In comments to my post below, Ismaeel has said he might engage in dialogue, which is very welcome, and has made a partial response to my comment at his blog.
Ismaeel, if you want proper space to develop the discussion of any point let me know by email including the wording you want to use, and I'll post it as a new thread.
As a starting point, he said:
[Risdon had suggested that] we didn't give a response to the idea of non-Muslims privatley viewing the Danish cartoons. Actually we did, on several occassions. Islam was, centuries before the west, adamant about the absolute sanctity of the private sphere, whatever went on behind closed doors was no buisness of the state. However what we also made clear is that when you noise it abroad that you are going to exhibit such socialy destructive material, then it ceases to be a private concern.Islam in fact prescribes detailed rules of behaviour, in private as well as in public, in a way no other religion does. See here and here, for example. Moreover, and again unusually, Islam makes no distinction between the state and religious authority, prescribing laws for the regulation of every aspect of human conduct. Al Sistani has issued fatwas concerning, among other things, masturbation (not allowed), having sex while looking in a mirror (allowed) and oral sex ("It's allowed provided no liquid coming out swallowed").
I regard the exhibition of the Danish cartoons and for that matter the exhibition of the holocaust cartoons in Iran to be uncivil and anti-social and am opposed to both.
Whatever you mean by "the sanctity of the private sphere", you cannot seriously be suggesting that Islam in all its manifestations - I am simply repeating your generalisation here - regards private conduct as beyond its sphere of influence. This is why my question is so pertinent: are you trying to extend at least some aspects of Islamic law and practice to the private actions of non-Muslims in this country? A direct yes or no answer to that question would be welcome.
I infer from your words that you would answer "no but". You seem to be saying that it is unacceptable for anyone to do something in private that you regard as "uncivil" if they publicise the fact that they are doing so. You have gone to some pains to define what you consider civility to be. You do, therefore, seek to regulate the actions of non-Muslims in the public domain, and also in the private domain if they "noise ... abroad" what they are doing. In a society that is not traditionally or historically Islamic and in which Muslims constitute a small minority, this is quite astonishingly arrogant.
I assume you advocate the right of women to wear the veil, which most Britons find to some extent offensive. If this is so, you seem to be advocating the right of Muslims to offend everyone else, but also their right to dictate what other people can do, either in private or in public.
Say it ain't so.
1 comment:
Ismaeel has responded to these points but not directly on this site.
So here's response 1:
Islam in fact prescribes detailed rules of behaviour, in private as well as in public, in a way no other religion does. See here and here, for example. Moreover, and again unusually, Islam makes no distinction between the state and religious authority, prescribing laws for the regulation of every aspect of human conduct. ...you cannot seriously be suggesting that Islam in all its manifestations - I am simply repeating your generalisation here - regards private conduct as beyond its sphere of influence.
Indeed Peter Islam does prescribe laws for the regulation of every aspect of human conduct. Your assertation that it does it a way no other religion does is however unfounded you will find that Orthodox Jews and those following certain forms of Hinduism and Buddhism follow as detailed forms of religious law as Muslims do.
The point I was making however, that in Islam it is prohibited to investigate what people are doing behind closed doors, that is between them and Allah (SWT). In other words, yes the Ulema (religious scholars) have interpreted the Qur'aan and hadith to give regulations for every aspect of human life, but the interference of society and state into a person's private actions is prohibited. How does this work in practice? I'll give an example: One of the four heads of the Sunni Legal schools Imam Abu Hanifah used to live next door to a Muslim who used to drink every night, until he got drunk and used to sing raucous songs. One day some people who heard his singing reported it to the police who came and arrested the man. Imam Abu Hanifah found out and immediatly demanded his release, as what happened behind closed doors was between him and Allah (SWT), he had not commited his offence publically and thus was not subject to being charged.
The man once released, repented and became a pious Muslim.
This is why my question is so pertinent: are you trying to extend at least some aspects of Islamic law and practice to the private actions of non-Muslims in this country? A direct yes or no answer to that question would be welcome.I infer from your words that you would answer "no but". You seem to be saying that it is unacceptable for anyone to do something in private that you regard as "uncivil" if they publicise the fact that they are doing so.
Indeed because it would then no longer be private but public
You have gone to some pains to define what you consider civility to be. You do, therefore, seek to regulate the actions of non-Muslims in the public domain, and also in the private domain if they "noise ... abroad" what they are doing.
I'm not trying to regulate anyone, i'm asking them to self-regulate themselves by withholding themselves from uncivil and anti-social behaviour which is not conducive to the public good and social cohesion.
In a society that is not traditionally or historically Islamic and in which Muslims constitute a small minority, this is quite astonishingly arrogant.
This is also a country which remains without a written constitution or a fixed set of laws or cultural norms. The way society evolves is in the hands of the British public, it is up to them what way foward they take this country. Life hasn't always been how it is now in Britain and doubtless it will change.
I assume you advocate the right of women to wear the veil, which most Britons find to some extent offensive.
Of course i advocate it, though your assertation that most Britons find it offensive is a glib generalisation, unsupported by fact.
If this is so, you seem to be advocating the right of Muslims to offend everyone else, but also their right to dictate what other people can do, either in private or in public.Say it ain't so.
As i think i have made clear on many occasions to you Peter is that we are not against people offending one another as inevitable when people of different cultures, faiths, intellectual viewpoints come into contact with one another. What we are against is deliberate insult, abuse and demonisation which prevents meaningful dialogue and creates needless barriers to understanding. I hope that you can appreciate this subtle but important distinction.
Post a Comment