|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is There Anything Which We Can Or Should Do About Islamism?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's clear that the link between attitudes such as those cited and Breivik are far more direct than those between terrorist attacks on the US and Islam.
There´s enormous difference between having an opinion and taking violent action against people who believe the oposite. One doesn´t need to support or defend Islam fervorously in order to be tolerant.
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) OliviaG
We should be so lucky, if the worst that Islamism ever came up with was a similarly unpleasant, isolated and ineffectual Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would say that a lot of Islamism is political, and not simply religious. Thus 9/11 didn't target a big Christian cathedral, but some of the key centres of American power.
Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that a lot of Islamism is political, and not simply religious. Thus 9/11 didn't target a big Christian cathedral, but some of the key centres of American power.
Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
Will they call it US imperialism? Maybe, but enough western politicians have made a big thing of their faith that I'm sure on some forums you can read 'Is there anything that can or should do about Christism*?'.
*Not sure that's a word, but you get the idea.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The other interesting aspect of this is the collapse of the Arab left, which partly coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and also with the utter bankruptcy of 'Arab socialism', which had turned into various forms of dictatorship.
And in addition, probably some elements on the left were just physically wiped out, as in Iraq.
So this has left a gaping void in relation to radical anti-capitalist, and anti-American politics, which Islamism has in many ways filled.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
Out of curiosity, what actions have you seen Dawkins propose other than evangelising the good news that we are free to make our own way and shouldn't listen to imaginary beings?
quote:
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
Setting us up for Jihad vs. McWorld:
quote:
The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions ... They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically.
There are people who have caused just as much harm to humanity and to our world as any terrorist - or more. We give them a pass because they do it for money and wear nice suits. I'm not naive about what Kaplan Corday calls "Islamism", but on a personal level, I'm far more concerned about enemies that are closer and more dangerous.
On a global level, I think it is ridiculous to think that all those evils would go away if all those Muslims would just convert to a nicer religion. Marvin the Martian nailed it - the real problem is absolutism, not religion. Now add poverty, illiteracy, disease, and my perennial favourite, patriarchy. Toss in economic upheaval, pollution and climate change, and top with a plutocratic monarch or dictator and o noez! secret police, human rights violations, conflict, communal violence, etc. But it's just so much easier - and profitable and convenient - to blame religion rather than the real sources of human misery. The ones we are complicit in or profit from. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... and I know of no case or cases of rape on the part of Christians in which they have been cited as permitting it.
Do you?
I've seen a report of that. In response, would you want to say that such a person wasn't a Christian? Would you want to say that other factors, not Christianity, are responsible for such crimes? If so, well - so would I! From that example to the reported killings by Mr Breivik, to the killings in Srebenica and Rwanda, to attempts to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid using the Bible, I'd want to say that these examples involve corruptions of Christianity (and/or other factors, such as the pursuit of power and ethnic hatred), not authentic Christian faith. Can we agree on that?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
If I'm willing to say that Mr Breivik didn't represent real Christianity, then how could I disagree with a Muslim who says that the World Trade Center attackers didn't represent real Islam?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or ... whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
If we wouldn't let extremists define Christianity, how can we let extremists define Islam? I once heard someone illustrate a 'circular argument' like this:
We know that there was a St George and that he killed a dragon, since:
(a) we know that there was a St George, because he killed the dragon
(b) we know that there was a dragon, because St George killed it
In a similar way, you seem to be arguing that:
(a) we know that Islam is extremist, because extremists say so
(b) we know that extremists represent real Islam, because Islam is extremist
To me, that looks circular - and an argument that you wouldn't accept, if it was applied to Christianity.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
Out of curiosity, what actions have you seen Dawkins propose other than evangelising the good news that we are free to make our own way and shouldn't listen to imaginary beings?
Dawkins has frequently said that Something Should Be Done about religious people raising children (and not only in off-the-cuff remarks which were quoted completely out of context, honest) although he's been careful to suggesting anything concrete.
Aside from that, he's moved on from evangelising religious believers. He's mostly now on convincing atheists and agnostics to disassociate themselves from the religious believers and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
quote:
quote:
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
There's the beginning of the Terror in the French Revolution, before Robespierre overcame the Hebertists.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century.
It might have been understandable, if not justifiable, given the nature of the Roman Catholicism in Spain, but that is a separate issue.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
We should be so lucky, if the worst that Islamism ever came up with was a similarly unpleasant, isolated and ineffectual Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps.
We should be so lucky if the worst that Christism ever came up with was Fred Phelps.
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I think we should give them the freedom to live their religion as they perceive it - after all, they are not the real enemy. As Bob Dylan sang, "...but the enemy I see, wears a cloak of decency...."
The real enemy is Secular Humanism in it's many guises (eg. Scientism) - and they would love nothing better than to see us (who at least believe in God) fighting with each other - "There, see what religious people are like? We told you so!" they will say...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
As someone who has, quite correctly, IMHO, dropped out of this thread, may I be allowed this brief cameo appearance, to post this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Reuel Marc Gerecht, which, I think, might inform the discussion?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577350200925769444.html
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a real person, with all the normal limitations, so should a Shippie wish to criticise the critic rather than the critique, I attach his biography, readily available on the web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuel_Marc_Gerecht
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Yes, that would explain the murder of 283 nuns.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Yes, that would explain the murder of 283 nuns.
Well it might. Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Personally reminds me of the assumption my 'own' folk make that if someone kills a gay person, it must be because they were gay. Harvey Milk being an example.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents.
The line between "these religious people are propping up our political opponents" and "religion in general impedes human progress" is I think a fairly slight one.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century.
It was always going to happen that somebody would exploit anticlerical killings to distract attention from the fact that religion is a real problem.
9/11, the Bali bombings, the London July bombing, and so on all show that religion is a force for evil.
Is there anything which we can or should do about religion?
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
2) Exclude all religious believers from public office?
3) Round them up and reeducate religionists in concentration camps, making sure to sterilise them in case it's a genetic disposition?
4) Just kill them all.
I hope that political correctness won't impede an honest discussion of the above options.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
So what were the alternative characteristics that might have motivated militant atheists to murder them?
Being women?
Then why were thirteen bishops, 4,184 priests and 2,365 members of other orders, a total of 6,562 males, murdered as well?
(The figures are from The Battle For Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-9 by Antony Beevor, who is unfriendly toward the Catholics, and therefore sticks to the conservative ie lower estimates).
Being power-wielders?
Bishops, maybe priests, but not nuns.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
It is difficult to imagine anything less politically correct than defending religion.
I don't know what parallel universe you're living in.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
The KKK probably contains more FBI agents than actual members these days, and when I googled KKK/Muslims I found nothing; the IRA is moribund and in its heyday probably shared quite a fraternal feeling with similarly murderous Islamists; and the Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago.
Why should Muslims give a fuck about any of them?
I have just received my latest edition of the Barnabasfund magazine, and despite its no doubt being concocted by a cabal of CIA, Mossad and Vatican agents, in my simplicity I happen to believe its reports about Christians and others suffering at the hands of Islamists in places such as Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Pakistan.
At such times, the spectacle of safe and secure politically correct Westerners performing sophistical contortions to obfuscate Islamism ceases being amusing and becomes simply nauseating.
[ 24. April 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
So what were the alternative characteristics that might have motivated militant atheists to murder them?
Being women?
Then why were thirteen bishops, 4,184 priests and 2,365 members of other orders, a total of 6,562 males, murdered as well?
(The figures are from The Battle For Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-9 by Antony Beevor, who is unfriendly toward the Catholics, and therefore sticks to the conservative ie lower estimates).
Being power-wielders?
Bishops, maybe priests, but not nuns.
Being on the other side of the conflict. I thought the point being made was obvious. In fact I suspect you're wilfully missing it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
The KKK probably contains more FBI agents than actual members these days, and when I googled KKK/Muslims I found nothing; the IRA is moribund and in its heyday probably shared quite a fraternal feeling with similarly murderous Islamists; and the Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago.
Why should Muslims give a fuck about any of them?
I have just received my latest edition of the Barnabasfund magazine, and despite its no doubt being concocted by a cabal of CIA, Mossad and Vatican agents, in my simplicity I happen to believe its reports about Christians and others suffering at the hands of Islamists in places such as Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Pakistan.
At such times, the spectacle of safe and secure politically correct Westerners performing sophistical contortions to obfuscate Islamism ceases being amusing and becomes simply nauseating.
I guarantee you the Middle East has not forgotten the Crusades.
Al Qaeda is the equivalent of the KKK in the Muslim world. They're fanatics that have twisted the words of their respective holy books to their own evil ends. Al Qaeda is just as despised by Muslims as the KKK is by Christians.
The fact that the KKK and IRA on 'on their way out' (thank God!) is irrelevant. At no time, not now nor in their heydays would anyone have posed the question "What ought good, honest Muslims to do about this problem?"
Similarly while we so flippantly discuss what the West ought to do regarding the problems of "Islamism"; most would consider it wildly inappropriate for the Arab League to get too involved in matters pertaining to Israel and their state-sanctioned persecution of Muslims (and Christians).
Now, I don't deny the reports of Christians and others suffering at the hands of radical Islam; but we can't sit here considering our 'rightful' course of action if we deny them any course of action in similar circumstances.
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
This is long and detailed, and more of a media analysis from a USA POV, but gives a broad picture of the Church's voice during the Spanish Civil War.
quote:
It was this religious aspect that so inflamed the Catholic journalists of America. One of the most pervasive and brutal campaigns ever waged against the Catholic Church was occurring in the Republican-controlled areas of Spain. Editors printed story after story to the families of Catholic America about the terrible toll inflicted by the forces of the Popular Front against the Church and its clergy.12 Conversely, they also detailed the crusade-like atmosphere of the nationalist armies. The Carlists speak for themselves. They went into battle with the Sacred Heart pinned to their chests and died with "Viva Cristo Rey!" on their lips. Franco himself many times wore the Carlist red beret. Catholic sources never tired of stories of Catholic heroism, especially of the astonishing narratives of the Simancas barracks and the defense of the Alcazar. These began in about November of 1936 and never let up throughout the course of the war. Many authors emphasized that American Catholics could not come to terms with this level of clerical and ecclesial persecution. They had no historical reference point, as they had been raised in an atmosphere of pluralism and tolerance.
American Catholics and the Spanish Civil War
As for who is important enough to be a legitimate target in a war, that's a question that goes far beyond any particular conflict. In the 21st Century, it looks like the answer is "anybody". ![[Frown]](frown.gif) OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Irish lord99 wrote:
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
Yes, it's amusing really that the problem becomes the militant response to Western interference, rather than the interference. Gosh, you mean that Iranians actually still remember the coup of 53, against a democratic govt, part funded by the CIA? Erm, I believe they do, and remembered it when the Shah was overthrown. I believe the CIA call it blowback, and the British called it just not cricket.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
It is difficult to imagine anything less politically correct than defending religion.
I appreciate that 'politically correct' is vague enough to mean anything that a right-wing commentator wants it to mean. Nevertheless, I can't think of any meaning of 'politically correct' by which defending religion is less politically correct than, off the top of my head, defending someone who shot an unarmed black teenager because he might have been threatening.
quote:
I don't know what parallel universe you're living in.
It's the one of the ones with heavy-handed satire and irony in it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I guarantee you the Middle East has not forgotten the Crusades. {/QUOTE]
Rodney Stark, in his book on the Crusades, God's Battalions, claims that the Crusades grievance is not a millenium-old folk memory, but was deliberately manufactured by Wahhabists about a century ago.
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
[QUOTE]What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
I'm not sure to what or whom the "we" refers.
I made my own scepticism about military intervention quite clear earlier in the thread.
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault, and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future. The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
Believe it or not, I do not have any secret pet scheme of my own which I think would resolve the situation, which is why I posted the OP.
What is complete and utter bullshit, however, is to pretend that there is no such thing as Islamism; that no moderates, women or members of non-Muslim religions suffers from it; and that therefore to even invite discussion of this non-issue is ipso facto "Islamophobic".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
I would recommend a mixture of these two:
quote:
5. Respect for democracy. Muslims, given the opportunity, sometimes give the majority vote to (what seem to us) repressive and illiberal parties, as seems to be happening as an outcome of the so-called Arab Spring.
quote:
9.Write to or email offending governments, or support human rights advocacy groups which are doing so.
But I would alter 9.
I would write to your own government to stand up for human rights abuses. They do this already. Your opinions would support that.
In particular, I would right to and get involved in supporting the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East say pressure has to come from the international scene - not the US.
You could also support the great work they do .
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday wrote:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault, and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future. The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
It would also be an astonishingly naive thing to say - that 'all the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault'. How could that be true? For example, the deep patriarchal biases in the Muslim and Arab world exist without Western interference, I assume.
However, it is possible that Western interference has made the Arab and Muslim world enraged with the West, and therefore more likely to embrace militant actions against it.
Of course, T. Blair and others have denied this, and have claimed that the war in Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the support for Israeli ethnic cleansing, and so on, in themselves do not lead to increased Arab and Muslim militancy.
Maybe T. Blair is correct, and in fact, the world has been made safer. I suppose we are engaged in an interesting experiment to see if he is.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... “bad” Islam, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Islamism, a term embracing terrorism; intolerance and persecution of other religions; inequality and mistreatment of women; imposition of sharia law; and opposition to democracy and liberalism (freedom of expression, association, etc ...
For the umpteenth time, all those things happen in the absence of Islam as well. (Obvious exception being sharia law, but plenty of countries, including the USA, still impose the death penalty. Some Jewish communities have their own rabbinical courts for family law.) Why should our attitude towards "bad Islam" be any different from our attitude towards bad capitalism, bad Buddhism, or bad monarchy? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Why should our attitude towards "bad Islam" be any different from our attitude towards bad capitalism, bad Buddhism, or bad monarchy? OliviaG
Because, with the possible exception of capitalism, in each case the real problems are better addressed by addressing the real problems rather than the supposed cause.
If the problem is the abuse of women's rights, then the solution is to address women's rights.
If the problem is terrorism, then find out what the specific aims of the particular terrorists are and then work out what to do about that. As an example, in Iraq there were Shi'a terrorists blowing up Sunnis and Sunni terrorists blowing up Shi'a. If you think that the problem is 'Islamism' or 'bad Islam' you don't have any conceptual resources to address Muslim terrorists blowing up Muslims.
If the problem is a lack of support for liberal democracy then the solution is to argue the case for liberal democracy - and refrain from funding dictators who are willing to give the West oil on the cheap.
You address the problems, not some supposed overarching superproblem.
(The reason capitalism might be an exception is that capitalism genuinely is a structural principle that organises societies; it's not primarily a set of theories.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The other, really obvious, thing to do if you think there's something called Islamism that is a problem, is to post on Muslim boards and ask about it. Posting on a Christian website (ITTWACW) is really rather pointless.
If someone is serious about thinking there are problems with Islam and they are serious about doing something about those problems then the first thing they do is talk to some Muslims and ask them what they think.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's too sensible. It's much more satisfying to posit an hideous Other, whom one can then froth and rant about. What's not to like? Fear and loathing all nicely packaged.
Thinking again about T. Blair, if he is right that various incursions into the Arab/Muslim world have made the world safer, surely we should therefore invade Iran? Then the world would be even safer. You know it makes sense.
[ 25. April 2012, 10:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs. Any "who started it" argument of this sort is likely to find out that it was the older group.
quote:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
That is because you are getting a consistent response from most people that runs along the lines of "Your question is based on a lie. There is no such thing as 'Islamism' - even the very word is an invention of bigots. The question you asked is loaded. And although there are definite problems in the Islamic world any such attempt at a simplistic definition confuses wood for trees and is itself part of a problem."
So what should be done about Islamism? Exactly what we are doing. Pointing out that the users of this term are bigots. This doesn't mean that nothing should be done about the lack of womens rights in Afghanistan, or the Wahabbism and general religious problems of Saudi Arabia to name but two issues. But these are not the same issue.
Further one of the worst things we can do as outsiders is to imply that all forms of Islam are the problem, as short sighted words like 'Islamism' do. Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians. They first close ranks as they are being attacked, and then tune you out because it's obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Any possible leverage or persuasion you have will be lost. And that when most Christians who've heard of them are at least as keenly unhappy with Jack Chick and Fred Phelps as any atheist - it's not the Atheists' religion that those two are dragging into disrepute.
Which means if you actually give a damn about the problems you see and call Islamism, the first thing you yourself can do is stop referring to Islamism because just using that word adds to any existing problems, losing you potential allies and causing those who are unhappy to rally round as they are under attack.
quote:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly:
That would have been as stupid, wrongheaded, bigotted, and counterproductive as chalking everything up to "Islamism" is.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is also the point that Islamism itself exists on a spectrum. Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
In fact, one hears of moderate Taliban. They give you a cup of tea, before cutting off your head.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
In Turkey there are dozens of varieties of Islam. There are some who have a non-realist theology that isn't far from the "Sea of Faith". Others sign up to various mystical and universalist interpretations of Islam. (The same is true of other mostly Muslim countries as well of course, though its perhaps more widespread in Turkey than in most Arab countries)
Its worth noting that in the past some of the most violent political groups were followers of the more liberal or mystical theologies,. Not all sufis are nice fluffly cuddly bunnies.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, one hears of moderate Taliban. They give you a cup of tea, before cutting off your head.
The British Taliban.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs.
No, not at all. The monophysite churches resisted conversion to Islam more than the others did. The centre of the so-called monophysite churches is Egypt, which remained a largely Christian population for the first few centuries of Muslim rule. Ethiopia and Armenia never went Muslim at all, though Artmenia as it is now is far smaller than ancient or mediaeval Armenia was. Large parts of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria remained Armenian Christian until well after the Turkish conquest - some until the Great War.
The eastern churches that lost most numbers after the first Muslim expansion were Arab were Nestorian ones. Both monophysites and the Melkite minority hung on for centuries. Christianity also almost entirely disappeared in north-west Africa where they were officially Orthodox Chalcedonian Catholics (with a capital "O" and "C" because this is before the Great Schism. Some people have speculated than in fact they were mostly in schism because of a hanogover from Donatism, I'm not sure of that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
There was a huge financial incentive for the invaders to keep as many Egyptian christians as christians - that way they had to fork out all the tolls, tributes and taxes associated with their dhimmi status.
The mass conversions really only start to take hold once the period of the Mamluks is underway, considerably later. They became much more capricious and often targeted christian civil officials, both to make examples of them and encourage the population to convert.
I've seen the statement that the conversions were due to arguments with Chalcodonian christians before somewhere else, but I've not found any support in my reading around the subject in history books - any chance of a reference, Justinian if you feel it correct? Undoubtedly the Byzantines treated the monophysites badly, though.
In other parts of former Christendom invaded by Islam, the Encyclopedia of Islam records relation varying between the highly supportive and the outright hostile, largely on the basis of personal relations between the ruled and rulers of that area.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
I'm not sure to what or whom the "we" refers.
The West, as was indicated in the beginning of my paragraph.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I made my own scepticism about military intervention quite clear earlier in the thread.
Yes, but I did not specify military intervention. You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
I'm challenging your double standard.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
Several people, including myself (near the bottom of page three), have said that option 4(patience, it needs to be an internal process within Islam) is the best choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault,
Problem is, I don't believe that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future.
Plenty can be done, but IMO should not; if for no other reason than the West's pathetic track record of failed attempts to intervene either militarily, politically, or otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
Nice straw man. Radical Christianity is as bad as radical Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Believe it or not, I do not have any secret pet scheme of my own which I think would resolve the situation, which is why I posted the OP.
I didn't think you did. Again, what I'm challenging is the assumption that the West has the right to do X, but the Middle East doesn't have the right to do jack.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is complete and utter bullshit, however, is to pretend that there is no such thing as Islamism; that no moderates, women or members of non-Muslim religions suffers from it; and that therefore to even invite discussion of this non-issue is ipso facto "Islamophobic".
Again, nice straw man. The first half of that paragraph is perfectly true, and I don't think anyone here is saying that radical Islam is non-existent or less than horrible. No one is saying it's a none issue. The charge of Islamophobia is leveled at the attempt to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of the radical stuff out there and place a higher priority on Muslims that persecute Christians instead of (for example) Zionists that persecute Muslims (and Christians).
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the point that Islamism itself exists on a spectrum. Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
Just to interject, I've lived in Turkey for over five years now, and the most extreme Muslim I've met would make your average Evangelical look like a raving loon by comparison. Terrorism is IME universally condemned by the Turkish Turks (some Kurdish Turks obviously use terrorist tactics, but not for religious reasons).
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs.
No, not at all. The monophysite churches resisted conversion to Islam more than the others did. The centre of the so-called monophysite churches is Egypt, which remained a largely Christian population for the first few centuries of Muslim rule. Ethiopia and Armenia never went Muslim at all, though Artmenia as it is now is far smaller than ancient or mediaeval Armenia was. Large parts of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria remained Armenian Christian until well after the Turkish conquest - some until the Great War.
The eastern churches that lost most numbers after the first Muslim expansion were Arab were Nestorian ones. Both monophysites and the Melkite minority hung on for centuries. Christianity also almost entirely disappeared in north-west Africa where they were officially Orthodox Chalcedonian Catholics (with a capital "O" and "C" because this is before the Great Schism. Some people have speculated than in fact they were mostly in schism because of a hanogover from Donatism, I'm not sure of that.
We are supposed to refer to non-Chalcedonians as Dyophysite (rather than Nestorian) and Miaphysite (rather than Monophysite) these days, though I don't know why.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
Now that's an intriguing comment coming from the scourge of (if I might indulge in a pig-Latin neologism) homostramentumism.
The only right to "intervention" which I have ever maintained is the right to openly discuss what happens in the Muslim world free of McCarthyite-style accusations of "Islamophobia".
I have not advocated any programme beyond that.
And ss for Muslims, there is nothing I would like better than for them to have the right to open discussion of anything they liked, including attitudes and responses to the non-Muslim world.
The primary obstacle to that happy outcome is the intolerance and repression of Islamist regimes.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Further one of the worst things we can do as outsiders is to imply that all forms of Islam are the problem, as short sighted words like 'Islamism' do. Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians.
Ihe analogy between Phelps/Chick on the one hand, and Taleban, Al Qaeda, misogyny, theocracy, violence against other religions, etc. on the other, would have to be one of the most desperate and unconvincing ever drawn.
Actually, if you read what I wrote instead of what you would like me to have written, you would see that I have consistently drawn a distinction between "moderate and progressive followers of Islam" and Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
The implication that anything unacceptable involving Muslims must be regarded only in its specific context (historical, social, political,, whatever) and in isolation from its wider Islamic context, is a disingenuous half-truth.
If similar abuses were being commmitted over as widespread an area, and with the same level of intensity, by avowed Christians, it is inconceivable that anyone would demand that they be treated in isolation, with no reference to their common Christian element.
And if anyone believes that this is in fact the case, then they should be equally free (because it would be equally legitimate) to ask "how should we respond to the dark side of Christianity?".
Oops, they already do!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are getting a consistent response from most people
I have heard about insularity and parochialism, but that's wonderful.
Hello! There is a world outside the Ship!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
Regardless of who invented it, it's still a bad term. I acknowledge that you make a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism", but the latter term itself is clearly designed to minimise the distinction and imply a direct and inevitable link.
'Radicalism' would be much better. If you want to be more specific, then 'radicalism amongst Muslims' would, in my view, work much better, simply because it makes clear that it is not a claim that the term applies to all Muslims.
Whereas "Islamism" makes it very difficult to conceive of a term that applies to non-Islamist followers of Islam.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians.
Actually, if you read what I wrote instead of what you would like me to have written, you would see that I have consistently drawn a distinction between "moderate and progressive followers of Islam" and Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd: quote:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
So you've been consistently drawing a distinction between moderate and progressive followers of Islam and 'Islamism' by insinuating - sorry, ingenuously raising the question without any agenda - that the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are 'bad' Muslims and only 'Islamism' is taking Islam seriously?
(Just because I didn't invent a racial epithet doesn't mean I wouldn't be racist if I were to use it.)
quote:
If similar abuses were being commmitted over as widespread an area, and with the same level of intensity, by avowed Christians, it is inconceivable that anyone would demand that they be treated in isolation, with no reference to their common Christian element.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ 26. April 2012, 09:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are getting a consistent response from most people
I have heard about insularity and parochialism, but that's wonderful.
Hello! There is a world outside the Ship!
So when you wrote, What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up, you didn't mean no-one on the Ship has taken them up. You meant no-one on or in the world outside the Ship, not even the looniest right-wing echo-chambers, has taken up any of your options? The fact that not even in the right-wing echo-chambers can you find any support for any of your options should tell you something, shouldn't it?
Or is the claim that you weren't talking only about the Ship something that you made up on the spur of the moment just to come back at Justinian?
You know, if you thought the Ship was insular and parochial why did you post your OP here? Rather than on a Muslim talking board where it might actually have achieved something?
Incidentally, the world is not short of atheists who want to blame everything bad that anyone did in Europe between 306 AD and the present on Christianity. You might not be able to conceive of anyone thinking that Christianity should not be treated as a common element. I can conceive of that. Indeed, I myself think that Christianity should not be treated as a common element.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm quite fascinated, actually, exactly how Kaplan Corday expects to get any responses to the proposed options from outside the Ship.
I can only conclude that parallel threads have been set up on a number of other message boards?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
Now that's an intriguing comment coming from the scourge of (if I might indulge in a pig-Latin neologism) homostramentumism.
The only right to "intervention" which I have ever maintained is the right to openly discuss what happens in the Muslim world free of McCarthyite-style accusations of "Islamophobia".
I have not advocated any programme beyond that.
Not sure what you mean by homostramentumism?
The OP (not to mention the freaking TITLE of the thread) strongly implies the right to intervene far beyond 'discussion.'
And we are discussing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And ss for Muslims, there is nothing I would like better than for them to have the right to open discussion of anything they liked, including attitudes and responses to the non-Muslim world.
The primary obstacle to that happy outcome is the intolerance and repression of Islamist regimes.
I think you're confusing radical Islam with basic human nature.
All dictatorships are intolerant and repressive, there's nothing special about dictatorships where a Muslim is the dictator.
Hell, the reason we have terms like 'freedom of speech' is because the founders of America had lived under an oppressive Christian regime and had not had that freedom.
20-30 years ago it was the communists.
This too shall pass.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
