Article

2005-08-07 Britain

Salman Rushdie has a take on Sir Iqbal and the need for Islamic Reform

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2005-08-07 09:37|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem...."

:)

"The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages.
[I don't get the logic here] ..."

I think this is basically the age-old question of whether beings evolve or are static, isn't it? Is life fixed in nature or is it a creation in progress?

Posted by jules 2 2005-08-07 13:57|| 2005-08-07 13:57|| Front Page Top

#2 jules

if you understand Rushdie's logic then that makes two of you

To me a holy book can have some commandments that are short term and some long term, whether or not history is involved. In all the books of Lev, Num, Deut, Josh, Judges, Samuel & Kings, there was never a 'putting lamb blood on the doorpost' ceremony. This despite a lack of 'historical context' as Rushdie mentions. The commandment was just a one time thing. It would have been relatively easy to say that some of the 'slay them whereever you find them' and similar commandments were only until Mecca was conquered or only until Arabia was conquered or only while the rightly guided caliphs reigned. But Islam just didn't do that.

Posted by mhw 2005-08-07 15:31|| 2005-08-07 15:31|| Front Page Top

#3 Same ol' same ol'. He's trotting out the traditional lefty attack on historical precedent. E.g. this might look more familiar:

"The strict constructionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Republicans, allowing them to imprison the United States in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the U.S. Constitution were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages.

Wake me when the left gets a new idea.

Posted by AzCat 2005-08-07 18:31|| 2005-08-07 18:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Probably should've changed "historical" to "living" above but you get the idea.

Posted by AzCat 2005-08-07 18:32|| 2005-08-07 18:32|| Front Page Top

23:36 Pappy
23:29 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:28 Frank G
23:15 BigEd
23:04 Edward Yee
22:57 BigEd
22:50 Jan
22:47 WhiteCollarRedneck
22:44 Jan
22:31 macofromoc
22:28 Clomoling Ebbutle1219
22:25 Alaska Paul
22:17 trailing wife
22:13 trailing wife
22:03 trailing wife
21:56 trailing wife
21:53 AzCat
21:37 trailing wife
21:32 trailing wife
21:30 Cyber Sarge
21:22 trailing wife
21:04 Deacon Blues
20:59 Poison Reverse
20:59 Cyber Sarge