Tuesday, September 28, 2010

RE: Are Bahrain and Kuwait guilty of Islamophobia?

"Anonymous" has left a new comment on your post "Are Bahrain and Kuwait guilty of Islamophobia?":
Anonymous: How can a person accuse his co-faithful of Islamophobia? Please write sense!!!

Lawrence: I've admitted to not liking "one -liners" because they don't make sense, and this one is no exception. While out in the yard watering my plants I puzzled over who Anonymous might be and how he could be ignorant of the meaning and application of "irony."

Christian Fundamentalists tend to shy away from tropes. They have a hermeneutical rule created by Darby, Scofield and Chafer: If the text can be taken literally then it must be taken literally. But after considering these Fundamentalists, also known as Dispensationalists, for a few moments, I decided it probably wasn't one of these. I don't think a Christian Fundamentalist would care what I said about Muslims.

At last, in the absence of certainty about this writer or what he meant, I tentatively concluded that he was probably a Muslim -- one who subscribes to Islamic Literalism: The words of the Koran means one thing and one thing only. If it can be taken literally, then it must be taken literally.

But is there not also the sense in this one-liner that Muslims may close seditious mosques, but Infidels may not? Such a concept violates (or used to violate) our Western sense of fair play and justice. Our laws are supposed to apply to all equally. But Muslims inspired by Islamist ideology and Sharia Law don't see things that way. They think an Infidel (defined as every non-Muslim) anywhere in the world, has no right to infringe on anything Muslims (at least Muslims at the level of Mosque leaders) want to do. But on the other hand they believe their Sharia Law should be applied throughout the West.

In other words, what Muslims do to each other is none of our Western-business. But it is not okay for Westerners to apply all their laws to Muslims. Only those laws that are Sharia-compliant may be applied.

In case the Anonymous Muslim still doesn't understand what I'm talking about, I will speak as literally as I can: Any individual or group that practices sedition should be proscribed. Our governments need to protect our citizens against enemies who intend to harm them. Mosques that produce terrorists or form centers for recruitment of terrorist organizations do intend harm to our citizens and ought to be shut down.

I don't fault a person who doesn't know the meaning of Irony, but I will deride Western government officials who don't know the difference between religious freedom and sedition.

No comments: