Blasphemy: Time for Muslim soul searching – Opinion – Al Jazeera English

I very much approve of this column but there a few specific parts I’m not down with.

“The question that both Roger Cohen and Gérard Biard need kindly to consider is the fact that not just the French, but European imperialism in general, and not just the Europeans, but American militarism par excellence are in the habit of disregarding not just what laws in Kabul and Riyadh, but Muslims in general think when they launch military conquests against them.”

So, basically, the author would like “the West” to give more respect to the views of “Islam” than “Islam” is to give respect to the views of “the West” because of what basically amounts to white guilt? Mmmmm, nope! Doesn’t sound reasonable to me.

Western nations “forfeited their right” to national identity when they engaged in Colonialism? So, people living now -and all of their descendants ever-, people who did not take part in Colonialism, should pay for the sins of their ancestors and forfeit their rights to a national identity for eternity? Mmmmmmm, nope!

“Islam” seeks to affirm its identity but nations in “the West” do not have the same right to one? Not seeing it. I with the author in that pretending history did not happen is bad. I also agree that “the West” has indeed influenced the Middle East -often in a very negative way. Unless one favors a return to the bloody Crusades though, I am firmly convinced the past need stay where it is. No matter has happened in the past, be it good or evil,  the people of each nation own their own right to self-determination. Period.
Unless “Islam” is volunteering to follow and respect the laws of “the West” (err, ahh, say freedom of speech?!) what business have they demanding “the West” abide by the laws and traditions of “Islam?” They should stop demanding what they do not themselves offer.

The author talks about the sins of the “the West” like it is news to any citizen living in any of those countries. I suspect that “Islam” and “the West” are similar in that both populations feature a number of blind followers, a number of well-informed thinkers and a good measure of people in who fall somewhere in between. With that in mind, it is ridiculous to suggest that, among the large population of “the West,” there is no one who is even remotely aware of all of the transgressions of European nobility during the Crusades, the evils committed by nations in “the West” while they engaged in Colonial and Imperial pursuits, or the tragedies perpetrated on innocent civilians during the course of recent conflicts in the Middle East.

The author sounds like a very reasonable and intelligent person. I am sure that he would not suggest that any country that might be considered part of “Islam” existed in a fairy tale world where the will of the government and the will of the people are always 100% aligned. Under the best of circumstances that never even comes close to happening. Why would the flip-side of this farce be anymore believable?

Does the author actually mean to suggest that thinkers in “the West,” are completely ignorant of any of their own country’s histories that took place before the current governments were enacted?

Does he truly intend to posit that such thinking people, the segment in every society who takes care to be well informed, are completely and 100% oblivious of a millennium’s worth of “the West’s” history?

Does the author really postulate that these same people would try and cover this up? Really?

Religious zealots of any stripe are wont to rewrite reality to suit their own purposes. To suggest that all of the individuals who compose “the West” want to cover up the truth of history is quite a broad stroke though. I mean, seriously? Really? Really!?!

Which bring up an off topic but oddly appropriate display of the cultural variances. It’s an oldie but a goodies.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I know he’s speaking to his audience in a commonly understood language of imagery but still…

“Our task however can no longer be limited to finding fault or exposing the supreme hypocrisy of ‘the West.'”

I wouldn’t have come out and said it but expecting those who values you do not respect to respect your own is a supreme form of hypocrisy. The tragedy is that as long as both sides are locked into a struggle of the collective wills for dominance and control of the other, neither side will prevail. This, I believe, is where my own point of view and the point of view of the author converge.

In fact, I’m down with pretty everything he says from the next sentence on.

Living together is going to happen so we have to make it work for everyone and the people shouldn’t let those who are crowned clerics or leaders of a particular sect speak for the whole.

Damn Straight.