- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
And where do you disagree?
I disagree with every statement from all three extremist, fundamentalist purveyors of sectarian hatred.
That's the nice thing about living in a Western country: If you disagree, you can voice your opinion. If you don't agree with Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson, you can tell us why. Try making derogatory comments about Islam in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, or almost any other Muslim country. They haven't had a Western-style "Enlightenment" or "Age of Reason" recently.
At least in the West, we have open debate, and people can seek truth and come to their own conclusions. As a Christian and an American, Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter don't speak for me. The quote you attributed to Robertson doesn't even make sense; Islam is not a political system, let alone a violent one. It's one of the three great Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of the world. One problem I see in the Muslim world is silence or equivocation by a majority in the face of Islamist fanatics and extremists who form much of the face of Islam to the West. This majority needs to figure out which side of the fence it's on: reason, modernity, and accommodation with the West, or a rigid, unyielding adherence to a perverted version of Islam that claims killing innocents in the name of God is the path to Paradise.
That's the nice thing about living in a Western country: If you disagree, you can voice your opinion. If you don't agree with Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson, you can tell us why. Try making derogatory comments about Islam in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, or almost any other Muslim country. They haven't had a Western-style "Enlightenment" or "Age of Reason" recently.
At least in the West, we have open debate, and people can seek truth and come to their own conclusions. As a Christian and an American, Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter don't speak for me. The quote you attributed to Robertson doesn't even make sense; Islam is not a political system, let alone a violent one. It's one of the three great Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of the world. One problem I see in the Muslim world is silence or equivocation by a majority in the face of Islamist fanatics and extremists who form much of the face of Islam to the West. This majority needs to figure out which side of the fence it's on: the side of reason, modernity, and accommodation with the West, or that of the rigid, unyielding adherence to a perverted version of Islam that claims killing innocents in the name of God is the path to Paradise.
To answer your glib question. I disagree with every statement from all three extremist, fundamentalist purveyors of sectarian hatred.
I think you must never have travelled to a Muslim country. Debate is rife, people express themselves and disagree with one another all the time. They debate politics and religion openly, sometimes under threat from the extremists. There those who debate do so with a great deal more courage and integity than many on this board who take their right of free speech for granted and abuse it with facetious and fatuous arguments or easy insults.
Lose your prejudices and stop dividing the World into ogres and victims, demonic Moslems and freedom-loving Christians. Talk to a few people beyond your blinkers and you might not see everything in your comfy black-and-white simplicity.
A conversation on the street or in a bistro among friends or acquaintances is one thing, but I'm just wondering if you've ever seen a newspaper or magazine in Pakistan publish any of Kurt Westergarard's Muhammad cartoons, or possibly seen a copy of The Satanic Verses in a bookstore? Did you encounter any pro-Israel or India rallies by chance, or witness any Jesus revivals?
You speak of my prejudices, and yet you seek to
impose sentiments upon me that are more a product of your perspective of the world than mine. While it's not a strictly Christian thing, as someone who studied Western political philosophy, if I have any bias it's in favor of many of those great thinkers--Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Hutcheson, Jefferson, et al--who were products of The Enlightenment and/or The Age of Reason. Thanks to them, I view the yearning for freedom as something that is inherent in man's being. That's probably why I think those who would seek to enslave others, whether it be in mind, body, or spirit, will ultimately fail. It's not so much that the truth will set you free, but that freedom will set truth free, and once the genie's out of the bottle, it's hard to put it back in. I think it's that realization that most terrifies extremists of all stripes, whether they be Christian, Muslim, atheist, or simply "evil" people who seek to maintain the status quo or even shift human civilization into reverse.
That Islam per se is irredeemable naturally sets you squarely against all Moslems whether of the most virulent Wahhabist bent, or the moderate, peaceful and spiritually open sects such as the Sufis or Ismailis.
I didn't say you did. I was using the you in general terms. Although I was responding to your post I was not just addressing you, but the forum in general. I think that's how it works.Timeout there, Hoss. Where did I say that Islam was irredeemable?
Alevah could this sharia revival be due to Most Muslims there wanting it, or it being forced on thme by a minority?
What I think you are referring to as a sharia revival is more the upsurge of influence exercised by fundamentalists of the Wahabbist sect. This wiki page is useful.
Wahhabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd question the word revival because sharia has been used as the basis of justice in many, many areas, especially more rural areas, of Islamic countries for centuries. It needed no revival.
My pleasure!I know; couldn't think of the word. Thanks though
I didn't say you did.
Now, how about addressing some of the issues in my post?
Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
Notes on the State of Virginia: Query 17 "Religion" The different religions received into that state?, by Thomas Jefferson
Alevah could this sharia revival be due to Most Muslims there wanting it, or it being forced on thme by a minority?
Well, you did say "you," but I guess you meant EVERYBODY, eh?
I think it's important to not paint all Muslim societies and cultures with the same brush. The UAE is not Pakistan. But to say that Muslim societies in general have a history of tolerance and pluralism comparable to Western societies is a bit much for most Western folks, notwithstanding the blinker aspect. How many Christian churches are there in Saudi Arabia? (Answer, sportsfans: None.) And you still haven't told me where in Pakistan I can find those Westergaard cartoons or that Rushdie book.opcorn2: I guess it's a no-brainer that you won't find them in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, or Syria, among others, either. Muslim societies tend to be autocratic or authoritarian in nature, so, even if one is free to express a personal opinion, he treads on thin ice if he dares to publicly criticize the government or the state religion (Islam). This is a weakness, in my opinion, because:
I think (I know you didn't ask me) it is touted by a minority, and *in theory* many Muslims may say they want it, but *in reality* they do not. *In theory* I see nothing wrong with having a Shariah court in the States (like we have Jewish courts), but *in reality* I find it disturbing because where are they going to get the judges from?Alevah could this sharia revival be due to Most Muslims there wanting it, or it being forced on thme by a minority?
I think (I know you didn't ask me) it is touted by a minority, and *in theory* many Muslims may say they want it, but *in reality* they do not. *In theory* I see nothing wrong with having a Shariah court in the States (like we have Jewish courts), but *in reality* I find it disturbing because where are they going to get the judges from?
An imam would not have the religious training/authority to be a judge. Some may be acting in this capacity on an unofficial basis, but it isn't the same thing. So far as I know, the only places where one could find "qualified" judges would be the traditional centers of learning -- Saudi Arabia, India/Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, etc. My comment "where are they going to get the judges from" was somewhat rhetorical, as I have a pretty good idea where they'd come from, at least in the beginning (until we start having qualified Islamic "seminaries"?). I'm just not sure the general American Muslim population would be interested in being led by judges from these places.Judges are the Imans mostly, which they already have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?