- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 25
- Gender
- Male
- Country
-
radical Islam
This is not a topic about the religion of Islam. Rather, it concerns the politics of Islam.
I've explained this repetitively in other threads, that Islam is two-folds: a religious, and a political.
In my studies of the religion and of the Middle East, I've concluded that the political Islam have tended to deviate from the intended message of the prophet Muhammad. The desire for control, power, and authority, have been a conflict of interest with the need to maintain the survival of the religion. Successors of the prophet have struggled to maintain their authority, using political tactics to secure goals that at certain times are at odds with the religious teachings of Islam. Often, the religion is used to justify political actions. This dichotomy is what is ruining the Muslim community (and it even poses a threat to its non-Muslim neighbors), because what we see today with radical Islamists is their desire for power and control, disguising their actions under religious terms.
Having made that distinction, I have always been a cautious apologist of the mainstream Islam religion, but at the same time, I am vehemently opposed to radical Islamic terror (which I emphasize again and again, that it is mainly political, and perhaps only slightly religious).
We Westerners often get in trouble when we criticize Islam because we fail at making the crucial distinction in expressing which we specifically oppose.
Are we against Islam in general? or the radical elements of Islam?
Is it appropriate to criticize some aspects of religious Islam, without offending the mainstream Muslim community?
I feel that given the recent violent trend throughout the Middle East, that we Westerners are entitled to respectfully criticize religious Islam, so long as we do so in an educated, non-diatribe fashion.
It is in the interest of the mainstream Muslim community to engage in this kind of dialogue, without becoming overly-sensitive, because what both sides genuinely want to achieve, I think, is mutual understanding, and not to incite further distrust and hatred. If this is our attitude, I think we can go far.
Moreover, we need a worldwide consensus that radical Islamic terrorism must be eradicated, both coming from non-Muslims and Muslims alike, or anyone opposed to terrorism in general.
If we can refrain from narrowly aimed religious bashing, but constructive religious criticism, I believe the mainstream Muslims owes us at least their willingness to listen and hear our grievances. They have a responsibility to defend their faith, and root out the extremist elements of their faith (again, I stress that it is mostly political), so that we can all overcome terrorism.
Here's the question, and the reason I made this thread:
If we engage in a world debate, addressing the current problems of radical Islam, are we capable of constructively criticizing, without being offensive, the religion and the political aspects of Islam?
And are the mainstream Muslims who oppose radical Islamic terrorism, ready emotionally to listen, without being offended?
Is freedom of speech hurting, as opposed to helping, the goal of mutual and respectful understanding from both sides? Or is it vice versa, or a non-factor?
By the same token, is political correctness, which acts as a buffer against religious bashing, making dialogue impossible between the two camps?
Or is world dialogue simply futile, because it's just too complex of an issue that is too late to be resolved?
...or, and this is a little farfetched...are we on a verge of a neo-Crusades?
There are evidence of increasing trends of both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Your thoughts?
[update]
just a random thought that came to me this morning...
to illustrate the exigency of the times, just imagine what terrorists will do once they've acquired nuclear weapons.
They'll blow up Israel and America, and we could very well lead to World War IV (the Cold War being World War III).
I believe we can still do something about this...I'm confident there are enough Muslims in this world who are of goodwill, and if we join forces, we can root out these radical Islamists while we still have a chance. The alternative is world destruction, so inaction is no longer an option.
[update2]
part of the reason I created this thread is a result of the film "Fitna" by the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, which criticizes the religion of Islam in what I felt, was a diatribe. But nevertheless, I respect his point of view, I believe in free speech, although I would have preferred if he had exercised more self-restraint.
To get an idea of what Muslims felt in response to a diatribe such as "Fitna", here's an article from arabnews.com:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=106885&d=18&m=2&y=2008
We need to do a better job at communicating with Muslims. The author above reveals that he is willing to engage in intellectual debate about Islam, no matter how offensive it may potentially be. He recognizes the need for dialogue.
This is not a topic about the religion of Islam. Rather, it concerns the politics of Islam.
I've explained this repetitively in other threads, that Islam is two-folds: a religious, and a political.
In my studies of the religion and of the Middle East, I've concluded that the political Islam have tended to deviate from the intended message of the prophet Muhammad. The desire for control, power, and authority, have been a conflict of interest with the need to maintain the survival of the religion. Successors of the prophet have struggled to maintain their authority, using political tactics to secure goals that at certain times are at odds with the religious teachings of Islam. Often, the religion is used to justify political actions. This dichotomy is what is ruining the Muslim community (and it even poses a threat to its non-Muslim neighbors), because what we see today with radical Islamists is their desire for power and control, disguising their actions under religious terms.
Having made that distinction, I have always been a cautious apologist of the mainstream Islam religion, but at the same time, I am vehemently opposed to radical Islamic terror (which I emphasize again and again, that it is mainly political, and perhaps only slightly religious).
We Westerners often get in trouble when we criticize Islam because we fail at making the crucial distinction in expressing which we specifically oppose.
Are we against Islam in general? or the radical elements of Islam?
Is it appropriate to criticize some aspects of religious Islam, without offending the mainstream Muslim community?
I feel that given the recent violent trend throughout the Middle East, that we Westerners are entitled to respectfully criticize religious Islam, so long as we do so in an educated, non-diatribe fashion.
It is in the interest of the mainstream Muslim community to engage in this kind of dialogue, without becoming overly-sensitive, because what both sides genuinely want to achieve, I think, is mutual understanding, and not to incite further distrust and hatred. If this is our attitude, I think we can go far.
Moreover, we need a worldwide consensus that radical Islamic terrorism must be eradicated, both coming from non-Muslims and Muslims alike, or anyone opposed to terrorism in general.
If we can refrain from narrowly aimed religious bashing, but constructive religious criticism, I believe the mainstream Muslims owes us at least their willingness to listen and hear our grievances. They have a responsibility to defend their faith, and root out the extremist elements of their faith (again, I stress that it is mostly political), so that we can all overcome terrorism.
Here's the question, and the reason I made this thread:
If we engage in a world debate, addressing the current problems of radical Islam, are we capable of constructively criticizing, without being offensive, the religion and the political aspects of Islam?
And are the mainstream Muslims who oppose radical Islamic terrorism, ready emotionally to listen, without being offended?
Is freedom of speech hurting, as opposed to helping, the goal of mutual and respectful understanding from both sides? Or is it vice versa, or a non-factor?
By the same token, is political correctness, which acts as a buffer against religious bashing, making dialogue impossible between the two camps?
Or is world dialogue simply futile, because it's just too complex of an issue that is too late to be resolved?
...or, and this is a little farfetched...are we on a verge of a neo-Crusades?
There are evidence of increasing trends of both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Your thoughts?
[update]
just a random thought that came to me this morning...
to illustrate the exigency of the times, just imagine what terrorists will do once they've acquired nuclear weapons.
They'll blow up Israel and America, and we could very well lead to World War IV (the Cold War being World War III).
I believe we can still do something about this...I'm confident there are enough Muslims in this world who are of goodwill, and if we join forces, we can root out these radical Islamists while we still have a chance. The alternative is world destruction, so inaction is no longer an option.
[update2]
part of the reason I created this thread is a result of the film "Fitna" by the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, which criticizes the religion of Islam in what I felt, was a diatribe. But nevertheless, I respect his point of view, I believe in free speech, although I would have preferred if he had exercised more self-restraint.
To get an idea of what Muslims felt in response to a diatribe such as "Fitna", here's an article from arabnews.com:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=106885&d=18&m=2&y=2008
We need to do a better job at communicating with Muslims. The author above reveals that he is willing to engage in intellectual debate about Islam, no matter how offensive it may potentially be. He recognizes the need for dialogue.
Last edited:
.. there is nothing absolutely perfect.. though theocracy did work partly well in Europe and part of Asia.. And if you are trying to say communism is perfect well it is as perfect as theocracy.. 
, i really respect your opinions since you seem to, most of the time, know what you saying and are a very opinionated person unlike me who always take the middle path.. XD 
).
