Comments Elsewhere

Macker:

I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries.

Me:

This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (especially Dubai), Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Albania, etc., and there have been since these countries came into existence.

Macker:

You really need to learn the difference between citizen immigrants, guest workers, resident foreign nationals, and the like.

No, I don’t. I’m already well aware of the difference. And I’m already well aware that South Asian immigrants (for example) to Saudi Arabia are often treated very badly, and that the vagaries of their legal status (as, effectively, domestic service braceros) are often used in order to maintain control over them and treat them more badly than they would tolerate otherwise. So what? My statement said nothing about debates over the legal status of immigrants. It said something about whether or not “Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims”. If you want to talk about citizenship or the shitty way that immigrants are often treated, fine, but you should have made it clear that that was what you wanted to talk about to begin with.

Let’s take one specific example, Saudi Arabia. You claim they are just peachy when it comes to immigration.

No, I don’t.

As for your statement about there being lots of non-Muslims as citizens in Muslim countries.

I didn’t make one.

If I were going to say anything about non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries, I’d point out that it’s very odd to try to make statements about a spectrum of different countries ranging from Indonesia, to Iran, to Iraq, to Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to Bosnia-Hercegovina. And probably that most general claims you make about the treatment of non-Muslims in such a large swath of the world are very likely to be false.

Macker:

Why don’t you show a little moral fiber and use your real name.

(1) … because I have a website called Rad Geek People’s Daily (where, incidentally, anyone who wants to know my real name can find it easily in one click)

(2) … because there happens to be an raving imbecile (with similar beliefs to yours, incidentally) whose name is also “Charles Johnson”; the less confusion there is between us, the better

(3) … because it’s fun

I’m not sure what any of these has to do with a lack of “moral fiber.” Maybe you can enlighten me on the moral dimensions of using a nickname online.