[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:40:32 -0000
Yet there's still a difference here.
We can assume that an islamic fundamentalist - an islamist (or islamisist) -
will use his or her understanding of Islam to justify or direct any action
taken. This will also define an Islamic Militant, providing the militant
part is meant in the sense of that person's religious standpoint. Unless it
is shown otherwise, I doubt very much that Saddam's understanding of Islam
was in any way fundamentalist; he was a dictator willing to use military
force to maintain his position who happened to be a muslim. In this sense,
his rule was secular. Whereas OBL, we can assume, justifies his actions, or
those of his followers, on the basis of his understanding of Islam.
Perhaps I should add that here in Britain the word militant is, or has often
been, used to denote a person who is actively involved in (political)
struggle. In the 1980s, a part of the left was known as 'Militant' and were
certainly extremists, though, to my knowledge, they were not seeking to use
violence as the principle methodology in their struggle. Thus it might be
fair to describe muslims involved in demonstrating against the Danish
cartoons as militant islamics - willing to voice their opposition, willing
to demonstrate, but most likely not willing to resort to violence in their
struggle.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stone" <pas@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
At 03:59 PM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
If the reader (of posts) doesn't assume these definitions, posts will be
necessarily mis-understood. Are we back to Humpty Dumpty? Or "no master
text" (reader informs the language which informs the reader, etc.)
But the reader's repertoire of definitions [whether right or wrong] is of
no concern of the writer if HE thinks the words are clearly defined and
useable. I think the problem with "militant islamic" isn't with the use of
the use of "islamic", it's with the use of the modifier "militant" and its
location in the phrase, for coupled together, "islamic" soon slides into
"islamist". Perhaps "islamic militant" is more accurate to acceptably
describe Saddam Hussein. And even though Andreas was perhaps right to
point out that Saddam Hussein wasn't an "islamist", he CERTAINLY WAS both,
islamic (he took a Qu'ran to his death) and militant. Saying he was
secular is a matter of degree and open to debate and reminds me of George
Carlin's line, perhaps mocking "life" -- "yes, you will live another 20
years... unfortunately you'll be bleeding from both eyes."
But again, if certain words are understood to mean certain things, then
there IS going to be misunderstanding and misreadings by those who are not
privy to those certain things that they mean.
typically convoluted,
p
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
