The Forum > Article Comments > Pearson digs in > Comments
Pearson digs in : Comments
By Ingolf Eide, published 23/1/2008Is it relativism to hold our liberal democratic traditions to a higher standard than those of Islamic extremists?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 9:53:27 AM
| |
The article author noted:
<<Is it either useful or accurate to constantly label the narrative of grievance shared by a significant part of the Muslim world (and, it should be noted, many others) as irrational?>> YES.. without question it is rational..and sound. The number of Clerics who are foaming at the mouth about the 'Zionist Western Conspiracy' are not saying 'Lets fight them till they go away'.... Here are some quotes from Muslims in places as diverse as London (protesters) and Arab Mullahs. "Exterminate those who insult Islam" (sign at protest) "This black flag will dominate the UK, the White house, the WHOLE world" "We ruled the world once, and we can do it again.. we will rule UK, USA, we trust in Allah" (Muslim youth leader) "We must fight them (enemies of Islam) with Bacterial, Biological and chemical weapons, till Allah is supreme and mohammad is confessed as prophet, the whole world" (Iraqi Mullah) "Islam will dominate even the mountain tops of the world" (Iranian president) and so it goes on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDPzPgkr4vk&feature=related "You too will meet your destruction, because Allah's religion will prevail on this earth" "The day will come when we rule America, Uk and the whole earth" "Its only a matter of time, before we control the whole earth" There is so MUCH material here.. I dunno where to stop..... Please..for the sake of your country.. view that video. Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 10:41:06 AM
| |
Ingolf Eide's rebuke of the Pearson piece is simple, uncomplicated and spot on. The Wests blatent hypocrisy and double standards involving foreign policy is the number one issue. One rule for them and a different one for us. If roles were reversed, after years of double talk, one can easily see how some members of our community could take "extreme" actions similar to those fomenting around the world now. The sooner our governments admit this the sooner we will be able to credibly tackle the undeniable minority enouraging fundamentalism and suffocate their arguement.
It is fundamentally ridiculous to imagine the west being taken over by Islamists. It's tiring reading posts from BOAZ_David and his ilk which continually, completely ignore our role and focus on rantings of fundamentalist preachers. The influence they have will dissapate when the reality of a real change in the Wests policy changes. The Iranian president is simply engaging in the same rhetorical game of "We'll bomb you back to the Stone age" - Who do we believe?? Referring to a sign (a sign for goodness sake?!?) at a protest or something a youth leader says as justification for continuation or escalation of our (the Wests) current foreign policy is just DUMB. One could equally imagine an Islamist preacher referring to webposting from blogs in the West (ie. "prominent Blogger on widely read forum OLO calls for defeat of Islam...") to justify a continuation or escalation of terrorism. Any serious reflection by any cultural majority will see both as absurd. Posted by Hotrod, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 12:53:31 PM
| |
Answering Ingolfe Iede’s questions.
1. Is it relativism to hold our liberal democratic traditions to a higher standard than those of Islamic extremists? Yes, if you consider that Islamic states should be held to an almost non existent moral standard, while demanding that western societies must be morally perfect, then that is a “double standard”. 2. Do our actions over the years in the Middle East really have little to do with the growing enmity many of its inhabitants feel for us? If you consider that westerners are the oppressors, and Muslims the victims, then your premise makes sense. But I don't agree. Muslims hate the West, because we back Israel, and the Muslims consider that Israel sits upon "their Muslim" lands, where non other than Muslims may rule. That looks like imperialism and racism to me. They also hate us because of sour grapes. Our civilisation has rocketed past their own, and it is only natural for them to feel resentment towards people who have decisively beaten them. Another source of resentment, is their own religious leaders and dictators, who use the extreme racism which Arab people have towards Westerners as a means of keeping their power, by blaming us for everything which ever went wrong in their societies. Ingolfe Iede and her friends lay right into their hands. 3. Is it either useful or accurate to constantly label the narrative of grievance shared by a significant part of the Muslim world (and, it should be noted, many others) as irrational? Of course it is. The most telling thing about Muslim societies is that the more Muslim it is, the more stuffed up it is. Islam is a failure, and its leaders need to blame somebody for that. Since they are never going to blame themselves, guess who is going to cop it? Pandering to the racism of Arabs, and making excuses for their tyrants, while constantly attacking your own society, is to excuse utter failure while criticising spectacular success. Such an attitude is not worthy of any person who makes any claim to possessing critical analysis skills Posted by redneck, Thursday, 24 January 2008 4:30:08 AM
| |
Redneck.
1. There are double standards on "both sides", indeed thats part of politics everywhere. Argueing about relativism is no excuse for us not to try to make our society better (why argue "they don't so why should we?"?) Realizing (admitting) the consequesces of our actions today and thoughout history and then changing policy should not get caught up in needless discussions about relativism. It's just an intellectual diversion - doesn't actually help anyone. 2."Muslims hate the West, because we back Israel" - Congrats! That is part of the West's (US) policy. We are the opressors, Israel is our proxy and the Palistinians are the victims. Not to mention our support of the Saudi Royals, Saddam in the 80's and the overthrow in Iran in the 50's - do you think the people in the region just forget these things? Arab (Mainly secular) Nationalism was crushed in the 60's and 70's with western support to keep the oil secure for western Europe and Japan - religious fundamentalism in this region grew from the void of opposition to dictators in power (some supported by both cold war powers) - it was the only place not totally repressed and thus can be seen as a by-product (inadvertant or otherwise) of our policy of support in the region. Sour grapes don't cut it in Realpolitik - they're not babies. Don't buy into this "clash of civilisations" rhetoric and "they hate us because..." they hate our actions, not us. Fanatical voices will disperse when there is no reason for support in the mainstream. 3. You say "Pandering to the racism of Arabs, and MAKING EXCUSES FOR THEIR TYRANTS (my emphasis, eg the Saudi Royals, Saddam in the 80's, the Shah till the revolution...), while constantly attacking your own society, (like christian conservatives do re declining moral values...) - you're almost there - now just pretend you argueing the opposite way to which you are and you'll see where I'm coming from... ;-) Posted by Hotrod, Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:38:39 AM
| |
Ingolf,
Re: Pearson’s third thread. No one can accuse you of not doing your bit to uphold the standards of the Left. Noel Pearson talks about the ‘extremists’ & in his piece makes it clear they're a ‘minority’. You initially talk of ‘many’, but later in your piece 'blur' it by using the generic, "Muslim” I don’t concede that ‘Muslim’ and ‘Extremist’ can be interchanged without distortion/ loss of meaning. It is not the existence of “wrongs", but their monumentualization which nurtures Extremism. Even if Abu Grab , the Iraqi invasion etc had never happened, there are still many other 'wrongs' on the Extremists top 100 hit parade .Even the Left,surely, couldn't give credence to the re-conquest of Spain , Portugal & Bali. If you want a lesson on the futility of pandering to Extremists via foreign policy changes.A study of the lifeline of the principal Spanish bomber would go a long way: -He starts on the run from a murder charge in Morocco -He poses as an Algerian & is given safe haven in Spain -Shortly thereafter, he finds his fundamentalist roots -Engages in drug trade, in part, to help Gods work by poisoning the infidels [Mind you, this was BEFORE, Afghanistan & -BEFORE, Iraq !] -9/ 11 delights him & he is inspired by Al-queda’s call to arms , hatches a bomb plot ( & the rest, & hundreds of Spaniards are history!). It is telling that despite the fact that Spain is long gone from Iraq & Afghanistan , his fellow Extremists, as late as last week, were still conspiring to bomb Spain . A change of policy & Govt did nothing to alter the Extremists plans! Re: Noel Pearson - The more I read & see about the man the more I find reason to admire him. If we had a few more Noel Pearson’s & a few less Lefties meddling in Indigenous Affairs, things would be an l-o-t healthier. Posted by Horus, Thursday, 24 January 2008 5:54:06 PM
|
1. http://www.ispeace723.org
I pointed out that yes, "radical" Islam is a very real problem, but that the shocking descriptions in this book, of where the world is at altogether, are mostly (and inevitably) created by Western "culture" and its drive to total power and control.