Preventing More Lal Masjids

kaalchakra,

yahaan ka rasta kaun bhoolta hai? Thank you for the welcome, but I don't think I have ever really left this place, even with the brief hiatus. I just don't actively (or regularly perhaps is better) participate anymore. Hope all is well with you.

arjun,

speaking of forced child marriages to adults. . .(you were at least) did you read about the Bangladeshi girls who helped stop their 13 yr old girlfriend from being forcibly married to a 23 year old. The times are a-changing somewhere. :)

ana

Aap raasta bhool gayeen? Welcome :)

PM

(((No, it doesn't. But you seemed to rationalizing Islam's right to kill apostates, on the grounds of the need to maintain its integrity. That sounds like an attempt to provide an objective justification. Correct me if wrong))))

I am not giving 'objective' justification of the killing of apostate in the sense you are thinking. This objectivity is not ''universal'' in the mathematical sense.if you have the faith in the baiscs it is justified(agreed with kaal...in fact i am not suprised he has said...coz i knwo his stance on it)hence 'objective'.

The internal structure of ideology will determine what it needs to preserve itself against all other ideologies and systems.At the end of the day its all down to the ''acceptence'' of the basics of that ideology.if you accpet that all your questions are answered.

PM

(((Also, please do define the word "apostate", esp. with reference to what I said about choice in 'accpeting' the faith in the first place)))

Apostasy means...renouncing Islam's fundamental beliefs or try to alter it.

other definition are bit controversial.we will discuss it tomorrow.

if you gentlemen are intrested....i would like to discuss islamic concept of PATRIARCHY tomorrow....there is a lot of confusion regarding this issue....i wanna bring up some intresting dimension of this issue...

though islam gave some very important rights to women which were quite revolutionary at that time but...
my thesis is that PATRIARCHY is a very important part of islamic SPIRTUAL philosophy.....

It doesn't merely have ADMINISTRATIVE aspect as most people believe.At the same time i will try to show that there is no MISOGYNY in islam.

see ye guys tomorrow.

arjun,

Dude, can you please go beyond what Mohammad did with Aisha? None of them live in this century to know what the consequences of such actions are, and unfortunately no one cared then. I think you are a little more intelligent and have a little more at your fingertips than rehashing something that happened centuries ago. Unless you want to be like those who prefer going back to the 7th century for their own bloody, selfish reasons.

Keh diya na? . . .

Hopefully the last sentence in # 791 will be seen as the opinion of a non-Muslim, who lacks faith. A believer would naturally accept it God's word. (and that's justification enough for most people).

PM, Islam, as much as I can see, is NOT out-and-out fascism, dripping in red blood all the time. :)

It is actually a great system, even a generous and wonderful system, a progressive system, for those who can have faith in it. ONCE and after its framework has been fully accepted.

--------------------------

But let me post the reply to your # 785, which I had withheld, fearing it might be misconstrued. Yet the position is not as crazy as it might seem, and hopefully will be taken in light of similar opinions expressed by others, including many knowledgeable Muslims. So here goes:
--------------------------

PM, IMHO, you are on the right track. Communism is Islam for newborn babies, because even kids become quite rumbunctious and more inquisitive.

So just becuase Communism died everywhere except in the forever glowing hearts of Hindu secularists, it does not follow that Islam will die too. It's a "total system," less in a political sense (although it does aspire to be all-guiding), but more in the sense of claiming and holding the allegiance of individuals. Again, it does NOT matter WHY any and every Muslim offers that Islam that allegiance, only that he or she ultimately does.

Communism never got that far, and could never have, because its internal logic was so obviously flawed. It was based on an acdemic theory, not on a theory lived and honed over generations and generations of men living a particular kind of life.

Also, on the global scale, or in the Middle East, you will see that the liberals do indeed do a little more than merely engage in cheap talk to keep the menacing talons of out-and-out fascism at bay.

re. kaal:
"IMO, it's not liberals "fault," because that would be a value judgement. Just that they have nothing to work on, except their own cheap talk."

Funny, but I'd have sworn that the liberal Musharraf, backed by at least half the nation, went a little beyond cheap talk in taking on the custodians of islamic virtue.

In response to PM, who wrote: "What makes Islam so different from the epitomological standpoint? What gives it the right to coerce through it's social "philosophy"?

philosopher responded:

Ideology doesn't give 'objective'(accpetable for all) justification for its 'right'to dominate other ideologies,

No, it doesn't. But you seemed to rationalizing Islam's right to kill apostates, on the grounds of the need to maintain its integrity. That sounds like an attempt to provide an objective justification. Correct me if wrong.

Also, please do define the word "apostate", esp. with reference to what I said about choice in 'accpeting' the faith in the first place. This is not mere armchair philosophy for me, mind you.

PM, in reference to state enforcing a law, let's come to the crux of the matter.

I can wager any reasonable amount that in the next ten years, make it fifteen or twenty, few countries with Muslims as majority population will actually enact (as very different from create even greater amounts of cheap talk) any such law, let alone enforce it.

To be able to generalize like that, PM, you have to grant, one has to be confident of one's position :)

IMO, it's not liberals "fault," because that would be a value judgement. Just that they have nothing to work on, except their own cheap talk. However, they CAN be liberal within the wider framework of Islam which Zee and Philo bhai have been, much to the chagrin of non-Muslims, quite accurately describing.

correction:
"When the STATE enforces a law against calling for the death of apostate-killers, watch how, in due time, the FAITH, of the believers in the soundness of death-for-apostates also starts to diminish.

re. kaal:
"Other two are attributes of efficiency (straightest path to ojbectives) and durability across time and space."

Where is this efficiency exhibited? And how does dissent hamper this effeciency? Funny, but it's a axiom of social theory that what makes a society vibrant, strong and therefore efficient, is its diversity, and allowance for dissent. Unless you're talking of the kind of efficiency seen in Communist China. Maybe you, and Philo, are, actually.

If the Communists keep their ideological strangehold over the country -- as unlikely in the face of globalization as traditional, or Zee's Islam's hold over its adherents -- we may then add the third attribute added to Communist ideology as well. Don't a majority of N.Koreans still support their Great Leader??

#780 Posted by philosopher on July 16, 2007 3:01:20 pm

If you do it with 9 year old girls, like mo did it with aisha, there is a lot we can do about it..like calling the cops..

#778 Posted by PM on July 16, 2007 2:55:45 pm

PM

(((What makes Islam so different from the epitomological standpoint? What gives it the right to coerce through it's social "philosophy"?))))

Ideology doesn't give 'objective'(accpetable for all) justification for its 'right'to dominate other ideologies, it makes its own standard of objectivity and that is what makes it ideology.(call it whatever you want..that is what it is.)

PM
((((Maybe some liberal are aware of it, and also aware that, while the social political Islam served a very important function in the past, it's redundant now. (Not irrelevant, but redundant-- it's function has been copted by the secular state.) Look around you, mian... you see Islamic states, in the socio-political sense, all over Europe))))

YES...iN SOME principle these systems are islamic and might have been influnced by Islam in some respects but its not a big deal...ideologies,philosophies and civilization do influence each other....but the real difference is the difference of perspective of these ideologies....islamic social theory(even its ethical theory) is not isolated and independent of its religio-spirtual basis. Secular systems are only concerned with the society they are not concerned with the perspective and the element of ''consciouness'' in following those moralities. In islam a follower in practicing moralities has a strong sense of accountability to God in view. His social being is ''consciously'' seeing those moralities in the light of God's knowledge not that these moralities itself are good or bad.

re. kaal:

"People can believe or say anything. Beliefs and words matter ONLY if they can be enforced. By state for most non-Muslims, and by faith, for most Muslims."

When the STATE enforces a law against calling for the death of apostates, watch how, in due time, the FAITH, of the believers in the soundness of such punishment also starts to diminish. Faith didn't motivate the faithful to kill blasphemers quite as much as it started to in '85, before which the consequences were rather dire.

You point on talk being cheap is, of course, taken.

"You're suggesting that the more all-encompassing a system is, the more vulnerable it becomes to dissent of any kinds."

"That makes it potentially totalitarian."

Unless someone has strong objections, I do think that is exactly correct. Orwellian or not, that is one's personal preference.

Would only add that being all-encompassing is only one the three important attributes. Other two are attributes of efficiency (straightest path to ojbectives) and durability across time and space.

To achieve all three together, one cannot play with little pieces here and there, merely to suit temporary needs, (except in a clear sense of "strategic retreat)."

--------------

There is a great deal of freedom within. Just not the kind that risks the structure as a whole. There will always be some poeple who are unwilling to countenance too many risks, by themselves, and if the system is important, by others as well.

------------

What's the justification?

None, unless one first has faith in the basics.