Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- From: "Zuiko Azumazi" <azumazi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Aug 2005 01:30:05 GMT
"John Eritsu" <Eritsu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:deg61b$me4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Salaam John,.
> Enough of this personal thing. But I often enjoy your angle, only if I can
> see it more easily:-)
<snip> ...
Comment:-
With respect, I don't have an "angle" (i.e. a biased way of looking at or
presenting something). It's essentially what I'm against. Too many
pseudo-controversies are caused by these frequent hidden "angles". Making
sense of a post then becomes how do subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
discover what they are. That is the underlying or real agenda (i.e
referent - something referred to; the 'object' of a reference in the post).
This leads to the conclusion, should participatory subscribers 'criticise'
Muslim gossip, myth and shibboleth? Are the frequent presumptuous
'statements' made by some Muslim 'pundits' beyond criticism? Can any
meaningful social consensus be arrived at by edict or proclamation? Can
theoretical 'unity' be practically achieved under such conditions in today's
world, Islamic or otherwise?
If one criticises an idiosyncratic Muslim 'poster', are we in fact
generically criticising Islam? I don't think so. Although, one observes,
that many such idiosyncratic 'poster's' rely on the 'criticising Islam' as
their main defence. That is those who mistakenly believe they have been
given a right to act as the infallible spokesman for Muslim society.
In SRI, one comments on what has been written directly by other subscribers.
Commentary "focus" is dependent to a large extent on these circumstances.
> As regards the thing in UK, it is an old story. It is not just isolation,
or
> non ascimillation into the main stream. The problem is totally different.
To
> understand it, please examine three communities in USA:
> 1. Amesh
> 2.. Mormons
> 3. Branch Deovidians (David Kuresh, remember him?)
> Let me know what you think.
Comment:-
"Community" is such a slippery portmanteau word, as is shown in these
references. For instance, is the 'free-exercise of these particular
religions or cults an overriding or delimiting factor in the 'identity'
context of say USA citizenship? Do the members of these diverse 'community'
groups deeply 'identify' themselves with their 'foreign' country of origin,
language, culture and politics? What image are we meant to understand from
these examples, when there are potentially so many to chose from? Are we
trying to justify and rationalise Pakistani-Muslim (no offence) 'ethnic
community' behaviour based on these examples? Can Islam be achieved in a
theoretical 'commune' or 'ghetto'?
In the sociological sense, what is the difference between 'community' and
'society'? Do most Muslim recognise the intrinsic differences? Do they see
them as rivals with each other?
--
Peace
--
Negative findings are sometimes as important as positive ones,
since they cut down the total universe of ignorance. [F. N. Kerlinger]
Zuiko Azumazi
azumazi@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- From: John Eritsu
- Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- References:
- Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- From: Zuiko Azumazi
- Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- From: John Eritsu
- Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- Prev by Date: Re: Salman Rushdie on "Muslim Reformation"
- Next by Date: Re: What is Free Will
- Previous by thread: Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- Next by thread: Re: Millat and its natural dire consequences?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
