Invitation to TAICS

[CuteCoot]

TAICS = Toward An Islamo-Christian Synthesis

This is an invitation to discuss how the world might look - especially in its philosophical or theological aspects - as (hopefully) the War on Terror abates.

A basic assumption of the discussion is that the "War on Terror" is in fact a war between "the West" and "Islam", between a post-Christian post-enlightenment largely secular civilization and a sector of the Islamic world that is variously called "radical Islam", "Islamism", "Jihadism", etc. Some regard Islam as virtually identical to this sector, others maintain a distinction between a larger, more encompassing entity called "Islam" and the lesser sector however named.

I would like to ask that people wishing to contribute to the discussion begin by providing the following:

1. Background: A brief statement about where you're coming from. Are you a Muslim, ex-Muslim, traditional Christian, secularist, atheist, etc?

2. Starting position: Where do you stand regarding the above assumption? and regarding the relationship between Islam and Islamism?

3. Vision: What is your vision for the future? Do you see a world without Islam at all? Do you see a world dominated solely by Islam? or by Christianity? or by post-Christian enlightenment values? Or do you see some new synthesis emerging that is none of these? If so, how would it look to you?

I don't want this discussion to descend into squabbles relating to the assumptions or to whether the very idea of TAICS is silly. Please simply avoid participation if you see no merit in discussing this idea.

I will now follow this invitational post with a second post giving a statement of my own position.

[CuteCoot]

I would like to take part in this discussion because I believe that human conversation on matters such as this does further the cause of peace, even if ever so little by little.

1. Background: I am a post-Christian neo-gnostic strongly influenced by the underlying philosophy of Jungian psychology. Because Sufism is a gnostic endeavour I have found much to relate to therein. However, as a child of Christian culture, I also find much that is highly distasteful in Islam.

2. Starting position: I do agree that the "War on Terror" is largely a war between two civilizational worldviews. It has substantial economic, social, political, historical components but there is a strong and perhaps decisive component that is more abstract, more spiritual, more all-embracing. And worth discussing. I do make a distinction between Islam-as-a-whole and the ideology that is Islamism.

3. Vision: Christianity and Islam have been at loggerheads for 14 centuries and the current crisis is bringing all that to a head. My own vision begins with this simple Sufi motif:

. Jesus riding on a donkey, Mohammad riding on a camel.

In other words, the simple idea that the whole man (or woman) embodies both a gentle compassionate humble nature and a bold assertive warrior nature. In order to get along, whether as individuals or as peoples, we must be able to empathize and come to understand the viewpoint of any "other" (aka "enemy") that confronts us. At the same time, we must know how to stand up for ourselves and for our own values.

I see Christianity as a distillation of ideas coming out of Judaism (and with a lot extra mixed in as well). The emphasis lay on the divine qualities of humility and self-sacrifice.

I see Islam as a gathering together of elements left behind in Judaism (or de-emphasized) by Christianity. One Koranic verse sums that up:

[Aksel, Ankersen]

Hello CuteCoot

Your post and vision are interesting, and very similar to what I used to believe (but with four, or even five religions rather than three...). However, I no longer believe a synthesis is an acheivable goal for the majority, despite tolerant Sufis and Mystics striving against the tide. It will take me a while to explain why, and tonight I do not have time - however, I will have a reply ready soon.

That is, if you're interested in hearing someone gainsay TAICS.

-Aksel
_________________
"your pit of the hell fire will be reserved for you, and on that day, myself and your parents will be laughing at you, It's Showtime"

-Ahmed Bahgat to a schoolgirl who left Islam

[CuteCoot]

[The Cat]

I'm not sure this is the proper main for such a thread. Should be moved to 'Religion' or to 'Islam Vs Other Religions'.
_________________
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

[Psycho Bunny]

I do not think my views on this would be listened to - as I believe that attempts to harmonise and syncretise faiths usually end up causing more schisms than the unity they purport to create - but surely, this thread would be more appropriately placed in the "Religion" section, rather than "World Politics".
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!

Love, bunny-style
________________

[CuteCoot]

to The Cat and Psycho Bunny:

Neither the "Religion" nor the "Islam vs Other Religions" categories are appropriate though I can see why it might seem like that to you. I'm wanting to discuss something broader than religion as such, something more like a philosophy or worldview (hence placing the topic inside "World Politics"). There is, in particular, a large sector of "the West" (one side in this conflict) that sees religion in general as a bad and antiquated thing. I want that aspect of the issue to be allowed adequate space to breathe and I think that would be at risk in a religion-specific context.

Thank you to both of you for your interest.

[The Cat]

If I'd have a religious stand, I'd say: the less religions, the better G-d!
_________________
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

[Val Era]

Hello CC


I'm in the middle of exams, so unfortunately I can't participate at the moment. I just wanted to pop in and commend you on an intriguing thread topic. Allow me to impress upon you a passing observation before I beat a hasty retreat.

From my understanding, it seems that the idea of TAICS reconciles quite neatly with relativism. Actually to be more accurate, relativism is the linchpin that holds it together as a functioning idea. I suspect that you will encounter adamant opposition from the forum objectivists, and it will probably be evident from the beginning.

This is not to say that the progress of discourse will be obstructed by the 'brick wall' of dogmatic closed-mindedness, but circa by the obstacle of metaphysical divergence.

I think a dialectic in metaphysics is necessary in order to achieve the ideal dialectic on this subject, at least between two individuals that are on opposite sides of the argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure the discourse will be engaging if nothing else.

[CuteCoot]

[CuteCoot]

[sum]

Hello CuteCoot

I have to admit that I do not think that what you propose has a cat in hell`s chance of happening. From my experience in debating with muslims there has never been any time where the muslims have been prepared to compromise on any matter, no matter how minor.

The Koran and the ahadith are true stumbling blocks. Allah`s word can not be changed or questioned. If any politician or cleric suggested sacrificing some of the Koran in order to bring the two opposing sides together their heads would not remain on their shoulders for very long.

What do I see for the future? I see widespread civil war in the West, which will be the bloodiest of all time. There will be no scope for just maintaining law and order after the battle as the Islamic mindset will still be there. Given time it will all happen again. All mosques would have to be destroyed and no communal worship permitted for the muslims.

Muslims would have to be treated as dhimmis and enough social pressure put upon them for them to consider leaving either the West or Islam. I hope and pray that Islam can be eradicated by means of FFI and many other similar approaches and so avoid bloodshed.

I genuinely believe that bloodshed is inevitable and will be made worse because of the appeasing by the politicians, allowing the situation to become dire as the muslims become greater in number and be better prepared. The present politicians are in denial and dare not face the muslims down.

Winston Churchill wrote:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

I think that Winston Chirchill`s quote hits the nail on the head.

sum

[CuteCoot]

Thank you for your input, sum. That's a great quote from Churchill.

I see your location is UK but what is your religious/cultural background?

Your vision: "I see widespread civil war in the West, which will be the bloodiest of all time."

Are you envisioning a civil war between Western communities holding opposing viewpoints on Islam? Or are you envisioning a civil war between traditional Western communities and Muslim communities living within the West?

There are two oppositions here, if you think about it. There is "the West" (both traditional and post-Christian) and "Islam" (both Islamist and integrating). In both camps there are conservative traditionalists and there are liberals seeking integration. You would presumably feel most comfortable among the Christian traditionalists (or perhaps enlightenment fundamentalists?).

If civil war broke out, would you treat all Muslims alike? I think, for a start, you would join forces with cultural Muslims who have abandoned their faith (such as Ali Sina). And in addition, I think you'd include those religious Muslims who would agree to certain "dhimmi" conditions, such as avoiding mosques and publicly affirming that the UN Declaration of Human Rights supersedes the Koran.

Similarly, in a civil war situation, how would you view the appeasers of Islam? Would they be on "your side" or "the other side"? Do you see the differences of opinion on Islam within the West as being enough to lead to blows and bloodshed?

Your experience in debating Muslims seems to suggest that an FFI or merely conversational approach won't work. I'm guessing you don't have much faith in "interfaith dialogue" approaches. How about if Muslims and non-Muslims just mixed more: played more sport together, found things to celebrate together, collaborated more on artistic and cultural projects, etc? Do you think that would help?

It would be good to find something constructive that lies between the apparently futile debating and the inevitable bloodshed.

[loki]

1 - I was raised catholic ( in the UK) , but have been an atheist / secularist since before I even knew what those words meant

2 - I agree there is a difference between islam and islamism , this is important because there is a world of difference between opposing someone because of their ideology and condemning everyone that just happens to have been born in a muslim country and raised in that culture . At the same time I believe the basic tenets of islam are incompatible with a liberal society , and the emphasis on obedience within islamic culture means that even less extreme muslims can pose a problem for western society if we are not careful to insist on certain basic values . There is a definite clash of civilisations going on and whilst some of the rhetoric and tactics employed in 'the war on terror' have been counter productive , and occasionally unjust , I think people in the UK and Europe need to face up to the scale of the danger our civilisation is in . Which brings me to my problem with your suggestion , well intentioned though it is , I'm afraid it's already to late for that . And the sad fact is that the islamist vanguard tend to interpret such overtures as a sign of weakness and an invitation to push even harder for their own agenda .
3 - The future I'd like to see is one where islam ( along with hinduism ) joins christianity in the private realm , with people free to pray to whichever fantasy deity they please , but not to use religion as a cover for oppressive regimes , or as a way of justifying abusive / exploitative / violent behaviour

[CuteCoot]