"Rape as an idea shd only be criticized where it is a national pastime (as even its defenders r open to be raped): not where it is beginning to claim its right to be a national pastime. As long as its defenders can control who gets raped, its all good".
https://twitter.com/TahaSSiddiqui/status/1307108022615977984
Its ridiculous to claim that an ideology can only conditionally be criticized, depending on where, when, and by whom. If an ideology has flaws, it has them everywhere - and always. If extremists can derive their support from the ideology, then the fault lies with the ideology.
Siddiqui's argument can only be understood as refusal to accept that the ideology may itself hv elements that nurtures "extremist" views persistently and repeatedly over wide swathes of time and place as evidenced in history of that ideology and its real life implementations.
It also could be seen as an attempt to protect oneself from the ideology's full coercive mode in Pakistan - as there it shows signs of sparing none, not even its defenders and apologists who can no longer control it sufficiently to save themselves from what they whitewashed.
But at the same time the apologist is reluctant to let go of the coercive power the ideology afforded - an effective tool to use against non-Muslim majority populations, and hence the insistence to immunity for the ideology, where it is yet to gain military dominance.
A selective and conditional application of right to criticize an ideology is an opportunist one: it does not believe its own stated stance of allowing criticism. Rather it seeks to control the ideology's coercive application sufficiently to redirect on others.
Blasphemy laws are claimed by ideologues who are unsure of the validity of their ideology, who fear what weakness and flaw any criticism might reveal and confirm, who constantly need reaffirmation from numbers of faithful& fear criticism may reduce that number by showing flaws.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
