Tarek Fatah's Chasing a Mirage

Let me know what you think as you progress through this book, as I would like to read it. Fatah's is a very controversial figure for some here on babble, so I would imagine you will getting more comments on his alleged shortcomings soon.

What about Bengal?

No sarcasm. The Brits split Bengal on religious lines also, turning East Bengal into East Pakistan (until it became Bangladesh), just as part of Punjab became part of Pakistan. I was just aiming for completeness.

I have not read the book, but I am not sure if Tarek has the necessary qualification and knowledge to discuss a complex issue such as contemporary Islam. His knowledge of Islamic faith is at best very shallow. I lost all respect for him when he blamed the victim in the case of Muslim woman in Germany who was murdered for her Hijab. Fatah effectively said: don't wear the Hijab so that they don't kill you!!

Unfortunately the muslim leaders in the west are mostly divided in two groups: One group defends almost everything muslims would do and protests anything a westerner would do, and the other group justifies eveything a westerner do and criticizes everything that a muslim does. Elmasri and fatah seem to be the two extreme ends in this example.

I am not suggesting that his book is not on the right track; just that there are people with better knowledge and credentials to discuss issues such as the failure of the Islamic state and its impact on modern Islamic thoughts. I would suggest the works of Abdulkarim Soroush in particular. However if you like his style that's all good. Just make sure you double check the accuracy of the statements and facts in his books.

Aw, Coyote, go easy on bhagat. Don't you know people of religion A who hate people of religion B? It's quite common.

Bhagat, hear me clearly. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Sikhism are equally childish superstitions, anti-scientific in nature, and which serve to make good people hate, fear, and scorn each other. We can despise religion, but we must respect people no matter what their faith. That's where Tarek Fateh falls down. He has trouble avoiding the Islamophobe meme.

Now, please say something against "fundamentalist" Sikhs so that we know you're not just a garden-variety Islamophobe (I know you're not, but others here may have their doubts). Consider this as a test.

I respect persons of faith, but no law of humanity or society requires me to speak politely about the Jesus-Allah-kosher stuff. And I'm not recruiting you into that.

But people of Religion A who are very good at condemning the "excesses" of Religion B are, in my book, the most dangerous of all the "faithful". And we have some of those on this board. Don't you agree that they deserve to be called out and condemned?

I agree with that, Coyote, and of course bhagat's comment is gratuitous and offensive - although I think it discloses even more than that, which is why I challenged him to say something nasty about Sikh extremists.

But since you've outed yourself as a UC adherent, could you do me a personal favour? Have a look at [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1043592/United-Church][color=red]this[/color][/... and maybe let Rev. Gregersen know that you know at least one Jew who considers his comments to be uniquely anti-semitic and anti-Palestinian at the same time? I'm sure it will have more impact coming from you than from me.

i have had these disagreements within the church, Unionist, and I agree with you. I am very happy to have had a hand in several strong actions and statements on Israel/Palestine from my congregation(s) over time, and my Presbetry(s). I will certainly write him under my own name; I will let you know when and if I hear anything back.

bhagat, are you willing to withdraw your slander from your first post against Rabble and babblers?

George Victor wrote:

 

He is Muslim, not a Catholic. Could be catholic-schooled, but would you flesh out your objections to his work and morals, Cue? Based on your reading of his work, of course. Nothing second hand, as it were.

George, Fatah is not some "scholar" or academic whose "work" one must "read". He's a politician, in public view. First he was a noisy propagandist for the Muslim Canadian Congress (whose public statements were way too close to Islamophobic and pro-imperialist for my personal taste). He was also an NDP militant. He publicly quit both at different times, and joined the Liberals (if memory serves). You don't need to read the written ravings of Stephen Harper to condemn that sordid excuse for a human being, I trust you'll agree. Likewise, whatever one thinks of Fatah, one can reach that conclusion without going to the library.

Just read him in the National Post.

Barbra Kay waxed eloquently about him today as a matter of fact.

George, I never suggested a book burning. I never even said a word against his book. But knowing he's no scholar, and knowing his asinine political opinions, why would I waste my time reading it when I could pick up a decent novel instead?

George, go read his book and post your opinions of it here. Just don't try to get me to say, "Why George, what a wonderful idea to go read his book because he condemns suicide bombs! What a rare and noble Muslim he must be!" And don't tell me you "don't need a lecture" about religion when I haven't given you one, have I?

Thanks.

bhagat wrote:

Trust me, the slaughter of Tarek Fatah should begin sooner than you expect. Rabble has many Islamists who pose as if they are left-0f-centre and will slam his book without having read it.

Smearing the community like this is completely inappropriate.  Knock it off, or leave if you don't like it.

Justin Podur has a thoughtful mixed review of Fatah's book praising some elements and information-- while at the same time gobstruck by Fatah's oftimes ignorance and convenient tunnel vision.

This quote summerizes some of the sentiment on Babble:

Quote:

Leftists I've spoken to were dismissive.  They disliked Tarek's frequent and sweeping attacks on what he calls "the left" (I prefer to use the term "leftists," since "the left" does not really exist in any organized form in North America in any case).  Another anti-Muslim book, they guessed, part of a cottage industry designed to demonize the selected victims of Western foreign policy.  Iraq is occupied, a million people killed.  Palestine is occupied, starved, choked to death.  Afghanistan is occupied.  Iran is threatened.  Deportations of Muslims are rampant in Western countries.  Secret trials are occurring.  The Egyptian regime receives billions in weaponry and subsidies in exchange for support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and suppression of the population.  Other dictatorships in Muslim countries receive similar largesse.  Of course, to do all this to a group of people requires an industry to produce convenient stories about them.  Anyone who can produce such stories will be rewarded handsomely, with sympathetic reviews, prominent placement in bookstores, and high sales for telling convenient things to people about what they are doing.

Does a balanced view require that one also say nice things about a person? Ok, I believe that Fatah is pretty smart, something very useful for a opportunist snake oil salesman and poseur. I suspect he also loves his children. There: Balance.

I remember e-mailing him, and asking him a question regarding the treatment of Muslims since 9/11. He said "did I honestly think the US was would do this?" as if that was way out of line.

I am dead serious. Tarek is like the writers they have for the Sun - a black man against blacks, a woman writer against women...they want to have token people to play and jump at their command. Sad part is, guys like Tarek do.

George Victor wrote:

There's apparently "good" and "bad" to be found in it.  Sorta human.

Another bad day for you, Cue?

How do you determine an opinion is balanced? What makes it so. Hey, I used to like Tarek. He was a good aquaintance of mine. Everything I say is based on personal experience. He is a grandstanding media hound, who will say whatever is needed to get him published. He loves being the native informant, denouncing everything from within. He says he is on the "left" and denounces leftist routinely, he says he is a Muslim, and does nothing but denounce Islam.

His entire history is of one of personal and political betrayal. I know this. I have seen it in action. He used to work with the NDP, and you will not find a single person who will speak well of him. Likewise, all the credible people who formed the MCC with him have little or nothing to do with him, except the hand chosen few who stuck around after the organization was gutted by Tarek outlandish antics and divisive tactics.

He resigned, saying he wanted to get out of the media spotlight because his views and activities with the MCC were progating death threats against him, and his family. A lie. Obviously because the next thing he did was quit the NDP and dramatically joined Bob Rae's Liberal leadership drive and even founded yet another "progresive" Muslim lobby group, writing profusely for various Canadian rags, and otherwise drawing attention to himself.

Odd behaviour for one who is heading in the Rushdiesque seculsion for his personal safety? What is the real story. The real story was that Tarek knew that he had nothing to fear from rampaging "Islamists" and was really just using the death threat story to get anothe by line in the Toronto Star, and enhance is reputation as a Muslim "dissident".

He is full of shit.

The difference is that the term "Islamist" is a term used almost exclusively by non-Muslims to identify any faithful Muslim who also has a political agenda, Islam is a term universally used to idenify a religion. The mirage that Tarek is chasing is the idea that their is an ideology called "Islamism".

It is a term originally invented by a small group of extremely anti-Muslim western scholars, whose primary thesis was the there was something essentially and definitevly different about Islam that made it more violent and repressive in comparison to the other religions in Judeao-Christian tradition, which were "compatible" with secular humanist tollerance, while Islam was not.

Zionists.