A pacifists response to failed rhetoric ..

M 2006-07-18 14:02:25 [item 3932]
BTW, how does a pacifist deal with an Islamo-fascist ?

Seriously, if you are committed to no guns & no violence how do you keep someone who is committed to your total destruction from getting his wish ?
First you learn how to open a dialogue ... you learn how to talk with them.  Repeating the same failed rhetoric of the past 58 years will not do the trick.  That goes for us and that goes for them too. 

It seems obvious to me that Islam must change it's idea that Israel should not exist.  I had thought that we were over that idea when the Middle East peoples accepted the road map.  Yet that rhetoric continues to exist.  Why is that?  Perhaps people need to ratchet their minds back to when that road map was agreed upon.  The other part of the failed rhetoric is the neo-conservitive's agenda for spreading democracy in the region.  That rhetoric needs to change ... democracy works for us, but not necessarily for Islam.  To quote from an recent acquaintance ...
source: Nicholas Heer, Professor Emeritus Near Eastern Languages and Civilization
In order to practice their religion fully Muslims must live in an Islamic state.  They should not live in non-Islamic states like those in Europe and the Americas. 
To practice religious tolerance, which is part of what it means to be an American, we need to respect that where it exists.  Setting our hearts and minds against Islamic regimes like Iran which combine church and state is a way that seems foreign to us, is the same kind of religious intolerance that permits Hezbollah to reject the existence of Israel.

Tags

  1. pacifism
  2. nicholas heer
  3. failed rhetoric
  4. pure shit

Comments


Seth says
M 2006-07-18 14:56:06 3967
The other part of your suggestion which is ridiculous is that the Iranians themselves want to live in a theocracy. The mullahs & the dictator want it because of the seduction of power.  The people don't.  The mullahs & ayatollahs had to suppress dissent during the last election in order to get the outcome they wanted. 
M, you do not know that.  i would be not be surprised to find that most Iranians are quite satisfied with their theocracy and much prefer it to a democracy.  On the other hand i would bet that there is quite a bit of dissent from the current leader of the country along with many of the mullahs who support him.  Just like there is quite a bit of dissent in our country against Bush's neo-consergvitive movement.
source: ...
Once you get the people feed, occupied with work, & out of poverty then educate them - after that, guess what? They will probably want freedom!
Again, M, you do not know that.  You assuming it.  By doing so you are just parroting the party line.  That is more of what i am calling failed rhetoric.  Can we not ratchit it down?

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 14:46:37 3967
...& yet Muslims live in America & Europe & all over the world. Are they just not capable of freedom ? 
Sorry i do not comprehend your reaction.  What has "a capablity of freedom" do do with what the professor said ?  That a Muslim cannot "fully practice" their faith in every land on earth is perhaps regretable to many Mullims, but it does not, and should not pose any contraciontion.

The rest of your message was not posed in a productive tone and will not be permitted on this node. 

Seth says
It is a strange concept of freedom which dictitates that when circumstances prevent one from dwelling in a certain place, then suddenly the person is not free.   The spirit of man in prison, can be the just as free as that of a person waltzing throuh the meadow.  The Western concept of freedom, even reasonably interperted, does not grant one infinite possibilities.  With each choice one makes, one has restrained that infinity.  I take the professor's statement similar to saying:  to practice sexual abstenance, one should not live in a brothal ... which is just common sense.  Beyond that one would need to understand the place of the state in the Islamic  faith. I doubt that either of us knows enough about that to mouth off about it.

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 23:36:55 3967
The only people seeming to impose stuff on others is the Islamists & Iranian islamo-fascists. Iraq elected their government & made their own constitution & can change it when they get their act in order. Turkey apparently elected theirs. It seems when people are not threatened they choose freedom (whether they call it that or not). Iran is trying to conquer the Middle East & make it follow their sect of Shia Islam.  BTW, the Jews & others have been fighting for millenia about this stuff - not just 58 years.
Some of your writing almost sounds like Stockholm Syndrome - The people who are making suicide bombers out of their young are Islamo-facists ! get over it.
Thing is the other side of that rhetoric can hurl just as many words back at you.   There is no profit in that kind of dialogue.   It is pissing in the wind.  It does not even  pay for the traffic and storage on the server that hosts it.  It just gets in the way of study to learn how to get out of the loop.  Please .

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 19:48:20 3967
One can live anywhere & be anything if one understands & can practice being. One can even practice celibacy in a brothel. (not an ideal place, but...) .  I do understand freedom. Perhaps one who understands & has freedom may not want to be a moslem.
Btw, i don't think that our topic here is freedom.  Furthermore i believe that freedom is not particulary an Islamic concept.  And here is speak without reference or special knowledge and will be gladly corrected if i have over reached.  I do, however,  know that freedom is particularly a Western tradition.  If that is so, then imposing the Western idea of "freedom" on a Muslim world is nothing short of religious imperialism.  Something to think about, no?  But please not on this node.  This node is about "A pacifist response to failed rhetoric". 

Seth says

source: M 2006-07-18 18:53:16 3967
Show me in the Koran where it says that a faithful or true moslem has to live in a theocratic state.
I don't know,  you would need to ask Nicholas Heer.  Bear in mind that Nicholas is but one voice and Muslims, just like Christians, do not speak with just one voice.  Here is another voice who talks of the same subject ...
source: The Great Theft by Khaled Abou El Fadl page 20-21

In general, Islamists are Muslims who believe that Islamic theology and law should serve as an authoritative frame of reference in any social or political condition.  but using Islamic theology and law as an authoitative frame of reference does not necessarily mean believing in a theocratic state or imposing draconian laws upon an innocent group of people.  It could simply mean drawing inspiration from Islamic ethics and morals in matters of public concern, and adopting positions endorsed or inspired by Islamic jurisprudence regarding public issue.
....
Nevertheless, commentators who disparagingly use the labels political Islam or Islamist draw a line between the private and public sphere: Islam practiced privately is deemed acceptable, but any intrusion into the public sphere is treated as dangerous and unacceptable.  Many Muslims would say that this amounts to proclaiming that Muslims may practice their religion but that they not take their religion too seriously.  ....
...
Imposting this dichotomy between the private and public spheres upon Muslims and demanding that they adhere to a strict separation between church and state, otherwise disparagingly refering to them as Islamist or political Islamist, can only be described as arrogant, if not imperialist.
He said all of that and a lot more just to clarify his terms and to decide on the two terms "moderate" and "puritan" to charactize the "significant rift" that charactizes current Islamic thought.  He convinced me, i will use those terms from now on.  They sound better to my soul than the ones flying abound. 
source: M 2006-07-18 18:53:16 3967
There seem to be moslems all over America & the world. Turkey is an Islamic (Sunni 99.8%)  country & a democracy at the same time, wow! I still think [Herr] is full of shit.
Yes certainly there are.  And saying to a man that he is full of shit, is to say that you cannot learn from him ... and since the professor has devoted his life to the study of Islam, and you maybe a few hours, that just says to me that you are prejucided out of the gate against the Islamic faith.   And since Muslims make up about half of the world now, that does not bod well for your World Consensus.

Seth says
M 2006-07-18 23:22:04 3967
BTW2 you never answered:
Seriously, if you are committed to no guns & no violence how do you keep someone who is committed to your total destruction from getting his wish ?
Yes i did ... read the body of my item ... especially the first paragraph.  The rest of your comment was without political merit, it will be deleted with no response. 

See Also

  1. Thought False anti-war advocates & pseudo pacifists with 2 viewings related by tag "pacifism".
  2. Thought The Dogs Of War with 2 viewings related by tag "pacifism".
  3. Thought Pacifism with 0 viewings related by tag "pacifism".
  4. Thought The USA War Against Terrorists with 0 viewings related by tag "nicholas heer".
  5. Thought Don't Glorify War ! with 0 viewings related by tag "pacifism".
  6. Thought Soldiers are glorious in their struggle only if the war they fight is glorious in it's intention. with 0 viewings related by tag "pacifism".