Jason Pappas has a very interesting post in which he evaluates in detail the two major philosophical schools in the West that are seeking to do something with Islam. There is the secular-humanism/Enlightenment school, and the Judeo-Christian religious school. Both of these schools equally and competitively seek to engage global Islam on different levels. I think everyone who has some interest in Islam on this blog will fall, in general, into one of those two categories. Pastorius, for example, in the second. I tend to fall towards the secular-humanist side. But which 'critique' you are bringing up against "Islam" is just one step of the major question we need to ask.
The second question is even more important. That is this: why is it that you have chosen one of those two schools and seek to engage "Islam"? Your motivation is as important as your classification. Here are what I believe to be the predominant impulses guiding Western attitudes towards Islam, in no particular order.
1 - Hate, comingled with vengeance, and an outright desire to see Islam expelled from this world, both temporally, historically and in the future. People in this camp cite an infinite number of facts to argue their position, suggesting that Islam is inherently evil, Muslims are inherently corrupted by Islam, and that anyone who puts his forehead to the floor to Allah, or reads the Quran to his children, is a diseased caricature of a man. Those in this camp tend to say that either the Muslim needs to be saved from himself; or we need to make sure that we are safe *from* the Muslim. War against Islam must be pre-emptive.
2 - Caution, co-mingled with a reflective apprehensiveness of the form Islam has taken today. People in this camp also distrust Islam. But they don't necessarily claim that the "essence" of Islam is inappropriate or problematic. They are capable of recognizing that during the course of history and today Islam has shaped the lives of innumerable individuals of decency. Having granted that, they are not really willing to concede anymore and with regards to Islam today, seek to have it recognize that the West has far outstripped Islam, and therefore, Islam should show some humility and 1) give recognition to the West for its accomplishments and 2) re-shape itself to look something like the West. In the eyes of this group, those Muslims who wish to take Islam into the future are either misguided, hopeless, or need mental help (but certainly don't need to be killed or eradicated). War against Islam is not a given, doesn't necessarily have to be pre-emptive, but must be delcarative.
3 - Recognition, of Islam as a historical process; a process exactly like every other religion or ideology over the course of time. One might call them the contextualists. They try to place every ill that afflicts the Muslim world, and every ill that the Muslim world might inflict upon itself or upon others, to a certain historical process, which process, in their mind, is flawed, and needs to be fixed. They have no problem conceding and recognizing that Islam is lacking in intellectual manpower, but they do wish for all critics to recognize that there are both internal and external causal factors for this. In other words, the problem isn't just that the Muslim world is not trying hard enough to be like the West (as Group # 2 would argue). The problem is bigger, more subtle, and multi-layered, and needs similar solutions. Western support of Muslim tyrannies (India from 1857 to 1947, Saudi Arab, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq pre 2002, Iran pre 1979, Afghanistan mujahideen pre 1996), is recognized as a contributing factor in creating a culture of despair and rage in the Muslim world for the last 100 years. This group is also concerned with the role of colonialism in this debate. Group # 2, though it concedes that a occupation of the Muslim world occurred, doesn't believe that it really affected anything. Group # 3 argues that Western presence in the Muslim world was brought about by way of guns, and therefore, Muslims, instead of learning from the West from 1798 to 1963 (when Algeria became free), simply turned their backs to it. War against Islam should occur on a sporadic and limited basis, and should reflect the values that the West is trying to impart.
4 - Idealism, that Islam is a good faith and belongs to people who are at their heart, good, and who do not wish to live as they are living today. However, this group does not believe that much in terms of "Islam" should be changed, because that might upset the traditional norms and mores of the people to whom Islam belongs, which may have further detrimental effects. They are also willing to encourage Muslims to change, reform and update their religio-political theory; but to do it on their own terms. They believe that disturbing Muslims is a worse sin than aggressively dialoguing with them. No war against Islam, except a pointed and surgical attack against Al-Qaeda, which, too, must first begin with human intelligence and only later advance to melee and combat.
The important thing to note is that you can be a 'secular-humanist' or a 'Judeo-Christian' or a 'Muslim' and yet fall in any one of the aforementioned groups.
The reason I have put these classifications up are because I want people to reflect on where they fall and then ask themselves: what does my falling here mean for the future of the West? I think all of us will agree that our motivation to learn about and engage with Islam, Muslim and Islamic history, has little to do with our desire to convert to Islam, and more to do with our desire to maintain the Western status-quo. [By the way: for the sake of simplicity I've left out each group's views on problems that are uniquely 'Western' - like racism, European unemployment, healthcare, poverty, education, etc.]. It is my contention that some the above mentioned views *better* reflect Western values. It is also my contention that the first and fourth views are not rooted in pragmatism, and as such, deeply flawed. Both seek to impose their one-sided vision on a world which simply cannot be evaluated in such a way. Group # 1 must realize that Islam has already been around for 1400 years and there is very little you'll be able to do just make it go away. If people were Muslim simply because of 'force' why are people Muslim today when the world of Islam basically crap? They got colonized two hundred years ago. Why didn't they just leave Islam then? Islam is one of the three great faiths. It is here to stay. Muslims wont stop caring for Muhammad or the Quran and they sure aren't going to all turn apostate. Group # 4, on the other hand, must realize that Muslims *have* contributed to a number of social and global ills throughout their existence -- and most importantly, have caused their own stagnation, which must mean that something is missing in their "tradition" (or has been lost). If you make it your life's mission to destroy Islam, all you do is create the conditions for more violence. If you make it your life's mission to bow to Islam, it won't respond with becoming kinder and gentler. In the end, extremism, whether of anger, or of concession, doesn't defeat extremism.
But knowledge and courage always triumph.
If anyone is interested as to what we should do with regards to an "Islamic Reformation" feel free to express the interest and we can start talking about that. I have a number of ideas that we could get off the ground. One would be to create an NGO that is funded by the West, trains Imams in America, and then sends them to compete for Imam jobs in Europe. In a recent report, it was revealed that Russian Muslims are increasingly turning to American Islam as opposed to Wahhabi Islam. The same can happen with Europe's Muslims. On a smaller scale it would be important to start translating certain reformist ideas into German and French so that the Turkish and Algerian youth in Europe have access to them.
If you just want to rant and rave and make me the whipping post of all your anger towards Islam, that's fine. It might even be healthy for you. Just, as long as you know that you won't remembered a few decades from now when contributors to the reformation of Islam are listed and celebrated.
Am I still a Muslim to fix Islam? The answer is hell yes. Given that I have previously been atheist, can recite Nietzsche as well as I recite the Quran, and started attending Catholic mass just a couple of years ago (though don't anymore), only affirms to me that my re-turn to the Muslim community happened for an important reason. I realized that instead of despair and anger, I ought to put my skills to a meaningful use. I encourage you all to do the same. If you don't want to, no skin off my bones, but I'm sticking to what I have to do. You can be with me, or you can be irrelevant.
35 comments:
I fit very nicely into category one for those too lazy and repugnant to reason better.
I don't care what people do at the individual level, and it's not my business if I did. But when two Nazis meet, that's not inividual anymore. That's a threat to life and Human decency. Then it's cause for public concern. Islam is a fascist poligion, and there's no escaping that it is evil and deserves to be not merely despised and hated but that it must be annihilated root and branch.
No more arguments. Those who've paid attention over these long years know mine and others' well enough by now. It's time to meet and organise and defeat the fascist Muslims on the streets, in the neighbourhoods, in the communities we live in; time to drive Islam into the desert of the Human experience and to create that sand diorama I've warned against for so long.
There's no need for us any longer to indulge in sentimental clap-trap about the reform of the evil poligion that is Islam. That game has hung in the sun for too long, and the smell is making me gag. We burn the carcass and bury the remains or we don't. If we don't the rot that is Islam will continue to pollute the world. There is no reason other than sentimentality to give any credence to Islam. It is objectively evil, and no amount of mooning over it wil change that. We owe nothing to Islam, not respect for its practioners, not nostalgia for its vilent spread and destruction, not sympathy for those who resist its end. Islam is what it ism an evil primitive fascism, and we must destroy it clear-headedly an completely. There need not be any excuses about that. Islam is dirt. It is evil. It must be destroyed completely.
Hate? Yeah, that would sum it up.
I think a good focus is the schools in Bosnia. A "new brand" if it were is emerging from that conflict now and is progressing quietly.
As for reformation, you already met the bill. The discorse is more important than the belief in certain times in history.
What is important is they are talking - and are able to talk.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030606H
In any of the three choices, My preference would be to modernize through moderation because you cannot just have a billion people walking around who have lost their faith (Even if I disagree with it). People have to be afforded the oppertunity to make their own decisions as long as it is not using God as a means for slavery or distruction.
Why do we have this discussion at all about the possibility of reformed Islam?
Islam is at war with every neighbour around the world, and it will continue to be so until Islam is destroyed and Muslims turned from it by whatever means neccessary. We have this discussion aboout Islam because we do not want to confront our own assumtptions about ourselves an peaceful and tolerant people. We are so, and that is coming to a sudden halt. Islam is our enmey, regardless of who we are, and we must confront our own reluctance to destroy it, not the details of ialm itslef, those being the true irrelavancies.
Islam is a threat to the world and its people. Most of us would rather find some reasonable alternative to outright war against it but that is impossible, and it is our duty to destroy it. Chit-chat about reforming other people's religion is amzingly naive and also patronising. We have no business tellling people their religion is a garbage poligion that they are too evil and stupid to have understood properly and should, by our lights, reform to conform to the status of world standards: we should ignore of sillinesses and simply smash every mosque, hang ever resistor, and enslave the lot of the umma and raise their children as our own to be Human.
Take it today as extreme, but wait till tomorrow when we are faced with yet another catasprophic attack on Humanity. The more Islam shows itself as it is and as it has been from the time Mohammed began his rampage of rape and murder, the more we will see that other people's sacred beliefs don't means shite. And then you will kill. You'll kill without any discipline whatsoever because you won't know anything but madness and the rage for revenge. Muslims are garbage people because of Islam. They do not desrve what they wil make us do if we don't stop them from pissing us off to the point that genuinely evil people among us will exterminate them whole.
If we honestly face reality now and deal with it as it is rather than fool with daydreams and make-nice and kissy-face, then we wil do the hard work that needs be done, and the world wil carry on as well as possible. If we pretend and phantasize about the goodness of the average Muslim wishing like we that we could all go back to the brotherhood of man where we are the children of the world, then not we but the Muslim people are going to go up in a pillar of flame.
Do now what must be done without cringing and whingeing. Then get on with life.
Pastorius,
I think you should have found in these comments the 'target' of my other post.
This “Islam is here so get used to it” is silly. Atatruk proved that, when he destroyed the Caliphate. I argue here that secularism is not only viable in the Islamic world but it has happened in the past to significant degrees.
Faith, of course, is why Muslims don’t abandon failed ways. It is no different than with Marxism, which was obviously a failure by the late 1920s, but it took until 1990 before the Berlin Wall fell (and over 100 million deaths.) Blind faith (i.e. the willful refusal to evade reality and cling to dogma) requires pain and suffering before it is abandon.
Of course, I suggest standing back and letting people learn that on their own while offering only intellectual criticism. However, the faithful always have excuses and will ignore most of what you say for generations. Marxist used to say that communism can’t work until all the workers in the world are liberated. Muslims, today, blame Israel and America for all their faults. How Moroccans can do this is astonishing but there is always some tidbit to latch onto to retain the faith.
C’mon. Reform is a backdoor to the abandonment of Islam and the devout know it. Open the front door to a reason-based secularism and those who have to use the backdoor will quietly find their way on their own. As I said once before, you can’t have an Al-Farabi until you have an Al-Razi.
By the way, while one may take exception to the exact description of your four categories, that’s a bold way to frame a debate and encourage reflection.
Well, I'm one of those 'reformists' who tend to argue that significant portions of how the Shariah was applied historically mimicks what we call secularism today -- with a separation of governmental branches and a separating of the functions of religion from the function of the state. The Ottomans, incidentally, were the biggest proponent of this for a long time (as it allowed the Sultan to act outside the scope of the scholars of Islam).
Also, like I've said before, the 'reformists' that I know are all in favor of using reason to evaluate and re-evaluate what passes for Islam today. Their position is that of Ibn Rushd's -- that religion is, and should be, consistent with reason.
Incidentally that was Kant's position. Religion within the limits of reason. No one accuses him of offering a backdoor to Christianity.
Eteraz,
I don't think you say that Dag is advocating killing Muslims in the name of Christ, but I see what you mean.
Certainly, there are many people, even here at IBA, who agree with
Dag.
To some extent I agree with Dag. As you know, I believe Islam can be "fixed" to use your word for it. However, that will require people like you who stand up and brave the storm. And, of course, Eteraz, you are only one person. It's going to require many more than just one person to fix Islam.
The reason I say that in a way I agree with Dag is because I believe he is right that Islam, as it currently is constituted, is a threat to the world. Only if it is fixed will it cease to be a threat.
This story of what is happening to the "apostate" in Afghanistan is an example of how intractable the problems are.
What do you think?
What do you think is going to happen to all the moderate Muslims (who refuse to stand up and eliminate the radicals) once the West is hit with a really big terrorist attack that kills more than 10,000 people?
You seem to be suggesting that because 'moderate' Muslims are Muslims, they should be extra accountable for the acts of lunatic Muslims. So that the rest of the world can go on working their jobs and buying their cars and watching American Idol, but we, 'moderates' we shouldn't go to work, or buy cars, or watch American idol. Instead we should "stand up" and "eliminate" (how, by way of guns?) the radicals? Why? Isn't it enough that we don't associate with them? That we disclaim any association with them? What do you really want? Me to launch a militant jihad against the militant jihadis? And if we don't do that, in the event of a terrorist attack, you think the moderates should be thrown in an incinerator because they were busy with their jobs and feeding their kids? Is that logical? Is that a human way of thinking? Do you see the reductio ad absurdum of your position? When one black man raped a white woman, all black men had to pay, so that the first one the white mob came across got lynched. Just mull that over for a while because that's what you are doing. I'm very tolerant of a critique of Islam and Muslims. But I am categorically against stereotyping, which is what underlies your comment. I take special exception b/c my background is in african-american activism, and I am seeing the same parallels in some of the rhetoric.
Also, in the horrible event that 10,000 people die in a terrorist attack, I'd expect someone to speak up for people like me.
If not, I'll be burning up somewhere in a place like Guantanamo. I'm sure that will satisfy some of the readers of this blog. I'll be sure to send a postcard. Tell me who to make it out to.
Eteraz,
You said:
"What do you really want? Me to launch a militant jihad against the militant jihadis?"
My response:
No. That is a funny notion, though.
Here's what I want. I want moderate Muslims to form large political organizations and come up with position papers condemning the radicals and stating what they believe in as opposed to what the radicals believe in.
As for watching TV and buying cars, go ahead. I don't care if you do or you don't. I buy cars and watch TV AND I write my opinions and I started IBA.
I am doing my part. I have done my part since the beginning of this war. I will feel no guile about that. And, I will feel no guilt about calling out the lazy asses who want to benefit from America, but who are not willing to support it in any other way than paying taxes.
Do you really want to suggest that we don't all as humans have responsibility to stand against the Jihad?
You said:
And if we don't do that, in the event of a terrorist attack, you think the moderates should be thrown in an incinerator because they were busy with their jobs and feeding their kids? Is that logical?
My response:
I didn't suggest Muslims should be thrown into the incinerator. I am saying there will be real problems for moderates if they don't stand up. The worse the war gets, the more the necessity will be for everyone to choose sides.
Do you deny that?
Have you read about how the London police have said their investigation into the bombings has been at a standstill because they receive no cooperation from the Muslim community? Have you read about how 1/4 of Muslims in Britain have sympathy for the bombers?
Where do you think that kind of reaction will lead?
Am I being unreasonable?
Eteraz,
You are speaking up. You don't need people to speak up for you. You are a highly educated man, and a sincere fighter for human rights. You will be one of the leaders.
Or, so it seems to me.
Obviously if the Shariah did not contain apostasy clauses there wouldn't have been a problem. But we, as the occupying force KNEW that the Shariah was flawed. Yet we still left it the way it was. Because we wanted to get out of there and attack Iraq.
I was thinking about this more, Eteraz. I, as a Christian, do not like the idea that I am lumped in with other Christians who espouse ignorant ideas in public. The most vocal Christians in our country (those who have the most facetime on TV) are people like Pat Robertson, and Paul and Jan Crouch. These Christians do things such as call for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated, and say that homosexuality is an abomination and that all homosexuals are going to hell.
I became a Christian when I was 13. When I was around 20, when people would ask me if I was a Christian I began saying, "Yes, but not the kind of Christian you know about."
When I was in my mid-20's I ceased identifying myself as a Christian altogether. When I was in my thirties I decided to start identifying myself as a Christian and to speak up and behave in such a way as to open people's minds about what a Christian is.
If you read my blog CUANAS then you would know that I am an artist who has friends who are gay, and that I don't have a problem with gay people like many of my fellow Christians do.
What's more you would find that while I am a Zionist, I am not a supporter of Apocalyptic Zionism:
http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2004/12/what-does-cuanas-mean-cuanas-is.html
Why do I explain all this?
Because, as a Christian, I got very tired of idiotic Christians representing Christianity and thereby stealing its meaning from thoughtful Christians like myself.
So, what have I done? I've spoken up and organized.
That's what I expect Muslims to do.
That does not seem an unreasonable expectation if you ask me.
That the Pakistanis make fun of the Afghans is no measure of the Afghan intelligence or culture. The latest statistics on severe abuse of women in Pakistan (by th UN) is much, much higher than it is in Afghanistan.
The Afghans have their problems, one of the major ones being Pakistan's willingness to harbor those who go over the border and keep the Taliban going...the warlords might be brought under some semblance of order and comity were it not for Pakistan.
Afghanistan is working to build its own army and police force. The Military Academy at West Point is heavily involved in this task. There is also now a college for women...
...small measures, but progess nonetheless.
As for our realpolitik liaisons during the Cold War...they were ugly and necessary. We didn't want to live under the domination of Communism any more than we do Sharia. True liberty of the individual is not a paradigm that fits either world view.
As a measure of solidarity, the Muslims in this country could start calling themselves Americans first, and Muslims second. The same evolution the other religions had to make. Remember the Kennedy election in 1960 -- that was an issue that had to be drummed.
I'd like to see every mosque in America break any Wahhibi ties they might have and to publicly announce this.
I'd like to see the Saudi chains broken. The acceptance of money by Georgetown and Harvard is disgraceful.
It is not Islam, it is the virulent salafist version that is a mortal threat to this country. It is hard for people to distinguish this. All they know is a whole bunch of men -- who all turned out to be practicing Muslims -- not a Catholic, Jew or Episcopallian among them -- wreaked hell and horror on Sept 11th.
You can blame the country for not being informed about Islam but as long as groups like CAIR are in the limelight...they play the victim game to an American "T".
The confluence of American self-hatred and need to professionalize victim status, added to the many Muslims who feel like victims is the perfect poison stew.
We needed to go to Iraq. I'm glad we did. Saddam Hussein can never put another person thru another shredder. Every month, the numbers of people he murdered gruesomely goes up. We're stil in Afghanistan, and you can get the reports on what's being done if you search for them.
The conflict between American and Islam is going to continue. It will be different from Europe's conflict, because Europe is essentially contemptuous of anyone who is not European. Their course will be different and so will their outcome.
Muslims in America and our war in the Middle East are only two of our problems. This is a crucial point in our history and it won't be decided in this generation.
Eteraz,
The thing that confounds me is that, though your stated purpose is reforming islam, you seem to spend much more time trying to reform infidels. Why do you consider Dag the target of your distasteful post detailing a ludicrous satire of a supposed murder fantasy, since, may I point out, he is no muslim.
Admittedly, this is your post that most nearly approaches your stated goal, but before infidels get exited about your NGO creating LESS violent immams , you will need to clarify how the preponderance of islamic thought is to be subverted to your ,seemingly noble, purposes.
And why not contribute to this already extant organization.
http://www.secularislam.org/
“Incidentally that was Kant's position. Religion within the limits of reason. No one accuses him of offering a backdoor to Christianity.” I do. But that’s another story.
By the way, Ibn Rushd work was essentially rejected by Muslims. Read Madij Fakhry’s book (Averroes: His Life, Works and Influence.) It was Jewish and Christian philosophers that carried his work forward -- work that had an important influence on philosophy in the West. But that too is another story.
"Radical Islam is an insane murder cult; moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West."
There can be no reform of a religion whose basic tenet is the utter subjugation of all other people, whether by sword or subterfuge. There can be no reform or working towards understanding with someone whom you cannot trust. I despise Islam as a demon-spawned lie from the pits of Hell.
I agree with this statement by Armed and Christian: There can be no reform of a religion whose basic tenet is the utter subjugation of all other people, whether by sword or subterfuge.
For 1400 years, Islam has been spreading by the two above-mentioned methods.
I come from the Judeo-Christian perspective, I suppose. But I also approach Islam from the secular perspective, probably because of my university education. Hence, I'm not sure the two broad categories are mutually exclusive.
If you just want to rant and rave and make me the whipping post of all your anger towards Islam, that's fine.
Anger? That's not what I feel at all. Frankly, I resent being sterotyped.
I want to keep my Western way of life. As things now stand, Islam is threatening the ideal which I hold dear. So that's why I'm "engaging Islam"--and I've been forced to.
AOW,
It seems to me Eteraz got mad at me for no good reason. However, I don't blame him. It is somewhat unfair for him to have to shouler all of this.
I do think it might be wiser for him to work on fixing Islam than on straightening us Westerners out.
It might interest everyone to know that I am beginning a study of the Talmud with the purpose of explaining why I think Islam could undergo the same transition that Judaism did via the Talmud.
The thing is, I can not do this by myself. I need Muslims like Eteraz to help me because I am not going to spend my time learning the Koran.
OK, I've deleted enough commets from this post in the past hour to have made my point today.
Are we seeking a clarification of my purpose?
My purpose is dual. It will always be that way. I'm like a syllogism.
The primary purpose is to engage Islam, because I know a lot about it, and I know how to test its limit, and push them. If you want to see evidence of how I interact with Islam, you are free to follow me around all day, or go on my personal blog which has a huge Muslim readership and see what I write. In the alternative, you can also look up reformist scholars like Muqtedar Khan, Omid Safi, Laury Silvers, who have a far greater range than I do.
My secondary purpose is to educate Westerners about Islam, because I am a Westerner, and I don't want to see us turn into irrational, salivating, hate-infested, stereotyping bigots when confronted with such people. As such, for every couple of posts on IBA in which I talk about Islam, I'll have moments (or posts) where I'll talk from a Western perspective.
I'll always do both of these things. If anyone can't live with that, I have a couple of very long middle fingers for you.
:smile:
As far as the Talmud project, I don't really have any time for it. I'm more than willing to read whatever is sent my way and then summarize it now and again for my blog. As far as I understand the Talmud, it is a progressive exegesis of the Old Testament. I'm already workign with Muslim scholars who are writing progressive exegesis of the Quran, as well as re-evaluating how the Islamic Legal system is derived. My role in that group is to synthesize Enlightenment philosophy in order to provide them a better intellectual basis to stand on.
Perhaps you all would be jumping with joy if I was a pundit or a TV personality. I have no such aspirations. I've been approached on more than one occassion by NY agents who want me to write books of my experiences, etc. Sorry. I like writing novels and short stories. And I like shuttling Hegel and Kant into Islamic Law. It's not glamorous but that's who I am. Again, you want me to turn into Wafa Sultan, for that I got another long middle finger.
I'm not upset as I write this post, I just want my point made very clearly.
Finally,
I absolutely disagree with having left Afghanistan with a constitution that is procedurally NO different than the Taliban's version of Islam. The only difference is that the Taliban made up their constitution as they went along.
My dear people: there are rules of engagement on how to be an occupying force. The first rule is, don't be a half-assed flip-flopping moron. We violated that rule. We 'freed' them but left them with the same legal framework in place? Give me a break.
If I were in charge I would have done what we did -- eliminate the Taliban. Then I would have put a constitution in place that comports with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then I would have motioned for a UN peacekeeping force to stay and oversight this new constitution.
Instead we cut and ran and let a bunch of yahoos go back to tribal law.
A. Eteraz:
By the way: for the sake of simplicity I've left out each group's views on problems that are uniquely 'Western' - like racism, European unemployment, healthcare, poverty, education, etc.
Who are you trying to kid?
To say that 'racism', for example, is uniquely Western is ABSURD! And you know it!
Go ask a very dark-skinned Saudi, of which there are many (many slaves were liberated from black Africa), if people like him are black, and see what kind of reaction you get!
Islam may preach all races are equal, but they are not in a Muslim's eyes. Most certainly not!
To call a Saudi a black is the ultimate insult.
So don't try and tell us that 'racism' somehow belongs uniquely to the Western world, because it does not.
Mark.
Please find the word "uniquely" in my post.
Since your entire rant rests on the presence of that word in my post (and since that word doesn't exist), nothing in your comment is relevant.
As to whether I think Muslims are racists. Yes I do. But you didn't ask me that did you? You just tried to impute a position to me without actually reading what I wrote.
THINK AFTER YOU READ AND READ BEFORE YOU WRITE. Had you read carefully (I know that's a lot to ask), you WOULD have even seen that in my comment I imply that radical Muslims tend to be quite bigoted. Read the line that ends with "when confronted with such people."
I love how you say "dont try and tell us" -- as if "us" belongs only to you.
Dude, I'm more Western than you.
My proof: you can't seem to read English properly.
Correction: actually I think a large part of the Muslim world tends to be quite bigoted. Not just 'radical Muslims.'
This correction by no means rescinds any of the insults I sent your way =)
Avenging Apostate:
Thank you!
A. Eteraz is full of insults. He needs to read the book, How to Win Friends and Influence People!
By the way, Avenging Apostate, your comment was excellent, too.
PS: This Eteraz guy is far too bristly and thorny for me. I like dealing with gentlemen, not nasty bigots!
By the way Avenging,
I'm not trying to make every infidel on this website look like a moron,
because I AM AN INFIDEL ON THIS WEBSITE TOO!
You seem to be interested in trying to 'exclude' me simply b/c I'm Muslim, thankfully the creaters of this website don't ascribe to that philosophy.
look on the sidebar for my name, you'll see it. Now repeat after me: Eteraz is a Muslim infidel. You are just going to have to live with that.
Eteraz,
Whenyou get a chance, could you respond to my comments on this post. You impied that I was being bigoted by calling on Moderate Muslims to organize themselves politically and make themselves heard. I don't agree and i explained in my responses to you.
I don't enjoy it when people imply that i am a bigot. I'm sure don't either.
It's good you qualified that, Avenging Apostate.
:)
I thought you had something against us white people there for a second.
I don't think you are a bigot Pastorius.
I see your point about political organization. When I initially read your comment it seemed as if you were talking about Muslims dropping everything and spending all their time stopping radical Muslims.
There is a huge problem with Progressive political activism. We have no money. NO MONEY. The oil money goes to the monkeys. Government money goes to Dr. Pipes and Steve Emerson. I'm left with having to make a blog.
If someone gave me 100,000, I could launch a Progressive publishing house.
At the moment, we're trying to get something started at Progressiveislam.org
Cool. Well, you;re doint your part.
Now, people have to get behind people like you.
What;s this about Emerson and Pipes getting government money?
As I recall, Pipes recently finished serving a term on some government peace and conflict type thing. I dont know about Emerson I just lumped the two together. Hey Pastorius, my computer isf reaking out from all the scrolling down and opening of this huge comments thing so I'm done with this thread here. Start up elsewhere.
Dropping my pants.
(euphemism for done with discussion)
Avenging,
Like I said in describing group # 1, you can hate all Muslims. No skin off my bones. It makes for rather predictable posts though, no? At least with me you can wonder whether I'm going to criticize your position or criticize the fundos.
To no one's surprise, I am in group number one. Islam declared war on the Infidel world a long time ago, starting with Mr Mo himself. So I don't call it 'hate'. I call it self-defense. I call it intelligence.
Despite all of Eteraz's posturing, and use of smart-sounding terms, I am thoroughly unconvinced that Islam can made into anything decent or a force for good. Mohammed was an evil son-of-a-gun, and so is that Koran of his. They are corrupt and unreformable. One cannot reform Islam without completely rejecting Mo and his Koran. But without those two things, there is no Islam! Islam can't be 'fixed'!
There is a reason that there is such a word as 'islamophobe', but there aren't words like Hinduphobe, Buddhistphobe, or Baptistphobe.
I'm an Islamophobe and proud of it!
Under your logic then: b/c there is such a word as anti-semitism, it must mean that Jews are evil?
Only if one subscribes to the wisdom of the Quran or Mein Kampf.
Post a Comment