An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Blair vs. Prager
As excerpted by The Brussels Journal, Tony Blair labels the Koran “progressive,” “inclusive,” “practical and far ahead of its time.”
Take that, Dennis Prager.
As and if you have time, the full text of Blair’s article in Foreign Affairs is a worthwhile, fascinating read.
Cross-posted at Central Sanity.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Blair vs. Prager”
So, do you agree with Blair on this? Or do you just dislike Prager and think it’s a good thing when Westerners praise Islam?
Seems to me that Blair suddenly felt pressure from certain groups who didn’t like his sudden critical attitude.
Anyway, far ahead of its time doesn’t necessarily mean ‘up to date’.
As always, key is… interpretation.
Blair’s certainly not the first Western source to note that the Koran, at face value, is not the abusive text Islamic terrorists want it to be. In contrast, Prager and some of those supporting him apparently want to damn the Koran via the actions of some of its interpreters. That’s akin to throwing out the Bible on the basis of how it’s handled by certain of its interpreters. I think the lesson here is that the Koran and the Bible can both be viewed as books of peace or books of war and neither should be thrown out on the basis of how they are misused by certain parties.
Pete great post and explanation. I don’t even think I can add anything substantive to this.
I have to agree with Pete on this one… then again… im my opinion, fighting about Holy Books is a bit like fighting over imaginary friends.
Blair is obviously pandering, because what he says about the koran couldn’t be further from the truth.
Pete, its ashame millions upon millions of muslims haven’t gotten the message that islam is really a religion of peace, what with all the violence, terror and war being perpetrated in the name of islam around the world. But I guess you and PM Blair know more about islam and the koran than devout muslims who insist its a hate and war manual. Cut the PC claptrap.
Who are the leading thinkers on how to organize western resources to contain radical Islam and nurture moderate Muslims?
How is the decision made to use military force rather than to distribute solar powered power and water purification stations? To make microloans to help economic growth? To distribute iodine and malaria remedies and cheap computers?
Would it be more efficient to distribute guns to all the Iraqis who vote so they can defend themselves and cleanse their neighborhoods of radicals? Just like our founders, sometimes even pacifists need to defend themselves. Isn’t this the purpose of our second amendment?
Whom do our leaders listen to in setting their priorities?
I get frustrated sometimes having the same debate over and over again without expert information about what solutions are viable.
Hahahaha.
Sorry, Matt, but my imaginary friend is the only true imaginary friend and you will suffer forever unless you accept that.
I was struck by two things. First, that Blair can write. Can anyone imagine our moron-in-chief writing that–or anything cogent? Remember his insightful analysis of the situation? “They hate us because we’re free. Evildoers.” Pathetic. Second, I have Muslim friends who are smart, sophisticated, educated, progressive capitalists. I have very low regard for any organized religion, especially extremist Muslims and Christians, but this isn’t about Islam or religion. It’s about territory, resources, wealth and occupation. We attacked Iraq (the first time) because they invaded Kuwait for oil and territory. The second time, because we want control of the oil. Qaeda attacked us (sez bin Laden) for support of Israeli occupation of Palestine, military bases on the Arabian peninsula, and sanctions against Iraq.
They don’t “hate our freedom.” They want to be free from us.
You’re reaching, Laura…AGAIN.
Laura,
I’m not sure on what sources you rely, but before labeling any of this “PC claptrap,” you might want to check out this link to “Muslims who condemn terror” — first highlighted by TMV contributor Paul Silver — and (in particular) note the full text of “the official fatwa (ruling) of the Fiqh Council of North America, the major Islamic religious organization in North America, condemning terrorism,” and their references to the Koran (or Qur’an), in particular where they note that “We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur’an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners.”
You might also want to check out this page from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Pete I think that Laura wants a worldwide Christian Theocratic Dictatorship to be honest heheheheh
Pete – I have followed those links and they do indeed condemn “terror” and “unjust killing.” But they do not give examples. One of the biggest problems regarding condemnation of terrorism at the UN is that the Arab world rejects calling what most of us call, “terrorism” by that name. They say that it is “resistance.” So what do they call, “terrorism”? So far, the only thing that they agree is terrorism is attacks on Arabs by Israel or the US – they are very happy to condemn those. When they start declaring that blowing up Israeli restaurants and murdering American contractors in Iraq is terror, we will have made real progress.