« Women Drivers IV |
Main
| Apologies »
November 05, 2003
Moderate Muslims
A little while ago, I quoted Paul Jané in an article. One of my regular readers took exception to the quote in a comment. Paul, in turn,took exception to the comment on the quote. The whole thing sort of escalated from there with trackback links to Aimless and Dodgeblogium.
At the risk of offending everyone in one foul swoop, I would like to note that both parties have a valid point and it is one which is very hard to discuss in our multi-cultural, politically correct society. Let me start with Melodrama's comments (which have been expanded in comments on Paul's article - see link above and on her own blog as well):
[Edited]I have been reading a lot of muslim blogs of late and I really think those definitions are unwarranted and smack of American intolerance.
Compare it to what Bush has done, AND is still supported by a majority of Americans, I think I need to come up with alternate definitions of 'moderate' Americans.
I by no means support killing and butchery in the name of religion, but its high time we stopped pointing fingers at all muslims.
OK. Point taken. It can be offensive to lump a group of people together (in this case Muslims) and then make a joke about them (implying that moderate Muslims were those unable to get hold of explosives). Of course I have made the problem worse by referring to the joke again :-) Yes it is intolerant and politically incorrect to do this. Point to Melodrama for sensitivity and another point for suggesting we come up with a definition of moderate Americans (note that Paul is actually Canadian).
Now how about the other side of the coin? I am not an expert in Muslim beliefs (but like Paul I have friends who know far more than I do) but one of the comments on Paul's posting matches my crude understanding of what it means to be a Muslim. Before I get into that I want to make it quite clear how I stand about "partial belief". Paul mentions the idea of being "human" first and "Muslim" second (i.e. humanity overrides religious beliefs). Presumably that means that in a conflict of interest between religious dictates and human common-sense, this person would not be a Muslim (for the duration of that conflict at least). I have written about this previously in my criticism of the rainbow sash brigade (pro-homosexuals who disrupt Catholic services). If you disagree with the Catholic church , you are not a Catholic (at least in as far as your disagreement extends). I have argued before that this is no different to belonging to a club that has rules about wearing a tie - you don't wear the tie, you don't get in. You can form your own club somewhere else but this club has this requirement (one of the requirements of being catholic is to accept what the church teaches).
Getting back on track, one of the requirements of being a Muslim is to accept what Islam teaches. If you don't accept that, you are not a true Muslim. In fact Islam teaches that you are damned and destined for hell along with all the other apostates. This then gets to the point of Paul's comment. If you are a good Muslim then you will side with the lunatics who suicide and blow up innocent civilians. I could be persuaded to believe that a war of independence could be waged by guerilla type movements against a government and its armed forces. I cannot be convinced that a legitimate war of independence can be carried out by blowing up innocent women and children for the sake of publicity. Here comes the crunch, Islam teaches that such activities are legitimate. Non-Muslims are not people - they don't count. This is discrimination in the extreme and just as I would argue (and have argued) with a white South African attacking "blecks", I will argue with a Muslim about this out-and-out religious racism. Paul's comment, is a light hearted way of pointing at a dilemma that faces Muslims: a "good" Muslim supports and gets involved in Jihad (the destruction of the infidel by any means possible), a "bad" Muslim does not and will either be condemned in turn or find some explosives.
Now to be somewhat moderate, this does not mean that every person who professes to be a Muslim is automatically a target (or carrying explosives) and more than suggesting that all Catholics support the inquisition or that all Indians live in Bombay :-) It is possible that a nominal-Muslim is unaware of their religious teaching or its implications (particularly in environments where there is no real education, especially for women). It is also possible that this "moderate" person is not really aware of any alternative possibilities due to doctrinal mind-washing. It should not be possible, however, for an educated, thinking person to voluntarily become or remain a Muslim without having at least some understanding of what they accepting and that is the target of Paul's barb. So two points to Paul for highlighting the problem and doing so in a way that was witty and intelligent.
Given the tie in points, does this mean that I disagree with everything Melodrama says? No, I agree too that we need a definition of a moderate American (but I won't tackle the Canadian question) and to that end I will offer a modified joke:
An airport controller at Sydney Airport had radio contact with a Piper Cub (light aircraft) which wanted to land in Sydney. The controller tried to redirect the pilot to Bankstown (where light aircraft are supposed to land) but the pilot insisted that he had 40 passengers on board. Now four was a possibility but not 40. In the end the controller allowed him to land and hurried down to see what would happen. The pilot jumped out and started lifting 40 little tiny passengers out. Each one was no more than 8 inches high. When questioned by the controller, he responded: "Oh they are Americans with all the hot air taken out".
Melodrama, I hope that forms a reasonable definition of a moderate American :-) Now who is going to tackle the question of a moderate Australian? Is that one who only drinks four schooners a day?
P.S. The original joke was about Texans but I figured I could just substitute American without spoiling it too much.
Posted by Ozguru at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Posted by: ozguru at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Thanks Ozguru. I agree to all the points made, save one that I will come to in the latter part of this comment. I took exception to Paul's comment/post because I failed to see the joke, if ever there was one. I give the benefit of the doubt to him. What I can not digest is anyone even thinking that the venom poured out on blogs like Little Green footballs is worth a daily read, and if I remember right, was even mentioned somewhere in the post/ comment.
The point that I do not agree with is about Islam's quest to convert people to their religion and the jihadi spirit. In my opinion, most religions evolve over a period of time and can be interpreted differently. That has happened to Hinduism too and we have shameful acts like the Godhra carnage that have been supported by fundamentalists. I would not like to call them Hindu, because the Hindu way of life is not one filled with violence and intolerance. I do not know enough about Islam (but am unprejudiced) and I hope that it evolves and chooses to be interpreted without the holiness of jihad, if it hasnt already been interpreted that way by liberal muslims.
Now, I'd just like to make a point. In India, when Christians first came over (St. Francis and the like) they came over with missionary zeal and with the aim of converting the masses amongst other aims. Conversions are still an aim of a lot of Catholic missionaries in India. So, clearly increasing members of one's flock is not just Islamic in nature.
Another interesting point is the emergence of the thought that Christianity belongs to the western world and that Islam threatens western civilization. As far as I remember, the nuns of the missionary school I did my schooling at, told me Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Palestine. In fact, most native western civilizations (Mayan, Aztec etc. which should be truly deemed western) and religions (Native American - howeever primitive they may have been perceived as) have been totally wiped out after Christianity took over.
As far as I can see, religion is a vicious circle. It has always been the reason why barbaric wars have been fought (my religion is better than yours) and the sooner we start functioning as humans and not religious beings the better. Heh! I can say that, I'm an atheist.
I hope I've made my points clear, though I'm often incoherent and incomprehensible, but I rarely mean anything personally. The comment I made was not meant personally to one individual, but it was taken very personally and turned into a bitchfest. I'm sorry too for making a sweeping generalisation about an individual, though I did know the individual was Canadian and I meant 'American' as in the continent. I should have specified what I meant and I didn't. I'm not one for borders or religious conflicts or differences, my mistake.
Posted by: Melodrama at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Agree with both, you and Melo. You are right in that there is a logical inconsistency between claiming to be a devout follower of the Koran and being a good human being as commonly accepted in the secular world today. Melo is right in that such problems are not unique to Islam, and messages of violence and advocating obliteration of the unconverted can be found in most religious books, including Christianity and Hinduism.
Hey, Mel, us atheists can really point fingers, can't we ;)
Posted by: Kingsley at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Well Christianity (at least) based on the New Testament should be about love and kindness but certainly that hasn't always helped. Interesting that being told to love your neighbour can lead to atrocities, how much worse will it be when your holy book says to slaughter your neighbour? I guess that is why you have Palestinian suicide bombers instead of Presbyterian ones.....
Posted by: ozguru at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Ozguru, that is what I meant by the evolution of religions. We forget that whoever wrote religious tomes was also human and it is up to the upholder of religions (in my opinion, the clergy) to ensure that religions EVOLVE. Which is also why you have the IRA or Islamic fundamentalists.
BUT, the non-evolution is not reason enough (according to me) to actually bring more conflict than there already is.
We (I) stay in a multi-religious country. I shudder to think what would happen if people of all religious communities in my country would suddenly start disagreeing with each other.
That has been another reason why I dislike religion per se, though I don't have any problems with people having beliefs.
Actually, this debate has been rather interesting. I've never given too much thought to religion (being atheist) or how the practice of one could affect one's worldview. Seeing how impassioned people get, maybe I need to know more about other religions.
Posted by: Melodrama at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Hmmm. I actually did an undergraduate course in comparative religion - each module was prepared by a relevant expert from that religion. We covered Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), Chinese (Taoism, Confucianism, mixed with some Buddhism) and Australian Aboriginal (as an example of an animist religion). What I remember most was Islam/Christianity. I am planning to undertake some studies in Theology next year as well....
Posted by: ozguru at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
While I am not an expert on Islam or the Quran, I have managed over the years to learn a little about it. Interestingly, the Quran does NOT urge Muslims to commit suicide or promise paradise to those who do. It DOES urge true believers to "die in defence of the faith" and it is this that is being corrupted by the fundamentalists to urge the suicide bombing of "infidels". Another intersting aspect is the the Prophet urged (and the Quran states) that Jews and Christians are to be treated as equals and brothers in the faith of the "Book", that is the Bible.
For those who are interested, Islam was identified in the 7th Century as being a revival of a Christian Heresy from the third Century and much of the material in the Quran is also to be found in Jewish and Christian "extra-canonical" books which are still around and in use in some of the Eastern Christian churches. The Readers Digest recently published a potted version of them as "The Lost Books of the Bible".
For those of the Atheist persuasion I have to add two comments, firstly, pointing a finger, as an old and very wise African once told me, is self defeating, because three fingers are pointed back at the pointer! Secondly, it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer.
Pax vobiscum.
Posted by: pgc at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
Ozguru,
I came across your blog from your comment in Melodrama's blog. With regard to your post, there has been a cuious intermingling of religion and politics in the civilized world. However, in the eastern world, religion found its basis in individual redemption, which is why so many of our kings took to being hermits in their later years. In the western and middle eastern world, unfortunately, religon was often used to extend political power. While wars during pre-Islamic days were more often than not territorial in nature, the Arabs conquered territories in order to enfore religion. Thus, religion was not only a political tool but also a human imperative. The influence of this was seen in 17th century Spain when the conquestadors went about trying to do the very same thing (to South Americans), that they were apparently victims of, during the Moorish invasions.
Melodrama wrote, "We (I) stay in a multi-religious country. I shudder to think what would happen if people of all religious communities in my country would suddenly start disagreeing with each other." - But that has already happened. Pakistan (incl the present day Bangladesh) broke away from India due to religious reasons alone.
Wars and violence are not a result of religion alone. If it did, how does that explain the conquests of Xerxes, Darius, Caeser, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Attila the hun and others? Religion is a convenient political expedient for economic & political ambition.
V. S. Naipaul's book, "Beyond Belief" highlights the issue about Islam in brilliant detail. A must read.
Posted by: Quizman at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
What a great website I have ever seen. Thanks for all the hard work.
Even dirty rotten spammers like me (80.178.104.165) can appreciate your hard work.
Posted by: Dirty Rotten Spammer at November 5, 2003 11:11 AM
