The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Monday, 17 May 2010

Amir Khan Wins for Islam and His Fellow Muslims

Well done to Amir Khan for winning his US debut at Madison Square Garden. He destroyed the local favourite, Paulie Malignaggi, and did so before the 12th round. One commentator said that he had ‘given Muslims something to cheer about’. Amir Khan himself said that he wants to win more titles ‘as a Muslim’...

Run that passed me again. Amir ‘King’ Khan wants to win more boxing titles ‘as a Muslim’? Not as a Brit? Or even as a guy from Bolton? As a Muslim. That’s funny. You don’t hear many Christian boxers, or any Christian sportsmen or women, saying they’d like to win X as a Christian. Not even devout Christians would say that. They win it for their country. Not for their religion. Admittedly, Khan has at times been seen to embrace the Union Jack. However, you often think that this is an afterthought on his part or something to help his fellow Muslims publicity-wise. Who knows? Am I being cynical here?

As for sporting Christians not doing the same for their religion. Many Muslims would themselves tell us that that’s because 'their religion does not mean as much to them as Islam does to Muslims'. They also often say that ‘Islam encompasses all of life’. And that’s the problem. Even devout Christians find it easy to make strong distinctions between the state and religion, between the private and the public, and so on. Christians have done so because the secular realm has been growing within Christian cultures and nations for over a thousand years – if not for much longer. So when Amir Khan seems incapable of distinguishing his religion from his sport, or even his religion from his nationhood, then that is precisely the problem with Muslims. They are too monomaniacal.

And Khan’s strong desire to succeed in the US? Is that a strong desire to succeed within the 'Great Satan' (Ayatollah Khomeini’s well-know name for the US)? Why is ‘fighting in America’ a ‘dream come true’ for Amir Khan? As a devout Muslim, what is his position on the US? Would he love to fight there because he loves the country and its upholding of freedom and democracy? I very much doubt it. Perhaps he just likes non-Muslim chicks and the gambling culture of ‘Vegas’. What do you reckon?

Khan doesn’t understand why he has experienced difficulty, as a Pakistani Britain, securing a US visa? Surely he must. Not even in a tiny tipsy wispy way? I don’t think he would have had many problems if he were, say, of Icelandic or even Kenyan (so it's not a racial deal) origin.

Amir Khan himself says that ‘a lot of the Pakistani people and Muslims get a bad name in the States’. I wonder why that is? Has it got anything to do with the fact that the last failed bomber, only a few weeks ago, was of Pakistani origin? More importantly than that. He was a Pakistani-based Islamist in indoctrination too. Pakistan is indeed an Islamic cesspool of suicide bombings, psychotic Islamists and Imams, honour killings and Christian church bombings. Is it any wonder that people ‘generalise’ about Pakistan and Pakistani Muslims? Of course it isn’t!

The implication is, when Khan says that ‘not all of us are like that’, that non-Muslims and Westerners are guilty of ‘generalising’ about Muslims, Pakistanis, etc. Many clever people on the far left and the liberal left, as well as Islamists themselves, argue that such generalisations are naïve and even un-philosophical. They are actually the exact opposite of naïve and un-philosophical. Generalising is often a deeply logical thing to do. You cannot exist, practically and cognitively, without generalising at least on occasion. (In fact, all of us do it all the time.) For example, when the Brits were fighting the Nazis during the Second World War, it wouldn’t have helped things, and it wouldn’t have been very logical, if Brit X said that 'most Nazis were basically OK' because he knew a single German flower arranger who hated the Nazis and Hitler. And his point was? That Germans are OK? That some Germans are OK? That one German is OK? And where would that have got the Brits at that moment of crisis? Absolutely nowhere.

And when I tell a friend to get a drink of water from the kitchen cold tap, am I generalising? Twice water has not come out of that tap. So does that make me a generaliser? No; it makes me logically sound.

So if 99.99% of all the world’s bombings, suicide bombings, honour killings, etc. are carried out by Muslims, and if they all think their acts are in allegiance to the Koran, am I then wrong to generalise about Muslims when I say that ‘they are members of a death cult’ or that ‘their religion is violent and aggressive’? Do I now need to change all my opinions about Islam, Muslims and even the Koran simply because Amir Khan is a boxer or Anila Baig, at the Sun, ‘simply loves EastEnders’? Of course not! Generalising about Islam and Muslims is still a logical thing to do. Indeed I wouldn’t even use the word ‘generalising’ because of its implications of brainlessness and logical deficit.

*) Note: Psychologically speaking, I find it hard to see any young British Pakistani Muslim without thinking of the Pakistani Muslim gang which hospitalised me (in Bradford's infamous Manningham district) and who have also physically attacked many people I know. I wonder if Amir Khan would have become a Muslim thug and crack/heroin seller (in the Crack/Heroin Jihad against the white working class) had he not made it big in boxing.

No comments:

Post a Comment