Ernie : I very much like the spirit in which you wrote and your thoughtfulness. Still, there a couple of demurers to spell out. See below Billy -------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 12/14/2009 10:20:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
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_ (http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/radio_host_neal_boortz_cal ls_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". Which is not only ironic, but maybe the worst case of unrecognized mass hypocrisy in the world today --since Muslims ( many Muslims ) insist they are pluralist when all relevant evidence tells us clearly that this is rarely the case. Not that they are necessarily inherently violent or evil, but as a whole Islamic societies appear to lack robust defenses against a descent into violence. Suppose the US constitution said that enemies of America should be given an ultimatum is any war situation, convert to Americanism or be killed. Suppose the Constitution said that all non-citizens in the US must pay a special dhimmi tax just to be tolerated . Suppose the Constitution said that if an enemy of America does not become Americanized our forces will ( literally ) crucify them if we desire and they and their women and children will be sold into slavery. How do you suppose Americans would behave as compared to the situation now ? Uhhh, the Qur'an is the "constitution" of all observant Muslims. 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. Excellent observation. 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 enlightened 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. For me the question comes down to this : Why remain a Muslim when there are so many superior alternatives ? Since this is true --so it seems to me-- why not make the logical connection and seek to win Muslims to some better faith ? Why compromise away what you --anyone-- really believes in ? We can grant X number of good qualities to Muslims on principle and make it clear that there is no animus against them as people, but why not, at that point, make it crystal clear that civilized people take a dim view of their religion and that if they want to join the human family they need to abandon a religion that is so utterly dysfunctional that it cannot be viewed as anything but a system of error ? = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
