Comments on: India’s culture of grievance

By: Sherry Jones

Sherry Jones — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:52:57 +0000

Hi Jerry and Loura B., I just want to say that I think Johann’s column is brilliant but that Jerry is right: Muhammad and his followers “expunged” one Jewish tribe for helping his enemies in a genocide attempt against him and his followers; before that, they exiled two tribes for assassination attempts, and afterwards, they lived in harmony with other Jewish tribes. It had nothing to do with failing to convert. Also, scholars disagree on A’isha’s age at marriage, and on the meaning of the word “consummation” as it was used in the hadith. No, it’s not right to use the supposed actions of the past to justify bad behavior today. Yet you may notice that Muhammad is the only religious figure personally criticized in Mr. Hari’s column, using the same tired accusations Islamophobes love to trot out again and again. Yet I do support his right to do so, and I do believe his message of free speech for all is spot on.

By: Jules

Jules — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:50:09 +0000

Uh, Jerry, Johann Hari is probably the journo most critical of Israel in britain alogn with Fisk. Google his name and Israel.

By: Loura B

Loura B — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:48:19 +0000

Jerry, there is a difference between defeating your enemies and expunging them, and if you want to say that was okay for a grandfather to marry a nine year old ‘back in the day’, fair enough, though I doubt you’d send your nine year old to that fate if you had one: it happened in Western Europe, too. What is NOT okay is that the fact that Mohammed doing so is taken as an excuse for that practice to continue right up to the present, whereas such acts are now reviled in the West. Hari’s point stands: evil done in the name of religion is just that, evil. The free speech issue is important, ie: this month the UK government forbade entry to both Geert Wilders ( right wing, democratically elected politician) and the Phelps family ( right wing, self appointed anti-homosexual moral guardians). Both odious, to the post-Enlightenment mind, to be sure, but both should have been heard: it is not up to any government to tell me what I find odious, and by giving both a platform, people can make up their own minds. So it’s not just India where our essential freedom as HUMAN BEINGS ( never miond gender, religion of nationality ) are being placed back in teh hands of theorcracy. That is not cool.

By: sm

sm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:49:11 +0000

hi
its just vote politics.
still we dont respect freedom of speech.
nice site
http://realityviews.blogspot.com/

By: links for 2009-02-17 « Unjustly

links for 2009-02-17 « Unjustly — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:30:43 +0000

[...] Index on Censorship » India’s culture of grievance And yet, the newspaper caved in last week. Why? Two reasons explain this. One is the ridiculous section of the Indian Penal Code S 295 (A) — which allows anyone offended by anything to demand that what offends him should be banned…India is a multi-everything country with a billion people, and the possibility of such disputes is endless. And that’s where the second reason comes in: the failure of the state to protect rights…Anyone who can take umbrage, does; and his hurt feelings take precedence over others’ right to express themselves freely. Instead of protecting the right of free expression, the state defends the offended, thus circumscribing meaningful debate. …It deserves the state’s protection. Instead, the state threatens the editor with jail. Result: the world’s largest democracy narrows its discourse, talking about less and less in public, breeding more and more resentment in private. And a newspaper that could once challenge the highest of the land is made to grovel. (tags: freedom india media government free_speech statesman newspaper laws) [...]

By: jerry

jerry — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:48:46 +0000

It’s all fine fighting religion. All for it. But is it right historically to say Mohammad ordered wiping out villages of jews. There was a war on. And some jews, not all, were against him, some with him. And in a war, people DO get killed. Johan Hari’s underscoring that, out of context, is sheer jingo stuff, as is the story of Mohammad having sex with a 9-year old. He probably didn’t until much later. And in those days….
But the other issue, that of Israel. Of the jews? And the old testament? It’s full of murder and mayhem against non-jews, condoned by their god. And watch how Israel kills 400 children out 1,300 in Gaza in 3 weeks. See a lot of condemnation in the western media? On tempora on mores, eh?