[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.*

Agree if you are using a Western definition. Haven't heard or read any mention of heresy in islamic law. It defaults to apostacy and it's death threat and eternal condemnation burning in hell...

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]."

By islamic law.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

This is a matter of implementation. They are following the same islamic law and doctrine. And one other point about Malaysia and the Philipines, as islam takes deeper roots, it will grow more militant as Muslims grow in numbers. Hence the morality police's first case of caning a woman in the video T-Rock posted [HAT TIP].

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Not sure where this came from. T.E. Lawrence discussed the Muslim belief in the concept and expression "It is written." in the seven pillars of wisdom, but I'm travelling and don't have it with me. Certainly you can understand the implications on individual thought if you subscribe to a militant ideology and combine it with the idea that you have no free will - that everything has already been scripted [or written] by the god of war and his warrior prophet.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Agreed you can't know an entire culture or country through the stories on one person. Taken in their totality and the repressive nature of islam with specific respect to freedom of expression - and the risk she and others like her assume when doing so - and we have to take these accounts seriously.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Won't attempt to claim to be a civil war historian - so tagging out on this one.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

_________________________________________
*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.

Thanks Sigaba....good discussion.

Paraphrasing George Orwell's "Politics of the English Language" which Newt quoted in his speech - How can we know anything we can't identify? This is the problem with not being able to call a jihadi, a jihadi...which is now administration policy!