India Knight has written an article in the Sunday Times about the realities of life for Muslims and decrying ‘Islamophobic’ views like Jack Straw’s dislike of the Islamic veil. Many of the points she makes are fair ones but I think the underlying premise of her article is completely mistaken.
I am particularly irked by ancient old ‘feminists’ wheeling out themselves and their 30-years-out-of-date opinions to reiterate the old chestnut that Islam, by its nature, oppresses women (unlike the Bible, eh,?) and that the veil compounds the blanket oppression […] That perhaps there exist large sections of our democratic society, veiled or otherwise, who have every right to their modesty, just as their detractors have every right to wear push-up bras?
Fine, but Muslim women wearing veils is hardly something new: they have been a common spectacle on British streets for a good twenty years, so something has changed. The reason why people who were previously tolerant of the more outwardly outlandish Islamic ways was that there was no sense that Muslims were trying to impose their sensibilities on others outside their narrow community of religious believers.
I am not saying there are widespread calls amongst Muslims in Britain to force all women to wear veils, but if Jon Snow (who is certainly no Islamophobic reactionary) is to be believed, there is indeed widespread Muslim intolerance for any exercise of free speech which they find offensive… and by intolerance I do not mean dislike or disrespect (respect is never a right) but rather support for the use of force (legal or extra-legal) to prevent people ‘insulting’ Islam.
Tolerance is a right, but it is one entirely contingent upon it being reciprocated, because tolerating intolerance makes no sense whatsoever. Simply put, because so many Muslims refuse to tolerate non-Muslim criticism of their ways, that inevitably means that fewer and fewer secular (or Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Confucian, Buddhist) people in the UK are willing to tolerate adherents of a set of beliefs in which intolerance of others appears to be endemic.
As I have said before, I have little time for any religion but if people want to live in ghettos with their co-fantasists so that their weird values are the local community norms, I regard that as a problem, but a manageable and tolerable one. It is when they want to extend their influence over others by force that I stop tolerating them. So even if what India Knight says about the realities of life for most Islamic women is true… so what? The nature of life for people who choose to be Muslims is not the root of antipathy to Islam by non-Muslims. Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs and therefore it is a choice. As it is something people choose to believe in, it is therefore something upon which they can and should be rightly judged by others. When someone wears the outward trappings of a set of beliefs (such as a hijab, a KKK outfit, a crucifix, a Hammer and Sickle, a Nazi armband, an Ayn Rand tee-shirt), it seems strange they should not expect to be judged on the basis of what those beliefs mean to others.
I dislike the Islamic veil for much the same reason I dislike people who wear pictures of a Hammer and Sickle upon their shirts, not because of what they are (they are just bits of coloured cloth after all) but because they represent a set of beliefs which are incompatible with post-Enlightenment civilization itself and also indicate the wearer will probably not be willing to tolerate me expressing what I think of them if they are true to their beliefs, regardless of how politely I phrase my remarks. That is what I find intolerable.
I have to agree that it is essential that we be able to discus any set of beliefs whether they are religious or on an issue such as climate change, but also that we do not attempt to force our beliefs upon others
I’m tired of the bible being waved about as an excuse in order to validate the Quaran.
Both ‘holy books’ are equally offensive and backwards and contain many concepts that have long been outlawed in modern countries.
Futhermore the difference between a push-up bra and a face curtain is that you talk with your face and not really with your tits (ok, some men might beg to differ here, down boys!)
Elegantly put, Perry. How would you suggest we engage in an intelligent debate with our Muslim fellow-citizens? One of the concerns about their isolation is that many do not seem to know the point of view of others in our society. They are quite likely to have been educated mostly with other Muslims, whether by choice or catchment area “accident”. I suspect many have no idea why non-Muslims are reacting as they are to the veil debate, for example. Judging by the conversation over at the MPAC-UK website, the only conceivable explanation is the “nazism”, “racism” and “islamophobia” which some Muslims rather upsettingly believe is endemic in Britain.
Of course we force our beliefs on others, that’s the fundamental basis of any system of laws.
Thus, the ongoing critique of the massive intrusions of the “nanny” state, the ongoing objections to the theocratic state that Islamic fascists wish to impose on anyone who falls under their control, the ongoing rejection of the totalitarian beliefs of the collectivists on the left and the right, and the continuing arguments with the various cliques on the current political/social scene who claim that they have the right to restructure society in their image due to ecology or economic imbalances or gender issues or racial animosity or any of the myriad excuses that those who hate and despise the concept of individual freedom find to justify the substitution of their judgements for the choices of free men and women.
Enough with the PC double-speak.
If you truly value liberty, freedom of thought and conscience, speech, religious belief, economic opportunity, and the many other issues so eloguently described in the Bill of Rights, then you must make judgements as to which ideas enhance those rights and expand those freedoms, as opposed to those beliefs which attempt to abridge them, and limit the range and depth of our liberties.
The concepts of the Enlightenment to which Perry refers in the original posting are the foundation for one of the most critical revolutions in poltical and moral philosophy in human history. They reject, and attempt to replace, the numerous collectivist mythologies which have chained human societies, much as galley slaves were chained to their oars, into a never-ending cycle of poverty, violence, repression, and intolerance.
It is the unabashed assertion of the Islamicists that we should return to that failed past, forfeiting everything we have learned about the abilities of the unfettered mind to improve and advance the lot of life on this earth, that must be rejected, and if that means enforcing the belief that freedom of expression is better than censorship, or that the establishment of a religious state is antithetical to the welfare of human beings who wish to live life as a free and independent being, on those who would otherwise dominate me, than I am perfectly willing to do so.
One of the fledgeling states that became the US had a motto on its flag that said “Don’t tread on me”, with the picture of a snake.
And so I say to all.
What an angry, spiteful and ultimately empty article by Knight. I read it thinking ‘oh no, here we go again, another bitter, complaining article by an islamic person’. I don’t think I am alone in being utterly sick and tired of this group’s constant moaning and complaining.
OK Ms Knight, let’s destroy the principal whinge – that muslims are the new jews. Yeah right. The difference between the Jews and the muslims, UK’s most coddled and indulged minority group, couldn’t be starker. Let’s see:
1. The Nazis banned the Jew’s freedom of association and expression, closed their places of worship and trade, burned their books and marked them as dirty by forcing them to wear a yellow star. Then they rounded up about 6 million and raped, starved, tortured and murdered them. Not one Jew committed a political or terrorist crime against the German government between 1927-1943.
By comparison, the muslims right to associate and express their views, no matter how offensive, has been placed above the common UK’s citizen’s rights in these areas. They are untouchable in 2006. This is despite their lack of willingness to help authorities track down terrorists, statistics that show that they regard themselves as British second and despise our way of life, as well as causing violent mayhem with suicide bombings and violent threats against their fellow citizens.
2. The Jews made a huge contribution to Germany’s intellectual, economic, political and cultural life, punching far above their weight. By contrast, the muslims in the UK have made almost no contribution to the UK’s life, except perhaps Amir Khan and Salman Rushdie. Naturally the latter has been demonised for his contribution.
3 The Jews were given their traditional homeland as a place to rebuild in 1946. Israel is little more than a stretch of sand. Even the arab states agreed to give it up. They have again proven their immense skills in turning this patch of sand into a first world economy, a democracy that guarantees freedom of association and expression, that has arab muslims in parliament, hundreds of thousands of arab muslims who refuse to leave Israel to go back to arab homelands (wonder why?). They have done so in the face of aggressive, violent muslim states that want the jews finished off.
Could Ms Knight refer me to an arab, islamic state that is a success in the same way as Israel is? Nah. Didn’t think so.
The veil has nothing to do with Islam, but a lot to do with what Islam has become – a male dominated, violent extremist club that treats women as chattels ot be dominated and made invisible. This is a ‘religion’ that needs help from societies and people who, to be frank, certainly don’t need islam. Our society and values are, to be totally honest, superior to those of islam – imperfect but so far advanced that any suggestion we could learn something from this backward crowd needs to be mocked.
The veil is offensive and primitive. It should be banned by muslims and by islam, not by us.
When I set my Give-A-Damn meter to Muslim, I get no reading whatsoever. They’re not victims, they are victimizers, in too many instances.
Obscene, it is, that they call themselves the “new Jews”. They’re the new something, but it “Jews” isn’t the term.
Is it safer for a Jew to walk around London wearing a kipa or for a Muslim to walk around wearing a hijab or a dishdasha ?
Pleeeease. There is a rampant indoctrination of violence and irredentism in the Islamic communities.
This interview run on American TV with three former members of terrorist groups is revealing.
http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-video-is-really-interesting.html
I could be wrong but my take is this: It is far worse that expected.
‘Moslems are the new Jews’, in what sense?
Assimilation, contibution?
No comparison what so ever!
Moslems take their ‘death cult’ very seriously in a way that westerners cannot begin to imagine.
That it takes vicious dictators to control Moslem countries should give a clue to what these people and their faith are realy like.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Cinnamon, apparently their respective treatment of peaceful non-believers means nothing to your system of comparison.
You are an idiot. Live that belief in any Muslim state and you will either become a Muslim or find a new way to breathe without a head.
It’s quite amazing that India Knight continues to hold on to her job at the Sunday Times – even by the particularly low standards of that newspaper her articles stand out for their imbecility. Today she’s determined – despite all evidence to the contrary – to portray Muslims as a victim group. The comparision to the Jews (of the past) is particularly moronic and doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. It would be a waste of time to examine this article in any detail but just to take the short exerpt given in this posting one is forced to ask who all these feminists are who are criticising Islam. The reluctance of any well-known feminists – Germaine Greer, Naomi Klein etc – to criticise the misogynistic practices associated with this religion has been well-documented and is yet another example of how Islam has been uniquely coddled by the Left. And how are their opinions ‘out of date’ all of a sudden when discussing Islam – is there something unique about this religion which negates a conventional feminist analysis?
Even by the India Knight’s usual low standards this was a particularly moronic article.
Muslims, the new Jews… hardly. Actually I think this statement would be more applicable to the way Christians and other non-Muslims are treated in Muslim-majority countries.
US dept. of State report on religious freedom in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71431.htm
Egypt:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71420.htm
and even Turkey (and they want to be a member of the EU):
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71413.htm
It doesn’t help that Muslim Lords are saying things like “this discussion radicalises people”. I what exactly does he think that sounds like to anyone with brain?
Muslims think they are the new Jews.
Muslims absolutely hate all Jews and regularly compare Jews to Hitler or demons or sadistic blood drinking inhuman savage tyrants.
So I guess Muslims are the “new Jews.” Not exactly a sympathetic comparison, to other Muslims. Perhaps they are slowly learning to assimilate into our culture, but I don’t really think so.
It sure does. Every time I hear a Muslim community leader open their mouth, it damn well radicalises me.
The irony is the people with the most to gain by SHUTTING THE FUCK UP and not adding more fuel to the fire are… Muslims.
Fat chance… so I’m not going to shut up either.
“30-years-out-of-date opinions to reiterate the old chestnut that Islam, by its nature, oppresses women”
Unfortunately, the people with the 30 year old opinions have something written down in a 1400 year old book that says that they’re right.
I love Cinnamon’s apt expression “face curtain”.
Can its use be encouraged?
Freeman,
Face curtain is commonly used in Islam guides, as here(Link) –
I suspect ‘Cinnamon’ is Muslim.
How to stop all Muslim women wearing the “face curtain” (I like that name!) overnight:
Make it compulsory wear for all Muslim women in Britain: but stand by for the screams of outrage… from Muslims.
—-
By the way, there is ZERO requirement in the Koran for women to dress like this. The practice is actually tribal, from pre-Islamic Arabia.
I hear this a lot recently. I just did a quick Google search and came up with this, which argues against a command in the Koran. However, the verses they quote seem freely interpretable as commands to wear the hijab to me.
I know little about Islam and would be interested in hearing more about this from those who do.
Via Bros. Judd:
The Islamic Concept of Veil (Prof. Maqsood Jafri, Islamic Research Foundation)
Two verses of the Holy Quran succinctly and candidly deal with the basic concept of veil in Islam. First; in Sura An-Nur (The light) the Quran says: “And tell the believing women to lower their gazes and be modest, and to display of their adornments only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms.”(24:31)
In this verse it is clearly mentioned that sex parts must not be exposed and must be covered. “Adornment which is apparent” alludes to the common body parts between male and female sexes. The face, hands and feet are common parts and are exposed without any indecency or immodesty. Second; The other verse of the Holy Quran is in Sura Al-Ahzab (The confederates). The Quran says: “O; Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go outside). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not molested”. (33:59). The ancient Arab history reveals the fact that the immodest and immoral ladies used to expose their bodies and walk in market without veil. They were purchasable commodities. They did not wear hijab or scarf. They were improperly dressed. The corrupt people could easily decipher and unravel about their character or profession. They were prostitutes. Hence the Quran announced that pious ladies must be properly and modestly dressed so that when they go out of their houses people should recognize them as domestic chaste, pure and pious ladies and they should not be teased or chased. From these two above-mentioned Quranic verses it is clear that God ordains to cover the bodies and strictly rejects and condemns nudity and obscenity.
There are 1,300,000,000 Muslims in the world and 13,000,000 Jews.
Compare cultural contributions, and you’d think the numbers were the other way round.
Indeed.
The ‘hijab’, properly meant, does not imply in any reasonable way a ‘face curtain’. A headscarf and/or a dress that covers the rest of the body from the neck down is not (or I see no reason why it should be) an issue.
When I worked (as I did for three years in the ’80s) in Saudi Arabia, all Saudi women were covered from from head to toe with these black dresses that permitted only an eye-slit.
It was patently obvious that there was absolutely no clothing that could be less suitable for the very high temperatures experienced there most of the time–black absorbs heat more than any other colour–and any Muslim (male or female) who tells you this form of female dress is not a blatent sign of female subjication to men is either lying or is themselves brainwashed.
I wonder if the sex discrimination laws could be used here to find them illegal in this country?
Cinnamon:
The differencebetween religious groups-one you seem unwilling to grasp- is that as a Christian, I respect your right to disagree with my views.
Try that in a muslim country, instant no head.
I despise islam and all its practitioners, for the simple reason that they consider themselves and their false doctrine to be the sole and only arbiter of all humanity.
They can bite me! I’d sooner pour a hat full of lego bricks down my shorts than convert to islam.
Midwesterner:
“Cinnamon, apparently their respective treatment of peaceful non-believers means nothing to your system of comparison.”
I have a feeling the residents of sodom and gomorrah would probably have agreed with Cinnamon.
And
“I suspect ‘Cinnamon’ is Muslim.”
So what, exactly?
Robert:
“The differencebetween religious groups-one you seem unwilling to grasp- is that as a Christian, I respect your right to disagree with my views.”
I suppose I should declare my bias towards Christianity. I went to a evangelical school where I was taught Creationism. I once mentioned evolution and was beaten three times with a cane. Tolerance eh?
My point being BOTH religions are capable of being repressive and totalitarian.
I would argue that Christianity is no longer a problem because the Western world has succeeded in separating religion and politics whereas the backward nations of the Middle east have enbraced different kinds of theocratic rule.
brian;
I also got the cane-three times–from the heavy handed bitches at a Catholic school; brides of Christ my arse.
While you are quite right that both religions are CAPABLE of intolerance of an opposing view, only islam does it as a matter of policy, with dire consequence-mandated by the koran- for the transgressor.
Both ‘holy books’ are equally offensive and backwards and contain many concepts that have long been outlawed in modern countries
The ten commandments backward and offensive?
Brian, obviously you weren’t paying any attention in class.
There were no humans delivering harm to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham was pleading for the city to be saved from God’s punishment. God delivered “fire and brimstone” with his own power. He did not send jihadists with knives.
You must have been a lousy student. Are you Cinnamon?
The most important difference between Bible and Q’uran is in one line “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Sounds like separation of church and state to me, and there is no Islamic equivalent.
Mohamed copied the Torah for his Koran…so the requirement is only for married women to cover their hair in public and otherwise dress modestly.
The veil is obviously to keep the desert sand out!
There are no sand storms in London or Bradford!
There’s some kind of wacko writing going around how islam ties into everything.
I stopped at the part where it said Mary could be considered muslim cos she covered her head.
I replied that doesn’t make her muslim, that makes you either Jewish or living in an area which is very hot in the summer.
Of course Mary (Miriam) covered her hair, she was a married woman and a Jew.
Jesus (Joshua) was a Jew and never even saw a Moslem as Mohammed would not be around for another 600 years!
Ishmail is said to be the founder of the Arabs, but his mother was Hagar an Egyptian, and at that time the Egyptians were decendants of Greek invaders; as were the later Philistines.
The Arabs came out of Arabia (Saudi etc) a few thousand years later. The Egyptians of today having nothing what so ever to do with the Pharoes or pyramids etc. they are illegal occupiers.
Midwesterner,
God saw fit to destroy all those people as well as countless others in the bible because they were living sinful lives. This is despite supposedly giving them freedom of choice.
Hardly a great message is it? All I’m saying is that I wouldn’t give much credence to either book.
p.s. no, I’m not bloody Cinnamon!
You’re missing my point. Attributing the fall of ‘hellfire and brimstone’ to God’s punishment is not nearly the same thing as pulling out swords and slashing throats.
People have forever been calling catastophes of nature an ‘Act of God’. If you can’t see how the one group finding ways to explain the world and the other group running around killing people is different, you were sleeping through a lot more than school classes.
Thomas Pain said “The belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man” and thus..
Deuteronomy 2:31-34:
31 The LORD said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”
32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed [a] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.
I think you are deluding yourself that Muslims held a monopoly over religious violence. They may have been *worse* but they certainly weren’t alone.
I see. So you’ve conceded Sodom and Gomorrah then?
And you’ve got out Google and searched a bit?
I don’t know how Judaic law has changed over the millinium. I do note that in your new and improved example, one tribe is taking land from another tribe. Probably not all that unusual back then. I don’t see that it was part of an effort to convert the entire world to Judaism. Or even the other tribe. It was just a war for land. You’re probably wishing you could have found a way to make the Sodom and Gomorrah thing work.
And here is another point. It was back then. At a time when my own presumably non mideastern ancestors were behaving similarly.
Even so, I don’t believe they were ever killing people for not converting to Judaism. And Christianity does not approve that, even if political expeniency has led tyrants to wrap themselves in that claim.
If you are thinking of using this against Christianity, you really were sound asleep during your religious schooling.
Islam recognizes only two possibilities. Serve Islam or die. Cinnamon and you are equating that with Christianity and Judaism. No matter how much googling you do, you’re still nuts.
If I read just one more article by some ignorant cunt who claims to be an expert on Middle Eastern issues or Islamic issues simply because he/she “lived there so I should know” I will fucking puke ! India Knight throws in that little line about her father or mother being Hindu or Muslim or whatever the heck way around it was ( My eyesight starts to fail me when my blood is boiling) to somehow lend credibility to her completely ignorant babbling about how life truly is for Muslim women and how great they really have it and how we Westerners just don’t understand because we’ve never lived in a Muslim country. The fact that you lived there means absolutely nothing and gives your silly opinion no added weight. I lived in Iran for 10 years and yet I don’t claim to be an expert on Iran, or Islam. She ridicules people who think that wearing a veil is “forced” and argues that many women do so willingly….where? In Iran if you don’t wear the veil you’ll get stoned, or spat on, or have acid thrown at your face, or get thrown in jail, or beaten…you name it…you’re making a big stink about your “freedom to wear a veil if you choose to” whereas in the countries where Sharia Law rules it’s anything but a “freedom”. It’s compulsory. It’s a symbol of oppression. And if you lived in a Muslim country you’d know that you fool. The Muslims are not the new Jews, you ignorant cow. They are not the victims, they are the aggressors…in case you hadn’t noticed. They are the ones who are threatening to kill (and actually ARE killing) any non-believing infidels, they are the ones who are completely intolerant of any non-Muslim views and incapable of dealing with even the slightest bit of criticism without soiling themselves & frothing at the mouth…and then you have the bloody audacity to claim that Muslims are the ones who are being persecuted and that Muslims are somehow the “new Jews” ?? You stupid ignorant cunt.. I will never buy the Times again as long as they allow such absolute rubbish to masquerade as journalism.
you really were sound asleep during your religious schooling.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz. You sound like a stuck record.
Even so, I don’t believe they were ever killing people for not converting to Judaism.
You’re dreaming.
Islam recognizes only two possibilities. Serve Islam or die.
Extreme generalisation. Have you ever met a muslim? I go to the pub with one quite often and that certainly doesn’t describe his relationship with Islam.
There are over a billion of these people on the planet you know (my turn to be patronising). You should try to focus on the moderate ones and let the US Military deal with the rest.
You certainly do like to change the subject a lot as your ignorance and Bible hatred repeatedly lets you down.
Remember, this exchange started with Quaran = Bible.
Good bye.
Please, try and keep it a bit civil.
I think that the Muslim/Jew comparison is pretty unhelpful, but any intelligent person ought to be able to read these posts, note the regularity with which “Muslims” are referred to as one homogenous group (with a decidedly negative status), and then draw their own conclusions about a Muslim person’s position in our society.
Vince, I would like to think they were diverse.
When any terrorist claims to act in the name of one of our other religions, they are ostracised and thoroughly denounced. Usually without any qualification. Even deeply committed anti-abortionists vigourously denounced clinic bombings by an overwhelming majority, to the virtual exclusion of any words of support or qualification. While non-Muslims are eager to condemn any acts carried out by others claiming their same religion (or lack of one), there is a homogeneity to the response of the Muslim community that is inconceivable to these other groups.
We do not see this energetic self policing from the Muslim community. The best we can hope for are carefully parsed statements condemning that tactic but not the tactician.
Where are the great marches of Muslims condemning terrorism committed in their name? Why, when an act of terrorism happens, is the entire world a stage for anti-western riots supporting the terrorism. The only places Muslims don’t march in support of terrorism are the UK and the US. Do you really believe that US and UK Muslims are the exception to the other billion or so Muslim? Or just not yet free to fully express themselves?
Compare the ratio of pro peace and non-violence Christian Jewish and most other religious and non-religious marchers to the ratio of pro-violence marchers holding the same beliefs, world wide. Now make the same comparison in the Muslim community.
While the Islamic community may wage war among themselves, they do present a homogenous front to the rest of the world. The exceptions are so rare as to be remarkable and memorable.
Midwesterner,
Can I compare the generally silent reaction of the Irish and the American Irish to the activities of the IRA in Britain for at least 30 years?
Also, there is no reason really why British Muslims, which is who Knight’s original article was about, should have to demostrate to everybody that they oppose the fairly infrequent acts of terrorism by marching in the street. I didn’t have to march in the street after July 7th. I oppose terrorism. Believe me?
I want to know how it is possible to have any kind of individualist perspective, yet talk about “a billion or so” Muslims as one mass of heathen terrorists, particularly when in many cases, being “Muslim” is not even a conscious choice, but rather a matter of cultural heritage. By choosing to focus on the riots in favour of terrorist attacks you are happily ignoring a vast number of people who stayed at home and a huge number of people in Britain who live peacefully within our commmunities, causing absolutely no threat to anyone.
Irishness is an ethnicity, not a system of belief. That fact that you conflate the two makes me wonder if you understand that Islam is a system of belief. A fact often lost in all the ‘racism’ accusations you hear made by its adherants and their defenders.
To the extent that the situation in Northern Ireland was portrayed in Catholic/Protestant terms, yes there was very great outspoken opposition. From pulpits and podiums, religious leaders energetically and systematically rejected those of both sides who justified terrorism by wrapping themselves in the cloak of religion. There was not a Roman Catholic leader in the nation of any stature who was less than passionate against the bombings of English pubs, etc by those claiming to defend Catholicism.
You choose the wrong example to build a case on. But this is because you, like so many generous minded, self-doubting people, equate Islam with race. Islam is a choice.
If you claim membership in a religion that holds as a tenet that the Qur’an is infallible and literal and you claim to oppose terrorism, then no, I don’t believe you unless you take a positive, not passive, action to separate yourself from those who practice it.
Claiming Islam is a positive act. Qualifying that claim with disclaimers requires a positive act. The default mode is that you believe what you claim to believe, the literal Qur’an.
You ask about an “individualist perspective”. I want to know how from “any kind of an individualist perspective” it is possible to construe Islam as individualist. I am a hard core individualist. And when someone self-identifies as a member of a hard core collective, I choose to believe them.
There are things about Islam that you need to learn. (1) it orders capital punishment for any who do not believe the correct doctrine. That is not compatible with individualism. (2) it mandates death or servitude to any who will not convert to Islam. That is not compatible with individualism. And (3) this one is important, no one is not allowed to reinterpret the Qur’an as allegorical or in any way not literal. Full stop. When they think each other have made mistakes, as in the wrong number of prophets (Sunni/Shia) they kill each other in the name of Allah. And no one renounces the appropriateness of the act, only the correctness of the belief behind it.
I have strong sympathy for those who would leave Islam except for fear of being killed. I have no doubt that many Muslims fall into this category. But I’ve said it before in other threads, we cannot take it upon ourselves to sort ‘good’ Muslims from ‘bad’ ones.
I think that one reason more Muslims in the US and UK to do not passionately renounce much of what the Muslim world is doing is that they do not believe us able or willing to protect them from other Muslims. I don’t know what to do about that except to vigorously enforce our laws of freedom and equality. But that doesn’t seem to be the direction we are going.
Vince,
A further clarification. As I re-read my comment, I realize I left an untentional implication.
I do not mean at all that generosity and self doubt are bad things. Generosity is good if for no other reason than its honesty in that one chooses to error on the side of the other person.
Self doubt is also a good thing. It is the basis of rational thought. If one believes without doubt that they know the truth, they never think any more.
My intention by pointing out these (probable) features of your mindset, is that these two behaviors are not reciprocated. Doubt is a capital sin in Islam, especially if one acts on that doubt. Generosity, prefering errors to be in favor of the other guy, is also absent from the external interactions of Islam.
I intend to continue exercising generosity and self doubt, but only with others of similar attitude. To handicap oneself that way in the face of inexorable dogma is suicide.
How is that a Moslem has a ‘right’ to wear a large black sheet anywhere, but a Jew cannot wear a small disk of cloth on their heads without the risk of being attacked by Moslems who are enraged by the tiny piece of cloth? They are also enraged by that tiny piece of land called Israel.