Re: "Islam, not extremism, is the problem"


Maria wrote:

Energumen wrote:
matthew.robb1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:08:01 GMT, Clough <inuit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What should be said is that Roman Catholic doctrine regarding
contraception is inhuman. Many people regarding themselves as Roman
Catholics reject this teaching, thus demonstrating that the less like
a Roman Catholic a person becomes, the more like a reasonable human
being he becomes.

Almost.

....thus demonstrating that the less doctrinaire a Roman Catholic
becomes (on this issue), the more like a reasonable human being s/he
becomes

No. You are quite wrong.

The less doctrinaire a Roman Catholic becomes, the less like a Roman
Catholic he becomes.

Just as the further a Muslim is from the doctine of the faith, the
less like a Muslim and the more like a reasonable human being he is.

As someone else said, the problem isn't the singer, the problem is the
song.

I accept that most Muslims are probably well meaning, friendly and
peaceable people. This does not alter the fact that the faith they
profess to believe in is a complete pile of inhuman, intolerant and
dangerous crap and they are only decent people inasmuch as the
distance between them and the doctrine of the faith increases.

This is definitional. You use 'Islam' and 'Roman Catholicism' to
describe a doctrine or set of doctrines as described in a text. I use
the same terms to mean the set of doctrines that self-identifying
members of the religion subscribe to in practice.

Using your definition, I largely agree, though there are obviously
redeeming aspects

It seems as though much of the disagreement with Energumen revolves
around the same issue. Though there may be something of substance in
the governmental issue


You are correct, and I don't like silly arguments about the definition
of words. This is similar to the argument I had before about whether
America shows that a multiethnic society can be successful. I was using
one definition of multiethnic while others were using other
definitions. What is most important is not to agree on definitions but
to agree on what is important. You may wish to define "Islam" as a
subset of people who describe themselves as Muslims and I may wish to
define it as a theological / philosophical position with the features
X, Y and Z. I don't care if you think my *definition* is wrong. The
important thing is that you understand that my definition, even if you
would prefer to give it another name, is important and relevant to the
matter in question.

I have never denied that there are degrees of nominalness in practice
but what annoys me is when people do not see the importance of the
non-compatibility of the foundational / defining aspects of Islam with
important values we hold. This is an extremely important issue. To say
that Islam is equivalent to Christianity by pointing out times and
places where Christians done things that are as nasty as those that
critics accuse Islam of, and then use this as evidence that Islam can
be "tamed" in the same way that Christianity was is fundamentally
flawed logic. Christianity's foundational and definitional features are
compatable with human rights and democracy, Islam's are not.

I would argue with that but not sure what is the point. If it's true,
then why so many wrangles within Christianity about the rightness or
wrongness of women priests, homosexuality, abortion, blood
transfusions, sex before marrige or the death penalty?

None of the above that you mention are a matter of contradiction of
basic human rights (eg. UN universal declaration) or democracy.


This is why so few Muslims who come to accept, at a level of depth,
human rights and democracy as I would understand them, end up calling
themselves Muslims at the end of that process. One who has done so is
Irshad Manji. While I accept her bone fides wrt her acceptance of
modern values and human rights I have difficulty in what way she can be
meaningfully described to be a Muslim. Most Muslims would concur with
me on that.

I take some issue with your assertions like 'so few' and 'most' Muslims
- how do you know this or are you projecting your rationalisation of
the facts onto others (who are lets be honest are unlikely to see
things the way that you do)?

I know this because I look at the world around me. If you know of lots
of people who believe in the teachings of Islam that accept human
rights and democracy and still call themselves Muslims then name them.
Name some of them specifically, eg. forename and surname. Then show
that the word "few" is inappropriate.

Similarly show evidence that a majority of Muslims accept the
theological analysis of Irshad Manji or else accept the word "most".


Are all people who carry a gun murderers? The guns do not murder - some
people carrying them commit murder with them because they are of a
wicked or unstable mind.
That some people have already or can temper their interpretation of
what they have learned about Islam is a necessary process for Islam to
'modernise' surely. To state that you are either a Muslim and therefore
you cannot possibly believe in HR or you do believe in them and
therefore you cannot be a Muslim is a very black and white view which
leaves no room for improvement. You don't take issue with Christians
and Jews because by and large they have tempered what they are taught
to fit modern life - you don't say that they therefore can't be real
Christians or Jews.

No, you are wrong. It is non-contradictory to be a biblical literalist
and support basic HR. If you believe otherwise then show a
contradiction.

In my experience, nothing in the world, especially people, are not
black and white and do not change their views overnight - their
opinions evolve over a period of time by degrees of influence.
Do you want Islam itself to change, or do you just wish to eradicate
it?

Islam is a philosophy of life as written by one man for his own
benefit. Yes, I would like to eradicate it, given the choice.


BTW I don't know if you saw Question Time this week from Russia - it
was interesting to see the discussions about democracy and human
rights. The conclusion was that many Russian people don't know much
about these things because its democracy is very young and they haven't
yet had enough time to understand what it means to be democratic or to
put it into practice (and even more difficulty that Russia has taken
backward steps away from democratic values recently). They also
concluded that democracy could evolve in Russia given a chance and that
therefore it was better for the 'West' to take an inclusive approach
towards Russia, rather than isolating it to try and force a chance
externally.

So? Saying that Russia can become democratic is nothing like saying
that Islam can become compatable with human rights or that Communism
can become compatable with laissez faire capitalism.

There were also people present who were rather fed-up with the
criticisms of the West about their approach to human rights and
democracy. I found it interesting because most people I know perceive
Russian society as being wholly compatible with Western values, when
evidently it isn't.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Jews
    ... Why is Islam so feared and derided today? ... Muslims also hold true to economic democracy in the form ... When Muslims, like those 'extremist' Iranians, reject the societies ... of reality: the truth only comes out in peripheral areas. ...
    (talk.politics.mideast)
  • Re: Jews
    ... Why is Islam so feared and derided today? ... Muslims also hold true to economic democracy in the form ... When Muslims, like those 'extremist' Iranians, reject the societies ... of reality: the truth only comes out in peripheral areas. ...
    (talk.politics.mideast)
  • Re: Western descrimination on rise
    ... Muslims Are Good Folks wrote: ... As to violation of human rights in Canada, ... There is nothing like Islam on earth. ... religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Building democracy in the Islamic world
    ... So is there any possibility of building democracy in the Islamic ... In Islam, there can be no freedom of religion, freedom ... |> by Muslims is by nature away from secular, ... |> nominal Muslims who would prefer Western democracy to Islamic Sharia - ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Truth about Islam
    ... Why is Islam so feared and derided today? ... Pound's biographer Professor Hugh Kenner - with whom I had the honour ... Muslims also hold true to economic democracy in the form ... When Muslims, like those 'extremist' Iranians, reject the societies ...
    (talk.politics.mideast)
Loading