|
May
I defend myself from Mick Hall's aspersions, as
evidenced in his Oct 2 contribution. I give his
comment, to which I add a rejoinder:
"Roy
Johnston is another liberal minded writer and columnist
who whilst not having sunk to such depths seems
to be on the cusp. On
reading a recent article of his in The Blanket,
I had to pause and reread the final paragraph to
confirm that I had understood what Mr Johnston was
actually inferring. It is worth quoting as it epitomizes
just how misinformed and reactionary liberal minded
people can be when attempting to come to terms with
the West's relationship with the billions of people
throughout the world who believe in the Islamic
religion. Roy wrote,
'We
need somehow to interact with scholarly writers
from the Islamic culture who are in a position
to state the current problems within Islam, and
who have a critical attitude to the simplisic
'clash of civilisations' view of history, which
GW Bush is obviously trying to promote, in the
interests of his military-industrial complex.'
"Like
Flemming Rose in Denmark, who is basically saying
that if Muslims refuse to adopt 'our ways' they
are not welcome within Denmark and the EU and should
be refused citizenship and sent back from whence
they came (the poem 'Then they Came for Me' made
famous by Pastor Martin Niemoller springs to mind
here), Roy Johnston appears to be saying unless
Islamic scholars and writers can state the current
problems within Islam, they are not worth talking
to. OK, perhaps I am being a little harsh here,
as Roy Johnston clearly welcomes dialogue and maybe
I have misunderstood his meaning. But put the shoe
on a Muslim's foot and I am certain that is how
it will read. Would any one of us agree to interact
with someone from a different culture or religion
if it is demanded of us that we first shit on our
own doorstep?"
I reject the idea that being a critical commentator
on so-called 'western christian civilisation' is 'shitting
on our own doorstep'. Nor are critical commentators
in Islamic culture engaged in analogous crapulous
activity; many would welcome the type of cross-cultural
contact I have suggested, and I have encountered some
of them.
The
common ground is rational analysis rooted in science.
We share the problem of how to deal with the type
of popular consciousness generated by our respective
extreme religious fundamentalists. Cross-cultural
dialog must begin between intellectuals who share
the common ground of science. It is unlikely to thrive
cross-culturally between religious fundamentalists.
One
hopes dialogue might begin to develop within each
culture between 'reason' people and 'faith' people.
This does not constitute an 'arrogant' position. The
essence of the rational scientific position is willingness
to admit the existence of uncertainty, to explore
how much we do not know, and to seek common understanding
with others.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
