This post is a continuation of a dialog started in the comments section of my post entitled: Criticism v. A Teaching Moment. Which, in itself was a continuation of a discussion of two earlier posts: Islam needs a Reformation and Update on Islam and Reformation.
To me this has been a pleasurable journey into sharing perceptions. However, as my interlocutor who is Muslim has found out, there is only so many characters that can be put in one of those comment boxes and what we want to say oftentimes exceeds that limit.
So, rather than try multiple comments, I have taken advantage my ability to express myself more fully in one take, as we used to say in the newspaper business.
To My Friend, The Anonymous Muslim
Salamalaikum
I would agree with much of your post, but I would take issue with some points.
First, I would never say that the U.S, or the West for that matter, is without sin. The U.S. and the Europeans, pretty much like all the other nations have been responsible for a lot of things, some times they have been good and others not so good. But that is because we are humans.
Second, to say that Islam allows what an American would call “freedom of conscience” is belied, at least in part, by the actions in a lot of countries that profess to be Islamic and are ruled by Sharia law.
http://www.cfr.org/malaysia/religious-conversion-sharia-law/p13552
Third, I would point out that what is one person’s luxury is often considered another person’s need. It really is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that no matter where one goes this will be true. Now, for whatever reason you want to lay it to, people in the United States generally have more “things” that qualify as “luxuries” in other people’s eyes because they don’t have them. Yet, in America, we are having a great debate about the number of people living “in poverty.” I would point out that how you define luxuries and poverty really frame the debate and that real poverty, such as can be found primarily in the “undeveloped” world, is absent in the US. It is only a relative poverty. In fact, the terms developed, developing and undeveloped all are relative terms. They are relative to what you consider developed.
I would contend that the ancient civilizations throughout Asia, Africa, Central America, South America and even on remote islands across the Pacific were highly “developed” and not just the civilizations of Southwest Asia, Northeast Africa and Europe that the student of “western civilization” studies most intently.
Fourth, I would point out the BRIC nations are not being altruistic but rather cooperating in an effort to advance their own individual national interests. I think this is particularly true with the Russians and the Chinese. How else would one explain the creation of a new city in the South China sea far from the southeast coast of China.
Russian flexes its own muscles in its neighborhood through its control of many nations energy supplies.
My point would not be that the US is without sin, but that all are sinners.
Granted, there also is a cultural difference in viewing the use of “natural” resources. Do the resources belong to the people upon the land on which it is found? Do they belong to their neighbors? Do they belong to the world at large?
Do the people who would develop ways to recover these resources deserve any reward for their efforts or should it just go into a pot for everyone in the world? How do you determine who gets to benefit from those resources? Who gets what and how much? The bigger question being: Who decides?
I contend that no matter where you go, when those questions get asked and you involve humans in answering them, you will undoubtedly find those who see the process as unfair and unjust. It is inevitable.
Do not the foreigners deserve a return on their investment in the knowledge, technology and effort they bring to developing a resource in a given land. Who decides who gets how much of the benefits of that development?
Fifth, I would correct you on one point, the U.S. government did not (and could not) prohibit the airing of the tapes of Bin Laden. That the “American news media” did not give it the play that maybe you would have desired is different saying that the government prevented it. Having been a member of that “news media” for nearly 30 years, I can tell you honestly: It didn’t happen. It wouldn’t happen. I also know that the tapes were reported at the time, although very low key, and that the U.S. people were aware of the the threats. (We just didn't listen. Hey, I said Americans weren't always the smartest bulb in the pack)
Now, is the American news media parochial and myopic to the point that it often ignores what people are saying in other countries about American government policies? You can take that to the bank. You are absolutely correct, but the news media in the U.S. is not an extension of the government (even though sometimes it may appear that way, but more often than not the “media” is a real pain in the side of the government.)
As for Muslims being investigated in US for their possible views: Would not Christians be detained and “investigated” by your authorities, if a group of Christian warriors attacked your communities. To argue otherwise, I would think would be to ignore reality and would defy at least my expectations.
I agree that oftentimes the American government refuses entry to people whose past or political views it finds objectionable, but then what country doesn’t? All countries view those who might possibly pose a threat to the established order with disfavor and do everything that they can to discourage dissemination of those views. I don’t care if you are in the West or East, North or South, that is a given because that is the way people are.
To conclude, I would say that we all have a long journey ahead of us. God willing, Enshallah, maybe we will make it, maybe we won’t. I doubt that I will live to see it, but maybe my grandchildren, or their grandchildren will.
To you, my “friend”: Salamalaikum.
And thank you for continuing our dialogue
No comments:
Post a Comment