For ACPlayer, Mack, Cyrus et al

[MMMMMM]

I'm not going to argue about this anymore. But if she (an educated, liberal, Canadian Muslim), can admit it and question it, why can't you?


"Sunday, Jul. 17, 2005
When Denial Can Kill
We Muslims must admit that our religion might be motivating the bombers
By IRSHAD MANJI

I was surprised last week to learn how easily some Westerners believe terrorism can be explained. The realization unfolded as I looked into the sad face of a student at Oxford University. After giving a speech about Islam, I met this young magazine editor to talk about Islam's lost tradition of critical thinking and reasoned debate. But we never got to that topic. Instead, we got stuck on the July 7 bombings in London and what might have compelled four young, British-raised, observant Muslim men to blow themselves up while taking innocent others with them.

She emphasized their "relative economic deprivation." I answered that the lads had immigrant parents who had worked hard to make something of themselves. I reminded her that several of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families, and it's not as if they left the boys out of the will. Finally, I told her about my conversation three years ago with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. "What's the difference between suicide, which the Koran condemns, and martyrdom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for--and they detonated it anyway.

By this time, the Oxford student had grown somber. It was clear I had let her down. I had failed to appreciate that the London bombers were victims of British society. To be fair to her, she is right that marginalization, real or perceived, diminishes self-esteem. Which, in turn, can make young people vulnerable to those peddling a radical message of instant belonging. But suppose the messages being peddled are marinated in religious rhetoric. Then wouldn't you say religion plays some role in motivating these atrocities?

The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.

That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left behind a note asserting that "it is enough for us to know that the Koran's verses are the words of the Creator of the Earth and all the planets." Atta highlighted the Koran's description of heaven. In 2004 the executioners of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq, alluded on tape to a different Koranic passage: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil.

For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West.

We could then cultivate the support to inspire cross-cultural understanding. For instance, schools throughout the West should teach how Islamic civilization helped give birth to the European Renaissance. Some of the first universities in recorded history sprang up in 3rd century Iran, 9th century Baghdad and 10th century Cairo. The Muslim world gave us mocha coffee, the guitar and even the Spanish expression olé! (which has its root in the Arabic word Allah). Muslim students would learn there is no shame in defending the values of pluralism. Non-Muslim students would learn that those values took great inspiration from Islamic culture. All would learn that Islam and the West are more interdependent than divided.

Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It's not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, moderate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield--one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbors from genuine understanding."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1083918,00.html

[ACPlayer]

Salaam.

You however continue to miss the point.

Edit:
If you dont want to argue about it. Please dont post about it. See easy. You can always post about something else.

Shalom

[MMMMMM]

So, we won't debate the issue itself, but please answer my question, because it relates to your sometimes discussional approach on other topics as well:

If she can admit that it should be questioned, WHY CAN'T YOU?

Do you ALWAYS put your fingers in your ears in order to not hear what you don't want to hear, so you won't have to think about what you don't want to think about?

That is, sorry to say, the most intellectually shameful activity in the world. And regardless of you views on THIS particular subject, you should realize what you are doing at times.

It is also why I have problems at times discussing things with you and certain others. It is a major cause of frustration for me. Neither party should just SHUT OUT points or possibilities.

Peace to you, too... and please try to learn not to shut out that which you don't want to think about. That is an utterly unscientific approach, and extremely unconducive to genuine discussion with others--and to truth-seeking.

[ACPlayer]

Can we get off the moralizing for a bit. Or does that just come naturally to the tilted 6M? From where I sit, you want us to simple accept your analysis on faith as an edict from god (supplemented by links to opinions of the likeminded). You ability to follow a line of thinking other than your own is truly astounding.

If you have followed what I have said in the past, I will repeat again:

1. All religious people should question their religion as religions by their nature can be twisted to meet the ends of the political. The discussion of catholics in the SMP is an example.
2. Extremist muslims twist their faith to motivate the young men to commit horrific acts.
3. I dont defend Islam.
4. I simply point out that Islam is not the cause of terrorism. It is a tool in the hands of the manipulators, like the backpack is the tool in the hands of the bombers.
5. Making Islam the cause of terrorism, or even denigrating or attacking Islam will cause moderates to react by bringout their self defense reactions.
6. Making Islam the cause of terrorism then leads to reactions, as some in this forum suggest as did Friedman in an article, that the problem should be addressed by moderate muslims.
7. I advocate, that WE examaine, what WE can do to make our lives safer by concentrating on policy and fixing it, rather than waiting for others to fix it.
8. We cannot solve this problem with force or policing.

So, if you want to have an argument with people who think just like you, go and talk to people who think just like you. Then you all can have a nice feel good conversation,call it a hearty debate and go back to the unfinished pizza.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
8. We cannot solve this problem with force or policing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Found the fatal flaw.

[MMMMMM]

Look, I am not saying Islam is THE cause of terrorism. I am saying I think it is ONE CAUSE AMONGST MANY.

But you just flat rule that out, despite the contrary public statements of imams, terrorists, and now a very educated liberal Canadian Muslim woman.

I wouldn't mind discussing but you are being TOTALLY CLOSE-MINDED to the point of not even ALLOWING THAT AS A POSSIBILITY.

You have taken other totally close-minded tacks on occasion in the past.

I'm trying to point out that, regardless of the issue, that is an approach that is intellectually flawed--and not conducive to good discussion or debate.

This particular instance is just one case in point.

How do you manage to assert as FACT your opinion on this, which flies in the face of many expert opinions?

I'm NOT saying you should agree with me that Islam is a significant cause of terrorism. I'm not even saying you should take as fact that those particular Muslim experts are right and you are wrong. I'm just saying you should allow it as a POSSIBILITY.

Why can't you do that?

Also, can you imagine how frustrating it can be to discuss or debate with one so close-minded on certain things?

There is very little I won't allow as a POSSIBILITY for views that oppose mine--especially when numerous experts contradict my opinion. But you seem entirely impervious to such considerations, which makes your discussion/debate style highly flawed and unfair.

It is as if you have an IQ of 140, yet at times simply refuse to acknowledge possibilities other than your first conclusions. On the occasions you do that, it is like you are dropping your own effective IQ to 70, regarding the matter at hand. By your own choice, no less.

Sometimes cement heads are thick because they can't help it, naturally. That is not you. Other times they simply choose to be thick on occasion. That is you. And it is a habit that harms both you and any discussion you are trying to have with someone.

May you realize this in introspection and occasionally strive to improve upon it. And may you be less quick to TOTALLY DISREGARD contrary expert opinion from multiple sources in the future--on any subject. (Mainly for your benefit.)

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
But if she (an educated, liberal, Canadian Muslim), can admit it and question it, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your making her a liberal why?

I can't speak for others but I think all religion can (and has always been) twisted and perverted to excuse anything done in its name. I agree with her on this. I question responses to fundamentalism not that there are people who want me dead because i'm an infidel.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your making her a liberal why?

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression is that she is a Western Muslim, interested in women's rights, educated, young, progressive, lesbian (and she produced and hosted "Queer Television" on Toronto's CityTV), politically interested and active, optimistic, concerned, cheerful.

I once watched her on TV discussing Islam on stage, and she referenced Chomsky at one point, then later asked if it might be possible for Islam to be reformed or saved.

Overall, I have a very positive (though limited) impression of her.

A quote about Irshad:

Andrew Sullivan, journalist who reviewed Irshad’s book for the New York Times and concluded: “If we survive this current war without unthinkable casualties, it will be because Irshad Manji’s kind of liberalism didn’t lose its nerve.”

Here, on her web page:

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/aboutirshad.html

[superleeds]

She's not a liberal as far as I'm concerned. But then I doubt that surprises you [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Andrew Sullivan

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, I know you can do better than that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

I don't know anything about Andrew Sullivan, Superleeds; but if Irshad Manji is not liberal compared to you, just where on the spectrum are you...left of Chomsky, maybe? ;-)