Tiger birdies: he’s just a victim of the times
|
As if others would not do the same if they had his money and fame! OK, maybe not everybody, but it is time to stop the hypocrisy. Tiger Woods’ trysts reveal nothing more than the nature of today’s young male when he finds a willing lover. Without strong religious boundaries, we find that many people will say yes to trysts more often and in the case of most people, they don’t care and no one else cares. Fidelity is no longer expected in many a marriage, it is only expected among some people of faith, every other marriage is now free of fidelity and cohabitation clauses. Imagine going to court in Australia and seeking to sue your spouse for infidelity? Let us imagine a different scenario, one where a person is trying to file a claim against a spouse, in front of a judge of any court, demanding reparations because the spouse is not cohabiting with him, or her? As I have argued in the past, marriage today, except for a decreasing minority of young people, means very little, it is divorce and separation that invoke legal rights and great fears. Marriage these days is a quaint tradition that people enter out of a sense of nostalgia, all long-term relationships are under threat as more young people are choosing clubs over an early night’s sleep in the arms of a long-term partner, even some married people. The difference between a club life and a commitment is that when you are in a club, whether you are male or female, you can keep searching until you find someone who shares your mood, whereas in a long-term relationship, either party may go without the snuggle because the other is not in the mood. While this bed-hopping does not bring happiness, it does bring some form of release and people seem to be willing to spend their nights pursuing these rituals with monotonous regularity. The drink, sometimes drugs, the lights, the noise, the make-up, the latest fashion, all to morph into the new expectations of modern short-term relations. As expectations among married couples are changing, so is the relevance of marriage and long-term relations. Yet Tiger’s popularity drops by 20%, and he stands to lose some of the contracts that have made him one of the most well-known friendly faces in our world. Why? Surely his lifestyle is very reflective of that of many of his fans! This lifestyle is not of his own doing either, it is the social trend that expects him to be in certain places and to interact in certain manners. It is the lifestyle that made Paris money for just being Paris, it is a world whose standards are set more by Madonna, Britney and Lady Gaga than the church or the traditions of our parents. If his fame came because of his golfing prowess, I want to know how his infidelity reduces his prowess as a champion golfer? Or the prowess of our own Warnie as a champion bowler? Or that of Beckham? While there are revelations of several women in his life, it seems that they were more in succession rather than at the same time. It would be almost impossible for any of them not to have known who he was. If the modern world was a little more open-minded, maybe Tiger would have been able to roar into an openly acknowledged relationship with more than one woman and the rest of us can forget about his private life and those who care about golf can focus on his sportsmanship and the rest of us can get on with our lives. I do not mean to glorify infidelity. In fact, I abhor it. I advocate that intimacy should only be within marriage amongst the married people only. However, when our world has stripped marriage of all forms of commitment and made divorce so messy and so scary and made image greater than substance, we will keep hearing about trysts and our role models will continue to have human failings and a new generation will be born that is completely desensitised to these forms of relations. After all, despite the 20% drop in popularity, still 60% of those surveyed still idolise him. |
|
|
|
38 Comments
WTF?
Yeah this is garbage. What a load of holier than thou, self righteous religious bullshit Crikey.
Oh, so if you’re not married, you’re out clubbing and sleeping around? Are we supposed to take this article seriously?
“Without strong religious boundaries, we find that many people will say yes to trysts more often and in the case of most people, they don’t care and no one else cares.”
Dear me, should we start a list of all those professing ‘strong religious boundaries’ who have ‘strayed’ - that could be a whole column on its own!
I’m not advocating infidelity either, but this article goes from one extreme to the other!
I’m not sure what the author is trying to argue.
Is he advocating open marriages for secular and non-religious people, since only religious people have the moral framework to be faithful?
Is he blaming Tiger Woods for his bad behaviour, or saying he is a victim of popular cultural attitudes?
Is it OK to go to a club and take drugs if I do it with my husband (if I had a husband)?
Does he really believe that people with “strong religious boundaries” never have affairs?
Which religion? Do we get to pick?
Honestly, whether or I agree with whatever the author is trying to say or not, there is no structure here.
Trad seems to be assuming that people only get married TO HAVE SEX because his God says that’s the only place one is allowed to have it. Following that reasoning, after trapping themselves into marriage, these religious people of course want to gallop about having sex with everyone else they can, and will, UNLESS frightened off by the threat of HELL.
To put it another way, he views religious people has frustrated hypocritical sex maniacs and secular people as practising sex maniacs. Hence he equates secular marriage with …”… marriage … now free of fidelity and cohabitation clauses…” Yep. Australians in a nutshell.
WTF? In this secular Australia, where Australians are pretty free to hook up with whomever they like, however they like. Marriage has taken on a whole different significance. It’s an onerous option amoungst many more easy and comfortable ones.
Australian marriages (religious or secular) appear to me to be a public commitment and declaration of a partnership including trust and stability, often done with a view to having children. Marriage nowadays is very much a Choice before the world. If people don’t want “fidelity and cohabitation clauses”, they don’t get married. They don’t need to in this day and age.
In light of the above, Trad’s piece seemed to be from another universe.
Yes, what on earth is the defender of the mad mullah and his ‘uncovered meat’- still leaving an unforgettably bad smell - doing here?
If Crikey doesn’t stop giving occasional op-ed oxygen to Kaysar Trad, expect some cancelled subscriptions, including mine. If you’re willing to give space to this petty mental thug, then why not Alan Jones? Indeed, why not channel Sheik Hillaly, direct? I’d like to see a thoughtful and convincing defense of any choice to continue to give this little creep any (paid?!) airtime whatsoever.
He’s an apologist for a particularly bruising institutionalised hatred for women, his incoherent ‘argument’ obscenely gussied up in tendentious ‘religious’ sentiment. There’s enough ugliness and incoherence in the world already. Stop contributing more.
Is this guy working for Tony Abbott?
Did he actually check whether Tiger Woods is religious?
Has he forgotten the many religious leaders who have perpetrated or covered up childhood sexual abuse? Surely religions have no place in preaching morality.
Is he saying money and fame cause infidelity? Or is he saying that pe0ple can only be expected to be capable of monogamy if they are religious?
Oh wait… “If the modern world was a little more open-minded, maybe Tiger would have been able to roar into an openly acknowledged relationship with more than one woman and the rest of us can forget about his private life and those who care about golf can focus on his sportsmanship and the rest of us can get on with our lives”
Now I see - its all a convoluted way of saying that men shagging multiple women is perfectly fine - as long as he is married to all of them. So its lack of Islamic law that is the problem - apparently.
Epic fail Crikey! I know you’re struggling for funds to pay contributors, but really……
Yeah, not a very good piece by Keysar. Lazy analysis. Bring up some stats to back your argument!
I’ve got this paper by the Department of Family, Housing and Community Services.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp37/sec6.htm
Claims that while little interest in religion can be a factor in couples separating (1.6 times more likely to separate), there are other things more likely to be present in a couple that is separating (like physical/mental health problems, lack of employment, even female smokers!). Worth a read.
Also some old research in the US (the George Barna report in 2004, can’t find the actual link) seem to indicate that atheists have lower divorce stats that the religious…one interpretation being because they do not need to marry in order to legitimise sex.
You can argue about the lack of spirituality in the community, but I don’t think this has anything to do with Tiger’s current problems. Besides, Tiger is religious - He’s a buddhist. His wife is also some sort of christian (as their baby was baptised in Sweden)
Hey Trad -
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
Jenny: Ooohhhh, now I get it. This is some kind of argument for religious polygamy.
Riiight.
To quote the estimable Jamie from the Thick of It:
Enough with the pleasantries, Mr Trad, let’s just oil up and get fucking, yeah?
What a lame, gay, mosquey loser
I suppose the point of posting anything by Keysar Trad on a website such as this is to drive traffic. However his ‘argument’ (whatever it is…maybe Tiger should be allowed to have 10 wives?) is rambling and incoherent. Did anyone even edit this?
The Trad record only seems to have a couple of tracks - all of them offensive. When Trad’s not advocating polygamy he’s busy telling the rest of us how to live our lives. Unless of course you’re Jewish or gay…then you attract his scorn and derision.
Just a few months ago Trad lost a case against a Sydney radio station - a Supreme Court justice said Trad had made remarks that were “offensive”, “racist” and “condone violence”.
“I’m satisfied that the plaintiff does hold views which can properly be described as racist,” Justice McClellan said in his judgment. “I’m also satisfied that he encourages others to hold those views. In particular he holds views derogatory of Jewish people.”
So why the hell do people keep giving this fruit loop an outlet to air his Muslim fundamentalist views, so at odds with the rest of Australian society?
Epic fail, Crikey…
Confused Imam?
You mean this guy actually gives others counselling?
Oh look, a rent in the very fabric of space and time…and I can see 1315 through it.
Navel gazing moralistic claptrap from the master of same. Hey Trad, I won’t stereotype you if you don’t sterotype me.
Utterly bizarre and leading up to a call for legalised polygamy…
Indeed, what actually is this article about? One subtext makes sense though. I think when Trad says, “If the modern world was a little more open-minded, maybe Tiger would have been able to roar into an openly acknowledged relationship with more than one woman”, he is making an argument for polygamy, as he has elsewhhere.
Well, ‘cat meat’ Keysar, I am glad we have some taboos left, and that polygamy is one of them, not just because it is a religious taboo, but because it also makes sense in theories of justice and ethics.
Of course, if we have misunderstood, Kaysar, we really need to go back to the original Arabic, which will always either say something completely different, or simply be untranslatable in English. That’s how it works, eh Kaysar?
For more info on the Judgement against Trad, see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/750.html?query=^Keysar%20Trad
Very interesting, for example: “On one occasion when reminded that his personal website included a link to Radio Islam which provided a link to ‘Mein Kampf’ the plaintiff said he did not know who had authored ‘Mein Kampf’. The plaintiff is obviously conversant with many works of literature, history and theology, at least those with a particular “right wing” leaning. His suggestion when giving evidence that he did not recall that Adolf Hitler wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ was disingenuous. I am satisfied that he was attempting to avoid the the criticisms which the defendant made of him.”
May be I need to spell it out in a more rudimentary manner, the point of the article is:
1 - surely there must be more important things in this world to put on the front page of our papers than the alleged trysts of a sportsman.
2 - I would prefer to read about Woods sporting prowess not his private life.
3 - this would not have been a story if he was not married, but, should we not be reflecting on what marriage means in modern times?
To spell out point 3 further, it means different things to different age groups, this is a generational thing and younger generations seem to be developing a completely different concept of relationships and marriage to those who preceded them.
Seeing the responses, I suppose if Crikey did not publish my short article, I would not have had the pleasure to read your freely expressed views? Perhaps some of you may wish to educate me, but are some of the afore listed comments some sort of attempt to stop me from expressing my views?
In response to your points
1. I agree but do not control the media nor thankfully do you
2. I would prefer not to read about him at all
3. You have expressed your views and others have expressed theirs. Is that not the point.
Ah, Keysar, you have a little problem with history here. You can’t just enter a debate and think everything you have ever said before will not either be remembered or brought to your attention. That is the way of a western democracy, with a little bit of memory.
So … no one (it seems to me) can fathom what you are saying based on your text, and everyone can see a sub-text based on what you have said in the past.
Oh well, that’s the western world with a dash of memory. Unfortunately, you seem to many to be (sorry) an apologist for medieval Islam (or modern Wahhabi Islam), and everyone looks askance at your efforts to contribuite to the debate, whatever that may be.
So, just so we can start afresh in a western context, can you please tell us how, under genuine Islamic Law, whether :
1. a Muslim should treat a Muslim lesbian, such as Irshad Manji, with the punishment of death?
2. A Muslim person who seeks salvation outside Islam should be treated with the crime of apostacy and the death penaltry?
3. A homosexual under Islam should be punished with the death penalty?
Sorry, but that may dispell some rumours (as I am sure you would be glad). Feel free to controibute
Daniel, hopefully I will not have to make any other responses on this article, I will answer your questions:
1 - As far as I am aware, there is no stipulated corporal punishment for l-sbians under Islamic law, this is up to the legislature or the judiciary to deal with if they choose.
2 - According to the best scholars of today, who do guide my views on such matters, simple apostasy is not punishable by Islamic law, but apostasy accompanied by treason against the state is. It is up to God to judge the apostate, not up to us.
3 - Islamic law does stipulate capital punishment for males who engage in s-d-my with other males, this is in the Hadith and not the Qur`an and this punishment is also stipulated in the bible, however, I have argued ten years ago as I argue again today, NO person or court has any right to impose such a penalty under Islamic law today, or even in the past eighty years. Any such application in some countries is done under their posited laws and not Islamic law.
For your information, the dominant contemporary understanding teaches that none of the penal provisions in Islam can be applied today, these penal provisions were automatically suspended approximately 85 years ago and in practice, should have been suspended earlier.
For any penal provisions under Islam to apply, there needs to be a number of factors present, some such factors have not been present for decades if not centuries. Even if all the factors are present, there are still the very stringent evidentiary requirements.
In practice, penal provisions dealing with consensual adult behaviour that is proscribed under the faith are there as a deterrent and are rarely able to be implemented because of the almost impossible to meet evidentiary requirements. Further, Islam does not require a witness to hand over the sinners, rather, it requires the witness to provide counseling to the sinner and keep the affair private, in fact it is gossip that is criticised in such situations. (I am talking about sins rather than crimes of violence etc).
My article is not intended to condone trysts, however, one of the seemingly cryptic messages is that if we keep talking about trysts so much, they can become normalised in the minds of our children. Another is to point out the hypocrisy in our treatment of public figures who do what many others do.
Imams today (and before) , and lay people such as myself, when we have a person confessing to us a behaviour that is condemned by the faith, we provide counselling, we keep their affair private and we pray for them. This is a universal approach not only in Australia, but also in majority Muslim countries. You might hear us publicly pontificating with fire and brimstones from time to time but we very rarely condemn individuals by name, we instead pray for them and try to help them find their way back to grace.
Yes, some prominent religious personalities have also fallen from grace, I would expect their conscience to be pricking them over that. What right does any of us have to pry into the private affairs of others? If they flaunt such affairs on the other hand, that would become a different matter. In this case, Woods is not flaunting his alleged behaviour, these allegations have come from some of the women allegedly involved. The second seemingly cryptic message in my article is that if they knew who he was, they must have at some point known that he was married, what did they hope to achieve in their trysts? Were they only expecting an affair? Or were they expecting that he would leave his wife for them? Whichever it is, why the revelations now? It takes two to tango and we all need to be accountable for our actions, but what I am seeing in this case is that the treatment of this matter has been overdone.
I agree with those who have called Trad’s original piece incoherent. I mean, what do clubs have to do with anything?
Claims about the declining attitudes of young people today to marriage would benefit from some sort of supporting evidence, and editing. I don’t actually know what this means:
“As I have argued in the past, marriage today, except for a decreasing minority of young people, means very little, it is divorce and separation that invoke legal rights and great fears.
“Marriage these days is a quaint tradition that people enter out of a sense of nostalgia, all long-term relationships are under threat as more young people are choosing clubs over an early night’s sleep in the arms of a long-term partner, even some married people.”
And while Trad argues that society should be more open-minded about relationships, if I remember correctly a previous article by Trad argued for polygamy - but only in the case of men taking numerous wives, not women taking multiple husbands. Which sounds a touch hypocritical.
Everyone talks a lot about it but does anyone really CARE. I mean, Tiger Woods makes a LOT of money for doing sod all. In 100 years he will probably be forgotten by all but sports historians. The game of golf will probably not exist, certainly not in the form that it is in today. yet people seem to want to spend inordinate amounts of time discussing his moralality or lack of it. It’s not like he does anything useful - maybe he should get a real job, like be a plumber or a nurse or garbage collector - a job that actually benefits the rest of society.
As an aside (and in the face of what I just said) - how long will it be before her (re)discovers Jesus?
I’d be willing to at least have some kind of conversation about multi-person marriages if we were talking about women being allowed more than one husband as well as men being allowed more than one wife. Or even groups with different gender ratios, why not? Doesn’t sound like my cup of tea, but that’s never been an argument for anything.
But trying to argue what should be done, based on what you think one particular literary tradition of an omniscient being is looking for in a society, is really a bit of a stretch.
Dear Keysar,
Well according to your version of events, no-one apparently is charged with any of these indiscretions under Islamic Law.
Is Malaysia one of those “majority muslim nations” you refer to, and if so why are they trying their opposition leader for s-d-my?
Forget about s-d-my for the moment, methinks maybe Tigers” sponsors have been hit by the global economic crisis and wan’t to renegotiate his contracts?
Well it happened to a couple of footballers here didn’t it ?
I come a bit late to this discussion but maybe someone’s still watching.
I fail to see what is so objectionable about this article. Keysar Trad says: OK so a golfer turns out to be a stud, so what? Why do people lap up so many stories on this “scandal” - are current community standards on intimacy much different? Or are male smut readers just outraged that they can’t get even one lover with breasts like that and Tiger get dozens?
Even Guy Rundle did a pap piece on male s-xual magnetism which belonged more in a magazine like “Vague” or “No Idea” than in a current affairs newsletter. I didn’t see anyone pillory Guy for it.
But every single reader’s comment here is full of loathing for the writer. Now I wonder why that is …
Could the clue be in this gem from DANIEL BATT ?
“Oh well, that’s the western world with a dash of memory. Unfortunately, you seem to many to be (sorry) an apologist for medieval Islam (or modern Wahhabi Islam), and everyone looks askance at your efforts to contribuite to the debate, whatever that may be.”
I must be missing something here. What the f*** has mediaval Islam or Wahhabism got to do with anything written in that article?
Oh [slaps forehead] of course, the writer is a Muslim.
And … he dared to suggest that religion is good for marriage!
No wonder you all hate him.
Right then, all decent-thinking people, stone the non-atheist heretic!
Nail him to a cross!
Burn him at the stake!
His very thoughts are poisonous, what if the children read him?
Boil him alive like Socrates!
There’s not a moment to lose, people …
James, thank you, God bless you, your comments have cheered me up and made me realise that my article is really not as cryptic as some of the other readers seem to imply. For a few days I have been thinking that I should have spelled things out more to eliminate potential ambiguity, or that I should have kept my opinion to myself. You have given an impartial and fair comment, I am grateful to you.
James, Socrates was forced to drink hemlock.
And … discussions evolve, that’s life. Follow the links to the Trad case if you really want to make an informed comment.
Keysar, email me sometime and we can discuss this further off-list, if you like. danbatt@hotmail.com
Quite right on Socrates, I’m getting my stories mixed up. Ah, my whole argument falls apart.
I’ve really had it up to here with the atheist orthodox commisars in the Crikey community trying to hound every single religious person, Christian or especially Muslim, out of the public space.
A secular state does not mean an atheist state, and it does not mean religion has to be hidden like a dirty secret. This is not Khmer Rouge Cambodia. It simply means that religious authority has no part to play in government, and government has no part regulating religion.
And people have a legislated right to -
- belong to a religion
- not belong to a religion
- follow religious customs or not express them, in public
- express religious opinions or not express them, in public
… without being demonised by members of other religions.
To all intents and purposes, Atheism is a religion, sometimes a very evangelical one, and currently in Australia the only one getting away with extremely aggressive crusading.
A news flash for the attack dogs going after all Muslims in the media: Under freedom of speech common laws, a Muslim in Australia is not obliged to bow his or her head and condemn Wahhabi Islam three times before being allowed to speak his or her mind on some topic, even if that topic is a religious one, nor is he or she responsible for every comment that every Muslim person ever makes in Australia.
James, I agree with all your points in principal. However, you obviously did not follow the links I suggested you read so all your ‘fair points’ do not, however, remotely relate to what happened on this discussion re. Keysar.
[Edit}
Keysar is a public figure who has made many points on the public record. If the Rev. Ian Paisley suddenly started rambling about Tiger Woods, divorce or anything I think his public record is one fair point to raise as to whether he is of a good character to be saying anything care of Crikey. As it happens, that’s what some people (not me) did re. Keysar. The same principal is true if other people of ‘disrepute’ — Wilson Tuckey, Pauline Hanson, Sheik Hilali, Andrew Bolt, etc. — suddenly turn up on a reputable e-zine such as Crikey.
As you wilfully fail to comprehend, a Supreme Court justice found some few months previously that Trad had made remarks that were “offensive”, “racist”,“condoned violence” and that he was indeed untruthful before the court, “disgraceful” and not of good character. That’s a Supreme Court justice, not Crikey “atheist crusader commisar f***wit”, though you probably think he is in on the conspiracy too.
So the fact that Keysar’s ‘Tiger reflections’ got lost amid concerns about his questionable character is just the price one pays for making intemperate remarks over the course of many years in the public sphere. It has nothing to do with Keysar’s religion. Get it!
follow the link http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/750.html?query=^Keysar%20Trad
That is where the discussion moved on to, like it or not.
Daniel - “Follow the links to the Trad case if you really want to make an
informed comment.”
Not that it’s in any way relevant to the article here about Tiger Woods … but I’ve just finished reading the Trad v 2GB defamation case, as you suggested, aalong with a whole lot of other material on Trad.
From what I’ve read, I admire Trad. I find his defences of some of Shiekh Hilali’s disgusting statements to be lame and often inept. Showing a misguided but somewhat noble faith that peacemaker words can heal any rift.
But I also find the idea that he was somehow obliged to publicly oppose his friend to be a deplorable idea.
As Geoffrey Robertson says of the law courts, everyone, even the most despicable person, must be entitled to defence representation before the law, otherwise the whole system loses its legitimacy. In the court of public opinion there is no such entitlement, but everyone should be so lucky to have a mate stick by him even when it becomes hard and unpopular to do so.
Put it another way, if I defend Keysar Trad, does that make me guilty, two steps removed, of comparing modern-attired women to uncovered meat?
There was a time when sticking up for a mate was considered the honourable thing to do in Australia, and throwing a mate to the wolves when it became expedient to do so, such as when one’s mate crossed a line, was dishonourable. I believe I can pinpoint when this changed. It was 1984, when Lionel Murphy was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice for saying, “What about my little mate?”
After that, sticking up for mates came to be seen as shameful, dirty, and corrupt. If your mate offends public sensibility, you’re expected to distance yourself from him. And if you’re a Muslim, you’re expected to go further than that; to be in the front row of the crowd denouncing him.
Now that trial was a defamation case, not a criminal one. Personally I take the view that if Keysar Trad is entitled to public comment then so is 2GB and Jason Morrison, and the court was correct to award no damages, but for the wrong reasons. It seems to me McLellan J went a lot further than necessary in agreeing with Morrison’s character assassination of Trad. On most points McLellan J bases this on the opinion that “the plaintiff holds those views”, when in most cases, what Trad had done was clumsily try to distort the controversial words of others into more fair-minded views, rather than expressing agreement with them. Whether the motive was to conceal rifts or to heal them is neither here nor there. There is a disturbing emphasis in McLellan’s judgment on views that the plaintiff “holds” over and above that on views that he “expresses”. The thought police have arrived.
Trad had also said things about homos-xuality that sound like vilification to me; this is against current moral standards and will have to stop. Both Muslim and Christian speakers are going to have to learn their place on matters like this. But parts of the judgement appear to me to support bigotry and I hope they haven’t found their way into criminal case law yet and can’t be used to imprison anyone. If I’m in contempt of court for saying that here, then good, let them charge me. I am a libertarian and I’ll face it.
Last night, 2GB had a discussion of that four-month-old judgement on its website, under the link “Further Reading”. Some time in the last 18 hours or so, that discussion seems to have been removed. Interesting.
I’ll close with a historical observation. Keysar you might find this useful. For 12 centuries the bulk of the Christian world existed in thrall to a monolithic clerical superstate which often wielded the power to kill heretics and make war against heretical monarchs. Initiating and blessing the eastern crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land were examples of its prerogatives. Following the Protestant Reformation, membership of this superstate became optional and anyone supporting it was considered to be a voluntary subscriber to all of its canons, including some that are considered unacceptable today in a modern liberal society. Throughout various civil wars among Christian sects it became common to force people to choose a side; you are either with us or you are against us.
There never was any such superstate in the Muslim world. None of the Caliphs ever wielded powers of religious decree equivalent to those of the Pope. There is no central religious authority in Islam. The idea of having an Islamic superstate traces back only a few decades, to the writings of Syed Abul A’ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, and on the Shia side to the Iranian revolution.
Elsewhere and until then, the avoidance of constant strife historically has depended on a tradition mostly of pluralism, rapprochement, and forebearance, which to the Christian ear often sounds like endorsement of someone else’s view. And in places where the followers of Qutb are at large claiming doctrinal authority, it can be quite risky for Muslims to stick their necks out saying what they consider to be true Islam or false.
The Christian and post-Christian West would do well to keep this in mind before demonising a whole class of people for the statements of a few. And Muslims living in the West would also do well to be aware of the misunderstandings this can lead to, and be ready to point out to us, as many times as necessary, our common error of confusing failure to denounce a view with endorsement of it.
Putting all Muslims on the spot to endorse or condemn the words of a few, every time they open their mouth on any subject touching on religion, is a gross injustice that leads to religious vilification. This has been demonstrated not only in this thread but in many of the blog responses to other Muslims contributing to Crikey.
Thank you anyone who took the trouble to read this overlong posting. Not a single word of it has anything whatsoever to do with the article on Tiger Woods.
Well, James, what a first rate, considered post. It was worth the wait.
The ethics of mateship, monolithic Islam, the things Christians and Muslims can learn from eachother, bigotry … Oh, well, too bad it ends here.
He doesn’t speak for me. He doesn’t speak for anyone. I wonder if he even speaks for himself.
You’re right Irfan. Actually in my clumsy way, I’m attempting to speak for a classic liberal ideal.