Tweet
Originally posted by Badlun
View Post
I know one militant secularist personally, an entertaining one, who I once saw arguing with a moderate religionist by "pushing the envelope". They are usually on friendly terms. I sort of buffer the two when we get together to share a meal. The former decided to criticize and separate out Islamic history under the Caliphate of Omar from that of Abu Bakr and called salafists "The Umarites." He kept needeling until the religionist left peacefully (he paid for the meal to his credit). I asked the secularist why he had to needle so hard. His response was that he had no issue with Khalifah Umar and ascribed to the sunni school of thought, but the wanted to desensitize his friend to challenging discussions.
I suspect that is the attempt here, but on close examination both my friend (the militant secularist) and this commentary are stupidity laced.
I think RTR effectively neutered the "reinterpretation" which the Quran itself makes improbable. For instance Surah Nur relegates the fornicator into its own separate category that connotes premarital sexual contact that hinges on a consensual relationship having occurred and even still separates this subgroup out from amongst believers.
The thing to high light here is the contradictory approach taken by militant secularism.
1) For instance, in another thread the concept of first cousins marrying was vehemently attacked despite the science pointing to extremely low rates of disease events in the recent publications.
2) Yet here, what is implied is that a "safe sex" and "birth control" society will mitigate disease risk. Is that the case? A simple glance at the abstract of the report from the CDC shows that even in the "safe sex" society that allows for abortion and birth control there is the incidence of 20 million new STDs on a yearly basis. Note the report indicates "America's youth shoulder a substantial burden of these infections."
Just alone, the incidence of HIV infection (page 2) in the US population of 300 or so million far outweighs the incidence of disease associated with first cousin marriage estimated world round or noted in the British study of Pakistani first cousin marriages. Yet recall how Badlun cried to the hills about banning the practice etc etc etc and was insistent on that insignificant disease burden making it so that Islam was wrong and had to be modified. Lets see if the same angle is taken towards the militant secularist doctrines he espoused here.
Take a look at the transmitted HPV rates sky rocketing in the US. HPV is a cancer causer virus.
In general the report also links this to the secular issue of economic burden.... Cousin cousin marriages have cost the United States very little, in general the world health care system has been burdened very little since incidence of that relationship is higher in Africa and the mideast. Yet the approach Badlun advocates cost the US $16 Billion dollars.
Summary: Badlun's stupid approach (sorry but there is no other adjective to describe this) lacks both scientific, secular, and religious common sense. One can see that if his words are taken seriously then generally his opposition in light of the above contradictions in his thought only reconcile in one direction: his goal of opposing classical Islam as understood by theologians from all traditions and faiths and as understood by the Prophet Muhammad himself. I think he is generally baiting and need not be taken seriously; this was just an exercise to pass the time for me.
Comment