Response to -11/09: The Pathologisation of Muslims in Europe

Here are my responses to an article (entitled as below) in Malaysia Today, written by a respected Malaysian Muslim "reformist" thinker.
I thought that he sounded like he was in “denial mode” as most apologists are, when the are faced with the truth of it all, and they are always quick to look for someone else to put the blame on when stuck in a dilemma.

11/09: The Pathologisation of Muslims in Europe

by Farish A. Noor

cruzeiro wrote:

Oh Farish!
How could feign ignorance of Muslim societies in general?

How could you of all people pretend that what they say isn't true?

Take a good look around you - what do you see?

Isolation or the integration of muslim society into the western lifestyles & ideas?

Do the muslims in general (in europe) subscribe to their mufti or the secularism that is practiced?

As far as the Catholics are concerned, they do not blindly follow what the Pope says, and they dare dissent & would choose secular laws over religious edicts- it isn't the same with muslim societies!

That was a cheap shot, coming from a learned man like you!

Of course they wanna protect the successes that have brought the Turks, who were in search of greener pastures - things that they couldn't enjoy in their homelands, where they practiced their cherished values.

They don't want "Islamic values" creeping into a system that was built on a very different philosophy .... a system that has been borne out of rebellion against the Pope (read Martin Luther)!

You talk about the west distrusting the turks - do you care to ask the turks if they would care to reciprocate the goodwill?

This was the crux of the issue in the Pope's Regensburg address, in response to which the Muslim world screamed for blood - and no Muslim dared to give a different opinion lest they face the wrath of the clerics!

Shame on you Farish!

This is exactly the hypocrisy that they are afraid of!

What a low down dirty shame!

11/09 18:53:27

cruzeiro wrote:

I agree Farish is trying to do his best. However, he has missed the point, or is just being hypocritical. He should probably build bridges within his community, before trying to build it with the outside.

I don't deny that there are many good Muslims, who are silent - and that is what irks the others. These guys wouldn't come out openly to condemn the fascists who are bent on isolationism "islamic fundamentalism" and violence.

IslamoFascism is on the rise. There are enough clandestine operations that have been unearthed, to prove it.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy and bigotry practiced by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.

All these and more has created a little too much of insecurity among every other society to treat them as they demand to be treated.

I do not for a minute presume that there is no racism practised by the Germans. I do not for a minute doubt that they have all the knowledge that they need for ethnic cleansing - they have more than enough expertise in that field!

The point here is the Muslims generally bring it all upon themselves, and then demand that they be treated as demanded, when they themselves wouldn't do it!

Comparing them to any other community isn't in the least bit logical at all.
As for the Pope's word being the Gospel truth among Catholics, I have this to say-

Yes, Catholics do hold his words with great respect, for they are usually intellectuals who are (at least for the last century) highly educated and rational on Social and Moral issues.

His word has great sociopolitical ramifications worldwide. His word can change the direction of political evolution of peoples, nations and empires. Such is his power! The latest evidence was that of the collapse of Soviet Empire. There many "other" events for which "he" (the institution) plays a role in the background.

If you have a doubt, try reading the full texts of their encyclicals that are available all over the internet - I'll bet you that you'll have trouble digesting the depth of their truths, ideas and opinions, which are respected worldwide by people from all walks of life.

They have been at the forefront of philosophical, theological and socio-political ideas for the past few centuries. "He" is also the bastion of western civilisation as we know it, the fruits of which we too enjoy.

While they may hold his words on theological matters with great reverence, they may not exactly follow everything he says, as it becomes very "tedious" in day to day life. They are quite practical people, and wouldn't wage war over these issues unlike some people in the middle ages and even now.

The Catholic church has undergone it's reform. The same cannot be said of Islam, and the pope is well aware of it. Read - When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam at http://cruzinthots.blogspot...

If at all there wars, it is political in nature and not hatred borne out of differences of opinion on matters of theology.

Now can you imagine a different group of people with medieval values and system of governance coming to your shores, which they claim is "eternal"?

Now they are trying to impose their idiotic system upon a civilisation that has shed blood fighting against theocratic rule (of the Pope in the past) to build what we enjoy today!

So let's be honest about our very own inadequacies, before pointing a finger at others - let's set our own houses on order first, before Demanding that others understand us.

It is very important to understand, before demanding to be understood.

Can anyone take a while to ponder on the reason as to why we have a more "hardline" German Pope today?

The Pope's selection/ election isn't done based on petty issues, y'know ....

12/09 10:25:06

cruzeiro wrote:

Allow me to copy & paste an excerpt of what the Pope said on this issue in the above article -
Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity
To understand Benedict XVI’s thinking on Islamic religion, we must go over its evolution. A truly essential document is found in his book written in 1996, when he was still cardinal, together with Peter Seewald, entitled “The Salt of the Earth”, in which he makes certain considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and the West.

First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not “with Islam”, but with groups.

But the key point that he tackles is that of shari’a. He points out that:

“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.

This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.

Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.

12/09 10:52:09