Norman Tebbit has a pop on ‘unreformed’ Islam today:
“The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature, or technology in the last 500 years.”
Well, I believe strongly that science and technology, used well, is an outstanding force for good. It started in countries that happened to be Christian - it didn’t start there because they were Christian. Europe was where today’s technological society all began, the US and Japan (not Muslim but not Christian either - Shintoist and Buddhist mainly) is where much of it continues - and leaps forward - now. It seems churlish to pick out Islam as having not contributed so much to a specific area of life when neither have most other religious traditions.
I might also add that, as wonderful as scientific endeavour is, there are many ways of living a good life and material improvement and the gaining of knowledge - whilst immensely valuable - are not the be-all and end-all. We need a number of criteria with which to assess the good life - and other cultures’ contribution to it.
On multiculturalism:
“If a community was looking back at where it had come from instead of looking forward with the people to whom they had come to, then there is going to be a problem sooner or later.”
Lord Tebbit said multicultural society was “an impossibility” because if there were two cultures there would also be two societies.
“A society is defined by its culture. It is not defined by its race, it is not a matter of skin colour or ethnicity, it is a matter of culture.
“If you have two societies in the same place then you are going to have problems, like the kind we saw on 7 July, sooner or later,” he said.
He warned London was “sinking into the same abyss that Londonderry and Belfast sank”.
The thing is, with British society so ashamed of itself and so unwilling to demonstrate any pride in its past - and, hence, any optimism for its future - why would a person coming here want to adopt our culture? They’re better off clinging to that which they left behind because it was almost certainly clear, uncompromising and comfortable. In other words, all the things a human needs yet all the things our culture can no longer provide.
First of all, its freedom from religious stricture that usually enhances science. The West recovered from the dark ages only when the church was put in its place. However, we are now finding out that being able to walk on the moon is not sufficient to enhance the human condition.
I think most people agree that multiculturalism is moribund - multiple disconnected ghettos with equal merit is clearly bollocks. It does mean that recent attacks on the Muslim community are now own goals for Britain. My personal feeling is that if you play cricket, you have already passed the cricket test.
That Tebbit doesn’t understand London is fair enough - he probably thought Chigwell was cool.
Comment by DE — August 19, 2005 @ 5:49 pm
If anyone here uses numbers at all (and I think you probably do) then you’re using the ‘arabic’ numbering system. Enjoy!
Comment by driverchris — August 19, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
On a (slightly more) serious note, I think Britain is a victim of it’s hugely succesful imperial past.
National identities thrive when people are oppressed (see: Scotland, Ireland, Cuba, Chechnya, Afghanistan, et al).
Britain has been so UN-opressed for so long that it has no co-hesive ‘identity’ to call it’s own. What is Britain’s national costume? cuisine? identity?
Comment by driverchris — August 19, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
Tebbit did not make the mistake of that other outspoken little Englander politico by trashing all Islamic culture - hence the refernce to the last 500 years, when the Islamic Empire has been in relative “decline”.
I compltely agree with you about oppression and identity. A strong nation does not cling to the trappings of identity. I can wear fake plastic breasts, eat a curry and still feel British. What further proof of nationhood does one need?
Comment by DE — August 19, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
The illusion that Islam has offered nothing in the last 500 years might make for good news for the unenlightened (haha), but it is just an illusion. In terms of Islam’s political control of the world, there might be a point hidden there somewhere, but I’m not sure that Tebbit could articulate it. The guy’s a wanker anyway. (For what it’s worth, I support Pakistan cricket team and the England football team, the latter more passionately)
Muslims have done pretty well actually. I agree with Gary - the religions have been incidental and I partly agree with DE - my take is that as long as you don’t let the religious zealots control the world - science can progress - but let’s face it DE - Christianity is not really a core religion for either Europe or the US and didn’t you decide against a career in old-school science a couple of decades ago because it no longer exists?
Muslims are doing ok in the background. Indonesia is waking up, Philipines and Malaysia are in overdrive, UAE, especially Dubai are amazing and without Saudi, well, we would have a complete financial meltdown and the world would actually implode. I’m not suggesting religion is the reason these countries are doing well, I’m just putting Tebbit’s utter nonsense into perspective.
Isn’t he a sad Alzheimer’s git anyway?
Bring back Thatcher. I miss a PM with guts, integrity, vision, drive and more balls than any man around today in politics.
Comment by shahid — August 19, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
“They’re better off clinging to that which they left behind because it was almost certainly clear, uncompromising and comfortable.”
I am always amused by comments on multiculturalism from the English, who are not exactly noted for ‘integrating’ into their adopted homelands when they are immigrants themselves.
You demand that others learn your language, play your games, and generally swear allegiance. Then you go on holiday and when you’re not trashing the place, you’re not at the front of the queue shouting “I came on a plane, you cant! Why can’t I have chips?” to the non-english speaking local.
To say nothing of a long history of exporting Englishness by force to places where it was not wanted.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — August 20, 2005 @ 8:45 am
Shahid, what’s ‘a sad Alzheimer’s git’? Go read up on Alzheimer’s some time before slinging idiotic phrases like that around.
Everyone else who’s slanging the Church, come on then, let’s have your ‘proof’
Comment by Dumb Brit — August 20, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
Mr O’Dwyer wins this week’s prize for sweeping generalisations and gross inaccuracy.
But I think he already knows that…
GM
Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2005 @ 2:08 am
“Mr O’Dwyer wins this week’s prize for sweeping generalisations and gross inaccuracy.”
That remark just blew my irony meter (even though it goes up to 11).
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — August 21, 2005 @ 11:06 am
Dear Dumb Brit - sorry about that - will be more politically correct next time - was calling him a wanker ok?
Comment by shahid — August 21, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
Shahid, political correctness is something I’ve never loved, I just object to insults that imply that an organic neurological disease are somehow fair play for mockery. Call him a moron, wanker, whatever all you like if that’s how you feel, I just don’t like the idea of people being targeted for something they can’t help.
Comment by Dumb Brit — August 22, 2005 @ 8:31 am
Dear Dumb Brit, it wasn’t the disease or the sufferers I was targetting. I do know a bit about Alzheimer’s and have witnessed close ones suffer from it. Not pleasant. It was Tebbit I was targetting, but I was gratuitous for the sake of shock value. It was a cheap shot. I stand by the rest of what I said.
Comment by shahid — August 22, 2005 @ 11:28 am
With all due respect Shahid, stating that Christianity is not a core religion of the US is a gross inaccuracy. ISTR reading that 75% of the US population attends church services more than twice a year. I think that’s a pretty large whopping number.
As far as development in the Arabian peninsula goes, very little of it could/would be done without the work of highly paid expat engineers and professionals from elsewhere.
As for a previous comment, the “Arabic” numeral system was actually taken from India and is no longer in use in Arabic.
As far as a religious basis to scientific inquiry, I have read (but am not completely convinced) that Judaism and Christianity made better crucibles for scientific enquiry because, theologically, God is consistent, and therefore rational, and works by logical laws that can be discerned through observation. In Islam, it has been suggested, Allah’s hand remains “unchained” (Qur’an 5:64) which means Allah has the freedom to change his mind when he want to, so there can be no such thing as “laws” in the natural world.
Like I said, I’m not 100% convinced, but there might be something there.
Comment by James — August 22, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
Shahid, thanks for clarifying that. I also watched someone close to myself destroyed by that illness recently, hence my being a bit quick to get annoyed. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Comment by Dumb Brit — August 22, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
Dear James,
I have a tendency towards flippancy because in this medium I half expect people to know where I’m coming from. Of course the US is “Christian” in whatever form Christianity takes there today.
My “background” on this is quite simple, and probably quite naive. Religion is not practiced in the way of the prophets or their close followers. Thus - “thou shalt not kill” - the US has no problem with murder, both at home and abroad and anywhere else. That doesn’t tie too well with the Jews or Muslims either. Nobody is innocent. And of course, my favourite Christian tenet, which if followed properly would solve half of the world’s problems at a stroke “love thy neighbour as theyself”. If that were followed, by all religions, by all peoples, well, we’d be sorted.
My point is that religion is not practiced for much more than show, by many people, of all religions. Certainly not in the US where hypocrisy reigns supreme in the most gluttonous and wealthy nation in the history of the planet.
The Christians of the US are not sharing their wealth very fairly. That is a sad fact. Having said that, neither are the Saudis, but there’s something funny going on between them and the Bush family, something I am not clever enough to understand, but I’m working on it!
As for your last point:
The Qur’an is widely misunderstood by the Western world. That’s not surprising, it’s hard to translate the utter beauty from the stunning Arabic to any other language. You don’t really get a translation, you get an interpretation. The grammar and idiom simply do not come across with anything like the majesty of the Arabic, which to this day brings tears to the eyes of those that understand the language when it is recited.
5:64 is about the Jews’ allegation at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) that God’s hands were tied. This verse refutes that. It is not about changing laws at a whim, it is about freedom.
The true position on this is amply covered and repeated elsewhere:
17:77 …thou wilt find no Change in our ways
33:62 …No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
35:43 … But no change wilt thou find in Allah’s way (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in Allah’s way (of dealing).
48:23 Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah’s course.
Muslims believe in a set of consistent and perfect laws. Indeed, the tiniest change in any of the constants of the universe would have resulted in us not being here to conduct this conversation.
But I digress, I’m not really here to discuss Islam.
James, thank you for being so polite, I really appreciate it.
Comment by shahid — August 22, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
Shahid,
No need to thank me for the politeness. I believe one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. I’d rather have reasoned debate than to resort to ad hominem attacks.
I would argue with you your assertion regarding the largesse of Christians in America and making a generalisation. To take one example, I seem to recall that Americans, as private citizens coughed up more money than almost all of the rest of the world combined to help with the tsunami relief. Much of it funneled through Christian organisations and churches. On the other hand, the little zakat that was collected was also accompanied by some prominent imams indicating that God was displeased and that’s why such destruction was sent.
In fact, I would argue that Americans are probably the most guileless, charitable, sharing, giving people in the world and much of that comes because of the Judeo-Christian underpinning of American society. No doubt, there are hypocrites everywhere, but even they manage to be quite charitable because it’s the right thing to do. “Faith without works is dead…”
One question, is there a similar tenet to “love thy neighbour as thyself” found in the Qur’an and Ahadith (post-Mecca period) which would apply to non-believers?
(For the record, I am an agnostic and not a Christian, but do consider myself well-versed in Christian doctrine.)
Also, from what I understand, not very many people in the world can actually read and understand the Qur’an in the original Classical Arabic as it is handed down; is this true?
Comment by James — August 23, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
The most important aspect for the flowering of both science and culture is freedom of conscience and trade links. Most of the worlds scientists have (or had) a religious faith, but religion itself does not effect a persons analytical abilities. Note that Islamic societies of the past (e.g. Moorish Spain) were excellent centres for natural philosophy.
It does not matter what you believe god thinks, its matters what you observe. No religious text prevented or aided the discovery of gravity - the problem comes later when your church locks you up for saying the Earth rotates around the sun.
Comment by DE — August 23, 2005 @ 11:28 pm