« It's starting to sound like a concensus | Main | Adding a new link »
June 14, 2004
Two good posts from Shia Pundit
Not to say the rest are not good too, I just haven't had time to read them. I read these two though, and as usual, they gave me a new perspective on things:
Call to prayer. The story of the mosque in Hammtrack, Michhigan desirous of broadcasting the muslim call to prayer from its mosque (as is customary in other countries) is a fascinating one. This article in the Detroit Free Press is possibly the best one I've yet seen on the topic. It's well-worth a read.My opinion varies, but I have zero sympathy for any argument which suggests that the call to prayer somehow threatens the community in any way. Perhaps Hammtrack will be a symbolic line in the sand against the censoring power of the rising anti-muslim tide that causes muslims in American to remember that they do not need to choose between being American or Muslim, but that they should be aggressive in loving both and the revelation that these aspects of identity are in harmony, not conflict.
Also May 29. 2004:
Why I cannot hate George W. Bush. President Bush was interviewed by Christianity Today:
Do you believe there is anything inherently evil in the way some practice Islam that stands in the way of the pursuit of democracy and freedom?I think what we’re dealing with are people — extreme, radical people — who’ve got a deep desire to spread an ideology that is anti-women, anti-free thought, anti- art and science, you know, that couch their language in religious terms. But that doesn’t make them religious people. I think they conveniently use religion to kill. The religion I know is not one that encourages killing. I think that they want to drive us out of parts of the world so they’re better able to have a base from which to operate. I think it’s very much more like an... “ism” than a group with territorial ambition.
More like a what?
An “ism” like Communism that knows no boundaries, as opposed to a power that takes land for gold or land for oil or whatever it might be. I don’t see their ambition as territorial. I see their ambition as seeking safe haven. And I know they want to create power vacuums into which they are able to flow.
To what final end? The expansion of Islam?
No, I think the expansion of their view of Islam, which would be I guess a fanatical version that—you know, you’re trying to lure me down a road [where]... I’m incapable of winning the debate. But I’m smart enough to understand when I’m about to get nuanced out. No, I think they have a perverted view of what religion should be, and it is not based upon peace and love and compassion—quite the opposite. These are people that will kill at the drop of a hat, and they will kill anybody, which means there are no rules. And that is not, at least, my view of religion. And I don’t think it’s the view of any other scholar’s view of religion either.
Bush is a good man and I will never forget that immediately after 9-11, his first thought was to remind people that American muslims are not the enemy. I cannot hate a man like this. I can, however, vote against Bush in 2004 without needing to hate him, because I do hate what his weak leadership has done to my nation and the lost promise of being a uniter rather than a divider.
But you won't ever find me sneering at George W. Bush. IF you do, point me here so that I can be properly humbled.
Posted by Mike at June 14, 2004 10:52 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/324
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)