There is no denying that OBL and others have a legitimate political grevience. There is little to no debate as to the illigetimacy of *their *tactics. Little - it’s clear a line has been crossed. Even OBL seems to back track from time to time, proclaiming it is Haraam to harm innocent women and children.
There is nuance here, but it really doesn’t involve Islam, even though that is the basis for the rhetoric in play.
The school of thought at work here is that political necessity trumps moral imperatives. This is NOT unique to Muslims, or Islamic thought. This is clear when an F-16 takes out a village full of innocents. Your “civilized” people would call it “collateral damage”. Those of us with no ideological affiliation hear this is an “oops”, and visualize a most patronizing shrug following that utterance.
It’s intellectually dishonest at best to suggest that any ideolgical framework doesn’t suffer from this very problem, or that it’s something unqiue to Muslims at this point in history. How a regiment of secularization would help this, or even radical relgiious reforms along western lines needs further elaboration.
Mullahs wouldn’t be issuing the blood thirsty fatwas…it’ll be media personalities and potlical figures. The speech will be a bit more sophsiticated, and drafted by highly educated people. But only a fool would think the resultant message isn’t in fact the same.
The problem with this conception is that there is no organized body of “mullahdome” which is the sole benificiary of such alleged manipulations of religion. Really, this is a rather still born attempt at projecting something from the European experience with the Church to Islam…it doesn’t work.
Which people? I understand it perfectly fine as it is.
State law will incorporate religious law, so there need not be a hierarchal relation between the two. Unless one presumes that religion must be personal…but that’s an imposition, and not a universally held position.
Concepts of polygamy or what not dwindle naturally, and it’s foolish to think it’s either a pressing concern, or somehow an “issue” that needs to be addressed. Kufir is what it is…how is it any different than “non-Muslim”? Or a “gentile”?
Misleading. All thought within any tradition is constrained by some bounds. Not being able to question free speech is a constraint, for example. Change to what end? What’s silly is to expect the religious to embrace change that only benefits the irreligious.
Education is key, indeed. The rest is ideolgical rubbish…
EVERY Muslim and their pet parrot *only *seems to bicker at how bad it’s become…that things are bad is very well known. The so-called solutions thrown about are always a kicker…and end up being anything but.
Not really…what you need is a uniform law. Applying Shariah on non-muslims is in every way analogous to enforcing Secular laws over Muslims, or those who dont’ recognize the legitimacy of those laws. Secular legal systems have little to no concern over Muslim sentiments, so how is it somehow wrong if Muslims reciprocate?
Regardless of the legal system…you neither have to believe in the ideological or philosophical foundations of the law, nor even agree with the laws themselves. You simply need to obey them. Period. That’s not optional.
How so? One could very well argue you’re simply a victim of internalized racism. It’s not a mandatory practice. All evidence suggests that those who are involved in such relationships consider it “normal” with respect to their own cultural norms. It’s quite hypocritical on one hand to beoman Muslims imposing their values and mores on others, and you arguably doing the same in the name of your own value system - steeped in demonizing terminology as it is.
