Can Islam Cope WIth Pluralism?

Tom Allen (hi Tom, best wishes to Oakworth and Bradford diocese) made an interesting comment in the discussion on Matt Stone's Eclectic Itchings [click on the title of this posting to see it in context].

I think that the key "gap" between Christian perspectives and Islamic perspectives is on the question of blaspemy. In Western Christian culture we have effectively lost any real sense of blasphemy being possible unless you are an adherent. For the vast majority of Muslims it is still a very real experience/attitude - not something whipped up by hot heads or leaders but deeply personally felt. As I have posted about my suprise at the sense of outrage felt by one very British young adult muslim - and I have also posted the response from a young woman Muslim from Bradford who utterley condemns the violence. I think we have to understand these personal feelings before we can move on - it is very "different" despite what we increasingly share in common across the faiths

I think Tom is right to identify the issue of how we think about blasphemy as important. I'd like to add something to that consideration. It does seem to me that in terms of spirituality, 'blasphemy' has to be defined in terms of the intent and understanding of the alleged blasphemer. Otherwise we are merely talking about lack of respect, slander or libel, surely? -And all or any of those could be applicable in the case at the origin of this discussion. To blaspheme is surely to knowingly speak against God or what is Holy? [From an atheist perspective, for example, it is nonsense to disrespect a non-existant being].

On a personal note, I often find myself wincing inside at the casual [mis]use of names and titles I use for God and Christ. I may ask people to be aware that it causes me some pain to hear those words use 'profanely' but I usually have to recognise that for these people these are verbal tics with no more meaning than "I'm [some degree of seriously] dischuffed".

I can't bring myself to think that my being offended is worth a call for beheading of the insensitive person. The appropriate act is to either put up or try to persuade the person to be more mindful of others' sensibilities or, if appropriate, come to share my assesment of the value of God -for which the verbal symbols stand- and so value the symbols differently.

The problem is, it seems to me, that most of the trouble has come from societies that have for a long time presumed that either one is an adherant of Islam or that one has been silenced in public about such things. This means that the shock of someone not toeing the line about what may be said about things held sacred is greater. We are probably dealing with first generation exposure to the 'religious other' where the tools to handle difference of this kind have not been forged or made available.

These are societies that in effect have been insulated from criticism of their central spiritual traditions and precepts and so have not so far developed ways of handling criticisms [even relatively mild ones, let alone 'robust' ones] in a way that recognises the potential bona fides of the critic.

That said, this case is not a good one to argue for the bona fides of critics being respected as a number of them seem to have been aiming to be offensive.

Eclectic Itchings: Can Islam Cope WIth Pluralism?:
Filed in: religion, Islam, Christian, pluralism, blasphemy