[lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By Denmark" Rally
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:11:46 -0800
I have been studying Islamism off and on for about five years. Islamism has
become a technical term. It has a definition.
If someone says, "moderate Islamist," I have no idea what that means.
"Moderate" and "Islamist" are incompatible terms. The same applies to
"Liberal" and "Islamist" These are also incompatible terms.
I have defined Islamism on Phil-Lit, Theoria, and Lit-Ideas probably close
to 100 times over the years. Why is it that when I do it now, you "don't
understand this"?
This isn't about me. This is about the use of language. If someone wants
to call himself a Moderate Islamist then he's going to have to explain
himself, or I won't understand him because I have learned the common
definition and no other.
The book I mentioned that introduces one of your nuances, Baker's Islam
without Fear, as I explained doesn't provide enough distance between "new"
and "old" for me to see a clear distinction. The "New" Islamists are
elderly Islamic intellectuals, but they subscribe to a Fundamentalist
interpretation of Islam, and while they are not presently advocating
violence, I doubt they would disown a sibling or child who engaged in it.
In other words, I have not seen enough, in this book about the New Islamists
to be convinced that two definitions are now required.
This isn't to say that a new definition couldn't be developed. A good place
for such a new definition would be in Palestine. If Hamas were to announce
that they have become Palestinian Islamists and by that they mean that they
will practice their Islamism within Palestine but won't try to overthrow
Israel, and that they accept Israel's right to exist and that they eschew
violence as a means for supporting Islamism, then I would agree that a new
term is required.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:49 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By Denmark" Rally
In a message dated 2/25/2006 2:40:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
If you are an Islamist, I expect you to
subscribe to a Fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and to advocate the
expansion of Fundamentalist Islam by any means including violent ones.
Hi,
I don't understand this.
Why--just because you live in a world of news and information which does not
subscribe to any of the other nuances of Islam does not mean that all others
are?
Can you not see that there are nuances in belief systems? And how it
hinders both dialogue and understanding by having the expectation that all
are the same?
So--by you being a neoconservative--does that mean you don't believe in
balancing the budget? Does that mean you believe in fiscal
irresponsibility? Does that mean that you want to bomb the world just
because they don't practice capitalism--and capitalism in its form that
allows for complete and utter disregard for human life and the world's
environment?
Do you believe that all women should not be given equal rights? Do you
believe that it is a lie that women make less money than men do for the same
job?
Um, let's see--what are the other beliefs of neo-conservatives?
You subscribe to them all?
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
Other related posts:
