Post Reply
Page 2 of 18  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Political Islam" - what's that?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:02AM #11
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

Well, sorry to interrupt this discussion with a view point particular to Muslims.  I realize that on this board, non-Muslims do prefer to discuss Islam and Muslims with non-Muslims and any remark that doesn't agree with their views is met with skepticism.


However, I dare to interrupt because, I'm not the only Muslim who has mentioned that the language employed in these discussions is biased.   The insistance by non-Muslim posters that the terms of the terrorists are the correct ones demonstrates a curious preference for the terrorists you claim to abhor.  


So, I'm curious about something.  Where does this myopia come from?   Does the challenge to Muslims saying that your preference for the terrorist language also indicates that you'd prefer to dialogue with terrorists rather than mainstream Muslims who spend time dialoguing with other mainstream Muslims and who may have something valuable to say that doesn't have to be met with a barrage of "Prove it!" demands to justify why there are some uppity Muslims who have a suggestion that may be out of your comfort zone.


However, if the terrorist lingo, that of al Qaeda and Iran and their ilk is where you're stuck and any other idea grates at your sensibilities to the point where interacting with mainstream Muslims who would like to join the conversation without having to incorporate your bias in order to participate, then continue on among yourselves.


Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Mlyons619 wrote:


Mar 27, 2012 -- 11:53PM, Miraj wrote:


So-called "Political Islam" (another unfortunate prejudicial term) bears no relationship to mainstream Islam.  This is a conversation that non-Muslims are safe to have without the religious knowledge of Muslims.




I dunno - "Political Islam" in Iran is referred to there as the TRUE FAITH and saying otherwise may be hazardous to an Iranian citizen's health...





Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:42AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 27, 2012 -- 11:53PM, Miraj wrote:


So-called "Political Islam" (another unfortunate prejudicial term) bears no relationship to mainstream Islam.  This is a conversation that non-Muslims are safe to have without the religious knowledge of Muslims.



I suspected as much.


What is your view on the parties who openly advertise themselves as Islamic / Muslim?
(See, e.g., the brief list of such parties I am aware of, in the opening post.)


Is there a noticeable public discussion in the Muslim world about whether or not this kind of self-advertising indeed is "unfortunate, prejudicial" (as you call it), or legitimate (as I am sure many must think it is)?


What differentiates these parties from other parties?


And what does it mean to say that "political Islam" bears no relationship to "mainstream Islam" when parties of "political Islam" are very much the new "political mainstream" in a country - like Egypt or Tunisia? By sheer mathematical necessity, the people constituting the mainstream should overlap strongly, right?





Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:09AM #12
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

Mar 28, 2012 -- 4:05AM, habesor wrote:


It seems to me that this is an example of political Islam and though I may not agree with many of their political stands, there doesn't appear to me to be anything not legitimate about it.


www.oic-oci.org/home.asp 


Given that there are 57 self-defined Islamic states, it also seems to me to be absurd to insist that political Islam does not exist. 


Habesor




Considering that not one of them is Islamic (like a souless political entity can be religious), it's rather absurd that the notion is supported and not questioned.  One would think that "liberal" Muslims would find some support for the idea among folks who enjoy threads about Muslims who fight oppressive regimes in the headlines, for example, Saudi women who demand to drive, but reject Muslims right on this board who challenge the passive acceptance of the claims of those same regimes to call themselves "Islamic" and to represent Islam for you.


Weird.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:24AM #13
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

Hi Miraj - good morning!


I'd be happy if you'd not remain silent on the questions I specifically addressed to you. It comes across as a bit irritating when instead of being game and participating in the dialogue, you complain about only non-Muslims speaking here. Or their language use, which apparantly, as shown, is shared by very many Muslims as well...


Can you shed some light on the topic? I hope you can.
You find my questions in the post you quoted in your own, preceding this one.


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:02AM, Miraj wrote:


The insistance by non-Muslim posters that the terms of the terrorists are the correct ones demonstrates a curious preference for the terrorists you claim to abhor ... if the terrorist lingo, that of al Qaeda and Iran and their ilk is where you're stuck and any other idea grates at your sensibilities ... then continue on among yourselves.



I think you over-react here tremendously.


Nobody here speaks the language of terrorists, Al Qaeda, or Iran. Certainly not me. Please calm down and don't draw this wholesale equation between Ennahda, the AKP, or the Muslim Brotherhood - parties I spoke about - and terrorists - which I thionk nobody spoke of before... I cannot imagine you actually think the parties I mentioned all are terrorists - or the organisation habesor introduced.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:42AM #14
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:24AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Hi Miraj - good morning!


I'd be happy if you'd not remain silent on the questions I specifically addressed to you. It comes across as a bit irritating when instead of being game and participating in the dialogue, you complain about only non-Muslims speaking here. Or their language use, which apparantly, as shown, is shared by very many Muslims as well...


Can you shed some light on the topic? I hope you can.




Good morning to you, too, Chari.  No, I won't be addressing them.  My intent is to challenge this thinking, not to engage in capitulation.  The Muslims you cite as sharing your language run oppressive regimes that many here claim to despise.  Posters claim to prefer change for those nations, so, my question is, why support their claims to be "Islamic" and to speak for Islam and be resistant to Muslims who challenge their claims?  That stance puts you in the awkward position of justifying the reasoning of states like Iran and opposing Muslims who question their claims to righteousness and representative.  That's pretty irritating to us.



Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:44AM #15
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:42AM, Miraj wrote:


The Muslims you cite as sharing your language run oppressive regimes that many here claim to despise.



Please read again.


Ennahda and the AKP do not run 'oppressive regimes'.


Neither does the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


What do you mean to achieve by boycotting reasoned dialogue here?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:56AM #16
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:44AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:42AM, Miraj wrote:


The Muslims you cite as sharing your language run oppressive regimes that many here claim to despise.



Please read again.


Ennahda and the AKP do not run 'oppressive regimes'.


Neither does the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


What do you mean to achieve by boycotting reasoned dialogue here?




I'm not boycotting anything; just trying to discover whether I'd be welcome to join the dialogue or whether the "rules" discourage independent thinking.


Maybe I'm wired a bit differently, but I've watched you get all worked up when you feel that someone is unreasonably critical of Europe or European history, etc.  I've watched Jews here get worked up when they believe someone is being unfair to Judaism.  


What I don't think when I see that is, they need to think as I do.  I think, Chari's in Europe, she's a European, so she may know something about this and it would be wise to hear her out.  I do the same about Jews who want to have a fair say about Judaism and not be viewed as a monolith represented by any one ideology.  


However, the reaction is not like that for Muslims on this board.  We're not treated as if we know  something about our faith or the nations where most of us live.  It's a strange thing that the courtesy that others demand for themselves, to be heard as having some expertise on the matter and respected and not dismissed is not extended by many, not all, to Muslims


You don't have to agree, but that's what I see, and I'm not alone.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:04AM #17
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

I asked you questions for a reason, Miraj.


Now you accuse me of not wanting to listen to you?


Excuse me, but this is one of the biggest disappointments in my message board career.


I always believed in the possibility of dialogue.
This your reaction may give my belief a decisive blow.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:13AM #18
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

I suspected as much.


You have to get in line for disappointment about dialogue on a message board.  I'm way ahead of you.  But, I'm an optimist, so maybe that line can be broken.


In the meantime, I hope someone hears me.


Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:04AM, CharikIeia wrote:


I asked you questions for a reason, Miraj.


Now you accuse me of not wanting to listen to you?


Excuse me, but this is one of the biggest disappointments in my message board career.


I always believed in the possibility of dialogue.
This your reaction may give my belief a decisive blow.





Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:16AM #19
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

Why continue paying attention, under these circumstances? Dialogue is a two way street - it's not me writing monologues about Europe and you nodding, or shaking your head, in silence, and you writing monologues about the Muslim world and me nodding, or shaking my head, in silence. Dialogue is about jointly creating something.


Not here, it seems, and not now, and not us. That's sad.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:25AM #20
Miraj
Posts: 5,023

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:16AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Why continue paying attention, under these circumstances? Dialogue is a two way street - it's not me writing monologues about Europe and you nodding, or shaking your head, in silence, and you writing monologues about the Muslim world and me nodding, or shaking my head, in silence. Dialogue is about jointly creating something.


Not here, it seems, and not now, and not us. That's sad.




Because, one of the reasons I am here is because Bnet vigorously encourages diversity of viewpoints.  The atmosphere of this board has been decidely pro-Israel, anti-Arab/Muslim, so Arabs, Muslims and others are being encouraged to participate and improve the balance on this board.  However, in order for that to be productive, the vanguard needs to encourage expansive dialogue and thinking that moves us outside of the "norm".  That doesn't mean thought police.  It simply means that Eurocentric or Judeocentric dialectics that currently prevail will be challenged to make room for other points of view.


To add for your edit, there has been a monologue, and that is what I'm trying to avoid.  This has been a board where Arabs and Muslims are primarily people who have been talked about, not talked with because they have been few in number here.  Because of that, there has been an attitude that Muslim posters disrupt the dialogue, not contribute to it.  We have been talked down to, told how we "should" think, and complained about when we reject a Judeocentric view of ME history.


I believe in dialogue; I believe in diversity of opinion.  There is a gradual shakeup going on, and I have been calling on others to help make it happen because real dialogue happens when the minority is no longer bullied by the majority, but given the equal opportunity to contribute fully.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 18  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook