Parihaka

That is why he's here, yes.
compare this quote


with this quote

The first simply denigrates AgM and seems designed to anger him. The second put forwards an argument coherently and heart felt.
It's the second Adux I enjoy reading, just as I enjoy AgnosticMuslims replys.

Bigfella

Adux, is your problem with:

a) any nation that has an established state religion, or
b) just Muslim states that do?

The question is important. In fact, it is crucial. It gets straight to the heart of all of the debates that play out endlessly on WAB & similar fora.

I ask this because I want to know if your objection is based on principle or prejudice. Allow me to explain.

Personally I object to the notion of any nation having an established Church. It opens up all sorts of possibilities for discrimination against people who are not believers. Churches should have no official role in any modern nation.

Having said this, the presence of an established national church does not necessarily mean that people who are not of that faith will be reduced to the status of secondhand citizens. The clearest example is actually one of those nations so frequently derided for its concessions to Islam - Great Britain (well, England & Scotland to be precise). Israel, Denmark, Norway & most Swiss Cantons also have established Churches. Despite Christianity's long & violent history of religious repression, these nations have managed to create what we would consider modern pluralist nations despite having national churches.

So, is there any reason why a nation with Islam as the state religion should be incapable of providing the same level of equality to all that these nations do? Based on their posts I would argue that a lot of people here would say YES - Islam is so intrisically different to all other religions that it simply cannot create such a state. This is an incredibly attractive argument because it immediatley precludes the need for deeper examination. It means that we never really have to make the effort to understand Islam in its infinite variety. It is just different (and bad), that is all we really need to know. An further 'research' is simply about gathering anecdotes to buttress the established position.

Is that any better than racism?

Such an argument requires an almost heroic refusal to look at history or understand the influence of culture & history on religion. It ignores our own religious past & the long struggle to civilize Christianity (a process that is nearing completion). Islamic states are in a period of change as rapid & destabilizing as anything the West has ever encountered. There have been tremendous strides forward in many nations - note that the three largest Muslim nations have all elected female heads of government. There have also been setbacks - the genocide in East Pakistan, the Iranian revolution & the growth of revolutionary Islam among them.

Just as the West dragged the Islamic world into its disputes during the C20th, so there are some in Islam attempting to drag the West into further Islam's disputes (with the unfortunate assistance of some Westerners). I say further because policies adopted by the West over the past 200 years already put us there. If we simply decide that Islam is inherently bad & incapable of existing as part of a modern, pluralist society then we give Muslim revolutionaries what they most want - an intractible clash of civilizations. How better to rally waverers to the cause than have the West show them that it considers them irredeemably bad?

__________________
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Adux

Bigfella,

I see no role for politics in religion and vice versa. I have no problems with spiritual Islam but with political & socio-economic islam. You have to understand that is very different and has a larger impact than religious bodies of any religion.

And one more thing, the Islamic world has many internal problems far pre-dating western created one's, which still continue's. No other religion today plays as much Islam does in politics. Sudan etc. So dont expect your level of enlightment in them.


About being second-class citizen's please pick up the consitution of Pakistan or the laws of Saudi Arabia for reference. Iraq and Iran for example had a very thriving jewish and christains. Pakistan and Afghanistan had Hindu's, Sikhs and christains who are now being systematically wiped out. I understand your quest for digging our skeltons out, but as an Indian, let me tell you one thing. The west and its people (NOW) are far more civilized, modern, moderate and understanding than other people of the world.

A western countries of today, wont even contemplate genocide as a method for national objectivies, you have third world countries like pakistan doing that just 3 decades ago.

You have to understand the concepts of zakat, khilafa etc etc, An Islamic country except Turkey is hard on its minorities. Yes, it is racisim, it is no different than castism practiced by the Hindu's of yestyears.

And You are not understanding the complete lack of education and his utter devotion to very word in the quran(open to the interpretation of a self-serving imam) in an ordinary muslim to the highly advanced nordic's etc, The evolution of other religion and their adoption of Human values and rights is still unseen in the Muslim world. Who are not even open to change or even self-introspection.


So, in the defence of the West. You are not that bad.

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

7thsfsniper

PLEASE, pick "A". You don't want to get bigfella started. I think he can type like 900wpm. and is a human thesaurus. Just kidding you bigfella

I've been observing this thread closely and I'm going to have to give my vote so far to adux on this argument. All have have had some very indepth points(I've been googling like a madman to keep abreast). I think it simply comes down to anything in its extreme (religous or not) can be very damaging when it suppresses thought, speach and basic human rights, which by way should need no debate of definition. Without these things we could have never went to the moon. (and yes, we went, no conspiracy theories please, it gives me a headache)

__________________
Don't run, you'll only die tired!

Agnostic Muslim

I can understand why people make the linkage, since often, progressive policy or intolerant policy, the justification given is that it is "Islamic" (though it may not be Islamic depending upon how you interpret the religion). However my argument is over the original assertion Adux made - of widespread intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog among Muslims.

My disagreement with US policy and actions does not automatically make me think that the US public in general willingly support policies that harm other nations - and that is in perhaps the greatest democracy in the world, where one could argue the voice of the American people is what drives Government actions (though many would probably agree that it isn't quite so simple).

Why then, as Adux argues, apply an argument and attach the beliefs of Muslims to the actions of their governments, especially when the majority of those governments have not been representative governments and are not representative governments?

In what sense?

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Agnostic Muslim

Which argument is that?

1. There is widespread intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog in the Muslim world.

2. The Pakistani political Parties I mentioned do not stand for equality and rights for all

3. A religious State of any sort cannot provide equality to its citizens

4. Only an Islamic State cannot provide equality to its citizens


I think we all agree on that - Adux's last post seems to raise the question of whether a religious State (extreme or moderate), though he seems to particularly dislike Islam over other religions as I gathered from one of his posts above, cannot provide equality to its non-Muslim citizens.

Agnostic Muslim

With all the back patting going on, thought I might as well chime in - excellent post Bigfella

Bigfella

And to think, a couple of days ago some folks here were ready to hang, draw & quarter me.

Thanks AM. I especially value your input because you are that rarest of people on a thread about Islam - a Muslim (if non-practicing). I'm sure you must tear your hair out sometimes as you observe some of the ill-informed assumptions we make about Islam (and yes, I am including myself in the 'we').

I hope you can retain your patience, I think we all need the insight for a while yet.

Agnostic Muslim

Lets get something clear - I am not arguing that the majority of the Islamic States that exist today are bastions of freedom and equality, I am not arguing that they do not have any repressive or discriminatory laws. I am arguing that being an Islamic State does not preclude these nations from evolving and reforming. I am arguing that the nature of these States does not imply anything about the "widespread tolerance", or lack of, of their citizens.

You base your argument on the most vitriolic, extreme and intolerant interpretations of Islam that exist - I base my argument on the moderate, respectful and tolerant strain of Islam that I know, that I grew up with - that I believe a majority of Muslims share.

I don't believe non-Muslims and women are second class citizens, that they cannot have equal rights - you seem to be insisting that I do - Takiyah and all eh..

Will it be perfect, probably not - In Pakistan for example I do not see the restrictions on the President and Prime Minister going away any time soon. But as long as we can work towards non-Muslims, and Muslims, being able to exercise all other rights and have all freedoms, I'll be happy.

Adux

Ag.Muslim,

Thank you for accepting, the countries of middle east are more than repressive on basic human rights and even more so when it comes to minorites.
Lets for a minute in place of 'Islamic' State put 'White', what will that give you. APARTHEID- RACISIM. Do that in the name of Islam/religion, then it is all OK, and HUMAN PARADISE.

An Islamic state, will not be Islamic without the application Sharia, and people of minorities will have to be subservient to the wishes and sensbilities of muslims,(same thing pakistan said before its creation, where both of our countries are now is a history and fact)

Oh it does, when it is repressive methodology which is not acceptable or are inhuman to a section of human beings, Nazi ideology, communism, islamism, white supermacy etc all come in the same line.

Somehow my dear sir,

that is the majority of Islamic government except for Turkey

You as an individual maybe, I dont know. But that is not the case of your country or any other islamic state. If you know how a 'Islamic state' can keep the its islamic values as well as be fair to be all the citizens, then please do tell me. I am willing to listen, such a concept will be new to me and all the world.

Again its not about you as an individual, my best friend is a muslim. That doesnt change what a muslim society does to its minorities or views people of other faith,. I have posted the response from a muslim woman of sudanese origin in Havard on an Issue that happened over there, so that people like you can understand what your own people are going through, minorities are worse off. The sheer desperation faced by christains and jews of Iraq who are one of the most ancient people, is sad beyond words. If there was something I respected Saddam Hussien, it was that. But then again he was another toon.


And yes, I am not convinced about your honesty and your intentions. Yes , Takiyah and all. Thats my belief, you can have yours

Sorry,

That doesnt cut it with me, nothing less than equality is acceptable to all human beings.

Well, then it is not a good state, especially from the perspective of the minorities. You are basically telling the minorities to just suck it up and move on. NO GO,
Its not just about Prime Minister or President, there are so many other places they are restricted especially in a religiously intolerent state such as Pakistan. I will be suprised if they were get a job, in such a highly prejudiced enviornment. The reason they have come down from 12.75% in the 1960's to 3% now.

Adux

My thanks, and for the rest of your post

Agnostic Muslim

Who exactly are you comparing here? The West with the developing world? The West with Islam? Islam vs the Rest of the world, specifically the Christian world? If the latter, may I ask how the Christian world is any better than the Muslim world when you look at these actions:

1. Rwandan Gennocide

2. Lords Resistance Army (Uganda)

3. Democratic Republic of Congo

4. Guatemala

etc....

The "ordinary Muslim" is illiterate, brainwashed and "advanced" compared to the "highly advanced Nordic"? What is the "ordinary Muslim"? Your evidence for "brainwashing" of this "ordinary Muslim"?

Adux

Ag,

you know very well where and whom I was refering to.
are the Nordic people in Africa? Look at the LAST LINE of my post.

Are you European countries 'Christain' in the same effect as 'Islamic' in Pakistan or the countries of Middle East... you are in the US, do you feel that your are in a less-advantegous position 'legally' than any of your 'christain' comptraiots.

So Stop playing games.

Agnostic Muslim

That a Muslim State can progress and evolve is now the issue, since you seem to have given up on proving that there is "wide spread intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog in the Muslim world", any more than in other religions.

Going back to Pakistan, as imperfect a State as it is - bar the PM and President, minorities can be elected to any office they like, so far as I know. A Hindu was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of the CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry. We have Hindu and, until his recent conversion to Islam, Christian sports stars. The PPP has declared its intent to remove any discriminatory laws against minorities, such as the Hudood laws (which did not exist in the Pakistani constitution until a few decades ago until inserted by a dictator).

So yes, I feel extremely happy about the future of Pakistan as a moderate Islamic State, where for all intents and purposes, minorities will have all the rights that Muslims do. They will be denied the two highest offices in the land, something I would like to see rectified as we mature as a democracy, but I am not going to get hung up over something that has almost no bearing on the lives of the minorities in Pakistan.

If there is a "White State", that then says that all laws and rights apply equally to every one regardless of color, I would not think of it as an "Apartheid State" - even if restricted the two highest offices of the land to the majority Whites. Like I indicated before, I would prefer that not be the case, but since it would have little practical effect on the lives of the non-Whites, I would not be particularly perturbed by it.

The feeling is mutual.