Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

Sigaba · 12-17-2009, 04:20

A few quick points.

First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.*

Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]." The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.

Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy.

Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too.

Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad.

His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be.

Correction--several somewhat quick points.

_________________________________________
*But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.

12-17-2009, 04:20	#9
Sigaba Area Commander Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Southern California Posts: 4,482	A few quick points. First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.* Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]." The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith. Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy. Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too. Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad. His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be. Correction--several somewhat quick points. _________________________________________ But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this* circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.
Sigaba is offline