'Extremist is the secular word for heretic'
CharlasLet's Talk Religion
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1John5918
'Extremist is the secular word for heretic': the Hizb ut-Tahrir leader who insists on his right to speak (Guardian)
A though-provoking if controversial article.
Edited to add another not-unrelated piece from the same issue of the Grauniad:
I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me
A though-provoking if controversial article.
Edited to add another not-unrelated piece from the same issue of the Grauniad:
I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me
2prosfilaes
“But through a Middle East lens, where ‘Israel’ calls itself the Jewish state and the term Jew and Israel are used synonymously, where people see themselves in a war, people understand this language as the rhetoric of conflict and understand it within the context of that region and NOT Jews per se.”
About a year before I was born, the nascent Islamic Republic attacked the US embassy and took its members hostage, in gross violation of international norms. It continues to cry out "death to America!". It seems important that we can distinguish the Islamic Republic from Islam, just like it seems important that they can distinguish between Israel and Judaism.
"You will never find those words being used about Jews living in other parts of Middle Eastern world, Iraq, Morocco or those places."
There's not many Jews left in those places. Somehow when the Arabs were talking about what they wanted to do to the murderous Jews, the local Jews got the impression that included them, and left. Funny that.
I think focusing the Holocaust misses the point; the writings of Isaac Asimov were probably more formative to me then any other, and there is no greater director than Mel Brooks. I don't know about Europe, but in the US, the Jews are us.
"we cannot support ... that the land was usurped from some people and given over to others, especially when the occupying force is particularly murderous and bloodthirsty, as it has been." goes wonderful with “It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth”. Isn't that justification for every Israeli to kill (be "murderous") in defense of their land?
The Israeli situation is complex, but the Israeli situation per se started with the 1948 war, where the Palestinians and the Arab nations decided that war, not the UN, should decided the division of the land. And then lost, and somehow failed to accept that the victory they wanted in 1948, to drive the Jews into the sea, was not going to happen. Articles like "The Muslim Ummah will never submit to the Jews." have screwed over the Palestinians; they've made peace impossible.
Edit: Accidentally misquoted the article; change to make sure the meaning I was trying to quote and the author was trying to express gets through
About a year before I was born, the nascent Islamic Republic attacked the US embassy and took its members hostage, in gross violation of international norms. It continues to cry out "death to America!". It seems important that we can distinguish the Islamic Republic from Islam, just like it seems important that they can distinguish between Israel and Judaism.
"You will never find those words being used about Jews living in other parts of Middle Eastern world, Iraq, Morocco or those places."
There's not many Jews left in those places. Somehow when the Arabs were talking about what they wanted to do to the murderous Jews, the local Jews got the impression that included them, and left. Funny that.
I think focusing the Holocaust misses the point; the writings of Isaac Asimov were probably more formative to me then any other, and there is no greater director than Mel Brooks. I don't know about Europe, but in the US, the Jews are us.
"we cannot support ... that the land was usurped from some people and given over to others, especially when the occupying force is particularly murderous and bloodthirsty, as it has been." goes wonderful with “It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth”. Isn't that justification for every Israeli to kill (be "murderous") in defense of their land?
The Israeli situation is complex, but the Israeli situation per se started with the 1948 war, where the Palestinians and the Arab nations decided that war, not the UN, should decided the division of the land. And then lost, and somehow failed to accept that the victory they wanted in 1948, to drive the Jews into the sea, was not going to happen. Articles like "The Muslim Ummah will never submit to the Jews." have screwed over the Palestinians; they've made peace impossible.
Edit: Accidentally misquoted the article; change to make sure the meaning I was trying to quote and the author was trying to express gets through
3southernbooklady
>1 John5918: “Extremist,” says Wahid, “is the secular word for heretic. It means that you don’t subscribe to certain political and social norms.”
It's interesting that Oborne didn't delve too deeply into what would happen to the "heretics" in a Caliphate state governed according to sharia law.
It's interesting that Oborne didn't delve too deeply into what would happen to the "heretics" in a Caliphate state governed according to sharia law.
4prosfilaes
>1 John5918: From the new article, approximately half a million people were killed in Iraq on the basis of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist?
That's false. The deaths due to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction total about 60,000, mainly Saddam's troops. All the deaths after May 2003 basically come down to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. One can talk about the US's role in that, but the US wanted out; it was down to the Iraqis (95% Muslim) to form a government instead of shooting each other.
Any human being, regardless of whether they are a teacher or doctor, would stop harm happening to others. As a GP I don’t need legislation to tell me to report someone I feel will harm others: I find that insulting.
Bullshit. The evidence is so fucking clear on this point, it's ridiculous. People are scared to get involved. People don't want to be wrong. Making people mandated reporters makes them more likely to stand up and say something when something is happening. Do they get it wrong sometimes? That's part of the reason for mandated reporters, so that worry doesn't stop them from reporting. It works. I don't know anything about this Prevent legislation, but the evidence is in, that obliging people to report harm takes the stress off of them about whether to do so or not.
That's false. The deaths due to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction total about 60,000, mainly Saddam's troops. All the deaths after May 2003 basically come down to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. One can talk about the US's role in that, but the US wanted out; it was down to the Iraqis (95% Muslim) to form a government instead of shooting each other.
Any human being, regardless of whether they are a teacher or doctor, would stop harm happening to others. As a GP I don’t need legislation to tell me to report someone I feel will harm others: I find that insulting.
Bullshit. The evidence is so fucking clear on this point, it's ridiculous. People are scared to get involved. People don't want to be wrong. Making people mandated reporters makes them more likely to stand up and say something when something is happening. Do they get it wrong sometimes? That's part of the reason for mandated reporters, so that worry doesn't stop them from reporting. It works. I don't know anything about this Prevent legislation, but the evidence is in, that obliging people to report harm takes the stress off of them about whether to do so or not.
