hawk2

The following excerpt is from the most recent acticle by Timothy Garton Ash of the Guardian. I almost never agree with anything written by this whacko liberal but he, I believe, has accidentally hit upon the most basic reason we are confronted with the evil of Islamic Fascism, or fanatical Islam, or however you define the the threat that we face which is generated by fanatics within the Islamic religion.

He has identified the six views of Islam as seen by the eyes of us in the west.
They are posted below I would like all you intellectuals to carefully read and analyse each and then place tick marks beside each one that most correctly defines the problem we face.

When you respond please give your reasons for choosing as you did. I will give my opinion at the end:

By Timothy Garton Ash
Why? What's the nub of the problem? Here are six different views often heard in the west, but also, it's important to add, in Muslim countries such as Iran. As you go down the list, you might like to put a mental tick against the view you most strongly agree with. It's logically possible to put smaller ticks against a couple of others, but not against them all.

1 The fundamental problem is not just Islam but religion itself, which is superstition, false consciousness, the abrogation of reason. In principle, Christianity or Judaism are little better, particularly in the versions embraced by the American right. The world would be a much better place if everyone understood the truths revealed by science, had confidence in human reason and embraced secular humanism. If we must have a framed image of a bearded old man on the wall, let it be a photograph of Charles Darwin. What we need is not just a secular state but a secular society.

This is a view held by many highly educated people in the post-Christian west, especially in western Europe, including some of my closest friends. If translated directly into a political prescription, it has the minor drawback of requiring that some 3 billion to 5 billion men and women abandon their fundamental beliefs. Nor has the track record of purely secular regimes over the last hundred years been altogether inspiring.

2 The fundamental problem is not religion itself, but the particular religion of Islam. Islam, unlike western Christianity, does not allow the separation of church and state, religion and politics. The fact that my Iranian newspaper gives the year as 1384 points to a larger truth. With its systematic discrimination against women, its barbaric punishments for homosexuality and its militant intolerance, Islam is stuck in the middle ages. What it needs is its Reformation.

A very widespread view. Two objections are that such a view encourages a monolithic, essentialist understanding of Islam, and tries to understand its history too much in western terms (middle ages, Reformation). If we mean by Islam "what people calling themselves Muslim actually think, say and do", there is a huge spectrum of different realities.

3 The problem is not Islam but Islamism. One of the world's great religions has been misrepresented by fanatics such as Osama bin Laden, who have twisted it into the service of a political ideology of hate. It's these ideologists and movements of political Islamism that we must combat. Working with the benign, peaceful majority of the world's Muslims, we can separate the poisonous fruit from the healthy tree.

The view promulgated by Qur'an-toting western politicians such as George Bush and Tony Blair. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? They're not going to insult millions of Muslim voters and the foreign countries upon which the west relies for its imported oil. But do they really believe it? I have my doubts. Put them on a truth serum, and I bet they'd be closer to 2, while many atheist or agnostic European leaders would be at 1. On the other hand, this analysis is made with learning and force by distinguished specialists on the Muslim world.

4 The nub of the problem is not religion, Islam or even Islamism, but a specific history of the Arabs. Among 22 members of the Arab League, none is a home-grown democracy. (Iraq now has some elements of democracy, but hardly home-grown.) Needless to say, this is not a racist claim about Arabs but a complex argument about history, economics, political culture, society and a set of failed attempts at post-colonial modernisation.

A case can be made. There are democracies with Muslim majorities (Turkey, Mali). The political scientist Alfred Stepan has written a fascinating article suggesting that, in the democracy stakes, non-Arab Muslim countries have fared roughly as well as non-Muslim countries at a comparable level of economic development. But I'm struck by the fact that even in a traditionally anti-Arab country such as Iran, very few people think the trouble is just with Arabia.

5 We, not they, are the root of the problem. From the Crusades to Iraq, western imperialism, colonialism, Christian and post-Christian ideological hegemonism have themselves created this antipathy to western liberal democracy; and, at the extreme, its mortal enemies. Moreover, after causing (by the Holocaust of European barbarism), supporting or at least accepting the establishment of the state of Israel, we have for more than half a century ignored the terrible plight of the Palestinians.

A widespread view among Muslims, and by no means only among Arabs in the Middle East. Also shared, from a different starting point, by some on the western left. Of course, even if this simplistic version of history were entirely true, we couldn't change the past. But we can acknowledge the historical damage for which we are genuinely responsible. And we can do more to create a free Palestine next to a secure Israel.

6 Whatever your view of the relative merits of the west and Islam, the most acute tension comes at the edges where they meet. It arises, in particular, from the direct, personal encounter of young, first- or second-generation Muslim immigrants with western, and especially European, secular modernity. The most seductive system known to humankind, with its polychromatic consumer images of health, wealth, excitement, sex and power, is hugely attractive to young people from often poor, conservative, Muslim backgrounds. But, repelled by its hedonistic excesses or perhaps disappointed in their secret hopes, alienated by the reality of their marginalised lives in the west or feeling themselves rejected by it, a few - a tiny minority - embrace a fierce, extreme, warlike new version of the faith of their fathers. From Mohammed Atta and the Hamburg cell of al-Qaida, through the bombers of Madrid to those of London, this has become a depressingly familiar story.

I wish I could find some compelling evidence against this claim. But I can't. (Can some reader help?) Even if we were to assist at the birth of a free Palestine and pull out of Iraq tomorrow, this problem would remain. It threatens to make Europe a less civilised, comfortable place to live over the next 10 years.

Now, which of the six views got your largest tick? In answering that question, you will not just be saying something about the Islamic world; you will be saying something about yourself. For what we call Islam is a mirror in which we see ourselves. Tell me your Islam and I will tell you who you are.

cnredd

[Moderator Mode]

As per forum rules...

8. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

[/Moderator Mode]

__________________


www.politicalwrinkles.com

VTA

All of the above.
None of the above.

All 6 points boil down to the very same issue.
A is not B and B is not A. Despite their tight quarters in our alphabet, they are as different as they are similar. Two (humans) letters capable of (thought, action, etc), starting words, forming sentences. comprising books, yet unable to change their very (nature) basic function. A is a vowel, B a consonant. They can never be anything but what they are.

"The world would be a much better place if everyone understood the truths revealed by science, had confidence in human reason and embraced secular humanism."

So says A (the Aetheist), but B (Jew, Christian, Muslim, take your pick) says something entirely different. Who is in such a position to enforce which ideology on the other?

By the by, has it gone unnoticed that the truths of science are subject to change with evolution and greater resources available and are therefore rendered obsolete over a period of time? Is it possible to embrace an ever changing thing?

Mr. Garton Ash may very well have struck upon some valid questions, but convention can't deny that those questions will only lead to more questions than available answers to the current problems facing A and B.

Now divide those two very close, but very different letters by 13 and just look at all the diversity A and B have to deal with.

__________________
-VTA

hawk2

Sorry if I've violated the rules here. I did not post the entire article...... just enough to keep it coherent. If I understand what you have said correctly....if I had posted the source, I would have been OK......am I correct?

cnredd

[Moderator mode]

The rules also require you to provide the source. There should be a link added...

[/Moderator mode]

hawk2

To all participants

Here is a link to the Timothy Garton Ash article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...570236,00.html

cnredd

[Moderator mode]

Muchas Gracias, Senor!

That's "Greek" for "Good job, Hawk2!"

[/Moderator mode]

hawk2

To all participants:

The title to this thread implies that the answer to why they blow themselves up, is clearly stated in one the views........that is obviously incorrect......you must interpret one of the views to deduce the answer.

VTA

Does this mean I'm wrong...
EDIT ooops...

Am I spoiling the fun?

hawk2

VTA

Your first answer was incoherent to me........Try reading all six views with some degree of comprehension. If you comprehend the conclusion inferred by each view, you cannot possibly conclude they all have the same meaning which I believe you postulate.

For example number 5 is the view of most liberals in this country:

5 We, not they, are the root of the problem. From the Crusades to Iraq, western imperialism, colonialism, Christian and post-Christian ideological hegemonism have themselves created this antipathy to western liberal democracy; and, at the extreme, its mortal enemies. Moreover, after causing (by the Holocaust of European barbarism), supporting or at least accepting the establishment of the state of Israel, we have for more than half a century ignored the terrible plight of the Palestinians.

The conclusion here is that WE, in the west, are to blame for all of the violence. When in actual fact, the Wahabi sect which was formed in Saudi Arabia in approx 1750, has been intimidating and murdering other Muslims in order to force their views on the remainder of the Muslim world. The Wahabis interpret the Koran to give justification to their form of intimidation.......use of the sword to convert apostates to the true form of Islam, in accordance with the Wahabi belief.

Therefore number 5 in entirely different from the conclusion is number 1, that ALL religion is bad and should be discarded to be replaced with Darwinism or Evolution thereby eliminating all the violence caused by various religions since history began.

In the event you want to make a joke out of this discussion, please take it to another thread. This is meant to be a serious discussion of a serious problem.