> Lam wrote:
>> Consider yourself revolutionary, you have nothing to lose Consider me
>> reformist
I agree with Billy -- a brilliant insight!
It occurs me that the radical centrist approach to Islam would be to find the
purest "data-driven" definition of the problem that both "revolutionaries" and
"reformists" can agree upon.
That is, I share Billy's frustration with excessive political correctness, but
I don't believe the answer is to declare all-out war on Islam. For one thing,
it alienates us from potential allies. For another, there really *are* people
who would like to use violent means to destroy Islam (and as many Muslims as
necessary), and I'd rather not have them on my side:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/radio_host_neal_boortz_calls_islam_a_cult_threatens_to_eradicate_muslims/0014271
Instead, I want to stake out a position that everyone who care about truth
would agree with, and use *that* as a starting point for discussion and debate
about *means*.
To wit, here is what I think is the strongest statement easily justified by an
objective study of the evidence:
"Mainstream Islam appears inherently dysfunctional".
By 'dysfunctional', I mean the technical sense of not having a positive means
of resolving conflict. That is why Muslim-majority societies tend to be so
violent, and Muslim minorities are so touchy about their rights -- their world
view does not appear to support belief in "healthy pluralism". Not that they
are necessarily inherently violent or evil, but as a whole Islamic societes
appear to lack robust defenses against a descent into violence.
To be sure, I am willing to concede the weasel-word "appears". I'll be honest,
I don't *really* know what the Islamic world looks like from the inside. I
don't know what enlightened heroes Islamic liberals may honor who present a
very different vision of Islam that what we see today. However, I think it is
entirely reasonable to point out that a superficial reading of history presents
a very bleak picture indeed, and the burden of proof is on the defender to show
why that appearance isn't a substantive reality.
Similarly, I have chosen the neutral "mainstream" rather more theologically
loaded terms like "authentic", "fundamentalist", "Koran-driven", etc. I fully
agree (and frequently point out) that there are wonderful counter-currents
within Islamic communities that embody numerous englightended values. However,
the tragedy is that this is clearly not true of the "thought leaders" whom the
bulk of the "Muslim street" looks to as their authentic representatives.
The point of framing the issue this way is to provide a focal point for both
those who want to save Islam and those who want to destroy it, to make it clear
what the *true* enemy is (i.e., not each other!).
What do you think?
--- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
