I picked up my copy of The Inquirer, the Unitarian publication, last Sunday. Its main article, written by Cliff Reed, is an apologetic article arguing for a 'real' Islam as opposed to a 'false' violent Islam. But other than recognising these Wahabis and others for their extremism, it was a phenomenological description and little else (phenomenological means a religion expressed by the description of its essentials that it gives of itself - e.g. in interaith meetings - in contrast to a critical theological approach and an anthropological approach of what people actually do). The came the Charlie Hebdo outrage and after some thought about it I did bash out a response and have sent it off. The webpage version contains formatting and a slight change of words after reference to Karbala to make the meaning of 'afterwards' clearer. I am saying that violence and Islam are bound up together, and there is a much more critical approach to be made of Islam and attitudes, much of it as a result of external forces as well as internal expression.
I read the original article in The Inquirer and did quietly feel it was very much written softly, softly. It also seems a bit trite.
I think your article, Adrian, is much fairer - and more thinking.
I hope it gets published.
Post a Comment