The blog then goes into a monologue about Dr Siddiqui's links to the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami political party and his alleged ideological affiliation to Syed Maududi and other Islamis ideologues.
I myself have carefully studied the works of these ideologues. I now find their work to represent a somewhat disturbing form of heterodoxy, though it is not necessarily anymore dangerous than, say, the Christian heterodoxy of people like Fred Nile and Danny Nalliah.
What I find really disturbing about conservative thinktanks is that they blab on and on about Islamist thinking seeping into Muslim circles. Yet they turn a blind eye to the Christian religious radicalism that is becoming more influential on their side of the ideological divide.
The hubris and double standards of allegedly conservative thinktanks is little more than a thin veneer hiding what is in reality their sectarian prejudices.
I left this message on the blog. Somehow I doubt they will publish it.
It makes me laugh when I see cultural conservatives parading as liberals and pretending their sectarian prejudices are 'social cohesion'.
I am an Australian Muslim who started reading Maududi after attending an Anglican Cathedral School in Sydney Australia and being exposed to the works of Protestant fundamentalists like Francis Schaffer.
I could see little difference between Maududi's message and that of Schaffer's "How Then Should We Live". Both authors argue that religion and politics are inseparable, and that religious activists must enter the political scene.
What made Maududi nore effective is that Islam, like Judaism, actually has a sacred law. Further, Islamic sacred law has actually been implemented in recent times.
I personally regard Maududi's approach as heterodox in the extreme. However, for allegedly conservative thinktanks to be attacking someone whose Christian equivalent they remain strangely silent on is the height of hypocrisy and double-standards.
The day think tanks like yours are honest enough to face up to the Jewish and Christian Maududi's in your midst is the day Western Muslims can take you seriously.
As Christ said, there's little point looking for specks in your brother's eye when your own eye is filled with logs.
If you choose not to allow this comment on this blog, I'll be placing it on my own.
© Irfan Yusuf 2007
8 comments:
Yep, no radicalism in Britain.
Those cars just set themselves to blow up.
Glasgow Airport Terminal has self-immolates.
Some dude - while on fire - assaults a policeman while screaming God's arabic name. Perhaps he was a Maronite or a Chaldean, eh?
Or maybe it was those Protestants? Ya know, 'cause they are, kinda like, "protesters".
Of course, it couldn't have been members of not-at-all-violent Religion of Peace, could it?
I blame Francis Shaffer, myself. Damn radical Christian extremists!
peter, go back to tim blair's kindergarten blog where you belong.
Dubya wouldn't be in the White House and hundreds of thousands wouldn't have died in Iraq were it not for Schaffer and related Christian al-Qaeda dickheads.
...and now we find that there are radical Islamofascists in our own country.
Oh, those poor, repressed disenfranchised... er... um... doctors.
Come on ally you Leftie apologists!
What are the 'root causes' of their grievances? Poverty? Lack of Opportunity? Oppression by the vicious Beattie Christo-Police State?
Or could it be something a little more 'fundamental'...?
Peter, has the name of the doctor been released? Has his or her ethnicity or religion been released?
Or are you suggesting we believe that each and every doctor of a particular ethnic or ethno-religious background is a terrorist?
I'm so glad you don't work for ASIO ...
Peter...Irfan has repeatedly claimed the Muslim aren't a monolith. So why do you think that all Muslims are the same?
Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.
I wonder what that makes the Tamil Tigers ...
Post a Comment