Saturday, 11 February 2006

The people are high on opium - IV - Rejoinder

A reader wandered into my blogosphere and left comments that require a robust response to the obvious fact that he had not followed the thread that lead to the contents of the blog he commented on.
I intersperse his comments with my replies.
Hatred at bliss?
Should I say, Hatred at bliss? How pathetic. Should I ask whether it’s Islam you hate? Or the people practicing the religion, because your post does not directly point to what actually is your problem with your revelation.
I would not know what you mean by this, but it is obvious that you have not taken time to read my other instalments before drawing your conclusions with this.
Earlier I had commended both the pragmatism and tolerance of my grandfather and the humility of my uncle.
I do not think reading that, you would have justifiably been able to make the crude judgments you arrived at.
Using an umbrella, as you expressed yourself in your excerpt "Another instalment on my Muslim heritage when I witnessed another face of Islam that included stuttering, possessions and prophecy - as at that time - it was the strangest thing to witness."
My experiences are mine to recount
Indeed, this is a personal experience of mine; your view of my experience is patently of no significance. I recount my tale from my vantage point of close observation.
Just to educate you. A woman that chooses to wear the black veil or whatever did so at her own will especially in a community like Nigeria. I am sure you would be the first to raise your voice when it comes to Freedom of dressing?
I do not need educating in this matter; I have lived in both the North and South of Nigeria where I have seen lots of women in Purdah.
The lady mentioned was indeed free to wear whatever she wanted, but there was considerable concern when we were in mechanical workshops. Thankfully, there were no mishaps.
Health and safety issues in the West would have barred her from attending those classes without having all clothing properly bound to the body.
In no place did I condemn her dressing; in fact, I said she was both honourable and pious.
A model example for civil unrest
Religious debates have been done in an intellectual way, and have never ever caused riots in foreign exposed lands. A preacher like Ahmed Deedat, is a perfect model example to that. Ask the South Africans.
I do not know who your reference is, but I have simply stated my observations to which you really cannot draw any particular inference.
However, debate is fine, but debunking the basis of other people’s faith rather than reinforcing the validity of yours is hardly peace making. Winning the argument is not everything in religious service. [1][2] See references
I have however, heard some of his ideas bandied around by some Muslim colleagues when I was at school.
You probably have a good idea of why he was refused entry into both Nigeria and France on the basis of the possibility of causing civil unrest if he was such a perfect model.
In Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, the prevalence of epilepsy varies from approximately 0.53% to 3.7%, depending on the part of the country and its respective development and available health care facilities. Linking it with Islam and making conclusions to what you did not actually partake in, is quiet ridiculous, don’t you think? I don’t remember seeing any occurrences of such in Muslim congregations.
This is where you really have completely missed the plot. This event had nothing to do with epileptic fits. I was at a Muslim religious meeting and not just one girl went into the ‘epileptic’ fit – many did and it was very much like analadura church.
Your not having witnessed it does not mean it does not happen and there were at least 20 from my class who witnessed the events I recounted. [3] See reference.
Only two days ago, I conversed with one of my then classmates who is a friend of 20 years standing and raised these issues just to ensure my recall was true to the events.
Sharia Law ONLY for the adherents
Shariah has been hypocritically introduced in Nigerian and hence, most Nigerians are not well educated in that relation, so I don’t blame you for yet another hating judgement.
When I was in primary school in Kaduna, I attended a Sharia court and saw the proceedings. I have nothing against Sharia law for the adherents of Islam, but it should not be imposed on non-adherents, even if they live amongst Muslims.
The issue here is whether modern society has adapted to Sharia or Sharia has adapted to modernity. But it is quite within reason that some things that could have been the norm centuries ago might not sit well in our society of today.
For instance, we no more impose the death penalty in Europe - justifiable as it might seem in other parts of the world.
Kano State in Nigeria has even had the Sharia police begin to act as alternative law enforcement whilst seeking foreign aid for intelligence training. [4] See reference
Baseless attributions
Christianity also has its own wicked past, if we are using an incident to justify an umbrellic conclusion. Between 1450 to 1792 have your forgotten the massacre on "Satan worshipers" & other heretics? by Christians? Perhaps you might want to research more on that.
No, I am living in a contemporary world, trying to judge a current issue on Andalucia (AD 1492) and so on is disingenuous. I remember Al-Qaeda using that in their justification of 9/11 and other attacks.
We in this century cannot be held responsible for those events, just as the Germans of today cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis in the last century.
I was talking of events I witnessed; I was not alive between 1450 and 1792, more so, this is where your poorly constructed commentary begins to show you up. [5] See reference
When you make attributions like this, you should and must provide guide references to support your assertions, commentary like this without references is poor research and not authoritative, your views can so easily be dismissed because of that lapse in quality.
I invite reasoned and researched commentary
Well it’s your blog, and you can write on whatever you feel like writing, I just taught I should add a little comment to clear things out. Religion is not at blame. The human race is evil in nature and hence each individual should be picked out singly and blamed for his/her own crime.
Indeed, it is my blog and I would write what I want to, however, next time you see a Roman numeral after any blog topic I have written, endeavour to read what precedes that blog.
In this case, it was IV. You have every right to comment on my blogs too, but doing with a lot more finesse, understanding and enlightenment.
To be kind, I have not been too impressed by your commentary, maybe next time, you will apply yourself better, but nothing in my blog singled out anyone for blame.
You lost the irony, ignored the satire and befuddled the context apart from the fact that you probably need a bit of schooling about commenting on blogs. Tips on commenting [6]
Anyway, thanks for visiting my blog and finding time to comment therein.
References

No comments: