Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving. The report was carried on the front page of the Daily Telegraph newspaper in the United Kingdom. [Read the article] . I was going to comment on Carey’s statement, but then I came across a response to the same article in the Muslims Under Progress blog. The section is entitled “Is Carey right?”. In fact all of the postings here are quite good except for the fact that the poster[?] seems to think that suicide bombers are martyrs if they are in a war morally justified. The problem is that any war can be morally justified. It depends what side you are on. Smart guy, good writer, some faulty justification.
Related Posts
We need to do something.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the imam of a local mosque, the largest from what I understand, has commended the 9-11 hijackers in a khutba in Lebanon. The defense is that the comments were taken out of context, but the text is not made available. Give us the context. More telling is the final line: “”When you make a speech in an Arabic environment, the translation will be different in an English environment.”” How will it be different to recommend murder in one language than in another? I agree we shouldn’t rush to judgment, but the Muslim community of…
Watch the kids, but then get out.
I admit that I have not been following the immigration debate as closely as I should have. The issue seems to be a watershed event and raised the spector of a new political force, even though the majority of the people interested in this issue cannot as yet vote. This country was founded by immigrants and has become wealthy on the back of immigrants. I am not sure how much of the debate is centered on economic and social issues and how much is plain xenophobia. Certainly since 9/11 the lens by which view immigration has changed. Is this the…
Is this for real? or an April Fool’s joke
Read the following two articles from Campaign Desk: Article 1 Article 2 Does the White House really need to lie about this sort of thing? I mean it is incredibly easy to verify. Has lying become so ingrained in this administration that everything must make them look good? I’m utterly at a loss. With a track record like this, how can we believe anything about the prisoners at Guantanamo? or Iraqi WMD? The sad thing is, that they are losing credibility and that means our intelligence gathering abilities continue to suffer. Do they honestly think by denying a 14-year-old boy…
3 thoughts on “The contributions of Muslim civilisations”
Comments are closed.
Salaam!
“The problem is that any war can be morally justified.”
Do you believe that is really the case? Can _any_ war be morally justified? I’m not sure.
In any case, I would make a clear distinction as to who the targets of war. Pakistani soldiers reportedly throwing themselves at Indian tanks is not evil; I think that is a justified cause. Palestinians attacking a pizzaria full of children must be condemdned with no exceptions.
I do not think that War is morally justified, however, I do believe that any side in a given conflict can easily justify their participation in that conflict as moral. Again, it depends on what side you are on. Do you think that al-Qaeda does not feel justified in their crimes? Pol Pot and his followers most probably felt the same. There have been very few instances in history where the doers of bad deeds have said “I know this is wrong, but we are going to do this anyway”. I know of none. Do you?
Maybe we’re arguing over words?
Perhaps I should have phrased it better. But ‘war’, a physical struggle, can become morally justified. An example is fighting a hostile invader – that’s a ‘war’ in my eyes.
As to Pol Pot, al-Qa’ida et al.: sure in their eyes their actions are ‘moral’. But what is the justification? Power-grabbing? Ethnic hatred? A “holy” cause? A fuzzy feeling?
Unless we’re all Abraham’s with sacrificial sons, I don’t think _anything_ can be morally justified.