Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence

re: Romair`s ramblings

``Hindu countries, by the way, are even worse shape``
Let us see. How many Hindu countries are there? Nepal? I am running out of ideas here. Please somebody help me!

``Based on your logic, when the Muslims were ruling the world, the same Islam was the greatest thing in the world. Also, would you apply this rule to all religions. Hindus are poorer and more backwards than even Muslim nations. Should we all then spend our time, “discrediting, ridiculing, undermining and eventually destroying” Hinduism. African Black are the most backward group in the world. Should we do the same to them.``

When muslim rulers (and not muslims) ruled the world (whatever that expression means; they certainly did not rule the world), they set the rules. In collusion with the clergy, they made sure there were no dissenting voices. So, when they decreed that Islam was the greatest (remember they were the rulers), so it was. Does Romair really believe Islam was the greatest religion even then?
Hindus are poorer and more backward? Well, why does Romair the idiot not find a muslim Accountant? I see envy here. He is surrounded by Hindus at workplace. That must be hard on a closet Islamist like him. When you can`t compete, you can at least condemn, he seems to say. Besides, i recently read the report that India has outstripped Pak in GDP and PPP growth. Let Romair, the Chowk idiot chew on that.
Hinduism is not under the lens today. Islam is. Whether Romair likes it or not. I think the guy has reached the limits of his sanity.

``I have very unconventional views about Islam. I have yet to be declared a blasphemer.``
Tell you what. Write a book on your unconventional views of Islam. See what your mullahs have to say. It is one thing to have unconventional views on Islam and lock it up in your mind and it is another thing to say so freely, with conviction. Islamists and Jehadists will not allow any unconventional views. Did you, Romair, hear the news that barbers in Pakistan are all moving into another profession? Care to know why? Because, shaving is now prohibited by mullahs and barbers are all out of business!
Sridhar

re:#57 by RationalFaith
Islam in one stroke will become acceptable to non-muslims if it is kept as a personal faith and is kept out of public domain. But then that itself would be unislamic, would it not?
Sridhar

There has always been a vested interest lobby maligning people like Edward Said, Chomsky, Eqbal Ahmad and others. The reason for such attacks is that these symbols of humanity stood in front of hegemony and power despite their frailty and limited resources. Pervez Hoodbhoy is carrying the torch that should remain alive. Munir

_digit:
Just thought I`d tell you there`s an unplugged (Off the Wall) thread on `Real Men` and `sexual harrasment` that I thought you`d be interested in peeping into.

AlephNull wrote:

[I prefixed ‘coreligionist’ with the word ‘erstwhile’...]

Yes, mistake was mine...missed the erstwhile there. Like I said, minor point.

[You say “Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are”. Well, in my very unsympathetic opinion, in many cases Muslims as a group are under attack largely because...]

To be clear, no one was trying to solicit your sympathy.

Anyhow, it is just as obtuse to think that there are no legitimate grievances on the Muslim side, (or that the violence is entirely unidirectional), as it is to think all problems of Muslims originate from outside Muslim lands. That is, however, beside the point.

Muslims are under attack. Whatever the reasons may be, the nature of the attack is at the very least as severe as whatever certain Muslims have been able to perpetrate in recent history, (I personally would argue that it`s much worse).

One would think, then, that those who proclaim a love or genuine concern for Muslims would voice some sort of concern for their welfare. One would think that when non-Muslims exhibit the same violent tendencies as Muslims, invoking a similar rationale no less, then the non-Muslims would be subjected to the same standard of criticism. The reasons why this is not done I know, so I don`t need a justification for this. Just spare me this feigned concern. Ibn Warraq hates Islam, however his challenge to it is not on behalf of Muslims. It is, arguably, in spite of them. On this, Dr. Hoodboy’s assessment deserves more than a casual brush off.

[If this diagnosis is accurate (an assertion with which you are welcome to disagree), the route to a cure for the woes of Muslims would be to root out the very Islam that causes the clueless backwardness. In which case ‘tough love’ of the Ibn Warraq school is the best way to ensure their future well-being.]

The Muslim/Islam distinction doesn’t work in this sense, since Islam cannot be physically attacked. Only it’s practitioners can. To attempt to make it work, you will need to come up with convenient or even absurd definitions of who a Muslim is. It would be best just to admit to the simple truth: some people would prefer it if Muslims were non-Muslims. For those who espouse “tough love”, then no doubt the use of violence to see this end is not out of the question. That, however, has no pretense of being tolerant. So I can see why this absurd “love the sinner, hate the sin” business is invoked.

Also, to be clear, I do not know for certain if Ibn Warraq is of this “tough love” school of thought…

Fuzair #18

That last paragraph was brilliant. Only if all Muslims could see that to non Muslims, it matters not at all what some fictional `true` Islam is so long as `real` Islam continues to cast an evil and cancerous influence across the globe.

Instead of accusing non Muslims for distorting the `true` Islam, believers in the `true` Islam should fight to put into practice an Islam that is worthy of being tolerated by non Muslims. But that is much harder to do, or no such thing can be created because no such thing exists, except in the minds of those who are desperate to win respectability but yet be Muslims.

The most despicable part is that no matter what, these people would come back with `you are distorting Islam` sh%t.

Fuzair #18

{{But seriously, I do have a problem with the wholesale condemnation of `Islam` as totalitarian thought control. This is the same problem that many socialists had with the depiction of Socialism as totalitarian thought control just because the USSR was a totalitarian thought control society.}}

Well, one might argue that European social democracy, say as practiced in the Scandinavian countries, was/is closer to Marx’s vision than anything east of the Iron Curtain. I brought up the example of Soviet Communism because it shows some very interesting parallels in theory and practice with many versions of Islam. The most salient difference from my point of view is the fact that Communist theocracy had a very well developed hierarchical clergy and attempted to exercise top-down control, whereas Islam seems to be decentralized. But the degree of control of public discourse seems to be comparable.

{{But seriously, I do have a problem with the wholesale condemnation of `Islam` as totalitarian thought control. This is the same problem that many socialists had with the depiction of Socialism as totalitarian thought control just because the USSR was a totalitarian thought control society. I would much prefer it if people attacked Islamists as totalitarian thought control freaks rather than Islam …}}

Claiming that this or that instance of the actual behaviour of those who act invoking Islam is not “real Islam”, is as questionable a ploy as claiming that Soviet Communism wasn’t “real socialism” and that Stalin (or was it Lenin?) betrayed a noble ideal. Communism is a system of thought and belief that, though it claims to be theoretically grounded, is not reducible (AFAIK) to a system of unambiguous axioms. Vagueness and contradiction (or apparent contradiction), differing interpretations of the same text, and divergent prescriptions for theoretically grounded action in consonance with the ‘theory’, are commonly encountered results of any discourse involving this essential vagueness. Looking at the actual behaviour of those who acted invoking Communism is therefore not only appropriate but essential to get a measure of the ideology itself and the way it is likely to play out in the real world.

The same argument holds, at least as strongly, for Islam. It is if anything less amenable to rigorous axiomatization than Communism. So the historical record of those who acted in the name of Islam is the best thing we have to go by to understand the ideology and the way it will in all likelihood be interpreted. And if those who act in the name of Islam typically impose severe restrictions on the free expression of opinion about Islam or hostile to Islam, calling it a system of thought control is fair.

_digit #22

{{[One can follow the dictum of ‘hate sin and not the sinner.’]

That`s an utterly pompous dictum, if not down right patronizing.}}

It was meant to be patronizing and to get under pompous religious believers’ skins. It is taken right out of the Christian fundagolical playbook. It is a favourite catchphrase of earnest evangelicals trying to ‘cure’ people with deviant sexuality. I thought it sounded vaguely New Testament – Pauline, perhaps – but it seems not to have a direct origin in Christian scripture. Be that as it may, the pleasure of using it to patronize religious true believers is one I will not willingly pass up.

{{First, a minor point: having abandoned Islam and religion altogether, Ibn Warraq is nobody`s co-religionist.}}

I prefixed ‘coreligionist’ with the word ‘erstwhile’, which precisely fits Ibn Warraq the apostate. If you don’t know what `erstwhile` means, look it up in the dictionary.

{{.. he declared:

``One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. …”” ….. Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are...where is his pious concern?… }

You say “Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are”. Well, in my very unsympathetic opinion, in many cases Muslims as a group are under attack largely because of their own utterly stupid behaviour, their inability to stay out of trouble, their hopeless incomprehension of the way the rest of the world works, their penchant for making unnecessary enemies out of neutrals, etc., all traceable to cultural factors eventually rooted in Islam. Their woes are all too often self-inflicted. If this diagnosis is accurate (an assertion with which you are welcome to disagree), the route to a cure for the woes of Muslims would be to root out the very Islam that causes the clueless backwardness. In which case ‘tough love’ of the Ibn Warraq school is the best way to ensure their future well-being.

Aaah yes, Solitude. I remember him now. He did have a rather virulent dislike for Islam.

Thanks PM and AlephNull, appreciate it.

Fuzair

In response to AlephNull, who wrote:

[Solitude came across as an extremely passionate man, much younger - late twenties, perhaps - with a more unrestrained polemical style]

LOL, that`s a rather mild assesment of one who wrote, and I quote, ``I think we can put our nuclear arsenal to good use by turning Mecca/ Medina into the next test zone during peak season.``

But, of course, this is no doubt is consistent with your idea of ``loving the sinner``...

AlephNull,
You wouldn`t happen to be a new avatar of the erstwhile LC, now would you? You are certainly at least as articulate as he.

Fuzair, I think it was temp who claimed that Warraq was of Pakistani origin. to the best of my knowledge, he is of Inidan.
The dude who`d often post inflammatory stuff on Islam (and yes, was quite an expert on Ghazzali) went as `Solitude`. He`s in NYC and in his late 20`s yet. Too young to be Warraq.

#49 fuzair

{{There was a Chowkie here a few years ago, can`t recall his name, who wrote several articles severely criticising Islam (I remember a very critical article on Ghazali).}}

Solitude, who penned articles as A. Shiraz and as A Shiraz` Evil Twin (for the Ghazali article).

{{Is he Ibn Warraq? Anyone know?}}

I think it`s highly unlikely. Ibn Warrraq is described as being in his late fifties and is quite composed in his written and reported verbal utterances. Solitude came across as an extremely passionate man, much younger - late twenties, perhaps - with a more unrestrained polemical style.

Its interesting that a poster here (sorry, can`t recall who) said that ``Ibn Warraq`` is of Pakistani origin. There was a Chowkie here a few years ago, can`t recall his name, who wrote several articles severely criticising Islam (I remember a very critical article on Ghazali). Is he Ibn Warraq? Anyone know?

re. _digit:
``Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.``

But not necessarily the sole agent. And within the overlap of joint responsbility, lies the space for empathy, understanding and forgiveness, and the possibility of hating the sin but not the sinner.

RationalFaith wrote:

[The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -]

No, you have a continuum of options, you`ve simply selected two that you found most convenient.

[...you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. ]

Sounds gentle enough...of course, there is a not so subtle subterfuge here...``making sure`` this person does not commit sins may well involve harming this person. Or worse.

When dealing with unrepentant criminals, those who could care less for mending their ways, we most often resort to `containment` because of the harm they can do to the rest of society. We do this out of a self-love, not because we love this person.


[May be you can jail him.]

Jailing is an act of love, or compassion? Jeez, talk about tough love. ;-)

Again, though, the concept of a jail is to remove undesirables from society. Rehabilitation may be a stated goal, and it certainly is worth a shot, but that`s not the primary reason for jailing people.

[But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.]

Well, back to my original point, if a person`s ``problem`` is believing in a certain faith, ( a la Ibn Warraq), then you`ll forgive me if I find the above sentiment rather patronizing...

Anyhow, we may have hope that some people can be rehabilitated, but I question the wisdom of one who doesn`t place a limit on this hope. It is a virtue to be patient, however one can be too patient, too compassionate. I don`t want a serial killer being given the kind of understanding you advocate unless there`s a darn good reason for it. Remorse is a good reason, or at least a good start. The simple fact that this killer is a human is not a good reason.

In the end, though, we mustn`t be too forgiving of a person who went ahead and committed the crime in the first place, knowing full well they were doing something wrong. Assuming they weren`t in their senses is being much too forgiving...