I'm wary of the term 'Islamofascism', but when I see things like this based on the dislike of something written in a novel, "the honour was an insult to the religious sentiments of Muslims", I feel that the term maybe really does have referents. Perhaps I've missed something but it does look like what is being said here, in context, is: "This man has written something that is critical of something that is important to us religiously, therefore he must be killed. And anyone who does something that seems to endorse or collude with that opinion is fair game for the same." The difficulty here is that it seems to come down to saying: if you disagree with us over something we feel strongly about, we are justified in answering you with violence. That does seems to merit the label 'fascism'.
I'm afraid I can't condone that attitude of answering contrary opinion with violence. As a Christian I am pretty much obliged to take some positions that this kind of Islam finds offensive: I believe God was incarnated as Jesus Christ and crucified (and raised). I believe that I cannot therefore agree with the usual Muslim assessment of the Qur'an an Mohammed: my opinions about both are likely to be offensive to at least some, probably many. As it happens, I also believe that it needn't be that way: there are ways to read and take the Muslim traditions that can iron out many of those difficulties: the possibility of 'Musulman biMassih Isa' or somesuch is a real one, I think. I'm not advocating that people should utter things that are offensive with a view to stirring up violence or civil unrest, but to defend an opinion or simply to disagree with good reason is surely fair enough. Religious opinions or 'facts' should always be held with the possibility of disagreement in mind and a humane way to handle it should be part of the package, otherwise it really is a brand of fascism (and that includes Tudor Anglicanism, arguably).
And I continue to note that, to my knowledge (and I'd love to be proved wrong) no fatwa has been issued against Osama bin Laden or his teachings, directly, by any competent Muslim authority. These two facts about worldwide Islam continue to form the basis of distrust even among those who wish to think well of it. Please note, I say 'it'; that is the religious system generally known as Islam. Individual Muslims are often better and more humane than the system they are part of. (And that is the case for all too many ecclesiastical systems too, imo).
Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks' | News | Guardian Unlimited Books:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
No comments:
Post a Comment