In the "battle" against Islam, there appear to be two factions, the ones that believe intellectual discourse (ie the pen) is the way to make changes happen, and the ones that think force (the fire) of equal or more is how to make change.
Has change ever come about purely on intellectual discourse, without force/civil war, at any time in history? Because from what I know, which is vague and limited, no major religious or social changes were ever made with pen alone and I'd be interested if there was history to suggest otherwise.
I personally don't think the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword can chop off the head of the writer, and all that is left are words, and sure words last, can be preserved for a time where they are admired and quoted as wisdom, but even that only ever comes about when people put down their pens and take up their swords, for the freedom to have those words preserved as wisom rather than blasphemy of some type.
For instance, the power of the church did not just dwindle in the face of intellectualism, those intellectuals may have started the push, but the fighters on ground zero made the changes. Am I right?
I'm not advocating the way of the sword either, of fighting fire with fire, but a part of me thinks refusal to build more mosques in england is fair and just if churches can't be built and left to flourish safely in specific muslim countries. That is fire to fire, of equal fairness, and yet many people tell me we need to be better, and stick to pens.
Pointing out hypocrisy often makes no impact, but teaching through action, by showing how it feels to be on the other end of that hypocrisy works faster, or at least that is my view.
Maybe it's because I was never a turn the other cheek christian, and was brought up to see fairness in an eye for an eye. You gouge my eye out, I gouge out yours, it doesn't give me back my eyesight, but fixes the balance for me. I don't want or need to be better, I need for things to be fair by my worldview, for me, in my world.
So you have muslims, who believe in an eye for eye, and yet it is unfair to apply the golden rule version number 2 on them?
Treat people how they treat you? fire with fire. You refuse to let me out without a veil in saudi, then we refuse to let you wear a veil here. You refuse to leave churches alone or even to let them be built in your countries, then who do you think you are to whine when we say no to a new mosque?
Then I'm told that it's not the muslims who are to blame, but ask a muslim if they feel a church should be built in saudi, if they tell you yes, how so? as that goes against Islam, which forbids a church in the sacred land, doesn't even let non muslims in FFS. If you disagree, if you as a muslim feel the imbalance is unfair, then turn your attention to protesting about it, instead of protesting that some drew a cartoon, or someone non muslim criticized this because "how very dare they".
Haha this is turning into a rant, when really I just want to explore this subject a bit further.
Why do we here, advocate the pen vs FFI for instance who advocate fire?
Why is it wrong to say no more mosques in europe, until a church is in saudi and a temple to dawkins? no more islamic preachers until a christian preacher and an atheist preacher can stand on the corner of mecca handing out pamphlets?
Pen or fire?
Topic: Fighting fire with fire, or the pen is mightier than the sword?