Why assume Islam in the East has to follow the story of Christianity in the West?
Christianity was a European sanitisation of an Eastern belief system.
Islam is an Eastern practice of an Eastern belief system.
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
Malala is a religious muslim - just not one of the barbaric murderous ones that are doing so much to drag the name of Islam through the mud in the eyes of the world.
How exactly do you define religious in your humble opinion?
What about Sikhs? There doesn't seem to be any problems with them.
Apart from honour killings and threatening theatres, no. But of course it would be stupid to condemn all Sikhs for these things. Yet somehow with Muslims it's OK.
I do find the way she always talks about herself in the third person very pretentious. Maybe it's a cultural thing.
I doubt you believe all l Pakistani people speak in the third person, however any chance at having a dig, eh. Makes you feel like a much better person Trevgo.
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
But how do you accommodate that when they have to share a living space in the here and now?
What about Sikhs? There doesn't seem to be any problems with them.
What about them? I am sure we can do a list of religions and their ages and relative liberal/illiberal status... but the point is that it can take hundreds or thousands of years for a religion to become liberal and having an expectation that it suddenly should because others have is just nonsense. Malala is campaigning in the one area that can help the most - education... speed that up and you will speed up change for the better.
Evil is relative in most cases. The Taliban consider themselves to be the good guys and the Pakistani government to be the evil ones
Given the Peshawar murders, the Taliban will have to rethink their claim to good guy status if they are capable of thought at all and if they understand what good actually is.
Because I don't like religion. Isn't that obvious.
No it's not obvious. I don't take anything for granted or enjoy presuming things.
Perhaps you could tell me why you don't. I'd find it helpful if you can list me some reasons. Anyone can say I don't like X, Y or Z however not many can list many reasons.
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
Perhaps you should consider that a Western sanitisation of an Eastern belief system in the West, will not necessarily follow the evolution timeline of an Eastern belief system practiced by Eastern people in the East?
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
What is your evidence that things have to happen in such a linear way
What about them? I am sure we can do a list of religions and their ages and relative liberal/illiberal status... but the point is that it can take hundreds or thousands of years for a religion to become liberal and having an expectation that it suddenly should because others have is just nonsense. Malala is campaigning in the one area that can help the most - education... speed that up and you will speed up change for the better.
You haven't answered my question at all, just danced around it.
What is your evidence that things have to happen in such a linear way
I don't think it does - I was challnging the view that 1500 years was enough time to expect such change - when there is evidence that it wasn't for other religions (like Christianity or Judaism). Personally I don't think time is the issue - education, poverty and a lake of individual choice and empowerment is.
I think what is pretentious is saying Islam needs time to 'grow up' so to speak.
Islam is not in its infancy. They believe the Quran rules are divine. Malala is not a visionary for being shot in the face and saying she has a right to go to school. She would be if she spoke out against passages in the Quran the denigrate women, homosexuals and encourage war.
Denial of the right to an education is a denigration of women, an example of Islamic contempt for girls. Continuing to speak out about it after what has happened to her is courageous. She is a target for every Islamist lunatic, of which there are many, She has a vision all right, a vision of a world where girls don't get acid in the face on their way to school or abducted from school and kept as sex slaves which the Islamists think is all girls*are*fit for.
Good for her.
How exactly do you define religious in your humble opinion?
Someone who self-identifies as belonging to a particular creed though certainly not someone who seeks to enforce their own perverted interpretation on others through violence and atrocity.
A faith that requires a gun, a whip or a sword to enforce adherence is a weak and feeble faith that deserves nothing but contempt.
Perhaps because the "Western media" caters for the vast majority of secular westerners who are sick to the teeth of Islamic "religious" people.
Yes, but you don't get to pick other people's heros, role models or leaders. It's the hight of arrogance to try to do so and off course people will resent the attempt.
Who exactly does this schoolgirl represent or lead and why has age got a nobel prize? Gandhi wasn't selected by the British to speak for Indians. If the English had selected him that would be who he represented.
So Malala represents??? The UN, the Nobel committee, western media, Pakistanis, Muslims or schoolgirls? Who pays her, who elected her and which ideologies does she represent?
So what would you do to change them immediately/faster to a more liberal set of beliefs?
I didn't say that they had to change at any given rate. And you answered a question with a question! ;-) I was genuinely interested to hear what you might think as you always seem to give thought-out answers.
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
What makes you think Islam is becoming more rather than less liberal?
After all the conservative Islamists are asking for a return to basics not development of thought which was according to mainstream Islam (and that includes most "moderates" closed forever in the late Middle ages. It's controversial even to talk about reopening discussion on some topics.
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
I saw a documentary once about schooling for girls in Afghanistan. Parents were keeping their daughters from school because of Taliban attacks, not because they didn't want education for their girls. Perhaps Islam is less backward in its thinking than is thought
but the terrorists have them in a strangle hold.
As a footnote, we might remember that our own governmemt has allowed extreme Islamist thinking to be taught in British state schools in spite of a so called commitment to women's rights.
Perhaps the UK should start putting sanctions on every country that denies rights to women, homosexuals and allows prejudice. That would send a clear message.
I certainly fear certain Islamic countries and the people they produce more than I do Russia - who are being driven into bankruptcy through sanctions.
Assad does not believe in democracy but he is a strong advocate of female education and denying rights to jihadists, I think it was disgusting to arm rebels against such a muslim man.
In fact the BBC was so impressed with the Syrian education system and how they made sure all the 100,000's of Iraqi refugees got an education as well as Palestinians, they made a 5 part series on it called Syrian School. Every religion and muslim denomination was equally respected and unlike Pakistan, there was no fear to go to school.
Comments
I am not assuming it - I am however stating that if it takes 2000 years for one religion to become more liberal then why should we expect another to achieve it in 1500 years?
Yes it would.
How exactly do you define religious in your humble opinion?
Apart from honour killings and threatening theatres, no. But of course it would be stupid to condemn all Sikhs for these things. Yet somehow with Muslims it's OK.
Why......................
Because I don't like religion. Isn't that obvious.
I doubt you believe all l Pakistani people speak in the third person, however any chance at having a dig, eh. Makes you feel like a much better person Trevgo.
But how do you accommodate that when they have to share a living space in the here and now?
What about them? I am sure we can do a list of religions and their ages and relative liberal/illiberal status... but the point is that it can take hundreds or thousands of years for a religion to become liberal and having an expectation that it suddenly should because others have is just nonsense. Malala is campaigning in the one area that can help the most - education... speed that up and you will speed up change for the better.
Given the Peshawar murders, the Taliban will have to rethink their claim to good guy status if they are capable of thought at all and if they understand what good actually is.
No it's not obvious. I don't take anything for granted or enjoy presuming things.
Perhaps you could tell me why you don't. I'd find it helpful if you can list me some reasons. Anyone can say I don't like X, Y or Z however not many can list many reasons.
Perhaps you should consider that a Western sanitisation of an Eastern belief system in the West, will not necessarily follow the evolution timeline of an Eastern belief system practiced by Eastern people in the East?
What is your evidence that things have to happen in such a linear way
So what would you do to change them immediately/faster to a more liberal set of beliefs?
You haven't answered my question at all, just danced around it.
In your view. Maybe you just didn't understand or like the answer.
I don't think it does - I was challnging the view that 1500 years was enough time to expect such change - when there is evidence that it wasn't for other religions (like Christianity or Judaism). Personally I don't think time is the issue - education, poverty and a lake of individual choice and empowerment is.
Denial of the right to an education is a denigration of women, an example of Islamic contempt for girls. Continuing to speak out about it after what has happened to her is courageous. She is a target for every Islamist lunatic, of which there are many, She has a vision all right, a vision of a world where girls don't get acid in the face on their way to school or abducted from school and kept as sex slaves which the Islamists think is all girls*are*fit for.
Good for her.
Or maybe I know when people are trying to deflect an argument because they've been found out.
Someone who self-identifies as belonging to a particular creed though certainly not someone who seeks to enforce their own perverted interpretation on others through violence and atrocity.
A faith that requires a gun, a whip or a sword to enforce adherence is a weak and feeble faith that deserves nothing but contempt.
In my humble opinion.
Yes, but you don't get to pick other people's heros, role models or leaders. It's the hight of arrogance to try to do so and off course people will resent the attempt.
Who exactly does this schoolgirl represent or lead and why has age got a nobel prize? Gandhi wasn't selected by the British to speak for Indians. If the English had selected him that would be who he represented.
So Malala represents??? The UN, the Nobel committee, western media, Pakistanis, Muslims or schoolgirls? Who pays her, who elected her and which ideologies does she represent?
I didn't say that they had to change at any given rate. And you answered a question with a question! ;-) I was genuinely interested to hear what you might think as you always seem to give thought-out answers.
After all the conservative Islamists are asking for a return to basics not development of thought which was according to mainstream Islam (and that includes most "moderates" closed forever in the late Middle ages. It's controversial even to talk about reopening discussion on some topics.
I saw a documentary once about schooling for girls in Afghanistan. Parents were keeping their daughters from school because of Taliban attacks, not because they didn't want education for their girls. Perhaps Islam is less backward in its thinking than is thought
but the terrorists have them in a strangle hold.
As a footnote, we might remember that our own governmemt has allowed extreme Islamist thinking to be taught in British state schools in spite of a so called commitment to women's rights.
I certainly fear certain Islamic countries and the people they produce more than I do Russia - who are being driven into bankruptcy through sanctions.
Assad does not believe in democracy but he is a strong advocate of female education and denying rights to jihadists, I think it was disgusting to arm rebels against such a muslim man.
In fact the BBC was so impressed with the Syrian education system and how they made sure all the 100,000's of Iraqi refugees got an education as well as Palestinians, they made a 5 part series on it called Syrian School. Every religion and muslim denomination was equally respected and unlike Pakistan, there was no fear to go to school.