I’m not suggesting that anyone should “get a medal” for condemning violence.
I’m just pointing out that if you really want moderate Muslims to have a more “visible role” in our perception of Islam, and if you feel that “we will never believe in a moderate Islam unless we hear from it”, then we and our media need to pay attention when moderate Muslims do speak up.
I mean, what are you suggesting as an alternative strategy to increase your awareness of moderate Muslim viewpoints? Should moderate Muslims be cold-calling individual households throughout the US to proclaim their opposition to terrorist violence one-on-one? Should they be protesting Islamist-extremist terrorism by drenching themselves with gasoline and setting themselves on fire in front of their local mosques, so the western media will finally consider their opinions newsworthy? :dubious:
[QUOTE=drad dog]
It’s not a failure of the media. Stop whining.
[/quote]
Calm down. I’m not “whining” about the media. I’m just observing that if westerners want to hear more about moderate Muslim viewpoints, then western media need to put some effort into reporting them. It’s not a particularly controversial point.
[QUOTE=drad dog]
The fact that we are discussing the many violent acts is plenty example that there is something out there to worry about.
[/quote]
Nobody here is in the least disagreeing with the very self-evident fact that “there is something out there to worry about” in the actions and ideologies of many violent radical-fundamentalist Islamists worldwide. I’m not sure where you get the idea that that fact is in any way disputed in this thread.
[QUOTE=drad dog]
I am not convinced Islam wants to deal with this issue based on the statements I have seen. They want to put it on the media, the west and everybody elses history of cruelty. It’s not going to solve anything.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly no bigoted or ignorant oversimplifications from anybody are going to solve anything.
When some Muslims try to blame Islamist radicalism solely on the history of colonial exploitation and aren’t willing to condemn violent murderers for their individual actions, that’s useless and counterproductive. When some non-Muslims try to generalize the opinions of all Muslims as some kind of undifferentiated entity called “Islam” and blame this undifferentiated “Islam” for everything that individual Muslims do, that’s useless and counterproductive too.
What happens if these moderate muslims point to the Gulf states and say “You’re the ones doing trillions in business to states that spread the most extreme messages, and installed those very governments in th 20th century, this is yours to clean up, what are you doing about that, hm ?” ?
Contrast that sort of normalized political dispute with the fate of dissident Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, who has been imprisoned and flogged on charges of apostasy. Interestingly, this situation ended up pitting one wealthy Arab oligarchy against another, as Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad of Jordan proclaimed "Such punishment is prohibited under international human rights law, in particular the convention against torture, which Saudi Arabia has ratified. I appeal to the king of Saudi Arabia to exercise his power to halt the public flogging by pardoning Mr Badawi, and to urgently review this type of extraordinarily harsh penalty.”
But Christians still do claim that the Bible was directly inspired by God. And yet the vast majority of Christians in the West today manage to live according to the principles of modern day humanism, ignoring or re-interpreting those parts of the Bible that are in apparent conflict with it. They manage to do so without ever openly saying “The Bible is wrong.” Why should every discussion about a modern day Islam have to start with Muslims admitting that “Muhammad was wrong”?
We do not have to search our history books very hard to find a time when Western Christianity was every bit as fundamentalistic, intolerant and agressive as the worst parts of Islam are today. Christianity has changed. What was it that caused that change to happen? I believe that it was a change in society that prompted the change in religion (and not the other way around). A similar change will eventually happen in Islamic societies. We can already see that in some of them. We can promote that change by engaging in an exchange of ideas with those Muslims who are open to such a thing. But such an exchange requires a measure of mutual respect. And who knows - maybe we’d even learn a thing or two ourselves?
This! A million times this! All this complex arguing could be skipped by focusing on this. The problems arise when a government and a culture is excessively tied to its origins, especially in its legal system.
Even the US constitution evolves (more in its interpretation than in its text, but even in its text, too) – and we don’t cite any founding fathers’ personal habits or statements when adjudicating modern situations (well, the Federalist Papers come up…but as examples of debate and uncertainty, not immutable truths).
Ramira prefers to remind us that the governments of most Muslim-dominant countries also have legal, political, and (to a lesser degree) cultural and religious systems which evolve and re-interpret and modernize. That’s a helpful reminder – that not every Muslim-dominant country is like Iran or Saudi Arabia. But that doesn’t negate Dr. Strangelove’s points.
Maybe not, but Dr. Strangelove’s points - and yours as well - stop at pointing out what the problem with fundamentalist Islam is. They contribute precious little to anything like a solution.
If you imagine that Iran doesn’t have legal, political, cultural and religious systems which evolve and re-interpret and modernize, I’m not sure what parallel reality you’re talking about.
Yes, over the last thirty-odd years Iran has been politically dominated by a hardline conservative religious establishment. But their religious fundamentalism is far from identical to Saudi Arabia’s (that’s the whole Sunni/Shi’a schism we hear so much about).
Even within the recent period of the mullahcracy in Iran, there’s been a lot of ebb and flow between more hardline and more moderate policies. And the popular culture of most Iranians, especially young people, is way more liberal and anti-dogma than the official doctrine of the clerics, as this description indicates:
As we can see there is no intention for the Antis to follow the repeated moderator instructions.
It is clear enough that there is no program other than to scream the distorted abuse like the street-corner preachers (for a deluded self-satisfaction it is supposed) and for those with a deeper program, it is either unsaid or it is the suppression of the liberties of the religious minority in the hypocritical usage of name of the promotion of tolerance - and of course others would who act exactly as the dos Reyes Católicos and replicate this. But they are shy to say this directly and only push to build the support via the hatreds, the distortions.
A million times empty rhetorical posturing…
Excessively tied? Bizarre.
Of course if one is basing an understanding on grossly distorted information promoted by the haters…
I prefer to remind people here that the bigotted discourse here is ill-informed and grossly distortive, and pretends that the belief systems and the practices of a small minority of the wider religion are the baseline for the hundreds millions more who find such beliefs bizarre…
One apparently you do not understand, there are really no muslim majority countries outside of the Gulf region that even ressemble the Iran or the Saudi Arabia in the law or the politics. Even in the Gulf region the Iran and the Saudis are the only actual examples of the phenomena which the bigots here push as being The Islam…
What points, that ad-hoc abuse of minorities that you hate and fear are expected to have some great moral impact somewhere?
Grabbing on to hateful shock words and using them as a kind of Blood Libel is an old tactic of hatred, and perhaps we should start talking about this habit as being enracinated in the Christian european culture since it is repeated so often in that context… (to use the same kind of logics)
You can expect the same result as when the French criticized the Americans and the English about their idiotic drum beats for war against the Iraq. Or other such things…
And? I don’t pretend to have a solution. Anyone who does is fooling themselves. I’m someone in a gigantic boat with an oar. I can steer the boat by a tiny degree in the direction I want. I can call out for others to steer in the same direction, and hope that a few will hear and agree with me, but ultimately I have only so much control.
There is no fixed solution. The trends are larger than Wahhabism or ISIS or Al Qaeda or whatever other bogeyman of the week there is. But all these things live in a larger public consciousness and I retain the slim hope that I can slightly increase the probability that someone will view their religion as the immoral relic that it is and discard it.
I do in fact think that Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are in a small way responsible for the fact that Millennials are less religious than their parents. I ascribe this to a degree of consciousness raising about the evils of religion. There are other factors at work but a clear message about religion’s antiquated nature is part of it.
I would say that I’d have the same criticism of the US Constitution if there were no mechanism for changing the text. For all the new ways in which we apply the old text to new situations–freedom of speech as applied to the internet, for instance–the findings never get very far from the original. There are scholarly disagreements, and fads that come and go, but they still circle around the same point.
But it does have a mechanism for change which has been used many times. It is a mutable document by its very design, which contrasts it with essentially every religious text ever written. We can keep the good ideas and discard the bad ones.
