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/
O my Lord,
if I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.
If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.
But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.
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 :-)
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.
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.
O my Lord,
if I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.
If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.
But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.
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.
Last edited by Whatsthepoint; 03-04-2009 at 12:45 PM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Whatsthepoint; 03-04-2009 at 06:28 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.
Why can't you be more tolerant and listen to what they tell you? :rolleyes:
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"?
O my Lord,
if I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.
If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.
But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.
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..
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.
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.
O my Lord,
if I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.
If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.
But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks