les débats de doha

Audience split over threat of political Islam --- SNIP .. Yahya Pallavicini, an Italian Imam and government adviser, said the activities of those who misused religion for political purposes were harmful and a threat to the West because they “were brainwashing new generations with their utopian visions.”

SNIP .. “To promote Shariah law out of its context by such things as forcing women to wear burkhas and not allowing them to have an education is a misleading use of religion.”

He said it included the use of religion to “legitimise violence.”

tout d'abord, j'ai pensé que imam yahya est juste très attirant quand il parle. j'ai même réfléchi à convertir en islam. non, bien sûr que non. mais il était juste fascinant, intelligent, et solid avec ses arguments contre l'islam politique, si j'étais une femme, j'aimerais être sa femme. hahaha! ^_^

the proposition commenced with the distinction between political islam and islam the religion. i was a bit taken when they yahya and his partner in the debate both described true islam as a religion that espouses freedom and democracy. something i have heard before. and only now did i consider it. that maybe what their saying is true. but it is hard to believe that seeing what is really happening in the islamic world.

that what we have seen about islamic terrorists, the enslavement of women in the middle east, honor killing, forced wearing of burkas", and other sorts of dehumanisation pratices in islamic states -- are in fact but part of political islam. nothing to do with the religion itself.

this brings to mind a moslem woman's attempt to educate us back at the pinoy atheist group but unfortunately the atheists including myself weren't patient enough to give her a chance to speak. she left right away. trop mal.

the opposition on the other hand sees political islam as a good thing citing charities, rescue work, and other socio-civic activites islamic initiatives. i always believed in the separation of church and state. and that a theocracy (and i see no existing theocracy today that would dispute this belief) leads nowhere but to the dehumanization of minorities, decapitulation of individual freedoms, and the detriment of scientific progress.

a point made -- is keeping religion and the state separate be directly against the principles of democracy. i believe a person. any person of any faith (or no faith) should have the right to be part of state governance. but i do not think this person has a right to impose her religion on to the rest of us.

i am glad though to hear that both panels condemn extremism.