""Bush too easy on Islam, some of his backers say"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
"Bush too easy on Islam, some of his backers say"

This article gives me chills... more like chills from sweating out of anger, targeted at the religious right here in the U.S.

I can only pray that Robertson and his ilk will become more and more obsolete as the years go by.

donut bitch (donut), Sunday, 1 December 2002 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

remember what regan was like.

Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 1 December 2002 11:12 (twenty-two years ago)

"The enemy has an ideology, and an hour spent surfing the Web will give the average citizen at least the kind of insights that he or she might have found during World Wars I and II by reading 'Mein Kampf' or the writings of Lenin, Stalin or Mao."

That's hilarious for so many reasons.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 1 December 2002 11:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I can only pray that Robertson and his ilk will become more and more obsolete as the years go by.


On the contrary, I think they *may* gain in prominence...if there are more attacks and the public's toleratnt tide changes

V, Sunday, 1 December 2002 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

toleratnt

do i really have to misspell at least one word in every single post i make?

V, Sunday, 1 December 2002 12:12 (twenty-two years ago)

do i really have to misspell at least one word in every single post i make?
Welcome to my word, I mean world, V

brg30 (brg30), Sunday, 1 December 2002 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually it should say Islam too easy on Bush supporters. They should make and wear more jock straps with Georgies face on the crotch :0

brg30 (brg30), Sunday, 1 December 2002 23:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish I knew more about Islam because all I ever really hear about is Getting on a doormat and facing east and blowing things up. Does anyone know anything about their basic beliefs?

Mike Hanle y (mike), Sunday, 1 December 2002 23:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Don Regan?

James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 1 December 2002 23:17 (twenty-two years ago)

If you search for Islam basic principles in Google it gives you the following as its second result:
http://www.wponline.org/vil/Articles/aqeedah/bpsc.html

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 2 December 2002 04:41 (twenty-two years ago)

A better site is located at http://www.missionislam.com/islam/knowledge/basic.htm

I get the impression that in America there is some sort of idea that Islam is totally contrary Christianity/Judaism. As Allah in Islam is the same god as God in Christianity and whatever he's called by Jews, and as Islam recognises all the prophets, including Jesus (although it says Jesus is not God), this is obviously a bit of nasty propaganda. It is worth reading the section http://www.missionislam.com/islam/knowledge/basic.htm#8 to clarify who Jesus is in Islam.

If you actually want to read the Quran it is in easy to understand English at http://www.submission.org/Q-T.html

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 2 December 2002 05:06 (twenty-two years ago)

THanks you , helpful "Tiger cat"

Mike Hanle y (mike), Monday, 2 December 2002 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

On the contrary, I think they *may* gain in prominence...if there are more attacks and the public's toleratnt tide changes

Well you know what has to happen? The intellectuals need to take control of things. The world will be a better place.

Leee (Leee), Monday, 2 December 2002 08:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Hasn't The Simpsons warned us of the dangers of a government of intellectual elders?

Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 2 December 2002 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)


this (Muslim-written) article makes a fair case that shying away from confronting the global scale and expressed aims of militant Islam, especially out of deference to apologists-for-theocratic-oppression like CAIR, is deeply damaging to the cause of moderate Islam and its many millions of decent, non-violent, practitioners.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4693

andy, Monday, 2 December 2002 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

The intellectuals need to take control of things

I think ILE should rule the world (not ILM, obv - that would be silly).

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 2 December 2002 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

If ILM ruled the world:

Osama: "Pink = punk!"
Bush: "Rockist!"
Rest of the world: "Oh no! Nuclear war! Oh no!"

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 2 December 2002 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Queen G - show us your weapons of mass destruction

Queen G (Queeng), Monday, 2 December 2002 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I wonder why people weren't called "soft on Christianity" when all the abortion doctors were getting shot and harassed.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 2 December 2002 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I think that in general, western liberals and leftists (of which Bush obviously isn't one) need to be careful about being too generous in assessing Islam. While I think the idea of declaring war on the Islamic world is completely crazy, I still think we need to recognize that there are a lot of Muslims who are in favor of a type of social order that many of us would have serious problems with. Mohammed was a military leader who created a theocratic civil order. If the Bible is to be trusted on this matter, Jesus did not pursue those sort of aims. The New Testament pretty consistently preaches obedience to existing governments and does not call for Christians to try to create a new political order, regardless of what the history of the church has been, or what current supposedly fundamentalist Christians attempt.

I get the impression that in America there is some sort of idea that Islam is totally contrary Christianity/Judaism. As Allah in Islam is the same god as God in Christianity and whatever he's called by Jews, and as Islam recognises all the prophets, including Jesus (although it says Jesus is not God), this is obviously a bit of nasty propaganda. It is worth reading the section http://www.missionislam.com/islam/knowledge/basic.htm#8 to clarify who Jesus is in Islam.

toraneko, The God of Islam is the same God as the God of Christianity, according to whom? If large groups of Christians think otherwise, on what basis are you going to correct them? If Muslims say that he is the same God, and Christians (many, if not most, anyway), how are you going to decide between the two? The fact that Muslims deny that God became a human being, and that God would ever incarnate as a human being, is not an insignificant difference. For most orthodox (small o) Christians, faith in Christ is not optional for salvation. It's not just one way among other that one can be saved. Christianity relation to Judaism is obviously problematic, since it wouldn't be possible to deny that the God of the Israelites was the same God that Christians believe in. But in fact, the author of the book of Hebrew in the New Testament actually makes the claim that earlier Jews were saved by their faith in a Christ who had not yet come.

Islam is not contrary to Christianity in every respect, but there are significant differences.

*

You should all check out the Stanley Fish article on Islam that appeared in Harper's some time in the last year.

(No, I am not a Christian, and not religious.)

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 01:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Osama and his gang are no the only ones interested in establishing Sharia. Yes, there are moderate Muslims, but the number of supporters of some version of Sharia is not that small.

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 01:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Rockist - a group of people believe in a god, they are the Jews.

Then some dude called Jesus turns up and some say he's the son of that god and that he is that god at the same time. They are the Christians.

The Jews say Jesus is neither the son of the god, not the god himself. The Christians and Jews still believe in the same god though.

Then some other dude, called Mohammad, turns up and says that although Jesus was made by god, Jesus is not actually god.

"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, 'Be', and he was."

(Qur'an, Al-'Imran 3:59)

Apparently Muslims also believe there will be a second coming of Jesus to lead them.

All the angels and prophets etc. are the same in Islam as they are in Judaism and Christianity.

So, Rockist, how could you, or anyone else even mildly informed, come to decide that the god that is worshipped in Islam is a different god to that worshipped in Christianity and/or Judaism?

toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 01:45 (twenty-two years ago)

toraneko, part of what I am saying is that if a religious groups decides that they are worshiping a different God from another religious group, then, whatever the capital T truth is (like maybe there is no God at all), on the level of socially constructed reality, they are worshiping a different God. What believers believe is decided by the believers themselves. If most evangelicals decide that Mormons aren't really Christians, then in a sense, Mormons aren't really Christians. This is the type of reality that gets decide collectively.

I'm leaving work. I don't think I'm that uninformed about these things. Religion is the family business.

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 01:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Err I think the problem is the amount of effort the West feels like putting into separating a religion from dangerous ideological strains of said religion: there are loads of Christians whose proposed ideological order would be just as unacceptable to others, but we're all reasonable adults who understand that this isn't necessarily inherent in the beliefs of the religion as a whole, and that attacks on the overarching theology aren't the best way to control those elements. (It's also worth noting that the U.S., anyway, displays near-complete religious tolerance apart from otherwise-illegal activities, which makes it difficult to criticize the ideological thrusts of religions abroad.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 02:23 (twenty-two years ago)

In other words, saying "ooo Islam looking a little shady lately" is a really unproductive tack, and a big distraction from -- actually, flat-out couterproductive to -- the job of trying to figure out how to encourage quotidian non-militant Islam.

I'd also offer that Islam is a big red herring in our dealings with the Mid-East: it's what draws the line around groups and interests, but I don't believe it is in any way the source of the problems that exist. In other words, it's my guess that so long as the people of the region were unified by any common "stong" religion, we'd see the same tensions emerging, though possibly playing out in different forms.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco, I still think that if you take a group of Muslims who are fairly conservative in accepting the Qur'an as God's word, and some set of hadith as authoritative in filling in gaps left by the Qur'an; they are going to find much more justification in their religion for trying to create a specifically Islamic state than a Bible-believing Christian will find in the Bible. (I am thinking here of Protestants. I'd have a harder time getting a handle on what Catholics believe.) There's plenty of precedent in the actions of Muhammed for Muslims who want to establish a theocracy; but there is zero precedent in the actions of Jesus for Christians who want to do something of that sort, and there is very little in the New Testament to justify it either (though I think some of the ambiguity comes in when the question arises about what influence Old Testament civil law should have on the political decisions of Christians). I think what bothers me is that anything we don't like about Islam we're all too prepared to say isn't true to what the religion really teaches. But take the death penalty for apostasy: that is pretty widely accepted, in theory, and is based on passages in hadith which I think most Suni Muslims accept as authoritative.

You're probably right that some sort of ideological attack on Islam isn't going to be particularly helpful in working out the conflicts that exist in the middle east and between the U.S. (and much of the western world) and the middle east, but I still think we (more-or-less liberal westerners) need to keep our eyes open and not only listen to moderate or liberal Muslims saying what we want to hear, and I think there is a place for polemic against religions.

I imagine that most Muslims are more interested in maintaining their own traditions and just going about the business of living their lives than they are in claiming the whole world for Islam.

*

As someone who used to consider himself a Christian and who has known many devout Christians, I think that you cannot underestimate the significance of the Christian belief in God's incarnation as Jesus and in Jesus's actual crucifiction. "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness"--I Corinthians 1:23. It is completely central to orthodox Christianity's understanding of how humans find salvation. If the God of the Qur'an denies that Jesus was God incarnate, and denies that Jesus died on the cross, then a Christian of reasonably orthodox stripe has a lot of reason to deny that that is the same God Christianity worships and believes in.

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 03:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Doesn't any agree that it is an oversimplification to say flat out that "Islam is a religion of peace"?

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:17 (twenty-two years ago)

it is. I just think its a moot point. No religion hasn't been altered and changed to fit a sect's more violent platform. Too many psycho Christians to bother implying one religion is to-the-letter more peaceful, because nobody follows this shit to the letter. I don't want to give creedence to the people who think Bush is "soft on Islam" because they're wrong. And is Bush called it a "religion of peace" its no more absurd than 99.9% of the shit that comes out of his mouth, and much less harmful.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Current correlation betw. *Muslims* and *homicidal assholes* less to do with scripture than poverty, i.e. both Christian and Muslim (or if you prefer, Protestant and Sunni) encompass a huge range of possible moral systems which are related more closely to living/education standards than whether or not you think Jesus was the Son of God.

B.Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Just for arguments sake, why is Bush so bad? What has he said or done that is so objectionable or distasteful? In other words...back up your bashing. (specifically)

B, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:46 (twenty-two years ago)

And is Bush called it a "religion of peace" its no more absurd than 99.9% of the shit that comes out of his mouth, and much less harmful.

I do agree with this.

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Why Bush bad: The answer I usually get is because Texan Republicans are evil by definition. The answer I usually give is ignoring the Kyoto Protocol, needless militarism, helping out old corparate chums etc. etc.

B.Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

crucifiction

Whoops.

rs, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 05:03 (twenty-two years ago)

shit, B. Where does one start? Just read Doonesbury and This Modern World (not cuz it's the best source - I do READ as well, but its the most entertaining and rather succinct) for a clue as to why someone might think Bush is a horrible president and that everything that comes out of his mouth is complete and utter shit.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

'the job of trying to figure out how to encourage quotidian non-militant Islam'

Why is this a good idea? Why is encouraging ANYONE to be more religious a good idea? Can't we just say they're fucking stupid for believing in God in the first place? Or does that only apply to Xtians (which I'm not)? It seems that the more psychos a religion enables, the bigger the free pass - do people fear getting fatwas slapped on them?

shay shandelle, Tuesday, 3 December 2002 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i totally want to give Creedence to the people who think Bush is soft on Islam!! "it ain't me... it ain't meeee... i ain't no billionaire's son!" (sorry Anthony)

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

great, Tracer! Now you got me laughing at work!

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

play 'em "Bad Muslim Rising"

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

bush is an assclown.

Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 3 December 2002 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering, second in command to Hitler, 1939

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Just for arguments sake, why is Bush so bad? What has he said or done that is so objectionable or distasteful?

Now I know that I shouldn't have created that "Free Republic: C or D?" thread ...

Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Rockist: my point is less that Islam doesn't contain ideological cues which point in dangerous directions and more that it doesn't matter, and that going around moderating faith based on its ideology is a fool's game to play. I'm also mystified by your contention that the primary sources of Christianity don't point toward theocracy: this certainly didn't stop Christianity, when it was roughly the same "age" as Islam is now, from exercising just as much power over Europe as hereditary monarchies did, or from creating the same sorts of de facto theocracies as we see in the Muslim world today.

Shay: I don't understand why you think I'm encouraging religion -- the point is that the goals and values of most everyone in the West would be better fit by a Muslim world dominated by everyday "soft" Islam rather than Islamic radicalism. This is, so far as I can tell, the only productive tack to take in this regard: for the West's most religious nation to go around telling Muslims to become atheists seems like a pretty good way to encourage the exact opposite.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

"Now I know that I shouldn't have created that "Free Republic: C or D?" thread ... "

So now it's Democracy/Republics, not just Bush?

B, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

the Renaissance, the Restoration, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution were all about freeing Europe (or parts of same) from Christian theocracy. same, too, for the American Revolution (contra what certain Jesus Freaks would like Americans to believe).

and anyone who doesn't think that Christianity doesn't "support" or "point towards" theocracy really ought to read some books about Oliver Cromwell or Savanorola.

Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Well I'd say it's more that the "pointings" of various religions are completely mutable and malleable, as evidenced by the entirety of human history, so it's completely unproductive to go around saying that the core teachings of one seem to point more to X Bad Thing than the teachings of another: those primary sources haven't stopped people from advocating or condemning all kinds of crazy unrelated shit. The problem isn't Islam, as proven every day by the millions upon millions of Muslims who are doing just fine and bothering no one.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 07:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure that's true. Judiasm, Islam and Xianity clearly belong to one overall tradition (within which there are many communities within each faith, let alone between them, who deny each other's 'God'), but they also clearly have real differences, which have shaped their charachter, and in turn the charachter of those soceities in which they dominate.

As RS says, one of the clearest differences between Islam and Xianity - one I'm sure Mohammed was conscious of - is that its founder was a political as well as a religious leader, his book is unimpeachably and utterly the last word of God - much less easy to reinvent as the Bible has been - and combined with the Hadith it contains some specific rules as to how to live life (as indeed does Judiasm). Jesus stuck much closer to general moral principles.

Both religions have gone on to exhibit a huge range of characheristics, but the above facts have still made it harder to build a 'reform' Islamic tradition, and are surely bound to make it easier for those societies in which Islam dominates to tend to the authoritarian.

Which is not to deny the wisdom, variety and cultural richness in that tradition, which I respect a lot. Just to acknowldedge that those key differences can and do have an ongoing effect.

If Christianity had been founded by a Presbyterian it might have looked like this ...

jon (jon), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 10:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm also mystified by your contention that the primary sources of Christianity don't point toward theocracy: this certainly didn't stop Christianity, when it was roughly the same "age" as Islam is now, from exercising just as much power over Europe as hereditary monarchies did, or from creating the same sorts of de facto theocracies as we see in the Muslim world today.

I think it matters, because it means that there really isn't much ground for Biblical fundamentalists to justify pursuing something like a theocracy. Maybe my interpretation is flawed. If even someone like John Calvin, who I think was (frighteningly) serious about trying to take the entire Bible seriously, thought that a Christian state was Biblically justified, then maybe I am missing something in the Bible. It's not so much that the Bible rules out such a state, just that it doesn't call for or require its creation. (The whole question of how Christians should act in a democracy is a fuzzy one, I admit, since the situation of Christians in contemporary democracies is entirely different from what it was during the Roman empire.) I understand that historically the Christian church in one form or another has shaped oppressive governments. I don't think you can deny that statecraft is built into Islamic origins in a way that it is not in Christian origins. If you think it doesn't make any practical difference, that I can understand. I do think there is a difference between being told by your scripture, and by your religion's founder, that you are to create a civil order based on God given law; and having the relationship of your religion to government left open-ended, but de-emphasized, aside from exhortations to obey whatever government happens to be in power.

(I don't think there is only one possible plausible interpretation of the Bible, even from a relatively fundamentalist or Reformed point of view, but I also don't think it's so wildly inconsistent that "anything goes.")

Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Well I'd say it's more that the "pointings" of various religions are completely mutable and malleable, as evidenced by the entirety of human history, so it's completely unproductive to go around saying that the core teachings of one seem to point more to X Bad Thing than the teachings of another: those primary sources haven't stopped people from advocating or condemning all kinds of crazy unrelated shit.

There's something I think you're missing that I'm not sure exactly how to express, but I will try. It matters what the earliest recorded teachings say, because if a movement seeks to go back to what the primary documents of their religion says, and what the founder is reported to have done, then those teachings determine what is going to be found there. This is what the Wahabi movement in Islam attempted to do, and what the Christian Reformation attempted to do.

Edmund C. Cohen, writing about Reformed churches in the United States in The Mind of the Bible-Believer, points out that liberal churches kept Christianity alive in a watered down form, but continued to keep the Bible surrounded by an aura of sacredness; even though they were quite willing to ignore most of it at their own convenience. As Cohen puts it, liberal churches helped created a "benign" image of the Bible. Some individuals who were raised in that sort of church, when exposed to Reformed theological readings of the Bible, will end up going back to the much nastier, but more seriously Biblical, Reformed theology. Liberal forms of a religion keep that religion alive in what may seem like a relatively benign form, but if a reformation of some sort occurs, or an individual attempt to return to origins, then whatever was there at the beginning (at least to the extent that it was recorded), can potentially come alive again. In my personal experience, I was raised as a Methodist and taught a pretty loose sort of hermeneutic. When my devoutly religious sister was exposed* to the more rigorous close reading of Reformed theology, she became a Calvinist, and I almost followed in her foot-steps. (Instead, it pushed me out of the church altogether.)

Christians were taught to obey the authority of a pagan Roman Empire. It is very possible for a fundamentalist Christian to accept the authority of whatever secular government they are living under, wihtout being untrue to Biblical principles.

*Of course, it didn't hurt the cause that she fell in love with a Calvinist seminary student.

Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

No, no, I may have expressed my point poorly. I'm saying it's all well and good for theologians to get nit-picky about what the root tenets of a religion "point to," but as these things don't exert overwhelming influence on the day-to-day actions of practicioners, it doesn't really help -- and that beyond that, well, basically, what good does it do to go around saying "Islam's central tenets are questionable to the values of the west?" You won't get very far going around telling people that they shouldn't be Muslims.

So I'm not so much disagreeing about the theology, which I'm not exactly hugely versed in, but more pointing out that the idea of being "soft on Islam" or "hard on Islam" is a ridiculous one. Islam exists, and it's not possible to go revising the Quran. Surely the point is to promote conditions that encourage the sort of Islam that one finds most beneficial to the world as a whole, not to vote classic or dud on the thing as a whole. (Especially because the West's calling "dud" only encourages the militancy of the thing.)

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha "Islam: Classic or Dud?"

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

but as these things don't exert overwhelming influence on the day-to-day actions of practicioners,

True, but they can still form the basis of movements which can become more or less popular (depending on other factors). And, for example, as I undersand it, the Wahabi movement was behind the strict practice of sharia that exists in Saudi Arabia today; so these reform movements are not entirely academic. On the other hand, you are right that, say, an Indonesian Sufi may see things entirely differently.

it doesn't really help -- and that beyond that, well, basically, what good does it do to go around saying "Islam's central tenets are questionable to the values of the west?" You won't get very far going around telling people that they shouldn't be Muslims.

True!

. . .but more pointing out that the idea of being "soft on Islam" or "hard on Islam" is a ridiculous one.

Well, getting back to what the thread is about, I have to basically agree. It's not up to Bush to make some sort of official statement about the worth or worthlessness, truth or falsity, etc. of Islam; though I think it was good for him to discourage people from attacking Muslims in the U.S., and to affirm that they have as much right to practice their religion here as anyone else.

Islam exists, and it's not possible to go revising the Quran. Surely the point is to promote conditions that encourage the sort of Islam that one finds most beneficial to the world as a whole, not to vote classic or dud on the thing as a whole. (Especially because the West's calling "dud" only encourages the militancy of the thing.)

This I have mixed feelings about. I think there is a place for critiques of Islam per se (just as there is for any other religion). At the political level, yes, you have to deal with it as a given.

Could you give specific examples of the type of encouragement you mean? Are you thinking primarily at the state level (e.g., granting special trading rights to Turkey, for example)?

Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

But maybe you are all (most of you) right: this is basically a trivial issue compared to the actual damage being done and apparently about to be done by the U.S. government.

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 6 December 2002 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

This I have mixed feelings about. I think there is a place for critiques of Islam per se (just as there is for any other religion). At the political level, yes, you have to deal with it as a given.

But perhaps that's more the place of those who live in Islamic societies than those who don't. The same way that, at various points, it took Europeans themselves to undermine and question Christianity (influenced at least partly by the Islamic world, it should be added). Non-Muslims may have helpful criticisms, but isn't it for Muslims themselves to do the heavy lifting?

Tad (llamasfur), Saturday, 7 December 2002 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but then why do they have to get everyone else involved? Wrecking the world's economy'n'shit. Goddam it I'm sick of this endless recession!

dave q, Saturday, 7 December 2002 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Tad, Islam doesn't just exist in the Islamic world. I think it would be very useful if there were more books in English to offer some sort of well-thought out negative account of religions that are relatively knew to our society. There is a body of works critical of the claims of Christianity. I would like to see more of this for Islam, Buddhism, etc.

Anyway, it would be very difficult to publish the equivalent of Biblical "higher criticism" applied to the Qur'an, in many parts of the Muslim world, since, for example, it is often unacceptable to admit that there early manuscripts of the Qur'an aren't exactly the same as the Qur'an Muslims now use.

Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 7 December 2002 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.