multiculturalism at fault for terrorism?
 

This argument has popped up a lot in light of the London bombings. I'm a bit torn on it, but i think this dude makes some good points, and it's certainly just as valid an argument as "terrorism is a bi-product of American/British foreign policy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/op...gewanted=print

August 9, 2005
Why Tolerate the Hate?
By IRSHAD MANJI
Toronto

FOR a European leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has done something daring. He has given notice not just to the theocrats of Islam, but also to the theocracy of tolerance.

"Staying here carries with it a duty," Mr. Blair said in referring to foreign-born Muslim clerics who glorify terror on British soil. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

With that, his government proposed new laws to deport extremist religious leaders, to shut down the mosques that house them and to ban groups with a history of supporting terrorism. The reaction was swift: a prominent human rights advocate described Mr. Blair's measures as "neo-McCarthyite hectoring," warning that they would make the British "less distinguishable from the violent, hateful and unforgiving theocrats, our democracy undermined from within in ways that the suicide bombers could only have dreamed of."

But if these anti-terror measures feel like an overreaction to the London bombings, that's only because Britons, like so many in the West, have been avoiding a vigorous debate about what values are most worth defending in our societies.

As Westerners bow down before multiculturalism, we anesthetize ourselves into believing that anything goes. We see our readiness to accommodate as a strength - even a form of cultural superiority (though few will admit that). Radical Muslims, on the other hand, see our inclusive instincts as a form of corruption that makes us soft and rudderless. They believe the weak deserve to be vanquished.

Paradoxically, then, the more we accommodate to placate, the more their contempt for our "weakness" grows. And ultimate paradox may be that in order to defend our diversity, we'll need to be less tolerant. Or, at the very least, more vigilant. And this vigilance demands more than new antiterror laws. It requires asking: What guiding values can most of us live with? Given the panoply of ideologies and faiths out there, what filter will distill almost everybody's right to free expression?

Neither the watery word "tolerance" nor the slippery phrase "mutual respect" will cut it as a guiding value. Why tolerate violent bigotry? Where's the "mutual" in that version of mutual respect? Amin Maalouf, a French-Arab novelist, nailed this point when he wrote that "traditions deserve respect only insofar as they are respectable - that is, exactly insofar as they themselves respect the fundamental rights of men and women."

Allow me to invoke a real-life example of what can't be tolerated if we're going to maintain freedom of expression for as many people as possible. In 1999, an uproar surrounded the play "Corpus Christi" by Terrence McNally, in which Jesus was depicted as a gay man. Christians protested the show and picketed its European debut in Edinburgh, a reasonable exercise in free expression. But Omar Bakri Muhammad, a Muslim preacher and a judge on the self-appointed Sharia Court of the United Kingdom, went further: he signed a fatwa calling for Mr. McNally to be killed, on the grounds that Jesus is considered a prophet by Muslims. (Compassion overflowed in the clause that stated Mr. McNally "could be buried in a Muslim graveyard" if he repented.) Mr. Bakri then had the fatwa distributed throughout London.

Since then, Mr. Bakri has promoted violent struggle from various London meeting halls. He has even lionized the July 7 bombers as the "fantastic four." He is a counselor of death, and should not have been allowed to remain in Britain. And thanks to Mr. Blair's newfound fortitude, he has reportedly fled England for Lebanon.

The Muslim Council of Britain, a mainstream lobbying group that assailed Mr. Blair's proposed measures, has long claimed that men like Mr. Bakri represent only a slim fraction of the country's nearly two million Muslims. Assuming that's true, British Muslims - indeed, Muslims throughout the West - should rejoice at their departures or deportations, because all forms of Islam that respect the freedom to disbelieve, to go one's own way, will be strengthened.

Which brings me to my vote for a value that could guide Western societies: individuality. When we celebrate individuality, we let people choose who they are, be they members of a religion, free spirits, or something else entirely. I realize that for many Europeans, "individuality" might sound too much like the American ideal of individualism. It doesn't have to. Individualism - "I'm out for myself" - differs from individuality - "I'm myself, and my society benefits from my uniqueness."

Of course, there may be better values than individuality for Muslims and non-Muslims to embrace. Let's have that debate - without fear of being deemed self-haters or racists by those who twist multiculturalism into an orthodoxy. We know the dangers of taking Islam literally. By now we should understand the peril of taking tolerance literally.

Irshad Manji is the author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith."

Columbia Univeristy Press calls multiculturalism or cultural pluralism: I don't think Blair's statement, if taken purely at face value goes against multiculturalism one bit, unless one means to say violence is some sort of culture, or unless one is arguing that Islamic culture is inherently violent.

This isn't entirely new ground though. Anybody think Bobby Seale or Malcom X should have been deported from the US in the early 70s? Would that have solved the problem of black violence in the civil rights era?

Islam is spread by the sword. If you will not convert, then you will be destroyed. The Qu'ran makes that emphatically clear.

The West presents a problem to Islam because it is corrupt in it's eyes.

Interestingly, we can really blame the British, if we wanted. They brought the sect of Islam called Wahhabi (from Saudi Arabia) to the forefront in their quest to take control of the area. They were a very small group of Muslims until this time, and now their ideals are what is the engine for the terrorists hate.

Only if you take specific passages out of context. Same as the Christian Bible, it can be misrepresented to back a plethora of ludicrous (and sometimes violent) positions. Imagine if the KKK had the numbers that radical Islamic extremists had, we'd hear a lot more about "Christian" terrorists.


In Islamic Law the punichment for killing an innocent (whether or not the victim is Muslim) is supposed to be death.

From the Hadith:

"No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50

Do Christians have a religous carte blanche to kill pagans (or anyone they feel like labeling as "witch") after reading Exodus 22:18?

BTW the Hadith is not the Quran. Different sects of Islam take different Hadiths to be official, or whatever. If I'm not mistaken, the quote you are reciting is not even from Mohammed, but from his successor Ali.

Of course, it's all rubbish in my opinion, and it really bothers me that more and more Christians and westerners are starting to talk like religious extremists themselves. The sheer number of anti-Islamic propaganda sites that came up when I googled "Hadith 9:50" was a bit disturbing.[/quote]

Maybe you could read down a few verses...

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

"Do not allow a sorceress to live." is stated to keep their people uncorrupt from within, as such a person would no doubt spread their beliefs to others within. It is not saying that you should go out and murder infidels in the name of propogating God's Word.

There are fanatics on both sides, no doubt.

Interestingly, the Bible says to put to death false prophets, also. Imagine how many televangelist thieves would disappear if that were to be enacted in this day and age.

Not while I'm busy taking things out of context to make a whole religion out to be based on murder! :lol

Also, stop equating Christians with the stipulations of the Law of the Old Testament until you understand it what the Law was given for. The Law was not taken away in the New Testament, but Christians are not bound by it either.

I wasn't making them out to be based on murder (and if that is how it seemed, then I apologize), but Muslims saying that it is a religion of peace is a bending of truth at best.

Not you personally. It's just all the rage right now.

maybe that's ironic?

Not a lot of room for construsion there...

Last time a Muslim tried to talk to me about Islam he didn't threaten me with violence after I let him know I wasn't interested in practicing a religion. Was he a bad Muslim?

It means "surrender to God and you will be safe". Jesus practically said the same thing.

Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?

Being based on murder at its core and using conquest to spread your beliefs are two different things. If you said that Islam has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.

Semantics, perhaps.

If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.

Stalin might as well have said it with that faux sincerity of peacefulness, considering the bloodshed that Islam wrought to spread itself.

Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
Yes.
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect.

[/quote]

True Christianity hasn't been spread like that. The Inquisition was simply a means for the Catholic Church to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their power. The Crusades were sent to free Jerusalem from the Muslims.

Ziggy, don't bother.

Edit: ok I'll bite:

True Islamic faith hasn't been spread like that. Terrorist attacks were simply a means for Islamic fundamentalists to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their way of life.

Let's throw out the last 1500 years of Islamic history, shall we?

How exactly HAS it been spread? With rose petals and songs and dancing?

what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah

Um, I quoted religious texts & dictionary entries. If that's crap, then I'm done with this discussion. You guys have fun talking about how Islam is inherently evil and let me know if I can be any assistance in wiping them off the planet, thanks! :)

Do the same contextual arguments really apply to the Qur'an? I've generally heard otherwise, since the Bible and the Qur'an primarily have stylistic differences. The Qur'an is shorter than the Old Testament, and a little longer than the New. This leaves little wiggle room.

Since you won't believe me, I have cited a "scholastic" resource:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/sci...-bucaille.html

As we have noted earlier, experts in Biblical exegesis consider the books of Old and New Testaments to be divinely inspired works. Let us now examine, however, the teachings of Muslim exegetes, who present the Qur'an in quite a different fashion.

When Muhammad was roughly forty years old, it was his custom to retire to a retreat just outside Mecca in order to meditate. It was here that he received a first message from God via the Angel Gabriel, at a date that corresponds to 610 A.D. After a long period of silence, this first message was followed by successive revelations spread over some twenty years. During the Prophet's lifetime, they were both written down and recited by heart among his first followers. Similarly, the revelations were divided into suras(chapters) and collected together after the Prophet' death (in 632 A.D.) in a book: the Qur'an. The Book contains the Word of God, to the exclusion of any human additions. Manuscripts dating from the first century of Islam authenticate today's text, the other form of authentication being the recitation by heart of the Qur'an, a practice that has continued unbroken from the time of the Prophet down to the present day.



UNCORRUPTED NATURE OF THE QUR'AN

In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally. The purity of the revealed text has been greatly emphasized, and the uncorrupted nature of the Qur'an stems from the following factors:

First, as stated above, fragments of the text were written down during the Prophet's lifetime; inscribed on tablets, parchments and other materials current at the time. The Qur'an itself refers to the fact that the text was set down in writing. We find this in several suras dating from before and after the Hejira (Muhammad's departure from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D.) In addition to the transcription of the text, however, there was also the fact that it was learned by heart. The text of the Qur'an is much shorter than the Old Testament and slightly longer than the New Testament. Since it took twenty years for the Qur'an to be revealed, however, it was easy for the Prophet's followers to recite it by heart, sura by sura. This process of recitation afforded a considerable advantage as far as an uncorrupted text was concerned, for it provided a system of double-checking at the time the definitive text was written down. This took place several years after the Prophet's death; first under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, his first successor, and later under the caliphate of Omar and in particular that of Uthman (644 to 655 A.D.) The latter ordered an extremely strict recension of the text, which involved checking it against the recited versions.
---

Oh, my answers:

1. Yes
2. Just as much as you're believing the crap you're pasting. I ADORE message board litmus tests.

<double post>

If you can't respond to the substance of what I said, then don't, but don't blame your stupid little quiz on us.