Blair on Islam: Standard-Bearer of Tolerance

[Jeremiah]

Blair on Islam: Standard-Bearer of Tolerance
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2006-12-27 08:43

A quote from Tony Blair in Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007

To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.

www.brusselsjournal.com . . .

[ed316]

The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones
.................................

[John John Peters]

Blair is an apologist for muslim terrorist scum and his wife supports Hamas, a pox on both the a*seholes.

[Lazy Lob]

twatus britannicus

[Mastermind]

He sounds like he is proclaiming "Peace in our time!" My God, what does it take to open the eyes of cowards?MM

[dangerclose]

Blair has gone from being a modern day Winston Churchill to a british Jimmy Carter.

[Dasein]

What Blair said is true - the Muslims under the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th-13th centuries were far more tolerant of different religions and made major advances in mathematics and the sciences.

[IraGlacialis]

Very true. Now it would be complete BS if he stated that all Islamic nations are tolerant today.

[John John Peters]

What Blair said is true - the Muslims under the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th-13th centuries were far more tolerant of different religions and made major advances in mathematics and the sciences.

and that makes it OK for muslim extremists to murder thousands, using acts of terrorism, in the 20th and 21st centuries does it ?

[bluffcove]

Blair has gone from being a modern day Winston Churchill to a british Jimmy Carter.

Your views on Winston Churchill must make interestng reading. Please go on!

There is not nor has there ever been a comparison between the spineless, morally elusive, pragmatic, power hungry, self aggrandsing, Sycophant and our great wartime leader.

[Dasein]

and that makes it OK for muslim extremists to murder thousands, using acts of terrorism, in the 20th and 21st centuries does it ?

Yes, of course. :roll:

[helomech]

Blair has gone from being a modern day Winston Churchill to a british Jimmy Carter.

Couldn't have said it better myself,wtf is going on with Blair?

I'm liking your avatar too,it rules!

[Dasein]

Couldn't have said it better myself,wtf is going on with Blair?

Perhaps he read a history book.

[bluffcove]

There is no comparison between Blair and Churchill, where did you get that idea from!

[Mastermind]

Of course, there is no comparison to the British people of Sir Winston's time and the British people of Tony Blair's time, now then, is there? What a shame to have wasted so much courage.MM

[bluffcove]

is Ingrish your first language. Say again over.

[oldsoak]

Blair has to qualify his statemnt, or its taken out of context. Islam was progressive in the middle ages. Algebra, the concept of zero in arithmetic, medicine etc all flourished in the Arab world of the time and the Islamic world was streets ahead of the Christian west. Even their legal systems were superior. We had roman numerals, employed Jewish and Arab physicians, had lower literacy and had trial by ordeal. We tortured the likes of Galileo dont forget, and the Islamic world showed far more religious tolerance than we did. However, Christianity has proved more able to re-discover itself through debate and change than Islam has.

[John John Peters]

Churchill was and still is a national hero who saved Great Britain... on the other hand blair is little more than a hated commie pinko fag who is turning Great Britain into a third world sh*thole.

[bluffcove]

"Commie and pinko" Two words I would never have associated with Blair.

Unless they translate as Conservative and Classical Tory.

[Dasein]

However, Christianity has proved more able to re-discover itself through debate and change than Islam has.

I disagree. Islam has amazing capacity to adapt and reform, and the debates within the different schools of Islamic law and theology are quite impressive. The problem is not the inability of Islam to change, but that Islam's changes have been largely towards more conservative interpretations of the Koran and other sacred texts. Further, Islam lacks any centralized authority, making global reform virtually impossible.

The centralized authority of the Church in the Papacy created a power structure to rebel against, and thus Europe was able to have it's Investiture crisis, which really paved the way for the rise of the secular state. Such an event never occurred in the Muslim world, nor would it really have been possible as secular and sectarian authority were so tightly entwined. Islam is theocratic at it's core - it proposes a set of laws for governance, much like Judaism, while Christianity commands it's followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[bluffcove]

Islam is theocratic at it's core - it proposes a set of laws for governance, much like Judaism, while Christianity commands it's followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Duly noted, and interesting something id not given much thought to previously.

[oldsoak]

I disagree. Islam has amazing capacity to adapt and reform, and the debates within the different schools of Islamic law and theology are quite impressive. The problem is not the inability of Islam to change, but that Islam's changes have been largely towards more conservative interpretations of the Koran and other sacred texts. Further, Islam lacks any centralized authority, making global reform virtually impossible.

The centralized authority of the Church in the Papacy created a power structure to rebel against, and thus Europe was able to have it's Investiture crisis, which really paved the way for the rise of the secular state. Such an event never occurred in the Muslim world, nor would it really have been possible as secular and sectarian authority were so tightly entwined. Islam is theocratic at it's core - it proposes a set of laws for governance, much like Judaism, while Christianity commands it's followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.


not convinced - Christianity is theocratic. It does have laws at is core, and its the interpreation of these laws and their application which has led to schism. Its an issue thats dividing the Anglican church for one. Christianity has its conservatives and its liberals, just as I see orthodox and reform Judaism - I see conservatives within Islam, but nothing liberal. The fact that the trend within Islam is towards the conservative shows it is not adapting. The fact that there is no centralised authority should prove the very catalyst for liberal expression, and its not happening.
Christiantiy has no central authority now -eg Roman Catholics and Methodists dont go to the same places for the final word on an issue - which is why we have different attitudes to things like homo******ity and abortion within the gaggle of believers who call themselves Christian.

[John John Peters]

I disagree. Islam has amazing capacity to adapt and reform, and the debates within the different schools of Islamic law and theology are quite impressive. The problem is not the inability of Islam to change, but that Islam's changes have been largely towards more conservative interpretations of the Koran and other sacred texts. Further, Islam lacks any centralized authority, making global reform virtually impossible.

The centralized authority of the Church in the Papacy created a power structure to rebel against, and thus Europe was able to have it's Investiture crisis, which really paved the way for the rise of the secular state. Such an event never occurred in the Muslim world, nor would it really have been possible as secular and sectarian authority were so tightly entwined. Islam is theocratic at it's core - it proposes a set of laws for governance, much like Judaism, while Christianity commands it's followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

How ever much anybody tries to show how wonderful Islam is, Islam has become a symbol of evil & violence to many non muslims and while agreeing with "not all muslims are terrorists" it certainly is the case that nearly all terrorist atrocities for the last few years are in the name of Islam and carried out by muslims.

I subscribe to what Sir Winston Churchill's views on Islam/muslims :

"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

[derkrieger]

I guess it would be far-fetched to blame Blair for playing to the tunes of Islamists or for being the second coming of Carter. Where has he condoned the atrocities staged by the islamistic terrorists?
Secondly he is the PM of England. Brits are still known to be the masters of the craft of knowing foreign cultures and getting along with them ina positive manner, no matter what the real state of affairs might look like. The brightest example for this has been Middle East, where they had unbelieveably effective intelligence sources. So Blair might have just made use of that vast experience.
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong to remind the potential fundies and moslem community in general that their ancestors, who they themselves accept as superior in faith and its observation actually lived the way they did, and were attaching great significance to science, philosophy and one may add, tolerance for the adherents of other religions.
Kudos to Blair for having told what everybody already knows but is often forgotten or plain ignored.

[khukuri]

I guess it would be far-fetched to blame Blair for playing to the tunes of Islamists or for being the second coming of Carter. Where has he condoned the atrocities staged by the islamistic terrorists?
Secondly he is the PM of England. Brits are still known to be the masters of the craft of knowing foreign cultures and getting along with them ina positive manner, no matter what the real state of affairs might look like. The brightest example for this has been Middle East, where they had unbelieveably effective intelligence sources. So Blair might have just made use of that vast experience.
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong to remind the potential fundies and moslem community in general that their ancestors, who they themselves accept as superior in faith and its observation actually lived the way they did, and were attaching great significance to science, philosophy and one may add, tolerance for the adherents of other religions.
Kudos to Blair for having told what everybody already knows but is often forgotten or plain ignored.


Best post so far! Never mind that what he said is true but the fact that heis a politicians playing politics heheh people on this board can be so incredibly stupid

[a_very_ex_STAB]

He sounds like he is proclaiming "Peace in our time!" My God, what does it take to open the eyes of cowards?MM

That's good coming from a citizen of a nation that is so willing to appease the Saudis (the real centre of Wahabi fundamentalism) that they pulled their troops out of Saudi when OBL demanded it :roll:

[bluffcove]

Peace in our timew a policy we pulled back from and consequently got involved - how many years before the US thought anythign was wroing with nazism.

"Peace in our time" was a policy of the moment, we accepted it wasnt working (not that we ever thought it was morally correct, merely expedient) a long time prior to anyone else in the world theatre!

Dont fvcking preach - unless you hold the moral high ground: starting the next in no way accounts for being late for the last.

[dangerclose]

Your views on Winston Churchill must make interestng reading. Please go on!

There is not nor has there ever been a comparison between the spineless, morally elusive, pragmatic, power hungry, self aggrandsing, Sycophant and our great wartime leader.


Your great wartime leader who the british people ousted before the war was even over.

I did hesitate with the comparison as Churchill puts to shame most if not all of our U.S. presidents but there is a parrallel between Blair's speeches about the threat islamic terror poses to the world if not confronted and Churchill's warnings of the nazi and then communist threat.

[Mastermind]

Yeah...yer fairly right on that one Stab..touche'MM

[Doublethinker]

Well, he is right. Muslim civilization was progressive in the Middle ages. *Was* and *Middle Ages* are the key here.

[bluffcove]

Churchill was a war leader he wasnt amazing at domestic policy or housekeeping but he didnt need to be. He sorted Yalta sued for peace and tried to secure Poland for the Polish but was called up short.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Your great wartime leader who the british people ousted before the war was even over.


Churchill was more of an inspirational figurehead than a real hands on leader in WW2.

The real business of the British government in WW2 was done by his deputy Attlee who was a superb cabinet manager and Alan-Brooke the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

[oldsoak]

Churchill was more of an inspirational figurehead than a real hands on leader in WW2.

The real business of the British government in WW2 was done by his deputy Attlee who was a superb cabinet manager and Alan-Brooke the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

- @ ex-STAB - sounds like you've looked beyond the popular mythology regarding Churchill - have you done much delving ?

[AK74]

Realpolitik.

[dangerclose]

That's good coming from a citizen of a nation that is so willing to appease the Saudis (the real centre of Wahabi fundamentalism) that they pulled their troops out of Saudi when OBL demanded it :roll:


Oh my gosh I actually agree with you.