Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

hiredgun · 10-09-2006, 11:34 AM

I agree that a change needs to take place. I take every opportunity to exhort my coreligionists to help me make this change.

The reason we worry about the kind of things you're saying is because they're counter-productive. Instead of driving a wedge between peaceful Muslims and fanatical ones, and instead of focusing on the violence itself, these ideas conflate all of us, lumping us into a single category and blaming terrorism on some problem inherent in the religion itself.

When you quote that "the essence of his doctrine was violence and lust" and then nod approvingly, you're saying that Islam as a faith is incompatible with modern, liberal values. So you basically invalidate me as a person, along with implying that all the efforts of all moderate Muslims to help steer us back on the right course are futile and superfluous, because Islam itself is evil and must be defeated. The spread of these views makes our job that much more difficult.

I feel that there are two contradictory strains of thought in your posts, one of which I can reconcile with, and the other which I cannot. On the one hand you recognize that non-fundamentalist Muslims exist (you say you're having lunch with one of them) and that the fundamentalist mindset is the problem. You recognize that Islam is being used as 'an excuse' for various reprehensible acts, which seems to be an acknowledgement that Islam itself is not by its nature the problem, that alternative formulations exist and should be supported by Muslims.

Then there's another strain which seems to argue that Islam is evil at its very root. You pull excerpts from the Quran in an effort to prove that the doctrine itself was always corrupt. You pull out these quotes from Churchill and Adams that are really nothing but broad, unfair generalizations. You seem to think that there's no hope, that moderates are nothing but insignificant statistical outliers who (and here's the really offensive part) don't authentically represent their faith. (This is distinct from whether or not we represent it statistically, although on that matter you and I also disagree.)

Edit: Also, I apologize for the 'bigot' comment. It came out in frustration and serves no useful purpose.

10-09-2006, 11:34 AM	#21 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	I agree that a change needs to take place. I take every opportunity to exhort my coreligionists to help me make this change. The reason we worry about the kind of things you're saying is because they're counter-productive. Instead of driving a wedge between peaceful Muslims and fanatical ones, and instead of focusing on the violence itself, these ideas conflate all of us, lumping us into a single category and blaming terrorism on some problem inherent in the religion itself. When you quote that "the essence of his doctrine was violence and lust" and then nod approvingly, you're saying that Islam as a faith is incompatible with modern, liberal values. So you basically invalidate me as a person, along with implying that all the efforts of all moderate Muslims to help steer us back on the right course are futile and superfluous, because Islam itself is evil and must be defeated. The spread of these views makes our job that much more difficult. I feel that there are two contradictory strains of thought in your posts, one of which I can reconcile with, and the other which I cannot. On the one hand you recognize that non-fundamentalist Muslims exist (you say you're having lunch with one of them) and that the fundamentalist mindset is the problem. You recognize that Islam is being used as 'an excuse' for various reprehensible acts, which seems to be an acknowledgement that Islam itself is not by its nature the problem, that alternative formulations exist and should be supported by Muslims. Then there's another strain which seems to argue that Islam is evil at its very root. You pull excerpts from the Quran in an effort to prove that the doctrine itself was always corrupt. You pull out these quotes from Churchill and Adams that are really nothing but broad, unfair generalizations. You seem to think that there's no hope, that moderates are nothing but insignificant statistical outliers who (and here's the really offensive part) don't authentically represent their faith. (This is distinct from whether or not we represent it statistically, although on that matter you and I also disagree.) Edit: Also, I apologize for the 'bigot' comment. It came out in frustration and serves no useful purpose. Last edited by hiredgun; 10-09-2006 at 12:06 PM..