Translate

Tuesday 16 June 2009

Muslims and the Mainstream

I had a rather strained conversation with Tarik of MPACUK who was getting cross with me for going on about direct democracy.

a) He thought I was not taking no for an answer, which I guess is always annoying.

b) He must have been irritated that I thought that perhaps he did not understand what it was.

Having established that he did know what it was but still did not want it, I asked the reason why.

The answer was that Muslims want to integrate and did not want to ask for weird and wonderful things such as direct democracy, even if it is in accordance with Koranic principles, ie 3:159.

Annoyingly, because he was being rather cross with me, I forgot to ask him this:
Were direct democracy generally accepted by the majority, would Muslims like him embrace it?

Silly me, but he got me a bit flustered when he was being so snippy.

Perhaps I can get the answer from him one of these days, when he has gotten over his irritation with me.

I thought it was a very good sign of Muslims wishing to integrate, however, even if it does not suit my particular agenda, which is of course to popularise and universalise the appeal of direct democracy.

3 comments:

DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Hi.
Are you genuinely a Muslim? I just saw your comment on Cranmer, so I followed you to here. It's good to a Muslim in Cranmer, I hope you come back. I am a BNP member, but strangely enough, not racist, just extremely pissed off. I am reading your blog and agree with much of what you say (cough).
I am a rabid Christian though and will defend it to the death, rather like you guys, but it would be extra special to have an opposing voice for sensible debate in Cranmer. No wind-up...seriously.

Claire Khaw said...

McKenzie, I am in fact an atheist interested in the political aspects of Islam and how much more effective it is than Christianity for keeping its believers on the straight and narrow.

Think of me as an atheist who would use God as an instrument of government.

Being a person who aspires to be rational, I would use the most effective instrument.

Islam, because of its greater sophistication, clarity and holistic effectiveness should be the one used, for these reasons.

I urge you to read the Koran, if only to find out a little more about what Muslims think is wrong with Christianity and Judaism. It is pretty revelatory, particularly if you have trouble accepting the Trinity.

Islam acknowledges the contribution of previous versions of monotheism, and calls believers of previous versions of monotheism "People of the Book".

What it does claim for itself is that it is the best and final version. The original - Judaism - is not the best. The improved more inclusive version - Christianity - had the flaw of requiring belief in the divinity of Christ, which would make people throw the baby out with the bathwater when belief or lip service to that belief can no longer be compelled by a totalitarian state that would burn you at the stake for blasphemy or heresy.

The Church knew it had gone too far during the Spanish Inquisition and is even now living to regret it.

I see no harm in combining a British kind of Islam with a British kind of civic nationalism, which I would define as acting in the National Interest, rather than in the interests of the white race.

Since Islam is very clear about its antipathy to amoral tribalism and racism, it has my enthusiastic interest in its nation-building possibilities.

DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I can sense that if it came to the crunch we would both make a dash for the gun. Not a bad place to start I suppose.

The Founding Fathers challenged absolute monarchy and its abuse of power

https://t.co/XiPCeEctAz — Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) April 25, 2024 5:00  Fear levels of Arabs explained by the assassination of Ja...