Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Muslim "Scholars" Promote Killing Those who Disagree

Pakistan — More than 500 Muslim scholars are praising the man suspected of killing a Pakistani governor because the politician opposed blasphemy laws that mandate death for those convicted of insulting Islam.

This quote, from an MSNBC article Muslim scholars praise killer of Pakistan governor concerns reaction to the assassination of Gov. Salman Taseer for the "crime" of saying that people should be able to offer up competing ideas to Islam without fear of being killed.

These people are not "scholars". They are 21st century barbarians who praise the use of violence against those who dare suggest that their beliefs are mistaken.

History tells us that barbarians can be poweful forces, capable of bringing down more civilized societies by force of numbers and willingness to inflict unrepentant harms.

However, force of numbers and a willignness to inflict unrepentant harms does not make one deserving of the name "scholar"

This is particularly true when we talk about freedom of ideas. How can one be a "scholar" and praise the slaughter of those who present competing ideas? This is the very antithesis of the "scholar". Scholars engage in scholarly debate. They take those whom they would say are guilty of blasphemy and ask, "Which of us can best defend our ideas by means of force of intellect, rather than force of arms."

These 500 Muslims mentioned - with their praise of violence - have declared themselves the enemies of anything that can be called "scholarly".

7 comments:

Julio Carrancho said...

Islam is the Official Religion, therefore it has access to the State's Weaponry to evangelise by brute force!
Islam OFFENDS me terribly!

Brian said...

(from m-w.com)

"schol·ar noun \ˈskä-lər\
Definition of SCHOLAR

1
: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2
a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b : a learned person
3
: a holder of a scholarship

...from Latin schola school"

I don't see anything there about violence. One might as well say one cannot be a "scholar" and praise baseball.

Alonzo Fyfe said...

Brian

The people who thought that those definitions accurately accounted for the meaning of "scholar" seem to have missed something.

A sincere interest in understanding a subject entails an unwillingness to shoot people just because they disagree with you.

Brian said...

"A sincere interest in understanding a subject entails an unwillingness to shoot people just because they disagree with you."

That not only isn't implied by the word, it's not relevant to the situation at hand even if we assume it to be. There is no evidence that these Muslim scholars are willing to shoot people just because they disagree with them.

Rather, only a few, specific disagreements warrant that verdict. The best description of their position certainly isn't "all who disagree should be killed". A thoughtful analysis should parse out the commonality among the cases in which they advocate violence and distinguish them from other cases, and disagreement alone is far too broad to be useful; though it does encompass all cases in which they advocate death it is quite far from only encompassing such cases.

A better explanation is that they believe in certain metaphysical realities that have moral consequences. Sometimes, disagreement with them coincides with circumstances that warrant death. I don't see how the appellation "scholar" is incompatible with most of the infinite number of belief systems that sometimes justify violence, nor with most actually believed in today.

Anonymous said...

Alonzo,

re: Brian's "definitions"

If you wish, each of us may lay claim to "being a dictionary."

In another post you write about your approval of the death of at least one person responsible for the anti-vaccination fraud. You don't say you want him to die violently,... but I suspect he is likely to view it that way.

When he was considering his scam, I doubt he was thinking of a way to hurt children to make money,... he was probably looking for some way to "make money." The scheme lodged in his brain and there was no consideration for anyone else,... though he may have believed, in convenient hallucinatory moments, that he was going to save a life.

Actions we take because we hold them as "necessary," all too often may have significant "side effects" for others,... whom we never considered.

I might go on,... but I might also stop.

Thanks for the blog.

Regards,
Gerry

Tommykey said...

What gets me about these people who kill those they deem guilty of "blasphemy" are committing the deed in the name of an entity that is supposedly all powerful. If that is the case, if Allah exists and is all powerful, it could strike down the blasphemer with a bolt of lightning to make its displeasure public knowledge.

Brian said...

re: Brian's "definitions"

If you wish, each of us may lay claim to "being a dictionary."


Did you just defend the argument that a word was objectively misused by saying we are entitled to our own private dictionary?

"if Allah exists and is all powerful, it could strike down the blasphemer with a bolt of lightning to make its displeasure public knowledge."

He works in mysterious ways, or so I've been told. This way there's more of the Lord's work to do! Yay?