Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence
Pervez Hoodbhoy October 13, 2003
#46 Posted by _digit on October 15, 2003 9:00:21 pm
In response to PM, who wrote:
[How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.]
Hmm...that`s interesting. Actually, I do indeed argue that hating the sin can very well lead to hatred for the sinner...the sinner being the implement of the sin, I can`t see how you can separate the deed from the one who commits the deed. But I don`t advocate the abandoning ones principles on this account.
[Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here,]
...me, smug? Never! ;-)
[the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)]
Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.
[How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.]
Hmm...that`s interesting. Actually, I do indeed argue that hating the sin can very well lead to hatred for the sinner...the sinner being the implement of the sin, I can`t see how you can separate the deed from the one who commits the deed. But I don`t advocate the abandoning ones principles on this account.
[Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here,]
...me, smug? Never! ;-)
[the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)]
Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#45 Posted by nakhok on October 15, 2003 12:24:42 pm
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030428-89513989.htm
Washington Times
April 28, 2003
The road to democracy
by Suzanne Fields
[Suzanne Fields is a columnist for The Washington Times]
..... ``Islamic fundamentalists are utopian visionaries who wish to
replace Western-style liberal democracies with Islamic theocracy, a
fascist system of filth that aims to control every single act of every
individual,`` Ibn Warraq told a conference on Islam the other day,
sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism. ``We must take seriously
what the Islamists say to understand their motivation [of September
11], that it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in
the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God`s law,
the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world.`` You can`t
be more pessimistic than that.
Mr. Warraq excoriates Americans who naively believe ``liberal
Muslims`` when they say their religion is compatible with feminism,
human rights, egalitarianism and religious tolerance: ``There may be
moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.``
Mr. Warraq is as soft-spoken and gentlemanly as his words are
inflammatory. When I caught up with him at a reception in his honor
and asked him how he accounted for the medieval glories of Islamic
civilization, he was courtly and witty as he confronted what he called
the ``error`` in my question. ``Science and the arts came from outside
the Muslim world and in spite of the Koran and Islamic law,`` he told
me in the tone of the patient schoolteacher he once was. ``Crediting
Islam for the medieval cultural glories is like crediting the
Inquisition for Galileo`s discoveries.``
Mr. Warraq is the author of a book called ``Why I`m Not Muslim,``
which is industrial-strength blasphemy for a man born a Muslim in
India. He lives now in upstate New York. He uses a pen name and
resists being photographed to avoid a Salman Rushdie-like fatwa, or
death sentence ordered by an aggrieved imam. His pessimism has the
subtlety of a sledgehammer, expressing a passionately-felt, if
one-sided, interpretation of the religion he was born to deny. .....
Washington Times
April 28, 2003
The road to democracy
by Suzanne Fields
[Suzanne Fields is a columnist for The Washington Times]
..... ``Islamic fundamentalists are utopian visionaries who wish to
replace Western-style liberal democracies with Islamic theocracy, a
fascist system of filth that aims to control every single act of every
individual,`` Ibn Warraq told a conference on Islam the other day,
sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism. ``We must take seriously
what the Islamists say to understand their motivation [of September
11], that it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in
the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God`s law,
the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world.`` You can`t
be more pessimistic than that.
Mr. Warraq excoriates Americans who naively believe ``liberal
Muslims`` when they say their religion is compatible with feminism,
human rights, egalitarianism and religious tolerance: ``There may be
moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.``
Mr. Warraq is as soft-spoken and gentlemanly as his words are
inflammatory. When I caught up with him at a reception in his honor
and asked him how he accounted for the medieval glories of Islamic
civilization, he was courtly and witty as he confronted what he called
the ``error`` in my question. ``Science and the arts came from outside
the Muslim world and in spite of the Koran and Islamic law,`` he told
me in the tone of the patient schoolteacher he once was. ``Crediting
Islam for the medieval cultural glories is like crediting the
Inquisition for Galileo`s discoveries.``
Mr. Warraq is the author of a book called ``Why I`m Not Muslim,``
which is industrial-strength blasphemy for a man born a Muslim in
India. He lives now in upstate New York. He uses a pen name and
resists being photographed to avoid a Salman Rushdie-like fatwa, or
death sentence ordered by an aggrieved imam. His pessimism has the
subtlety of a sledgehammer, expressing a passionately-felt, if
one-sided, interpretation of the religion he was born to deny. .....
#44 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 15, 2003 11:52:56 am
#35
++
I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.
++
I agree that you have a valid point.... one cant claim / be labelled a reformist just because he has written about short comings.....
... your arguments about double standards I feel are also valid....
OTOH... he has pointed failues.. it is upto us to reform ourselves.... so he did contribute....
... but you were surely wrong about Taslima.... she wrote against anti-hindu agenda of Bangladesh.... She wrote about facts!!!!
.... another thing... pretesting against generalisations.. u did do generalisation....
...Rushdie is not all that intellectually dishonest as you painted him in your earlier post...
...anyway... hope you will find a good reformer before it is too late....
Regards,
CC
++
I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.
++
I agree that you have a valid point.... one cant claim / be labelled a reformist just because he has written about short comings.....
... your arguments about double standards I feel are also valid....
OTOH... he has pointed failues.. it is upto us to reform ourselves.... so he did contribute....
... but you were surely wrong about Taslima.... she wrote against anti-hindu agenda of Bangladesh.... She wrote about facts!!!!
.... another thing... pretesting against generalisations.. u did do generalisation....
...Rushdie is not all that intellectually dishonest as you painted him in your earlier post...
...anyway... hope you will find a good reformer before it is too late....
Regards,
CC
#43 Posted by Urstruly on October 15, 2003 9:05:41 am
Romair
Rush limbaugh is in rehab.; I think he will be ok after that.
Rush limbaugh is in rehab.; I think he will be ok after that.
#42 Posted by Romair on October 15, 2003 6:50:45 am
SaminaShah #41: ``Romair,
Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.``
Rushdie is definitely not a reformer of religion. That is my whole point. I cannot understand why certain individuals are bent upon giving people like Rushdie, and anyone else who creates controversy about religion, without any factual basis, to be a reformer of Islam. Rushdie is reforming Islam, about as much as Rush Limbaugh is reforming African-Americans.
Rushdie is basically a very good writer of the English language, and an astute businessman, and a culture critic etc., like you stated. Much like Rush Limbaugh is a very good radio show host, with a strong radio voice. However, both Rushdie and Limbaugh are known far more than others, in their profession, who may know more about the subject. This is because they have succeeded in creating controversy around certain subjects, and thus have become very popular with the crowd, which needed to vent its frustrations through them.
What more could a writer or a critic want, than to be declared the authority on a subject? The only thing he/she could want more is to be declared not only the authority on the subject, but to be declared a reformer of the subject, and achieve martyr-like status. This is what individuals like Rushdie and Limbaugh are terrific at.
In Limbaugh’s case, he has a lot of knowledge about politics, and is an authority on that. And he should be recognized for that. But he uses that to create controversy by making marginally factual statements about Blacks and others, thereby creating controversy, and feeding the monster. In return he makes over $25 million/year. Rushdie has been able to do the same, by using his reputation as a good writer, and venturing into the area of religion, making marginally factual statements about religion, and feeding the monster, also. In return, he is now the best-known author in the world, for reasons other than his writing. How many people outside the literary community know Mistry, and Roy, etc.? Everyone outside the literary community knows Rushdie. Primarily because of the controversies he has created around Islam.
I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I was one of the only guys on this site, who said that I would not return to site, if the self-appointed Chowk police succeeded in banning Jay. Even though individuals like Jay, and RationalFaith and AlphaNull etc. never spare a moment in spewing their hatred against me, my ethnicity and my religion, respectively. My views on Islam are quite unorthodox also. For example, I do not believe that all the Hadith can be validated historically, hence they should not be used as the basis of Islamic juridsprudence. This would turn all of Islamic law on its head. But I can back up my claim with with logic and facts, and I am not trying to sell a book.
The problem with people like Rushdie and Limbaugh is that they use freedom of speech, their influence, and the great amount of skills (most of which are actually very legitimate) to pursue agendas about which they have no factual basis. This is big business.
I strongly believe that such individuals should have the right to express their views. But I also strongly believe that they should be exposed and brought to task, when they make non-factual statements against ethnicities (Limbaugh) and religion (Rushdie). The Blacks and Jews have put in a watchdog system, which does not let individuals get away with such remarks. They are taken to task. The Muslims have not put in such a system. Muslims do not have the courage to expose such individuals. Or they go to the other extremes and pass a fatwa against them. What should be done is to challenge them to back up their claims, and to expose any racism they hold, to the public.
This is what I am attempting to do. If they can back up their claims with facts, then I will have no argument. But I do read a lot, and can easily differentiate between individuals like Tariq Ali and Rushdie. Tariq Ali, is an apostate, also. He has perhaps made more controversial statements about Islam, than Rushdie, including hinting that the Quran not being the actual book of God, but coming into existence many years later. But, everything he states is done in the form of a constructive argument. He tries to back it up with fact. He is not creating controversy, for the sake of controversy. Thus, I follow him very closely, and actually agree with much of what he says (and disagree with much also). Rushdie, on the other hand cannot back up any of his religious references in Satanic Verses with fact. He is just slandering, and exploiting an illiterate (about Islam) Western audience.
This does not mean I disagree with everything that Rushdie writes. He is a fellow Kashmiri, and is a supporter of the self-determination of Kashmiris. Now this is a topic he does know a lot about. This is something he should be known for in the Western media. However, this is a boring topic around which it is impossible to create controversy, and it does not sell any books.
There are individuals who try to, “pummell, slander, satire, abuse, hate” other religions, in order to vent out their frustrations. They do so while hiding behind freedom of speech concepts and pseudonyms like RationalFaith. They will make a living out of bigoted comments. And if one attempts to challenge them and expose them, they declare him to be a fascist.
There are other individuals who try to constructively debate religions.
I support the later. For the former, I don’t think they should be, “fatwa”ed, but they should definitely be challenged and their bigotry should be exposed.
But to claim the first group as, “Reformers.” Gimme a break. They are trying to reform Islam about as much as Rush Limbaugh is trying to reform African-Americans.
Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.``
Rushdie is definitely not a reformer of religion. That is my whole point. I cannot understand why certain individuals are bent upon giving people like Rushdie, and anyone else who creates controversy about religion, without any factual basis, to be a reformer of Islam. Rushdie is reforming Islam, about as much as Rush Limbaugh is reforming African-Americans.
Rushdie is basically a very good writer of the English language, and an astute businessman, and a culture critic etc., like you stated. Much like Rush Limbaugh is a very good radio show host, with a strong radio voice. However, both Rushdie and Limbaugh are known far more than others, in their profession, who may know more about the subject. This is because they have succeeded in creating controversy around certain subjects, and thus have become very popular with the crowd, which needed to vent its frustrations through them.
What more could a writer or a critic want, than to be declared the authority on a subject? The only thing he/she could want more is to be declared not only the authority on the subject, but to be declared a reformer of the subject, and achieve martyr-like status. This is what individuals like Rushdie and Limbaugh are terrific at.
In Limbaugh’s case, he has a lot of knowledge about politics, and is an authority on that. And he should be recognized for that. But he uses that to create controversy by making marginally factual statements about Blacks and others, thereby creating controversy, and feeding the monster. In return he makes over $25 million/year. Rushdie has been able to do the same, by using his reputation as a good writer, and venturing into the area of religion, making marginally factual statements about religion, and feeding the monster, also. In return, he is now the best-known author in the world, for reasons other than his writing. How many people outside the literary community know Mistry, and Roy, etc.? Everyone outside the literary community knows Rushdie. Primarily because of the controversies he has created around Islam.
I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I was one of the only guys on this site, who said that I would not return to site, if the self-appointed Chowk police succeeded in banning Jay. Even though individuals like Jay, and RationalFaith and AlphaNull etc. never spare a moment in spewing their hatred against me, my ethnicity and my religion, respectively. My views on Islam are quite unorthodox also. For example, I do not believe that all the Hadith can be validated historically, hence they should not be used as the basis of Islamic juridsprudence. This would turn all of Islamic law on its head. But I can back up my claim with with logic and facts, and I am not trying to sell a book.
The problem with people like Rushdie and Limbaugh is that they use freedom of speech, their influence, and the great amount of skills (most of which are actually very legitimate) to pursue agendas about which they have no factual basis. This is big business.
I strongly believe that such individuals should have the right to express their views. But I also strongly believe that they should be exposed and brought to task, when they make non-factual statements against ethnicities (Limbaugh) and religion (Rushdie). The Blacks and Jews have put in a watchdog system, which does not let individuals get away with such remarks. They are taken to task. The Muslims have not put in such a system. Muslims do not have the courage to expose such individuals. Or they go to the other extremes and pass a fatwa against them. What should be done is to challenge them to back up their claims, and to expose any racism they hold, to the public.
This is what I am attempting to do. If they can back up their claims with facts, then I will have no argument. But I do read a lot, and can easily differentiate between individuals like Tariq Ali and Rushdie. Tariq Ali, is an apostate, also. He has perhaps made more controversial statements about Islam, than Rushdie, including hinting that the Quran not being the actual book of God, but coming into existence many years later. But, everything he states is done in the form of a constructive argument. He tries to back it up with fact. He is not creating controversy, for the sake of controversy. Thus, I follow him very closely, and actually agree with much of what he says (and disagree with much also). Rushdie, on the other hand cannot back up any of his religious references in Satanic Verses with fact. He is just slandering, and exploiting an illiterate (about Islam) Western audience.
This does not mean I disagree with everything that Rushdie writes. He is a fellow Kashmiri, and is a supporter of the self-determination of Kashmiris. Now this is a topic he does know a lot about. This is something he should be known for in the Western media. However, this is a boring topic around which it is impossible to create controversy, and it does not sell any books.
There are individuals who try to, “pummell, slander, satire, abuse, hate” other religions, in order to vent out their frustrations. They do so while hiding behind freedom of speech concepts and pseudonyms like RationalFaith. They will make a living out of bigoted comments. And if one attempts to challenge them and expose them, they declare him to be a fascist.
There are other individuals who try to constructively debate religions.
I support the later. For the former, I don’t think they should be, “fatwa”ed, but they should definitely be challenged and their bigotry should be exposed.
But to claim the first group as, “Reformers.” Gimme a break. They are trying to reform Islam about as much as Rush Limbaugh is trying to reform African-Americans.
#41 Posted by Saminasha on October 15, 2003 5:05:38 am
Romair,
Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.
Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.
#40 Posted by PM on October 14, 2003 10:47:42 pm
re. _digit:
``It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs?``
If it is simply to `justify` that is one thing; if to prevent least possible harm, quite another.
``Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?``
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends.
How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.
Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here, the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)
``It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs?``
If it is simply to `justify` that is one thing; if to prevent least possible harm, quite another.
``Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?``
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends.
How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.
Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here, the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)
#39 Posted by PM on October 14, 2003 10:47:42 pm
re #36 HisExcellency:
In this discussion thus far, `sin` is related more to crime (not completely synonomously though) than to its traditional meaning.
In this discussion thus far, `sin` is related more to crime (not completely synonomously though) than to its traditional meaning.
#38 Posted by RationalFaith on October 14, 2003 10:47:42 pm
Digit
The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -
1. you hate the sin and hate the sinner. You pronounce him an evil person. Now the question becomes no more just of the sin but of this person him(her)self. She has been denounced. Now there is no hope for her redemption. Then, if she, and not just the act, has been judged evil, she can`t be saved. Then the next logical step is to kill her. Many societies are built on this principle.
Alternatively,
2. you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. May be you can jail him.
But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.
That is the religious ideal. It may not work in some cases, but we are called upon to make an honest effort.
So two traditions beginning from the same point diverge so rapidly and widely in their implications for the kind of societies they create.
The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -
1. you hate the sin and hate the sinner. You pronounce him an evil person. Now the question becomes no more just of the sin but of this person him(her)self. She has been denounced. Now there is no hope for her redemption. Then, if she, and not just the act, has been judged evil, she can`t be saved. Then the next logical step is to kill her. Many societies are built on this principle.
Alternatively,
2. you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. May be you can jail him.
But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.
That is the religious ideal. It may not work in some cases, but we are called upon to make an honest effort.
So two traditions beginning from the same point diverge so rapidly and widely in their implications for the kind of societies they create.
#37 Posted by _digit on October 14, 2003 9:59:22 pm
In response to PM:
[That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it.]
It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs? Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?
[You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.]
How so?
[It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.]
Certainly. It is possible.
People who find an act loathsome are naturally inclined to find the people performing the act as loathsome people, depending on circumstance of course. It is this circumstance that will dictate the amount of empathy and understanding we`re willing to bestow on the `sinner`.
A beggar stealing for survival deserves all the understanding one can give...an unrepentant professional thief stealing from vulnerable pray is a different story. The latter is a loathsome person who must be stopped.
[That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it.]
It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs? Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?
[You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.]
How so?
[It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.]
Certainly. It is possible.
People who find an act loathsome are naturally inclined to find the people performing the act as loathsome people, depending on circumstance of course. It is this circumstance that will dictate the amount of empathy and understanding we`re willing to bestow on the `sinner`.
A beggar stealing for survival deserves all the understanding one can give...an unrepentant professional thief stealing from vulnerable pray is a different story. The latter is a loathsome person who must be stopped.
#36 Posted by HisExcellency on October 14, 2003 9:00:23 pm
#28 by RationalFaith
#34 by PM
#33 by _digit
Aren`t you folks debating the wrong concepts? There is after all a distinction between sin and crime.
Society cannot punish people for sins because sins are hard to judge and usually do not impact other people. Society can only punish crimes. Unlike sin, crime is well-defined and can be judged in a court of law.
Not every sin is a crime and not every crime is a sin.
Salman Rushdie`s character assassination of Muhammad is a sin in Islam, but not a crime. Society can`t prosecute him for writing Satanic Verses. It can only ostracize or ignore him. Ultimately, his punishment must come from God, not Man.
OTOH, refusing to serve in the Army is considered a crime in most countries, but not a sin.
#34 by PM
#33 by _digit
Aren`t you folks debating the wrong concepts? There is after all a distinction between sin and crime.
Society cannot punish people for sins because sins are hard to judge and usually do not impact other people. Society can only punish crimes. Unlike sin, crime is well-defined and can be judged in a court of law.
Not every sin is a crime and not every crime is a sin.
Salman Rushdie`s character assassination of Muhammad is a sin in Islam, but not a crime. Society can`t prosecute him for writing Satanic Verses. It can only ostracize or ignore him. Ultimately, his punishment must come from God, not Man.
OTOH, refusing to serve in the Army is considered a crime in most countries, but not a sin.
#35 Posted by Romair on October 14, 2003 4:44:12 pm
... interesting to observe the usage of ...I consider... I think....``
I wish more individuals would use terms like, ``I think`` to point out that they are just presenting their opinions. Rather than claiming knowledge of the world through generalizations.
``I also think that you are wrong in taking exception of people who have left a faith writing against it...``
You have not understood anything that I stated. I don`t have anything against anyone writing anything. I just challenge them to back it up with facts. If they cannot back it up with facts, and they still make generalizations, even then, I don`t think they should be shut down. But I do think they should be considered racists and bigots. And they should be exposed.
The general US population agrees with this, as well. Just look at how quickly Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott were fired, after making racist comments. Do you think they would have been fired, had they made similar comments about Islam? They may have actually been promoted. Much like Daniel Pipes was promoted. Do read his book, specially his comments about Muslim hygiene and the diseases Muslims bring. He was challenged on these quotes from his book in the Canadian media (which is far more balalnced than the USA media on Islamic issues). It was interesting to see him struggle for words, when his blatant racism was exposed in front of him. But, of course, he is considered a refomer by many, as well. Had he written such things about Jews or Blacks, he would be considered a racist, and there is no way Bush would have given him a high govt. job. Why is their such a double standard.
``their work has been very originall and considered quite truthful..... atleast that is what most people thing.... ``
It is impossible for their readers to consider their writings (the part related to Islam) truthful, because an overwhelming number of the readers don`t have the pre-requisites to decide one way or the other. They would have had to read the Quran, at the very least, to decide on the truthfulness. This is something very few Westerners have done. Hence, they must claim ignorance on the subject, and cannot make a judgment. If I don`t know what you look like, can I make a judgment on whether you are better looking than someone else, just by looking at that someone else?
``.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people... ``
I don`t know about other Muslims, but I don`t have a digestion problem. I just have a truth problem. I like truth and facts, and dislike rhetoric and controversy - against all religions, ethncities, peoples etc. And I hate bigots and racists. And I like to expose people who make a living out of this. If someone cannot provide facts to backup their theses, then they are intellectually dishonest. Plain and simple.
Publishing is big business. And I guess, apparently all is fair in love war and business. Readers love controversy. That is why the papparazzi and the Enquirer magazines do so well. That is also why mullahs do well, as do writers like Taslima Nasrin and Rushdie (on religious topics). Most of their information cannot be backed up with fact.
In fact, I don`t even have a huge problem against the intellectual dishonesty of such people. They have a good gig going. They are milking it for all that they can, and making money. They have an interested group of followers, who knows very little about the subject, other than stereotypes and they are feeding the monster, and making money. People love controversy. It sells. No one would know who Taslima Nasrin was, were she not so controversial, and had she not written about Islam.
What I do have a problem with is, certain individuals, like RationalFaith and AlphaNull and a portion of the Western media, hailing such individuals to be Islamic reformers. Why? Based on what? This is no different than someone declaring a Mullah to be a reformer, because he creates controversy and appeals to the peanut gallery. Or declaring Rush Limbaugh to be a refomer of African Americans, because he makes controversial statements about them. Just because someone creates controversy, do they become reformers? I think such individuals have an agenda. And if they are not exposed, they will continue in their racist and bigoted manner.
To me Martin Luther King is a true refomer of the Black community, and not Rush Limbaugh. And to me, the true reformer of the Islamic community are the individuals who are constructively reforming it through philanthrapy and education and/or a constructive intellectual discourse, etc. I would put people like Edhi, and Imran Khan others in category. I would even put people like Tariq Ali in this category, even though he is an athiest. Becasue he tries to back up his ideas with facts. And he does not sell his books through controversy around religion. I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.
And I like to challenge such individuals, to back up their views with facts, even if they declare me to be a fascist and dogmatic. Interestingly, such individuals are experts at passing such fatwas, if they are challenged.
I wish more individuals would use terms like, ``I think`` to point out that they are just presenting their opinions. Rather than claiming knowledge of the world through generalizations.
``I also think that you are wrong in taking exception of people who have left a faith writing against it...``
You have not understood anything that I stated. I don`t have anything against anyone writing anything. I just challenge them to back it up with facts. If they cannot back it up with facts, and they still make generalizations, even then, I don`t think they should be shut down. But I do think they should be considered racists and bigots. And they should be exposed.
The general US population agrees with this, as well. Just look at how quickly Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott were fired, after making racist comments. Do you think they would have been fired, had they made similar comments about Islam? They may have actually been promoted. Much like Daniel Pipes was promoted. Do read his book, specially his comments about Muslim hygiene and the diseases Muslims bring. He was challenged on these quotes from his book in the Canadian media (which is far more balalnced than the USA media on Islamic issues). It was interesting to see him struggle for words, when his blatant racism was exposed in front of him. But, of course, he is considered a refomer by many, as well. Had he written such things about Jews or Blacks, he would be considered a racist, and there is no way Bush would have given him a high govt. job. Why is their such a double standard.
``their work has been very originall and considered quite truthful..... atleast that is what most people thing.... ``
It is impossible for their readers to consider their writings (the part related to Islam) truthful, because an overwhelming number of the readers don`t have the pre-requisites to decide one way or the other. They would have had to read the Quran, at the very least, to decide on the truthfulness. This is something very few Westerners have done. Hence, they must claim ignorance on the subject, and cannot make a judgment. If I don`t know what you look like, can I make a judgment on whether you are better looking than someone else, just by looking at that someone else?
``.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people... ``
I don`t know about other Muslims, but I don`t have a digestion problem. I just have a truth problem. I like truth and facts, and dislike rhetoric and controversy - against all religions, ethncities, peoples etc. And I hate bigots and racists. And I like to expose people who make a living out of this. If someone cannot provide facts to backup their theses, then they are intellectually dishonest. Plain and simple.
Publishing is big business. And I guess, apparently all is fair in love war and business. Readers love controversy. That is why the papparazzi and the Enquirer magazines do so well. That is also why mullahs do well, as do writers like Taslima Nasrin and Rushdie (on religious topics). Most of their information cannot be backed up with fact.
In fact, I don`t even have a huge problem against the intellectual dishonesty of such people. They have a good gig going. They are milking it for all that they can, and making money. They have an interested group of followers, who knows very little about the subject, other than stereotypes and they are feeding the monster, and making money. People love controversy. It sells. No one would know who Taslima Nasrin was, were she not so controversial, and had she not written about Islam.
What I do have a problem with is, certain individuals, like RationalFaith and AlphaNull and a portion of the Western media, hailing such individuals to be Islamic reformers. Why? Based on what? This is no different than someone declaring a Mullah to be a reformer, because he creates controversy and appeals to the peanut gallery. Or declaring Rush Limbaugh to be a refomer of African Americans, because he makes controversial statements about them. Just because someone creates controversy, do they become reformers? I think such individuals have an agenda. And if they are not exposed, they will continue in their racist and bigoted manner.
To me Martin Luther King is a true refomer of the Black community, and not Rush Limbaugh. And to me, the true reformer of the Islamic community are the individuals who are constructively reforming it through philanthrapy and education and/or a constructive intellectual discourse, etc. I would put people like Edhi, and Imran Khan others in category. I would even put people like Tariq Ali in this category, even though he is an athiest. Becasue he tries to back up his ideas with facts. And he does not sell his books through controversy around religion. I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.
And I like to challenge such individuals, to back up their views with facts, even if they declare me to be a fascist and dogmatic. Interestingly, such individuals are experts at passing such fatwas, if they are challenged.
#34 Posted by PM on October 14, 2003 4:40:56 pm
_digit: ``If we do give credence to the saying, the latter will dictate how we conduct ourselves when in presence of the beloved `sinners`.``
That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it. You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.
It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.
That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it. You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.
It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.
#33 Posted by _digit on October 14, 2003 4:39:22 pm
In response to RationalFaith:
[If sinners wish to keep committing a sin that affect us adversely, we ensure that such people can`t continue to do what they wish to.]
At the risk of taking this ``love/hate`` thing too literally, how? By loving them into submission or reform? I did not mean to suggest that loving the sinner is necessarily loving the sin. Rather, ``hating`` the sin can indeed lead to acts that would be consistent with ``hating`` the sinner, although we may wish to choose the word ``contain``. Hating a sin I can understand. It`s this business of ``loving the sinner`` that I don`t buy.
A sinner is by definition one who commits acts of sin, not an arbitrary person or a person who happens to commit sin. Within this context, the sin defines the sinner and the two are inseparable. The sinners` humanity (I suppose the “love the sinner” bit is used to profess this), or our love for them, is not an issue or relevant.
Now, according the Ibn Warraq, the sin of Muslims is believing in Islam. You`ll pardon me if I see something a bit more than a cause for concern in such kind of statements, despite his (or your) professed ``love`` for me.
[If sinners wish to keep committing a sin that affect us adversely, we ensure that such people can`t continue to do what they wish to.]
At the risk of taking this ``love/hate`` thing too literally, how? By loving them into submission or reform? I did not mean to suggest that loving the sinner is necessarily loving the sin. Rather, ``hating`` the sin can indeed lead to acts that would be consistent with ``hating`` the sinner, although we may wish to choose the word ``contain``. Hating a sin I can understand. It`s this business of ``loving the sinner`` that I don`t buy.
A sinner is by definition one who commits acts of sin, not an arbitrary person or a person who happens to commit sin. Within this context, the sin defines the sinner and the two are inseparable. The sinners` humanity (I suppose the “love the sinner” bit is used to profess this), or our love for them, is not an issue or relevant.
Now, according the Ibn Warraq, the sin of Muslims is believing in Islam. You`ll pardon me if I see something a bit more than a cause for concern in such kind of statements, despite his (or your) professed ``love`` for me.
#32 Posted by HisExcellency on October 14, 2003 3:08:23 pm
#26 by cosmic_citizen
++
You are wrong is your portrayal of Rushdie and Taslima.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people...
++
Rushdie`s Satanic Verses and Taslima`s Lajja are books of fiction literature, not theology, intellectual discussion or religious treatise. Muslim clergy and anti-Muslim propagandists are reading too much into these two books.
Just like a study of Christianity cannot be based on fiction novels written by Tom Clancy and John Grisham, an analysis of Islam cannot be based on fiction literature written by Rushdie and Taslima.
++
You are wrong is your portrayal of Rushdie and Taslima.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people...
++
Rushdie`s Satanic Verses and Taslima`s Lajja are books of fiction literature, not theology, intellectual discussion or religious treatise. Muslim clergy and anti-Muslim propagandists are reading too much into these two books.
Just like a study of Christianity cannot be based on fiction novels written by Tom Clancy and John Grisham, an analysis of Islam cannot be based on fiction literature written by Rushdie and Taslima.
#31 Posted by RationalFaith on October 14, 2003 1:27:10 pm
digit
Stealing is a sin because it harms another person.
All those ideas and actions driven by ideas where others are hurt if they have not hurt you, or claims are made about people who have made no claims against you, are SIN.
Stealing is a sin because it harms another person.
All those ideas and actions driven by ideas where others are hurt if they have not hurt you, or claims are made about people who have made no claims against you, are SIN.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- pinku: #322 Posted by dost_mittar... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #321 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MantoLives: Tahmed, What I said is... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Adam, That was a... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar bhai, I am... Living Gandhi and King
- _arjun29: Pakiland is the father... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Mohar mian, Nice try but... Living Gandhi and King
- dost_mittar: pinku: I have read parts... Historian Amaresh Misra on
