Ah yes, the old ‘inaccurate, dogmatically secularist scaremongering [which] plays directly into the hands of the far right and will be used to bolster a racist narrative about the Islamic threat to the West’ response to Joan Smith’s article on the Islamist threat to free expression.
I know, I know. Saying that people have a right to speak is somehow scaremongering but issuing death threats and bogus accusations of racism aren’t. Hmm, I suppose when you are so prone to defending religion, logic does need to take a back seat.
The article says:
So, to summarise, we have one individual who disrupted a meeting, a polite request by an Ahmadiyyah student group that an illustration which offended Muslims should be withdrawn, and a dubious report of a threat to Salman Rushdie which Rushdie himself says in baseless. And this supposedly amounts to a pattern of Muslim intimidation of critics of Islam.
Interesting how Islamists have a way of trivialising things – and forgetting a tiny little thing like their track record.
The website reporting this journalistic gem is linked to the Islamic regime in Iran so I suppose enough said.
I think this is my first post here so… hello.
I saw this article yesterday on a site called Islamophobia Watch. I’m guessing that IW was the original source, as the ABNA article has “source: Islamophobia” up the top, the IW version has a number of links in the text which are missing from the ABNA version, the IW version has an author at the end etc.
If IW is the source, then it’s a little ironic. By their own logic, their “scaremongering plays directly into the hands of” the Iranian regime “and will be used to bolster a… narrative about the” racist West attacking Islam.
It’s a shame, because the site (which I hadn’t seen before) does seem to document genuine instances of bigotry against muslims, but then mixes it with this sort of thing.
I read the “response” and maybe it’s just me, but some of what he said did not make any sense. His summery made grammatical sense, but some of what he said, esp in his 3 points, read as gibberish and B.S. What did make sense is what we know already. Be that as it may, it seems to read much like an Islamic apologist or any other religious apologist, which does not surprise me. I almost didn’t bother following the link because most POV from a religious person generally read like gibberish or at least a bunch of B.S. I followed it an read it anyway and I wasn’t surprised about the gibbering B.S.
I find this mendacious article by Islamists highly offensive. Is there a chance tgat they will take it down if I “politely request” so?
LOL