/* */

PDA

View Full Version : intolerable tolerance



Pomak
03-03-2009, 11:05 AM
It turns out that the liberal doctrine of ‘inclusiveness’ may disguise an obsequious brand of hegemony. That liberalism embraces certain dogmatisms should not surprise anyone - belief systems are defined partly by their contraposition to other belief systems. But belief-system coexistence is not an easy thing, if it is possible at all. Liberals, when they break faith with full-bodied tolerance, are every bit as dangerous as the wild-eyed jihadists of media-lore.

Many liberals (in the classical sense) are contemptuous of all orthodoxies, even as they fail to see their own. In their absolute adherence to relativity of all belief, they share a feature common to all fundamentalists - intolerance– cloaked in the mantra of tolerance. Most insidiously, liberals are intolerant of anyone seeking to impede their forays into another’s sacred terrain, a phenomenon termed (most notably by Wendy Steiner) as the “liberal paradox”.

Liberal tolerances allow other belief systems to exist but also allows the secularist to weave lampoons, parodies, and pastiches from sacred texts. But to take offence or, worse still, to try to prevent the secular desecration of what one holds sacred is itself intolerable. In his essay, aptly named, ‘Is Nothing Sacred?’ a defiant Salman Rushdie declares rather bluntly: “Nothing is sacred in and of itself.” A Rushdie style liberal reserves the right to cobble his own realities, even if it means defacing relics from another’s (often Islam’s) holiest preserves.

For those who hold nothing sacred, rummaging about the bazaar of belief systems conforms to the very essence of civility. In the liberal’s mind, vestigial recourse to a sacred realm is a superstition from which believers must be disabused. Therein lays the chief battleground of the current ‘war of civilizations’. If we in the West come to understand anything about ourselves, then surely it must be that tolerance is a force hell-bent on a mission of sacrilege.

The devout Muslim’s resistance to liberal incursions is borne from the fear of profane defacing the scared. And a certain fear is justifiable, even before modernity’s dubious wares are accounted for: rampant drug abuse, fractured families, endless pornography. Perhaps it bears noting that Auschwitz followed the Enlightenment and not vice-versa. In large part, the West has succeeded simply in substituting old problems with new ones. And the response from Muslims seems to be “We saw you profane your sacredness with your so-called Enlightenment and advancement. Now you wish to rifle our sacred content. Thanks but no thanks. We won’t allow it.”

While Islam has become the cause celebre of liberals looking for the Muslim Martin Luther, the offense against Islam was hardly a whole cloth creation. Whereas the secular humanist wants merely to rummage about sacred texts, the fundamentalist often wants to kill the secular humanist. So there is an incommensurateness of response. But where does it come from? Medieval backwardness? Craziness of conviction? Careful thinkers need to recognize the overwhelming tendency towards condescension on the part of the West.

To reverse that course, we must be tolerant of those who perceive ranging tolerance as an affront. We must not trample deeply-held beliefs, even if this means bridling our own imaginative forays. If our exercises in the spirit of tolerance strike large swathes of humanity as intolerable, shouldn’t that spur a certain respectful reticence? Perhaps it is the height of tolerance to curb ones public utterances in deference to the sensibilities of a neighbour? If not, the doctrine of tolerance may ultimately prove to be intolerable. http://www.thewesternmuslim.com/inde...ble_tolerance/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Thinker
03-03-2009, 11:55 AM
The author of the above might do well to spend some time on this site . . . http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

And, at the risk of becoming irritating, perhaps some proof reading before publication . . . . .'defacing the scared' . . . . . 'perceive ranging tolerance as an affront.'

Outside of that I'll support tollerance every time :-)

Peace
Reply

Dawud_uk
03-04-2009, 04:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The author of the above might do well to spend some time on this site . . . http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

And, at the risk of becoming irritating, perhaps some proof reading before publication . . . . .'defacing the scared' . . . . . 'perceive ranging tolerance as an affront.'

Outside of that I'll support tollerance every time :-)

Peace
thinker, ok here is plain english.

in islam we are tolerant of others beliefs, we dont like them, but we tolerant them, especially the beliefs of the peoples of the book but those concepts of tolerance in islam has limits.

what the writer is saying is tolerance must have limits, otherwise it becomes intolerant and dogmatic against others when they defend what they hold most close to their hearts.
Reply

Pomak
03-04-2009, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
thinker, ok here is plain english.

in islam we are tolerant of others beliefs, we dont like them, but we tolerant them, especially the beliefs of the peoples of the book but those concepts of tolerance in islam has limits.

what the writer is saying is tolerance must have limits, otherwise it becomes intolerant and dogmatic against others when they defend what they hold most close to their hearts.
MA. Thank you brother.
:)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Whatsthepoint
03-04-2009, 12:42 PM
And who is gonna set the limits? You? Me?
Are burqas in the middle of Amsterdam to tolerant? Having Ahmeds in central London tell us how Jews and gays ought to be killed? No? Saying the Bible was made up and changed? Saying the Quran was made up. Saying secularism is stupid?
It's hard to set the limits really, so it's better to have none. I guess there should be limits at inciting violence.

Freedom of speech is a long lasting tradition, we can't have a bunch of immigrants and or religious people change that.
Reply

Thinker
03-04-2009, 01:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
what the writer is saying is tolerance must have limits, otherwise it becomes intolerant and dogmatic against others when they defend what they hold most close to their hearts.
Where does it say that?
Reply

Muezzin
03-04-2009, 01:51 PM
I see where the writer is coming from.

That's why I'm a bit more libertarian rather than liberal.

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Freedom of speech is a long lasting tradition, we can't have a bunch of immigrants and or religious people change that.
So, hypothetically speaking, if a non-religious, non-immigrant wanted to change freedom of speech, you'd be okay with it?

Aside from making you look xenophobic, that passage also doesn't really communicate what you're trying to say.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-04-2009, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I see where the writer is coming from.

That's why I'm a bit more libertarian rather than liberal.


So, hypothetically speaking, if a non-religious, non-immigrant wanted to change freedom of speech, you'd be okay with it?

Aside from making you look xenophobic, that passage also doesn't really communicate what you're trying to say.
No, I wouldn't be ok with it. My comment was meant to illustrate that it's mainly immigrants and or religious people that want to change it.
I do not consider myself xenophobic, I think the state should make no distinction between citizens based on their heritage or whatever, hiowever, something inside tells me, that it's wrong that immigrants come and tell us what to change in the society to please them.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
03-04-2009, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
No, I wouldn't be ok with it. My comment was meant to illustrate that it's mainly immigrants and or religious people that want to change it.
I do not consider myself xenophobic, I think the state should make no distinction between citizens based on their heritage or whatever, hiowever, something inside tells me, that it's wrong that immigrants come and tell us what to change in the society to please them.
Why can't you be more tolerant and listen to what they tell you? :rolleyes:
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-04-2009, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Why can't you be more tolerant and listen to what they tell you? :rolleyes:
I sad those were just feelings, I do not act upon them.
But I did listen and I said no.
Reply

Pomak
03-04-2009, 11:30 PM
No, I wouldn't be ok with it. My comment was meant to illustrate that it's mainly immigrants and or religious people that want to change it.
I do not consider myself xenophobic, I think the state should make no distinction between citizens based on their heritage or whatever, hiowever, something inside tells me, that it's wrong that immigrants come and tell us what to change in the society to please them.
And at what point does a migrant become a "local"?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-04-2009, 11:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
And at what point does a migrant become a "local"?
I'm not sure. Some never become locals, not even second and third genration.
But as I aid, on a state level, tehre should b no distinction whatsoever.
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2009, 12:05 AM
Greetings,

From what I can make out of the original post, the author seems to be making a case for the "taking offence" strategy as a response to criticism.

Peace
Reply

doorster
03-05-2009, 12:59 AM
^^ wow! I never thought that I'll ever nod in agreement at one of your posts (even though I still do not understand half the OP)
Reply

Pomak
03-05-2009, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I'm not sure. Some never become locals, not even second and third genration.
But as I aid, on a state level, tehre should b no distinction whatsoever.
So in other words, no citizen should be able to lobby for change of law?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-05-2009, 07:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
So in other words, no citizen should be able to lobby for change of law?
No, no, everyone should have that right, I'm just saying it doesn't seem right if non-integrated immigrants do.
Like you'd feel abd if westerns suddenly started to demand dance clubs in Mecca..
Reply

Muezzin
03-05-2009, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

From what I can make out of the original post, the author seems to be making a case for the "taking offence" strategy as a response to criticism.

Peace
The author also seems to be calling out certain liberals-in-name-only who deplore people taking offence in the first place - 'How DARE you take offence at my justified remark?' yadda yadda.
Reply

Azy
03-05-2009, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Like you'd feel abd if westerns suddenly started to demand dance clubs in Mecca..
Assuming they could get into Mecca in the first place.
Reply

Pomak
03-06-2009, 12:43 AM
No, no, everyone should have that right, I'm just saying it doesn't seem right if non-integrated immigrants do.
Like you'd feel abd if westerns suddenly started to demand dance clubs in Mecca..
but then your comment here
I'm not sure. Some never become locals, not even second and third genration.
But as I aid, on a state level, tehre should b no distinction whatsoever.
seems rather ... conflicting.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-06-2009, 01:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
but then your comment here


seems rather ... conflicting.
Its' not.
It's just that I keep my personal views about people of of the law.
Reply

czgibson
03-06-2009, 02:59 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
The author also seems to be calling out certain liberals-in-name-only who deplore people taking offence in the first place - 'How DARE you take offence at my justified remark?' yadda yadda.
Well, quite.

The problem is that the "taking offence" strategy is too often used when people have no better response to criticism.

Peace
Reply

Muezzin
03-06-2009, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Well, quite.

The problem is that the "taking offence" strategy is too often used when people have no better response to criticism.

Peace
I suppose. It does depend on the criticism in question, and the intent of the critic. If they're solely out to offend, just to stir the pot, I try not to give them the light of day. If they're serious (though a bit hamfisted) I do my best to debate... which I suck at, but whatever.

If I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone who is just stuck on the 'taking offence' strategy, I tend not to whine at them about it and instead try and find someone else who is willing to discuss things.

If they're the only person, I still don't tend to whine about them taking offence. That's their right. I tend to try and reason with them, in as non-confrontational way as possible, so that they will join the discussion.

But that's (probably an idealised version of) me.
Reply

czgibson
03-06-2009, 05:16 PM
Greetings,

I don't propose to whine at people simply because they take offence - as you say, that's their right. It's only when offence is used as a way of closing down discussion that I object.

Why should religious views be protected from examination and criticism in this way?

Peace
Reply

Muezzin
03-06-2009, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

I don't propose to whine at people simply because they take offence - as you say, that's their right. It's only when offence is used as a way of closing down discussion that I object.
Of course. I agree that 'I'm offended, therefore there is absolutely no merit in this discussion at all, even if someone else could and has found merit in it' is a silly position.

I just get miffed at the people who get offended at other people who are offended at the offensive things the first group of people said. If that makes sense.

Basically, I'm tired of people justifying their abuse of other people with freedom of speech. There's a difference between valid criticism and derogatory abuse. I know sometimes the distinction is murky, but come on, I can't be the only one tired of nutjobs insulting people under the pretence of free speech, then clambering onto their high horse when the subject of that abuse dares to answer back or demand an apology.

Why should religious views be protected from examination and criticism in this way?
Oh, they should not be protected from examination and criticism. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting people choose their words and their battles.

Person A: 'I hate all purple people. They all stink and I take pleasure in their pain.'

Person B: 'Purple people have some problems. They don't really wash much. I wish they did, because if they did, there would be less conflict.'

Person A is a bigot or just juvenile. Ignore him. However, Person B has provided the basis of a civil conversation, even if his views may be offensive to some.

I've oversimplified it, but I hope that's made my position a little clearer.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-11-2012, 06:14 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 08:33 PM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-13-2006, 06:29 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2006, 02:37 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!