization ?"
Ghandi: "Yes, what would you like to LEARN ?"
Hahaha, Ghandi sure did have a sense of humour. I mean that was a *priceless* answer.
Post a Comment