[lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By Denmark" Rally
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:14:50 EST
All of this is just way too simplistic. Is there a way we could complicate
it a bit?
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By
Denmark" Rally Date: 2/25/06 3:12:27 P.M. Central Standard Time From:
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
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, âmoderate Islamist,â I have no idea what that means. â
Moderateâ and âIslamistâ are incompatible terms. The same applies to
âLiberalâ
and âIslamistâ 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 âdonât
understand thisâ?
This isnât about me. This is about the use of language. If someone wants
to call himself a Moderate Islamist then heâs going to have to explain
himself, or I wonât understand him because I have learned the common
definition and
no other.
The book I mentioned that introduces one of your nuances, Bakerâs Islam
without Fear, as I explained doesnât provide enough distance between
ânewâ and â
oldâ for me to see a clear distinction. The âNewâ 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 isnât to say that a new definition couldnât 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 wonât try to overthrow
Israel, and that they accept Israelâs 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:
