[lit-ideas] Re: Traditionalist Islam
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:20:32 EST
_http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm_
(http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm)
_The Legacy of Muhammad and the issues of Pedophilia and Polygamy_
(http://www.ijtihad.org/women2.htm)
These are two interesting articles from a Moderate Muslim perspective.
And here's a website you might take a look at:
_http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/principles.php_
(http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/principles.php)
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Traditionalist
Islam Date: 2/25/2007 4:35:00 P.M. Central Standard Time From:
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
When I click on your reference I get Issue # 132 and don't see anything in
it by Fukuyama.
The route you say I've chosen is the one I've been on all along. I started
out believing all I was hearing about the Traditional Muslims but one day
realized that I wasn't hearing from any in the Middle East; so right here on
this very Lit-Ideas I challenged Omar to produce some "moderate" aka
traditional
Muslims from he Middle East, and he couldn't, or didn't have the time to
look. So I said that I wasn't going to believe they existed until some were
produced. My stance hasn't changed. I said that deep down I think they do
probably exist, but did you read the rest of what I said, Simon? In practical
terms their existence is moot because they take no observable actions based
upon their beliefs. They don't write. They don't speak out politically. In
practical terms they may as well not exist.
[Simon] I say back to you that the present actions of the west (by the US
and the UK for example), which for the most part are nothing but verification
of what the fundamentalists are saying the west would do, preclude that
possibility. More importantly, these actions serve to push more and more
traditionalists towards the fundamentalist camp.
[Simon] Now I know this is something you disagree with. You (and Eric) think
that fundamentalist Islam is a product exclusively derived from Muslim
culture and a too tight reading of the Koran. You (and Eric) say that the
movement
of muslims from the traditional fold to the fundamentalist is something the
west cannot influence. At least that's what you say over here...
You haven't said enough for me to "disagree" or agree with. What "actions
of the west" do you have in mind? And how does "verification of what the
fundamentalists are saying" preclude the possibility of the semi-mythical
traditionalists reaching out to us assuming they knew we (Conservatives)
existed --
and D'Souza says they don't know we exist. D'Souza says it is the actions
of the Cultural Left that antagonize the Traditional Muslims. They believe
that we are all irreligious, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage,
pro-sleeping around and a host of other things that appall them. They do not
hold our
taking out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein against us. They do not mind that
we are fighting Al Quaeda and the Baathists in Iraq. But they hate what we
are (read what the Cultural Left is). D'Souza says we should be more vocal,
and become visible to the Traditional Muslims. Once they know we exist and
share Non-Leftist Cultural views with them we can take a common stance against
Radical Islam (not to mention the Cultural Left)
Lawrence
At 01:04 PM 2/25/2007, you wrote:
Well Lawrence, I'm pleased that you've chosen the interesting route.
I'd like to start with a quote from you on Lit-Ideas, from the last post:
"...let me say for the record that I believe the Traditionalists do exist."
Now, just in case you have some intent to catch me out, I hope we can agree
that the 'traditionalists' you are referring to to are the 'moderates' that
we have discussed previously. We can? I'll assume that to be the case.
In which case, I'd like to go back to something I've been saying repeatedly:
that the war being fought by the US and the west (sometimes called the War
Against Terror, other times otherthings), at its heart, is a battle for the
hearts and minds of the tradional muslim, for the moderate. You say that their
invisibility (in the middle east) means that we are unable to reach out for
them, but that they should reach out for us.
I say back to you that the present actions of the west (by the US and the UK
for example), which for the most part are nothing but verification of what
the fundamentlists are saying the west would do, preclude that possibility.
More importantly, these actions serve to push more and more traditionalists
towards the fundamentalist camp.
Now I know this is something you disgree with. You (and Eric) think that
fundamentalist Islam is a product exclusively derived from muslim culture and
a
too tight reading of the Koran. You (and Eric) say that the movement of
muslims from the traditional fold to the fundamentalist is something the west
cannot influence. At least that's what you say over here...
[conflation...]
A few days ago I included a link to an article by Fukuyama:
_http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/list.php?category=138&issue=549_
(http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/list.php?category=138&issue=549)
I believe it's important and relates to the current discussion. Perhaps you
could read it and comment.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From:
_Lawrence Helm_ (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
To: _Lit-Ideas_ (mailto:Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Simon's peculiar responses
Simon writes:
There are, I've decided, two different Lawrences: one here and one in
'another place'. Here, our Lawrence is unequivocal, the war is against Islam
because the moderates (or traditionalists) are 'semi mythical'. Over there,
their
Lawrence appears to be nuanced and the moderates (or traditionalists) are the
ones that should be approached by western scholars with a view to steering
them away from the fundamentalists.
Now this is interesting to say the least. Perhaps it's because Lawrence is a
hypocrite, or perhaps it's also because he's writing for a different
audience. Is it because in both places he's after an argument?
And what does that make him?
Of course, he might just attempt to reconcile these two different psyches.
And that would be really interesting...
Lawrence reluctantly responds:
It goes without saying that you are once again confused, Simon.
By "another place" I assume you mean Theoria where I discussed the book The
Enemy at Home, The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 by Dinesh
D'Souza. I might have discussed that book over here on Lit-Ideas but I didn't
because I had been declared SPAM for awhile. Some of my comments about this
book had to do with D'Souza's thesis that it was better to fight against just
the Islamic Radicals than all of Islam. The Right-Wing reviews I read of
this book were uniformly negative. They objected to D'Souza's putting himself
in the shoes of the "Traditionalist" and looking for points of agreement. He
argues the American Conservatives should seek out these traditionalists and
make common cause with them -- just as the Left and the Radical Muslims are
making common cause. My problem with the reviews is that none of them I
read seemed to think it would be a good thing if we could avoid fighting all
of
Islam by making common cause with the traditionalists. If they exist, and
D'Souza believes they do, then it would be good if we could reach some sort of
common-cause agreement involving opposition to the radicals (and the Left).
My point here, and once again a smidgeon of understanding of Logic would help
you, Simon, is conditional. If the traditionalists exist then it would be a
good thing if they and American conservatives could reach a rapprochement
like D'Souza suggest. I do not have to believe or disbelieve that they exist
to make that conditional statement.
But in one of my Theoria notes (one that you apparently missed), I stated
that I continued to believe the Traditionalists to be invisible and that since
we couldn't find them to reach out to, perhaps it would behoove them, if they
existed, to reach out to us.
Lest that is too elusive for you, Simon, let me say for the record that I
believe the Traditionalists do exist. I make disparaging comments about them,
calling them invisible and semi-mythical, because they are not outspoken.
They are not a present-day force in the Middle East. They keep silent. If
you
called someone like that to be a witness over here in the U.S.in, say, a
drive-by shooting, he would say, "I don't want to get involved." Some Muslims
are courageous and they seem to have gravitated to the Radicals. They like to
blow things up. The uncourageous, the ones who would go to Canada if they
lived over here, tend to keep their mouths shut. D'Souza has a different
view of them and I suspended disbelief as I read his book (something his
reviewers failed to do), but I still wait to hear from them. Where are they
Dinesh? And don't point to Iranians living in Los Angeles or Arab Doctors
working
at Loma Linda Hospital. Where are they in the Middle East?
Lawrence
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Other related posts:
