Where are the "Reform Muslims?" [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Aldebaran

07-12-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson
Why is there not a school of Reform Islam that has come to the fore, rejecting (for example) the tradition of absolute subjugation of women to their husbands, downplaying "jihad" (in the political sense) against the "infidel," condemning (absolutely) "suicide bombing" and any complicity therewith; etc.?

I'm sorry, but you are misinformed about the issues you bring up here.

1. There is no "tradition" in the teachings of Islam of "absolute subjugation of women to their husbands"

2. Jihad means first of all trying to be the best Muslim possible, that means: every person has to overcome and fight against those things and issues that distracts him from this goal.
Jihad in its militant form means defending the Umma (= the Muslim society) and Islam itself against enemies. That doesn't mean attacking first yourself. It has to be taken in the meaning of sheer self-defence.

3. There is no defence possible for "suicide bombing" at all in Islam.

I know that individual Islamic thinkers have held these positions. But there seems to be little tendency for even well-educated, better-off Muslims to unite around a moderate "live and let live" banner. Or if such tendencies exist, they seem far removed from the realities of the Middle East or Indonesia.

"Live and let live" is well described in Al Qur'an.

Is this purely a reaction to historically specific, perceived incursions and aggressions by Israel and "the northern world?"

You mix up religion with political issues. Maybe you could read about the situation of Jews and Christians in the historical Muslim world. Israel is a case on its own.

Or is it something distinct about the basic structure and tenets of Islam itself?

See above. There is nothing of what you bring up to be found in the teachings of Islam.

Or is it just a matter of coming back in a couple thousand years?

I relate this very biased and denegrating sounding stand you take here to the fact that you -as you say yourself- are completely un- or misinformed about the issue Islam.

Now about the reality of today.

1. The reality learns that many women indeed suffer of injustice and restrictions in Islamic societies ( as women suffer in other societies as well, but let's keep it here to the issue you raised ).
Well... You could classify this under the "reform" you claim that isn't there, while "reform" among Muslims and especially a variety of Islamic scholars since the early days is exactly the cause of these situations. Among that counts also the political split which resulted in the Shi'a Islam.

Let me elaborate:

In Al Qur'an is clearly stated that God created women and men different biologically, but equal. There can't be any discussion on that.
The situations you speak of are the result of the influence and interaction between cultures and religion and the development and influence of the different laws schools, whose teachings were of course not free of the influence of local traditions and local customs and even local laws, which results in different views on the Shari'a = differences in Al Qur'an exegeses (tafsier) and introductions of hadieth. (Shi'a Muslims follow in addition to that other hadieth compilations then the Sunni.)

People in earlier days could choose and follow a lawschool, yet when not satisfied by judgements or advises, look at an other or more then one to see how things where explained and implemented there.
In theory that is still the case, yet in practice law schools (madhab) are now specified by the country one lives in and thus the Shari'a follows these particular teachings.
This doesn't mean that every country who follows a particular madhab has implemented its shari'a at the same amount and in the same way in Constitution and laws. That varies between every country, since every country has its own constitution and laws, which describe how and when and at which points the Shari'a has an influence. (or no inlfuence at all, like in Turkey today)

You see that it is not as simple as you paint it and in any case subjugation of women is against the core teachings of Islam.
Islam was in fact a revelation for the women at the time of Muhammed because although there were some women who were what we would call now "independent" (like the first wife of Muhammed was) most of them were nothing more then a posession and part of a man's heritage, with no rights at all. (you can find several verses in Al Qur'an condemning this and giving instructions how to abandon and alter these practises.)

2. From in the early days of Islam, the term Jihad in its meaning of militant self-defence was misinterpreted unto the point of abuse. Since my studyfield covered Islamic history, I can state that it wasn't always "self defence" that led the Muslims to war. (Yet on the other hand it wasn't about "converting at all costs at the point of the sword" like is teached in certain circles in the West.)

3. There is no excuse for attacking and murdering innocent people , never and in no circumstances. I know there are some Muslims -and some of them even have an authority in their own circles or country- who say that such people "fight for Islam" and are "martyrs for Islam".
They have no right to say this. Killing yourself is against God's law in the first place and killing innocent people is violating God's law again.
Better would be to see behind this rethoric and discover the following:
1. Those who claim that this is permitted and even "martyrism" have a political agenda.
2. Those who are brought so far to commit suicide by tearing innocent people with them into death, are used by those with a political agenda.
3. When it comes to Palestinians doing this, and now recently Tchetchens: Those people are so desperate that for them it became the only way to "help the political cause" of their country and their people. Again this is a pure personal drama of the suicide bomber and of the situation of his/her society that provokes this, which has political and not religious roots. They become themselves the tools of organisations with a political agenda, who on their turn use the religion (abuse it) to throw oil on the political fire.

You can make in this a comparison with the terror of the IRA, where the core of the problem is political and the religion only present "in name".

Salaam. Aldebaran.

Aldebaran

07-12-2003, 07:36 PM

To Calculus of Logic,

I looked at the link you gove.

I'm sorry, but this is a website obviously set up by people who want to bring Islam in discredit. That is clear from the first words you read there.

It is not that the things they bring up don't exist.
It is their repeated claim that such things are "Islamic" = inherent on the teachings of Islam.

I'm utterly disgusted by just reading a few lines.

This website can only put oil on the fire of the mistunderstandings and misinformations.

Salaam. A.

Qadgop the Mercotan

07-12-2003, 08:30 PM

Contrast Islam to Christianity. Some Christian sects insist the bible is the literal word of God, exactly true, while others (Catholics, Methodists, etc) believe it to be an inspired work, but not inerrant.

But I get the impression that there is no sub-group of Islam that believes that the Koran is not exactly the true word of Allah. Is there no group in Islam that will say of the Koran "I think they got that passage wrong"?

Read_Neck

07-12-2003, 09:23 PM

Aldebaran,I have several questions about Islam but not enough information to ask them. In light of your previous post what sites could you recommend?

Aldebaran

07-12-2003, 09:57 PM

Qadgop,

That is a good question, but the offical answer is no in all cases, becauseMuslims believe that Al Qur'an reflects exactly what was transmitted to the prophet Muhammed, which was : the Message of God. It is what every Muslim believes.

Yet since I made Islam my studyfield and answering from that background:
Nobody can give absolute proof that everything Muhammed preached is to be found in the Uthmanian Redaction and nobody can give absolute proof that nothing was introduced which wasn't originally preached by Muhammed and nobody can give absolute proof that when introducing the diactrical signs nothing was added or altered and so on...
In fact: there is a lot of discussion possible on many things and there actually is a lot of discussion on many things when it comes to discuss or publish on the redaction of Al Qur'an.

But what is probably true is that although slightly different readings always existed even after the redaction under Uthman, (and still exist): the contenance itself wasn't altered since then.

So it is up to belief if you want to claim that Al Qur'an is the Word of God, as it was revealed to Muhammed.

Personally I had several discussions with the most famous Imams yet I was never called an apostate, even when I do have questions by certain passages who are in my opinion victim of errors made by copyists. And in one case I find the discrepancy with the whole contenance of the rest of the message that shocking that I tend to believe that it must be a mistake, deliberately made or not.

Read neck,

I'll take a look at a few... I'm not a an of websites so I don't have such in my database. If I find some who seem to be informative, I'll post them tomorrow.
What type of information are you looking for?

Salaam.A.

Read_Neck

07-13-2003, 01:28 AM

When you start from scratch it's hard to measure the quality of the source. I've been looking these two sites primarily for general knowledge.

http://www.islamworld.net/
http://www.al-islam.org/

Aldebaran

07-13-2003, 01:47 AM

I briefly looked at them.

The first one is Sunni, rahter superficial and all to much "proselytizing" structured and the second one the same, but from Shi'a point of view.

I'll see if I can find some good informative site for you by tomorrow or so.

Now I have to go.

Salaam. A.

Collounsbury

07-13-2003, 02:11 AM

First, to the OP, may I kindly suggest with as much patience as I can muster to do some reading and research before posting silly tripe. At the very least a search on the keywords Islam along with my user name and better yet, Tamerlane will uncover a number of threads of great utility in reducing your fairly substantial ignorance. Also a thread by Muslim Guy was at one time particularly helpful.

Originally posted by nisosbar
There ARE differences as to how Islam is practiced. Shia Islam, Sunni Islam and Sufism come to mind.

Okya, once more. Sufism is not seperate from either Shia or Sunni Islam. Again, it sa style of worship and an approach to the religion and most Sufi tariqas [proper pl: turuq] (orders, literally paths) fall well within the Sunna. Some few Sufis orders have perhaps passed into being outside the Sunna, but that's vanishingly rare.

If you need a rough analogy, in general popular level Sufism is relatively analagous to Charismatic Xianity in terms of popularised worship and the like. A very rough analogy indeed, but hopefully at some point I will stop reading this tripe about Shia, Sunni and Sufi.

so there will be a certain unanimity to it and also a Wahabbist conservatism to the way Islam is practiced globally.

No, no, no.

Despite loose and sloppy usage, the dominant strains of Islamic conservatism in religion is NOT Wahhabite, but rather Muslim Brotherhood connected Salafi (roughly "roots") movements, which is quite theologically distinct from Wahhabite thinking, properly said. Saudi Wahhabis have tended to ally themselves with the Salafi movements insofar as in reality Wahhabite thinking properly speaking has proven utterly incompatible with anywhere but Saudi Arabia (or broadly the Gulf, although 'real' Wahhabism is Saudi through and through).

As to QtM:
No, there is no particular sect in Islam that does not hold the Quran is not the literal revealed word of God.

However, most Muslim thought has always held - in keeping with the Quran's injunction that not all knowledge is within the Quran alone, i.e. God (Allah if you will) is not contained alone in the book - that investigation and science are necessary. There was recently a discussion on this here - hijacked in part by a twit - but as a general matter Islam is not hostile to analogical or metaphorical interpretations of the Quran, indeed Sufi style worship is often very much based on this. I might also add that it is widely held that the Quran itself is not always the clearest exposition, being highly poetic and metaphorical in its language, so as always interpretation is needed. That's where the 'sciences' of the faqih came from, Drs. of Islamic law based not only on the Quran but the rather more... discussable Hadith.

In the end, the history of the Quran is so different from that of the Bible that such comparisions are not helpful and only led astray. The Quran has a 'cleaner' editorial history -- although Aldebaran correctly refers to potential problems in re the Caliph Uthman's assembling of "The" Quran about 1 generation after Muhammed died. The issue arose from reciters differing slightly, subtly and perhaps sometimes not so subtly on certain passages. Uthman, to prevent degredation, ordered the assembly of all versions.

I believe it is generally understood by serious scholars that whatever issues might have arisen in this context, they pale in the context of the issues in re the Bible with its issues of translations, competing texts etc.

On the other hand, an item perhaps little less understood or better recognized is the degree to which meanings of words in the Quran may have changed or better accreted post-facto meanings. Especially among the Salafi and esp. amongst the extreme among them, they like to hold the Sacred Text is unchanging - fine and good, but the langauge has moved, and shadings of meanings -e.g. what exactely is conveyed by Hijab- have come into being post-facto, after Revelation.

Tricky business this. There is a genuine question of the permissability of Ijtihad, formal (re)interpretation with the Arab Sunni Ulema being largely hostile to "re opening" the "door" - but there are those in favor, and I would hazard the opinion there is popular support for the idea.

Finally, perhaps to address the OP in a broad sense: I live and work among the 'reform' Muslims every day for the past decade. That they're not all waving their banners around in English or French, etc for the West to read is not particularly their fault.

(I'm also puzzled by the bizare inclusion of Indonesia)

Oh yes, the Secular Islam site is anti-Islamic tripe as well.

Alan Owes Bess

07-13-2003, 05:56 AM

Aldebaran,

Are you sure that you have really studied the Koran?

In one of your posts you make the preposterous claim that: -

There is no "tradition" in the teachings of Islam of "absolute subjugation of women to their husbands"

I checked out my moderately well thumbed edition of the Koran, which I purchased about the time that a nutball called the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power in Iran, just to find out what made him and his ilk tick (It became very clear after I read that book, incidentally).

Amidst the tedious succession of barbarities that can be found in that book, the prophet Mohammed (sbuh) comes out with this deranged nonsense in the chapter "Women" (chapter 4.34):

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women...Those you fear may be rebellious--admonish; banish them to their couches and beat them."

And another gem:

"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please." (chapter 2:223).

This is only a small sample from the Koran. You will find, after you have taken the trouble to study the Koran, that the Hadiths would yield an even richer supply of Mohammed's teachings about the worthlessness of women, except as breeding machines, to produce sons only, of course.

Collounsbury

07-13-2003, 06:03 AM

Well, I had thought you had left the Boards. Note to the moderators, the comment above was based on that thinking.

Very well, I presume your "study" of the Quran is of similar quality and depth as your "study" of education in the Islamic world and the baseless assertions made on that subject.

Regardless, the subject of women has been done here before. One can find equal enlightment in the Bible and related texts.

Alan Owes Bess

07-13-2003, 06:21 AM

Collounsbury,

Your first paragraph was thought disordered and meaningless.

Your second paragraph was infantile.

Your third paragraph was irrelevant.

On balance, about your usual pathetic standard.

Oh well, look on the bright side. There's plenty of room for improvement.

Monty

07-13-2003, 11:31 AM

More important, Alan Owes Bess, is that not only was Collounsbury's posting accurate, his comments on Islam are generally up to snuff--something which your posting about the teachings of the Quran prove you have no interest in emulating.

Absolute subjugation of women would deny the woman the right to have her dowry returned to her in the event of a divorce. You see (or maybe not, sadly), it only takes one instance of a counterproof to disprove a false assertion.

Scott Dickerson

07-13-2003, 01:49 PM

GENTLEPERSONS--

Thanks for your responses.

My OP began by stating that this thread is not about slamming anyone's religious beliefs. Aldebaran, it's VERY difficult to find language that makes clear what one is inquiring about without giving what might be taken as a taint of bias/prejudice. Still, it is for me to apologize for that taint. I know very well that most of my points could have started with something like "It is said that..."

I thought it was clearer than it evidently was that I am talking about certain practices that, having taken place within the context of self-proclaimed Islamic states, appear to be tolerated and endorsed by the dominant religious commentators and guides therein. I am not qualified to comment one way or the other on whether such practices are contrary to the Koran (though I'm interested in the answer). I am thinking about the mandatory wearing of the chador (in Khomeini's Iran and the Taliban's Afghanistan) and what I understood to be a great many restrictions upon females playing a public role in society; what is said to be the teaching in the "madrasas" that "jihad" requires not only a personal rejection of Euro-Western ways but an aggressive expulsion of such "ways" from society in general; praise for suicide bombers as martyrs to Islam, not just from "the street" but from the mullahs. I'm very willing to hear that this has more to do with mid-eastern ethnic politics than with Islam: that's part of my question.

The other part is: Where are the mullahs who openly condemn such things? Do they have anything like a significant following in those parts of the world where Muslims constitute a majority of the population?

By my use of capitalization (eg, Reform Islam), I was trying to make clear the comparison of Islam to Judaism. I understand the point that, eg, the Taliban may regard itself as a "reform" movement. But I was speaking of those reform movements that parallel Reform Judaism and might be termed "liberal."

I concur that the link provided by Calculus (though much appreciated) is somewhat beside the point. It is not so much about a school of Reform Islam as about the rejection of religion in government.

Collounsbury, I respect the info you bring to these boards. I do not agree with the premiss that posters are obligated to extensively research an issue before posting, as if the SDMB is only a "last resort." Provocative questions on matters you regard as settled are not always intended to introduce opportunities to slam or flame; I reject that sort of response. The fact of my ignorance allows you to teach. (Your teaching might be easier to consider if it were kept far away from flamey characterizations like "tripe.")

Alan Owes Bess, likewise viz. "preposterous," "tedious," "barbarities," etc. I don't know that the rest of us will learn much about the OP issue from flame/counterflame between you and Collounsbury.

I'm not polemicizing or advocating here. I'm asking questions.

Aldebaran

07-13-2003, 06:40 PM

Alan O.B.

Taking words, lines, and excerpts of a sura out of context is an old tactic used by those who are out on nothing else then making pointless remarks.
I've given up long ago to post and the whole verse, and the context and the tafsier to such people. Because the experience learns that they are not out on understanding, they are out on cultivating their own myths.

By the way: I wrote my thesis on Al Qur'an as text with focus on the Uthmanian redaction and the parallel editions. So yes, I think I know what I'm talking about.

I wrote in my post here that in one particular case I found something in Al Qur'an that much in shocking contradiction with the rest of the message that I'm inclined to think this was mistaken, deliberately or not.
Now let that be by accident the verse where is described how to react in case you are married and the partner is trying to undermine the relationship in ways that drives the other one crazy. We all know such situations do occur nowadays and we all should know this is of all times.

Yes, that is what that verse is about, not about "how to treat women in general" (and of course you come up with some cutted sentences, which is part of the common tactic.)
This particular passage is describing a way to try to restore peace by letting the partner alone, so that she can think things over, stretching this over a period of time in order to let things cool off. Which at the same time prevents a man from working out his anger on her (men are much more inclined to become physical in moments of rage or don't you know that... It is in the nature of the beast).
And then comes the text which is all to eagerly translated as "and beat her", as ultimate remedy if nothing you do helps to brings her to reason.

Now that is my problem. Because the verb daraba used there has a variety of connotations among which
“ to shoot” (and I heard once a boy in Pakistan who shot his widowed mother on the command of the village elderly, - who’s patriarchal thinking was shocked because she left her home to go to work - declare that this was a command of Al Qur’an)
“to strike”,
“hit”,
"separate”,
“part”,
“to impose”
and when adding “an”: to turn away from, leave, forsake, abandon, avoid, or shun some one/something.

To name some.

To take this verb in this particular context as if was meant “ to beat” is shocking because this is in contradiction with the whole message of Al Qur’an, turns it upside down and in addition is in contradiction with the lifelong struggle of Muhammed himself to educate the men of his and the other tribes about the rights of women.
I have a dilemma with this since I first learned the verse and had it explained this way and I feel a kind of helpless anger every time this particular verb is in this context interpreted as “to beat”. I don’t believe a word of it that this is a possible meaning. Of course there are hadieth describing that Muhammed himself had much difficulties with it and so on… Which serve in fact for the defenders of the “and beat her” connotation as proof that it was indeed part of the original message.

But the reliability of hadieth and the interpretation thereof is a tricky business to be occupied with in the first place, and that counts for all of them. And in addition one must take in mind that the hadieth weren’t transmitted orally and later written down with the intention to serve as historical source for the history of Islam, the history of Al Qur’an, the history of political events etc…. They are merely testimonies of religious people who gave testimony of and their faith and their admiration for the Prophet, from a purely religious point of view.

We use them as historical sources because they are in fact the only ones available to give an insight in matters where no other persons but the Muslims themselves kept record.
Historians approach them however with the same caution as we do with every other available source and with in addition keeping in mind that they were transmitted by people who weren’t exactly uninvolved and independent witnesses. They were only interested to bring forward examples of how the Prophet lived and was, this with the purpose to serve as an example about how to be the best Muslim possible.
It is utterly naive to take for granted that there wasn’t here and there some colourful painting of the stories, caused by the admiration for the Prophet among his followers. Yet there is among Arabists and Orientalists no doubt that the hadith bring indeed a very lively and very direct picture of the events they describe. It is the task of the researcher to develop the ability to distinct eventual exaggeration from the underlying truth.

Now you can imagine that someone not familiar with the whole matter, and especially someone who isn’t Muslim, has no idea how to approach or take these stories. Who themselves are not great help at all, since many are in contradiction with others and others give yet an other version of the same event.

Whenever someone discusses the hadieth, especially when it comes to Muslims, I always repeat that there is one golden rule one should keep in mind above all, and even before starting a research on the Isnad (= the chain of transmitters and its reliability and the whole science developed on that matter):
If a hadieth contradicts or is in opposition with what one can deduct as message, commands and guidelines in Al Qur’an, it has to be dismissed as fabricated. The same can for a certain amount be said (and certainly this counts for believing Muslims) when the hadieth is in contradiction with what is known about the personality, ideas, lifestyle, teachings and example of Muhammed.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran

07-13-2003, 08:10 PM

Scott D,

I am thinking about the mandatory wearing of the chador (in Khomeini's Iran and the Taliban's Afghanistan) and what I understood to be a great many restrictions upon females playing a public role in society;

The practices in certain societies are based on the interpretation of in particular surat an-nur (24); 31.
Yet it has nothing to do with even commanding women to cover their hair, but my opinion on this although shared by many others is in opposition with even more others. One can talk endlessly about it and don’t reach consensus at all.
Further are those practices also based on hadieth who in this case have a very weak Isnad to begin with.

So my stand on this is that contrary to what many Muslims believe there is no command or obligation whatsoever for women to cover their hair or whatever variations possible, let be to be covered from top to toe with even restrictions on showing their faces.
The command is to be dressed and to behave modestly, which counts for both sexes equally.
There is also no ground for restricting women in any way. This also has its foundation in cultural, tribal, feudal traditions and practices and is in clear contradiction with the teachings of equality among genders and people.

Yet you mustn’t believe that every woman you see walk around covered is forced to do so. Not in these particular societies and not outside them.
Just look around you in the West, where in fact there are among immigrants - and lately especially among young women - many who choose to wear hijab and to cover themselves in a way that only hands and face are visible. Many manage to do that even while following the latest Western fashion styles. This expression of modesty is a combination of showing their religious convictions and holding on to their Muslim roots. Further it is a way to distinct themselves from the Western society which, how adapted one may be and even born into it, contains for several devoted Muslim always a sort of “alien” habits and codes. I don’t know if I explain this clearly enough; if not I’ll try to clarify further.

what is said to be the teaching in the "madrasas" that "jihad" requires not only a personal rejection of Euro-Western ways but an aggressive expulsion of such "ways" from society in general; praise for suicide bombers as martyrs to Islam, not just from "the street" but from the mullahs. I'm very willing to hear that this has more to do with mid-eastern ethnic politics than with Islam: that's part of my question.

It has nothing to do with Islam, as I explained in my first answer.

The other part is: Where are the mullahs who openly condemn such things? Do they have anything like a significant following in those parts of the world where Muslims constitute a majority of the population?

The Sheikh of the Al-Azhar of Cairo, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, who is considered to be the highest authority in Sunni Islam, just declared at an international conference for Islamic scholars that extremist Islamic groups use the Islamic term Jihad and Islam for their own goals. Further he said that Islamic countries should be open for dialogue with the Western ones.
He also underlined that suicide attacks can’t be justified (nowhere… he made it clear that he also meant : in Israel).
There is a publication on this is done by the BBC.... For referring to the English languaged media.

By my use of capitalization (eg, Reform Islam), I was trying to make clear the comparison of Islam to Judaism. I understand the point that, eg, the Taliban may regard itself as a "reform" movement. But I was speaking of those reform movements that parallel Reform Judaism and might be termed "liberal."

I’m not familiar enough with Judaism and certainly not with its reformist movements to comment on this.
I thus don’t know what you exactly means with the term “liberal” ( And in addition: the word has a very different meaning in Europe then in the USA and I’m not even sure what it means exactly in the US. So in completely in the dark)

I concur that the link provided by Calculus (though much appreciated) is somewhat beside the point. It is not so much about a school of Reform Islam as about the rejection of religion in government.

That website isn’t set up by Muslims at all. There is no Muslim around far or nearby. It is a website with the goal to discredit Islam and I’m not interested at all to find out which group or organisation is behind it. It is only one of the many similar one can find.
My only comment is that everyone is entitled to have a hobby. And seen the fact that this particular website is very well structured and organized, I think many people have found there theirs.

Salaam. A.

Gaudere

07-14-2003, 12:35 AM

Collounsbury
hijacked in part by a twit

[Moderator Hat ON]

Do NOT call your fellow posters "twits" in this forum. If your are in doubt whether a poster is current, don't call them names.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Collounsbury

07-14-2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Collounsbury

[Moderator Hat ON]

Do NOT call your fellow posters "twits" in this forum. If your are in doubt whether a poster is current, don't call them names.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Ahem, if I may:

In my own defence, I was not in doubt at the time, I thought AOB was gone, although very incorrectly so.

Very quickly confessed my sin when I saw otherwise, which I might add probably would have passed unnoticed had I not drawn attention to it given the highly oblique nature.

Collounsbury

07-14-2003, 02:34 AM

Very well on the clarifications

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson
I am thinking about the mandatory wearing of the chador (in Khomeini's Iran and the Taliban's Afghanistan)

The Burqa is not actually mandatory in Iran, wearing a hijab is - that is vieling the hair, as well as 'modest' clothing. Face vieling, either via burqa, the head to toe draping, or by the addition of the niqab, is not mandatory in Iran, as you can see from simple news photos.

Rather different issues in the end. While I personally don't like the idea of mandatory hijab, it's a world of difference from the burqa, which I think is a genuine denial of the woman. Hijab isn't in the same league, and I think not inherently objectionable.

and what I understood to be a great many restrictions upon females playing a public role in society;

Again, restrictions vary. Iran actually has more female participation than many so called liberal, secular governments elsewhere.

It is clearly not a paradise for women's rights by say late 20th century Euro standards, but it is building up a set of natively understood rights in its own idiom. Imperfect but in my opinion more real than imported social codes.

The Taleban, on the other hand, like the Saudis in commonly applied "moral laws" were retrograde idiots. Indeed Iran criticized them for that.

what is said to be the teaching in the "madrasas" that "jihad" requires not only a personal rejection of Euro-Western ways but an aggressive expulsion of such "ways" from society in general; praise for suicide bombers as martyrs to Islam, not just from "the street" but from the mullahs.

Sure, lots of Salafiste preachers go for that. Is Salafi thought popular? In a lot of circles it is, largely as a political reaction to the geriatric immobility of the "secular regimes." Speaking of "the mullahs" as a single body is not only inaccurate, it gets in the way of understanding. There are many strains in Islam, the "mullahs" or Imams who preach Salafi thinking do that, many others do not.

I'm very willing to hear that this has more to do with mid-eastern ethnic politics than with Islam: that's part of my question.

Your question is best addressed through reading. Try Roy's works, also Lewis' Political Langauge of Islam (rather too classical IMO but a good grounder) and Lewis generally for a historical background. He's a mediavalist and I do not find his commentary on modern politics to be very good. Espisito is a good source as well, for an American academic. Also see Gilles Keple (*sp) recent work. Tamerlane can share further.

The other part is: Where are the mullahs who openly condemn such things? Do they have anything like a significant following in those parts of the world where Muslims constitute a majority of the population?

Of course, it's the majority of the population. The Sheikh of al-Azhar, probably the most visible single Muslim Dr. of religion, condemns terror and abuse all the time. But he's not the sexy ranting and raving type. The fairly Salafi but reasonable Qardaouie, Egyptian in quasi exile in the Gulf, condemns much terror - although he sometimes allows weasel room for what he and others consider legit resistance, e.g. bombing against military targets very broadly defined as I recall - and openly supported the Afghan war. Was a clear condemer of the Taleban. I personally don't care for the fellow, very conservative, but he's popular and has TV shows.

By my use of capitalization (eg, Reform Islam), I was trying to make clear the comparison of Islam to Judaism.

Too entirely different entities, and note well, REform Judiasm is a very European-American movement. You don't find a huge following in the non-Euro/non-American Jews.
"

I concur that the link provided by Calculus (though much appreciated) is somewhat beside the point. It is not so much about a school of Reform Islam as about the rejection of religion in government.

Given the work cited there and the content, it's really a front for anti-Islamic movements.

Collounsbury, I respect the info you bring to these boards. I do not agree with the premiss that posters are obligated to extensively research an issue before posting, as if the SDMB is only a "last resort."

Well, I don't care if you do not agree. Unless the "debate" is some to be some cheap means of getting a lecture for free, you have to bring something to the table. If nothing more than reading some past relevant threads. E.g. the thread(s) by Muslim Guy, a reasonable and moderate fellow, would give you a launching point.

Provocative questions on matters you regard as settled are not always intended to introduce opportunities to slam or flame; I reject that sort of response. The fact of my ignorance allows you to teach. (Your teaching might be easier to consider if it were kept far away from flamey characterizations like "tripe.")

I'm not a professor, I am not teaching. Want me to teach, send me a check.

Truly provocative questions come from a base of knowledge. Insofar as the Board has some background to present, rather than simply demanding the same old, same old be regurgitated for your presonal enlightenment, why not review, reformulate and come back with observations off of the new body of information. Your questions etc. are so broad and begin with so little knowledge we'd need to conduct a seminar to fill the gaps. I don't see that as a useful use of my time. Specific issues, that's fun to engage, that amuses me. Simply lecturing on about Islam when someone can pick up some basic book and get up to speed is not.

Testy

07-14-2003, 03:11 AM

Many people confuse the middle eastern culture with the religion. While they are entertwined to a greater degree than in the west, they remain separate things. Is the culture patriarchal? Yes indeedy. So are most others in the world. This one (in Saudi at least) is just more obviously so.

The warped and occasionally downright evil things that Muslims do usually cannot be blamed on the religion but are more likely associated with politics, poverty, customs, or simply some asshole wanting power.
Many nominal Muslims will play the religious card to get what they want. This is comparable to numerous politicians in the West who suck up to fundamentalist religious leaders and constantly declare that God is on their side.
The bottom line is that Islam doesn't automatically make someone a demon terrorist. Of course, it doesn't keep him from becoming one either. Like all religions, if you want to do something you can find a passage that will allow it.

As an oh-by-the-way and just as a private rant of mine, why is everyone so appalled by women wearing an abbaya? This is usually the first thing out of everyone's mouth/keyboard when decrying the evils of Islamic societies.
Christ, it's simply a gender-based dress code and women growing up in these societies aren't "forced" to wear them. They grow up doing so and consider it natural and normal. The thing really isn't a hair-shirt of some sort.

All the best

Testy

Dogface

07-14-2003, 08:56 AM

Actually, since there are severe, indeed draconian, penalties upon women who do not wear such things in at least some of these societies, I'd say there is some amount of force. Or is subject to execution by ones own family merely another social quirk we should laugh off?

bbart4

07-14-2003, 09:36 AM

Why is there not a school of Reform Islam that has come to the fore, rejecting (for example) the tradition of absolute subjugation of women to their husbands, downplaying "jihad" (in the political sense) against the "infidel," condemning (absolutely) "suicide bombing" and any complicity therewith; etc.? I know that individual Islamic thinkers have held these positions. But there seems to be little tendency for even well-educated, better-off Muslims to unite around a moderate "live and let live" banner. Or if such tendencies exist, they seem far removed from the realities of the Middle East or Indonesia.

Just like most said: There are the moderate and tolerant ones and there are extremists as well.

Just a note on Indonesia: The current president is a woman. And although the majority is muslims and people are very religious there, it is not an Islamic country. Islamic liberalism is on the rise there too, however the few extremists seem to be the loudest and they always get the headlines.

Collounsbury

07-14-2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Dogface
Actually, since there are severe, indeed draconian, penalties upon women who do not wear such things in at least some of these societies, I'd say there is some amount of force.

Which ones? REally, I like context. I don't feel we can adequately address this w/o knowing which societies to which you refer.

Or is subject to execution by ones own family merely another social quirk we should laugh off?

Honor killing?

Not just a Muslim thing, no.1 and No.2, more of Medit. thing. Not very known in North Africa, for example, but disturbingly prevalent among all communities here in the Eastern Med. Basin.

Testy

07-14-2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Dogface
Actually, since there are severe, indeed draconian, penalties upon women who do not wear such things in at least some of these societies, I'd say there is some amount of force. Or is subject to execution by ones own family merely another social quirk we should laugh off?

I frankly haven't heard of this happening outside Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Obviously that doesn't mean it never happens but I do live in Saudi which is about the worst area for this and I have NEVER heard of women being executed for not wearing some kind of black covering.
The women who kick up the fuss about this are mostly westerners who are here accompanying their husbands. I've never spoken to an Arab woman who had much of a problem with it. They seem to slap on a headscarf/abbaya about the same way I do my pants before going out in public.

Do you have some kind of cite or is this just something you've heard?

Regards.

Testy

Elewyne

07-14-2003, 05:33 PM

No woman should have to be forced to wear a head covering by law. If they want to, fine, I don't have a problem with that. In some ways I could see it being nice in not having to fix my hair each morning, but when a goup of woman are forced to stay in a burning building because they don't have a head covering and die as a result as happened in Saudi Arabia I believe in 2000 I have major problems with that. I don't know enough of that country to know why it happenned, but it did happen.

Scott Dickerson

07-14-2003, 06:04 PM

A thread on SDMB is kinda like a TV show on an old, old Philco... slowly, slowly the thing gets tuned in.

Collounsbury, when I think I'm complimenting you, you take offense and get testy about it. Far as I'm concerned, there is no greater honor on the SDMB than to be credited with "teaching." It's the whole fighting-ignorance deal. And then you say you don't care whther I agree, which fairly begs me to respond that I don't care whether you care... and off we go. But let's not.

So let's keep tuning, tuning, tuning...

bbart4

07-14-2003, 07:04 PM

Elewyn,

The OP is about "where are the Reform Muslims?"
Scott wanted to find out of something that parallels Reform Judaism. It is not about the repressive govt of SA (and the Taleban). As Coll pointed out that SA govt are retrogade idiots. Again as others pointed out muslims, including the mullahs are not a monolith.

Scott,

I remember a while back reading a Post article of liberal movement in Islamic world that actually has been around forever, just like in Christianity and Judaism (I tried to search for it on WP site but it's older than 14 days and couldn't find it). IICRC from the article, Liberal Islam is thriving in countries like Pakistan, India and Indonesia, among others. And of course, this sort of thing isn't something that's sexy enough to be on the news here.

A couple of links re. Liberal Islam that I found might interest you:

LIBERAL ISLAM: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES (http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a2.html)

Liberal Islam Network (http://islamlib.com/en/page.php)

The second link is an Indonesian site (a country where about 180 million muslims live). Please note that the founder, Nurcholish Madjid, is a well known western-educated moderate who may run for president next year. The former Indonesian president, Abdurrahman Wahid, who was also the head of the largest muslim organization (probably in the world) was also a well known moderate who championed religious tolerance in the country. Too bad he was ill and a very bad administrator.

Those were just two examples. I am sure others who know much more than me can contribute more. Again, I got the feeling that this sort of things, which is considered normal in some Islamic countries (not necessarily in countries based on Islam but where the majority are muslims), isn't something that is reported by the news media here.

Bippy the Beardless

07-14-2003, 07:16 PM

There seems to be a great difficulty in separating law and rules due to the Islamic faith, from the laws and rules of Islamic states. I believe many here in the west are making an error which would be analogous to viewing Apartheid South Africa as a Christian country, and from this concluding that the laws of Apartheid are somehow Christian laws.
The Al Qur'an is a book written in such a way that many interpretations are possible. As it is purportedly the literal word of God as transmitted to Mohamed it would seem to me that this openness to interpretation is God's own will. Is there any Islamic group which recognises that no particular interpretation should be taken as outweighing any others? One with an attitude towards the Qur'an similar to an Anglican's attitude towards the Christian bible?

Collounsbury

07-15-2003, 01:08 AM

Well, a first post I believe, I suppose someone should welcome you.

Originally posted by Elewyne
No woman should have to be forced to wear a head covering by law.

Super, I believe no woman should be forced to wear a top by law, let the breasts be free as meant by nature, except for push up bras of course. With lace.

However, that's not the case.

... when a goup of woman are forced to stay in a burning building because they don't have a head covering and die as a result as happened in Saudi Arabia I believe in 2000 I have major problems with that.

So did the Saudis, it was a scandal. 2002. It was girls, by the way, a girl's school fire. The facts are unclear - initial stories may have exagerated the actions of the "Morality Police" - fine Saudi institution, carry round sticks to beat morality into. But they're not real police, closer to vigilantes.

In any case, the facts were something along the lines that in some manner the morality police interfered with the proper evac. of the school (stories vary as to the degree, a sign of how hated these guys are even in conservative, hell retrograde SA, most people seem to believe the worst) causing directly or indirectly some girls to die.

Horrible, and it caused a shit storm in the Kingdom. Abnormal behaviour, even by their standards.

I don't know enough of that country to know why it happenned, but it did happen.

Indeed, but it says nothing about being required by social convention to wear a hijab, although it says a lot about irrational application of the rules.

Testy

07-15-2003, 01:40 AM

Your example is a good one but this is not normal and as Collounsbury says, it caused a huge shitstorm in the Kingdom. That one incident shocked and horrified everyone, western and Saudi alike and finally allowed people to start speaking up about the evils of the mutawwa and demand that they be reigned in.

The government here is (FINALLY!) trying to "squash" the mutawwa and have rounded up many of them and shipped them home to Qassim. The remainder seem to be thoroughly cowed and no longer cruise the streets with their black Suburbans.

"Abdullah Average Saudi" despises the mutawwa. An interesting example: During the Gulf war, (the first one) an American female MP in a shopping mall thoroughly embarassed a mutawwa by throwing him onto his back and giving him a stern lecture about not hitting others. The crowd was Saudi and cheered her. The mutawwa slunk off muttering in his beard.

The problem is that there is a passage in the Quran that encourages, or at least allows, people to correct the behaviour of others. Most people ignore this but the religious fanatics use that passage to justify their actions. Just like any other religious nutcase, with any other religious book. There is always something a person can find to justify his actions if he looks hard enough and tortures the logic sufficiently.

Regards.

Testy

Collounsbury

07-15-2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Testy
The government here is (FINALLY!) trying to "squash" the mutawwa and have rounded up many of them and shipped them home to Qassim. The remainder seem to be thoroughly cowed and no longer cruise the streets with their black Suburbans.

For the best, a colleague of mine here (another financial type like me) tells an amusing story, in retrospect, of being hazed by the morality police once in Saudi when he accidentally split open his suit pants. Boxers showed.

Long story, very amusing, involved being forcibly taken to a tailor to avoid the scandal of his boxers showing, as well as being taken to mosque when prayer time came, dressed inapprop, because prayer must be done you know.

"Abdullah Average Saudi" despises the mutawwa. An interesting example: During the Gulf war, (the first one) an American female MP in a shopping mall thoroughly embarassed a mutawwa by throwing him onto his back and giving him a stern lecture about not hitting others. The crowd was Saudi and cheered her. The mutawwa slunk off muttering in his beard.

Indeed. I also note Testy and I had a conversation about this a few months ago. You might search on the usernames.

The problem is that there is a passage in the Quran that encourages, or at least allows, people to correct the behaviour of others. Most people ignore this but the religious fanatics use that passage to justify their actions.

Right, there's something in there along the lines of encouraging correcting bad behaviour. It's not normal to concieve of this, however, as including beating people and obsessing about minute detials. Indeed being a prig about that is considered fairly rude - tension between each person having their own Islam and the idea of community.

Testy

07-15-2003, 05:09 AM

Moderate Saudis I have spoken to about the "mutawwa passage" tell me that the Quran says the correction should be done verbally, not with a stick. Nevertheless, the passage gets interpreted into encouragement for the mutawwa.
Despite their reputation, the mutawwa aren't really that intimidating. I personally know a woman who was involved with the Viet Cong during that war. Despite being petite, elderly, and Asian, she has absolutely terrified several mutawwa in the Al-Khobar area. She doesn't push the matter but they leave her strictly alone.

Regards

Testey

Alan Owes Bess

07-15-2003, 07:22 AM

Aldebaran,

Sorry for my somewhat tardy response to your thoughtful and stimulating response to my comments. Time zone and work deadline problems can play hell on one's spare time.

I regard you as a friend and colleague in our mutual quest for the truth, particularly on the question of why there seem to be so few living reform Muslims.

You have stated that:

"Taking words, lines, and excerpts of a sura out of context is an old tactic used by those who are out on nothing else then making pointless remarks."

Aldebaran, my good friend, this is all very delightful and good stuff, but a quote is out of context, by definition, is it not?

You further elaborate:

"By the way: I wrote my thesis on Al Qur'an as text with focus on the Uthmanian redaction and the parallel editions. So yes, I think I know what I'm talking about."

So you have studied the Koran and fully mastered the Uthmanian redaction and the parallel editions. I am exceedingly impressed.

On the Koranic verses which I quoted to you and prescribe how to treat women under Islam you state:

"Yes, that is what that verse is about, not about 'how to treat women in general' (and of course you come up with some cutted sentences, which is part of the common tactic.)"

You then continue:

"And then comes the text which is all to eagerly translated as "and beat her", as ultimate remedy if nothing you do helps to brings her to reason.

Now that is my problem. Because the verb daraba used there has a variety of connotations among which
“ to shoot” (and I heard once a boy in Pakistan who shot his widowed mother on the command of the village elderly, - who’s patriarchal thinking was shocked because she left her home to go to work - declare that this was a command of Al Qur’an)
“to strike”,
“hit”,
"separate”,
“part”,
“to impose”
and when adding “an”: to turn away from, leave, forsake, abandon, avoid, or shun some one/something.

To name some.

To take this verb in this particular context as if was meant “ to beat” is shocking because this is in contradiction with the whole message of Al Qur’an, turns it upside down and in addition is in contradiction with the lifelong struggle of Muhammed himself to educate the men of his and the other tribes about the rights of women.
I have a dilemma with this since I first learned the verse and had it explained this way and I feel a kind of helpless anger every time this particular verb is in this context interpreted as “to beat”. I don’t believe a word of it that this is a possible meaning. Of course there are hadieth describing that Muhammed himself had much difficulties with it and so on… Which serve in fact for the defenders of the “and beat her” connotation as proof that it was indeed part of the original message."

Thank you Aldebaran.

It is so much clearer to me now.

If my understanding of what you say is accurate, then what we might need here, is a complete Revamp or, if you prefer, a top to bottom "Reform" of the Koran and the Hadiths to ensure that all words like "beat", which actually mean something else, as you have managed to convince me, should be replaced by a more likely word.

Perhaps you, as a qualified Uthmanian redactionist and the parallel editions, would be best qualified to produce a fully corrected, revised or "Reform" edition of the Koran and the Hadiths, with words having the correct meaning inserted into the text of these most holy books and words having the obviously incorrect meaning discarded? It should be a best seller.

Do you feel up to the challenge?

Is your life insurance policy up to date?

Aldebaran

07-15-2003, 12:00 PM

Alan O B

1. Your sarcasm doesn't work with me.

2. As for a re-redaction of Al Qur'an: the fact that you come up with such a "proposal" gives only more proof that you have no idea about Al Qur'an, about Islam and about Muslims in general.
The fact that you name me a "qualified Uthmanian redactionist" only add to that impression of complete ignorance.
Studying on and writing about the history of a text is completely the contrary of "redacting" it.

3. When I come to conclusions about the subject I study on and write them down as such, doesn't mean that my opinions and conclusions are the right ones and the only ones. It only means that I came while studying on the issue to these opinions and conclusions. Like other researchers came to theirs.
Reading research done by others is part of the profession, if you agree with their opinions and/or conclusions or not.
Respect for the work of others is a necessity and not only that: reflecting on their work an trying to find out how they formed their opinions and conclusions is part of the proces of your own intellectual development.

Salaam. A.

New Iskander

07-15-2003, 05:20 PM

From historical perspective, “such a thing as Reform Islam, along the same lines as Reform Judaism” is not “even conceivable”. Also, Reform Judaism has absolutely nothing in common with Reform Christianity.

Christian reformation started as a dogmatic purification movement inside a domineering religion, directed against the “Roman whore”, i.e. corrupt and discredited Catholic Church. It was extremely bloody and narrow-minded: positive fruits were borne much later.

I think Reform Judaism started as an attempt by the adherents of oppressed religion (European Jews) to reconcile with and partake of the alluring quality of life of their oppressors (European Christians). Whatever internal violence it produced within Jewish community is insignificant in comparison with 30-year war.

Thus Christian and Jewish reformations have nothing in common.

Geographically, both of those reform movements were confined to Europe and, by extension, US and Australia. Orthodox Christianity was never reformed in European sense; Jews living in Middle East and Africa were never reformed either.

Islam is a domineering religion and will never reform on Judaic model; Islamic reformation will be more like Christian: bloody and dogmatic internal affair at the beginning. Some historians argue that is exactly what we see taking place nowadays. ‘Dogface’ mentioned above that Wahabism might be called the true Islamic reformation. If so, it is certainly not the first reform movement within Islam. There were few internal wars before, up to the point of bombardment of Mecca and subsequent destruction of Kaaba by some Islamic reformists many hundred years ago. Nonetheless, Islam remains as a whole so far…

Elewyne

07-15-2003, 06:35 PM

First off, I want to thank everyone for helping me to learn a little more about a subject I know too little about. I hope I can bring some contributions to the table too at some point. I've actually been lurking here for a while after a friend told me about the site, and have just been too busy to actually participate. Now onto specifics.

bbart4,
I guess I was responding to testy saying harsh penalties for not wearing a head covering did not occur outside of Afghanistan. I do recognize that this does not reflect all of muslim thought, and perhaps should've clarified that in my post. It was an extremist action, as there are extremists all over the world, in pretty much all lines of thought. It just made me so angry when I heard about it that I let my emotions get the best of me when talking about it at times.

Testy,
It's so interesting to hear from someone who is actually living there. That is a major reason why I joined sites like this, to expand my world beyond my own little backyard.
I am glad to hear that it outraged people in Saudi Arabia too. Ever since I heard about the incident I have wondered what reaction people had there. Maybe it woke some peope up to the danger of extremism. It sounds like it made the mutawwa lose some of their power, which sounds great.
I know how twisted a phrase can get. It happens with the bible such as when people would actually try to use the bible to justify slavery, which just thinking about gets me upset because it seems so antithetical to Jesus talking about loving one's neighbor, and the verse about there being no slave or free, man or woman in God's eyes. It's like how can one just choose to pretty much ignore the whole new testament and instead to concentrate on some obscure verse about Cane and Abel ( I think that was the one used). It just makes me want to shake someone. Okay, breathe, better now.
Anyway, good points. Thanks again for the education on some of what is happening in SA.

Collounsbury,
Thanks for the welcome. I hope I didn't make an enemy out of you or anyone else with my first post. You have a point about there being laws of indecencent exposure, and so forth in western culture too, although the fashion seems to be to wear next to nothing set by examples like Brittany Spears. which isn't necccesarily great for women either. Western culture has diseases like Anexoria because such an emphasis is placed on being the perfect body type. In either case the woman seems to get the short end of the stick. Either cover up from head to toe or look perfect, with the reasonable middle goal of being comfortable often too little emphasized. A woman should not feel that she should have to cover up her beauty, or that her beauty is solely dependent on outward appearence, on beng a certain, often unrealistic, ideal. I think true freedom lies somewhere in society not judging someone's value on outward appearence, wether that is with a head covering or not, weather one is a size six or not, ect.. I do feel a fault of our culture right now is that dressing for sex appeal is becoming more emphasized at a younger age as people like Britany Spears are looked up to by younger people. Young girls may start to think that is where their value lies. I can see where the modesty encouraged by muslim thought is healthier than this. Other religious thought encourages modesty too, which could then lead into discussion of degrees and differences in interaction of secular culture and religous culture, ect.. Sometimes I think living out in the woods would be best just to get away from societies twisted pressures.

To end on a positive note, I haven't read the Quaran, but one positive verse I have heard from it that I really like is along the lines of "By saving one life one saves the world."

Tamerlane

07-15-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by New Iskander
Nonetheless, Islam remains as a whole so far…

As a whole? I'd have to disagree, there. Islam is not quite as schismatic as Christianity, but it has been far more so than Judaism. Even Sunni Islam has seen its share of religious differentiation, not just in terms of different schools of jurisprudence ( which can have subtle, but significant effect on direction of belief ), but also the dozens of schools of Sufi thought, let alone such sects as the Wahabi ( or to pick an earlier puritan movement, al-Muwahiddun in North Africa ).

As to Islamic revival being solely conservative in nature, I'd agree that historically that has more often been the case. But hardly universal. Both a number of the Sufi movements and 19th century attempts with the Ottoman state to reform based on 'Islamic modernist' principles were not wholely conservative in orientation ( "conservative" here becomes difficult to define, as such movements tended to frame themselves as reaching both backwards for legitimization and forward towards modernization - but the backward casts, at least in the latter movement, referred back to the technical and intellectual achievements of the Islamic 'Golden Age' and thus weren't necessarily retrograde and luddite like the similar strivings of the Wahabi ). Or, a step further, which led to an entirely new religion budding off, the Baha'i could hardly be called narrow-minded conservatives.

While there is no exact analog to Reform Judaism is a sectarian sense, de facto many Muslims are "reformist" in the less dogmatic sense that the OP seems to be discussing. One can even find sectarian strains, like modern Naqshbandi Sufism, that quite deliberately position themselves as a more humanistic alternatives to Wahabism ( indeed those two groups approach the fervor of ideological archenemies ).

- Tamerlane

Jojo

07-15-2003, 07:55 PM

Elewyne,

You mentioned a line in the koran that you liked. There are lots of nice lines in the koran but there are also lots of nasty ones. I don't mean this in an offensive way but Islam is like trying to hold a bag of worms - just when you think you've got it, it slips out of your hands.

This is because there are so many islams - every muslim has his own islam. So it becomes difficult to make generalisations about Islam because there are always going to be examples that contradict your generalisation.

In addition to this, as Tamerlane says, there is a kind of de facto reform movement going on as muslims increasingly interact with western culture.

I understand there will soon be made an Egyptian version of Baywatch.

I'm kinda torn on the subject of Islam. On the one hand I don't believe that the Koran was written by God, I think it was written by a bunch of people out in the desert so I therefore MUST think that it's all a load of codswallop.

Then I consider all the dubious teachings that seem to be contained within this thing -

- the "beat your wife" stuff mentioned earlier and generally Islam's attitude to women
- the single worst legal system ever devised = sharia
- the prohibition on apostacy. Once you're in you can't leave
- the superiority complex Islam has - a non-muslim's word isn't worth as much as a muslim's in a court, a muslim isn't supposed to work for a non-muslim
- the treatment of religious minorities in muslim countries like Sudan or Pakistan
- the attitude of muslims even when they are a minority in countries like Phillipines

etc etc (I could go on for hours about things that bother me about Islam)

Then I look at how brainwashed muslims seem to be, they all seem to have total belief in all this horseshit.

Then I consider the fact that Islam is a universalist religion and I realise that they want to impose all this crap on me and my children.

At times I think that the only solution will be to have a big war in which all muslims are annhilated or forcibly converted. They seem to be going through a phase which we went through hundreds of years ago and came out of. They don't seem to be learning by our mistakes, instead they seem determined to repeat those mistakes.

I want to shout at them - RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK, YOU NEED TO BE SECULAR YOU IDIOTS.

I KNOW YOU HAD A CALIPHATE AND STUFF BUT THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW, TIMES HAVE CHANGED. EVEN IF YOU HAD A MODERN-DAY CALIPHATE IT WOULD STILL NEED TO BE SECULAR AND DEMOCRATIC.

This is how I feel some of the time. At other times I relax a bit more. I look at the muslims I actually know in real life and I realise that there are de facto changes taking place in muslim society but they need to be left alone to deal with this themselves. Islam is a very proud religion and doesn't take kindly to outside interference.

Islam may not be changing much on a doctrinal level but it is changing on a street level. Street Islam is a different thing to doctrinal Islam. Doctrinal Islam can't change much because the koran is the inerrant word of God - this is one of the things I dislike about Islam. It appears to be tyranny by a book rather than tyranny by a leader.

Islam doesn't care whether or not I dislike it but it should. If people dislike it then it's on the way out (even if it really is the word of God).

I have problems with the whole halal/haram stuff as well - I think that anything that exists on this planet is available for us to use. It was placed there by God, why would God place it there if not to be used.

Take alcohol for example. Muslims will regale you with stories about how the streets of Medina turned red with wine as people poured their wine away, however Muslims will not mention the fact that anyone caught brewing wine received 80 lashes.

They tell you about the wine story as though it is in itself a proof of the koran - the people were so thrilled by receiving God's message that they all instantly threw away their wine. They don't mention the sinister element of violent compulsion that underwrote the banning of alcohol.

Much of Islamic history (as told by muslims) has this vague fantasy tinge to it. Another one is the idea that Muslims were always victorious in battle despite having fewer numbers. The unspoken suggestion is that because they have God on their side and because they are willing to die for their beliefs they had the advantage.

This is HORSESHIT. They won some battles, they lost some battles but it had fuck all to do with God being on their side and it had fuck all with them being more ready to die.

ANYONE who goes into battle is ready to die for what they are fighting for. This isn't a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. And if God is on the side of the Muslims then whose side was He on during the Pakistan/Bangladesh war in 1971? Or the Iran/Iraq war?

Gah. They need some lessons in basic politics (how to run a political system), basic economics and basic history.

Eva Luna

07-15-2003, 10:27 PM

I wish someone much more knowledgeable in Jewish theology than I (with my inferior Reform Jewish Sunday-school background) would stick his/her nose in here, but to me Reform Judaism is a reaction to the literalism of Orthodox Judaism, in the sense that to Reform Jews things like keeping Kosher or covering one's head in public are not requirements to be a Jew.

To Reform Jews, is it important to preserve one's cultural heritage? Yes. Study Hebrew and Torah? Yes. Have 4 sets of dishes in the house? Not so much. Refrain from touching people of the opposite gender to whom one is not related? Nope. Ensure that women of childbearing age visit the mikvah (ritual baths) when they have finished their menstrual cycle? I've never set foot in a mikvah in my life, and of my entire remaining living extended family, maybe only my maternal grandmother has, but then she was raised quite Orthodox. It's really quite a different way of life, and every time I see the Orthodox way of life up close, it just boggles my mind.

I guesss the closest Muslim parallel to Reform Judaism I've seen would be that followed by the Muslims of the former Soviet Union (mostly North Caucasians, with a few assorted Central Asians) I've known; they were very proud of their heritage, and of those members of their families who had engaged in formal Koran study or who knew Arabic, but well, let's just say they didn't follow all the rules to the letter. I'm sure that's changed quite a lot since I was last there, though.

Collounsbury

07-16-2003, 01:51 AM

Jojo again, on Islam.

Very, calmly then.
Originally posted by Jojo
I don't mean this in an offensive way but Islam is like trying to hold a bag of worms - just when you think you've got it, it slips out of your hands.

Of course you mean it in an offensive way, you continue to natter on about the religion but know very little about it, other than you don't like religion and Islam in particular.

Any religion of many hundreds of milllions of adherents, spread over hudreds of thousands of square kilometers and with more than a thousand years of history will be complicated and multi-faceted.

It's hardly surprising then, Xianity, Islam, even Judiasm in its much more bounded way, are hard to reduce to slogans and still be accurate.

This is because there are so many islams - every muslim has his own islam. So it becomes difficult to make generalisations about Islam because there are always going to be examples that contradict your generalisation.

Well, there are also generalizations that are better grounded in fact than others.

I'm kinda torn on the subject of Islam. On the one hand I don't believe that the Koran was written by God, I think it was written by a bunch of people out in the desert so I therefore MUST think that it's all a load of codswallop.

One guy in the desert, if nothing else.

Then I consider all the dubious teachings that seem to be contained within this thing -

Super, is it helpful in understanding the religion to add this?

- the "beat your wife" stuff mentioned earlier and generally Islam's attitude to women

All the Abrahamic religions contain this sort of thing, came from highly paternalistic cultures. "Islam's attitude towards women" -in a legal-theoretical basis- when benchmarked against attitudes prevalent at the time in the 'Civilized World' of the day actually stands up pretty darned well. Indeed compare women's legal rights (theoretical at times) under sharia' law to a women's legal rights under say 15th c. English common law and our common law comes out not looking pretty.

- the single worst legal system ever devised = sharia

This is simply ignorant posturing. Single worst legal system, where do generate this crap? What do you actually know of sharia' law - in substance.

- the prohibition on apostacy. Once you're in you can't leave

And? So what, Xianity had the same features until fairly recently.

- the superiority complex Islam has - a non-muslim's word isn't worth as much as a muslim's in a court, a muslim isn't supposd to work for a non-muslim

As compared to your utter lack of a Western cultural superiority complex of course.

Yes, Islamic civilization, like every other of its type, contains the idea it's the best. Like our own contains such an idea.

It is worth pointing out that , for the record, that court testimony features dropped out of practice in the 19th century, so our dear Jojo is rather typically scare-mongering with Medieval Islamic practices rather than addressing modern Islam.

- the treatment of religious minorities in muslim countries like Sudan or Pakistan

Minorities tend to get shafted in the developing world, nothing particularly Islamic about that, one need only look to Sri Lanka for Hindu vs Budhist example. At the same time one can note that the Islamic world never whole sale expelled or forced conversion of its minorities, like the Xian world was doing right up to the 17th century. Muslims, Jews and even the wrong flavors of Xians. Xian minorities were historically substantial in the Eastern Med basin, although 20th century migration have drastically reduced them as they go seeking better economic opps elsewhere. Stagnating economies, nasty (secular) dictatorships....

So, yes there is ugliness, holding it up as a particular black mark against "Islam" qua "Islam" is ahistorical nonesense and prejudice.

- the attitude of muslims even when they are a minority in countries like Phillipines
[/qupote]

What "attitude" is that? What do you k now, in a factual matter, of the "attitude" of Muslims in the Philapines or of the history of that situation? I mean solid facts, not vague prejudices and bigotry -- and keep in mind this should be in a rational analytical framework, you might explain it the context of say the Chinese Muslim minorities in East China, similar in Thialand - how they fit in the "Muslim" attitude, or how they differ from the Xian "attitude."

[quote]
etc etc (I could go on for hours about things that bother me about Islam)

I'm sure you could, however poorly informed bigotry is rarely all that entertaining.

Then I look at how brainwashed muslims seem to be, they all seem to have total belief in all this horseshit.

Oh let me try this:
"Then I look at how brainwashed Southern Baptists and Born Agains seem to be, they all seem to have total belief in all this horseshit."

I haven't the stomach for the rest of your bile.

Collounsbury

07-16-2003, 01:54 AM

Damn I hit the wrong button. Well, good enough. Questions stand as they are.

Collounsbury

07-16-2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Elewyne
Collounsbury,
Thanks for the welcome. I hope I didn't make an enemy out of you or anyone else with my first post.

I have no permanent enemies, only permanent interests..... Well that amuses me if nothing else.

Simply adding information then:

You have a point about there being laws of indecencent exposure, and so forth in western culture too, although the fashion seems to be to wear next to nothing set by examples like Brittany Spears. which isn't necccesarily great for women either. Western culture has diseases like Anexoria because such an emphasis is placed on being the perfect body type. ..... A woman should not feel that she should have to cover up her beauty, or that her beauty is solely dependent on outward appearence, on beng a certain, often unrealistic, ideal. I think true freedom lies somewhere in society not judging someone's value on outward appearence, wether that is with a head covering or not, weather one is a size six or not, ect..

Well, in theory this is all well and good, but I do not foresee any human society anywhere ever attaining such a fine theoretical goal.

As it happens, we're visual animals first, creatures of intellect second by genetic accident. As such physicality and judgements by the same will always have a major role.

I hasten to add that in much of the MENA region, in urban areas at least, the standard is rather wider than cover all up. Certainly both men and women tend to cover more than in the West. Niehter will generally, outside wealthy highly Westernized areas, be seen w/o long sleeves and pants, regardless of the weather. That's the culture, Xian or Muslim.

However, beach culture can be quite diff, just to throw out an example, and in North Africa you find popular beaches of the working class with a bizarre mix of bikinis, full bathing suits and women with the abaya on (or djellaba as they say there).

More variation than first meets the eye. I second Testy in saying that in reality, as a general matter, clothing ex-Niqab is not the primary concern of MENA feminists.

Alan Owes Bess

07-16-2003, 06:25 AM

Elewyne,

You say you haven't read the Koran but that is the only way to learn exactly what it is that make Mohammedans tick.

I recommend reading not only the Koran but a generous assortment of the Hadiths.

English translations of the sermons that are preached at the world's major mosques every Friday are freely available on the net and are very easy to find. These include the main mosques at Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Yemen an lots of other places. They would be no different in nature to the sermons preached in all of the lesser mosques in the Muslim world and they would give you an excellent start in your attempt to gain insight into Islam and what its adherents are taught to believe in and stand for.

There is no point in trying to gain insights from the ravings and ramblings of people who are still busily engaged in their own study of Islam. People like Collounsbury, Tamerlane and my good friend and fellow student, Aldebaran, whose redaction of Uthmanians is second to none (not as gruesome as it sounds, incidentally).

Naturally, I include myself with the abovenamed as highly suspect sources of enlightenment in the ways of Islam and a net search by you on the topic will be far more profitable and trustworthy.

Collounsbury

07-16-2003, 08:04 AM

Oh look, our newest irrational Islamophobe is back:
Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
... Mohammedans ....

Again my dear fellow, please do join us in the 21st century. Mohammedans is out of usage and has been for a while, except among bigots, in the English world.

English translations of the sermons that are preached at the world's major mosques every Friday are freely available on the net and are very easy to find. These include the main mosques at Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Yemen an lots of other places. They would be no different in nature to the sermons preached in all of the lesser mosques in the Muslim world and they would give you an excellent start in your attempt to gain insight into Islam and what its adherents are taught to believe in and stand for.

And his habitual assertions.

I'm sure you can give citations to your googling so that we can judge for ourselves the quality of your "research" - I would have to think it slipped below your last assertions that evolutionary thought is not taught in the Muslim world.

There is no point in trying to gain insights from the ravings and ramblings of people who are still busily engaged in their own study of Islam.
people like Collounsbury, Tamerlane and my good friend and fellow student, Aldebaran, whose redaction of Uthmanians is second to none (not as gruesome as it sounds, incidentally).

Indeed one would not want to be confused by any actual knowledge, is that it? By the way, the italicized part makes no sense.

Enjoyable, someone advising people to get their learning about Islam from google searches.

cowgirl

07-16-2003, 09:05 AM

A topical article appeared in today's paper: Islam needs a modern and moderate reformation movement (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030716/COELMASRY16/TPComment/TopStories) by Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Many Muslims ... believe that Islam itself does not need to be "reformed," but that Muslims' attitudes toward their faith are what must be changed ...

Problems arise when some Muslims consider themselves "more Islamic" than others. They forget the basic truth that the non-practising Muslim, the most conservatively pious Muslim, and the eclectic Muslim mystic can all be considered simply Muslims. The result of forgetting this basic truth is dangerous extremism. But the extremism reveals the defects of misguided Muslims, not defects in Islam as a faith ...

Islam teaches that God loves justice and those who strive to practise it, especially toward people who are different from them in any way, but chiefly in the area of religious belief ... A reformation there must be: but it should be a reformation of Muslims from within, not of Islam itself.

Ludovic

07-16-2003, 09:13 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm kinda torn on the subject of Islam. On the one hand I don't believe that the Koran was written by God, I think it was written by a bunch of people out in the desert so I therefore MUST think that it's all a load of codswallop.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One guy in the desert, if nothing else.

depends on what the meaning of the word "written" is.

Again my dear fellow, please do join us in the 21st century. Mohammedans is out of usage and has been for a while, except among bigots, in the English world.

I had a (Christian) friend who preferred the term Mohammedian because he also "Submitted to the will of God." Which is taking strict definitions a bit too far, IMO, but just sayin....

Angua

07-16-2003, 09:17 AM

I've only jsut seen this thread, but I'm going to chime in here, with this:

There are liberal branches of Islam, they do exist, and in many respects they mirror the Reform Judaism school of thinking, i.e. are not as literal as more orthodox Muslims.

A brief introduction to Ismailism, one such liberal branch, can be found here (http://www.iis.ac.uk/hhak/imamat_intro.htm), and I'm more than happy to answer any other questions.

Collounsbury

07-16-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Ludovic
depends on what the meaning of the word "written" is.

Well, oddly in Arabic...

I had a (Christian) friend who preferred the term Mohammedian because he also "Submitted to the will of God." Which is taking strict definitions a bit too far, IMO, but just sayin....

That makes no sense at all as written. What is the logic? An Xian friend prefered to be called Mohammed[i]an (sic)?

Or he prefered to use that term over others. It's not a 'strict definition' - it is a misnomer at best. Xians worship Christ, Muslims do not worship Muhammed and indeed rather strenuously reject the idea of divinity going along with prophethood as being a form of shirk, 'associating' verging on polytheism. Their position rather closely tracks the Jewish one, actually, and in general the two visions of God are some what closer to each other than the Xian one. It's like calling Jews Mosesians.

Calling Muslims Mohammedans is at best ignorant and wrong, at worst shows you've been sniffing around old (and new) discredited texts on purpose.

tomndebb

07-16-2003, 09:34 AM

I had a (Christian) friend who preferred the term Mohammedian because he also "Submitted to the will of God." Which is taking strict definitions a bit too far, IMO, but just sayin.... Yeah, but there are several reasons to prefer Islam/Muslim to Mohammedanism/Mohammedan:

- Islam/Muslim is the nomenclature the adherents prefer, so it is simple courtesy to use them.
- The use of Mohammedan focuses the attention of the faith on the founder to the detraction of the belief. (We do not refer to Judaism as Moisheism or Mosaicism. Christianity and, to a certain extent, Buddhism, are a bit different because the person after whom the religion carries its name is believed to actually be God (or to have attained divinity).)
- The word Mohammedanism was used, for many years, among far too many English writers and speakers to indicate that Muslims actually worshipped Mohammed--a point that goes quite far beyond merely insulting, being actually blasphemous to a Muslim.

Tamerlane

07-16-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Ludovic

I had a (Christian) friend who preferred the term Mohammedian because he also "Submitted to the will of God." Which is taking strict definitions a bit too far, IMO, but just sayin....

Since the term Mohammedan seems to have originated with a Christian misperception that Muslims worshipped Muhammed in the same way Christians worship Jesus ( as an aspect of God ), a blasphemous notion in Islam, it is considered somewhat insulting by at least some Muslims today. Consequently it is usually considered an impolite an archaic term.

Originally posted by Angua

A brief introduction to Ismailism, one such liberal branch, can be found here (http://www.iis.ac.uk/hhak/imamat_intro.htm), and I'm more than happy to answer any other questions.

Yes, but outside of its current more liberal theology I wouldn't consider Isma'ilism a good analog of Reform Judaism, in the sense that it arose from a much different place, i.e. as a result of an 8th century doctrinal ( and probably partly political ) split within Shi'ism. While it is a fairly liberal and apolitical sect these days ( and by definition it has certainly never been "orthodox" in either a Sunni or Shi'a sense ), it wasn't at founding and for a number of centuries afterwards. Indeed at one time it was the very definition of the firebrand militant sect.

Of course in that facet, it is an excellent example of how Islam is hardly a static, unchanging religion.

- Tamerlane

Captain Amazing

07-16-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
That makes no sense at all as written. What is the logic? An Xian friend prefered to be called Mohammed[i]an (sic)?

I think he means that the friend preferred to call Muslims "Mohammedians" because, since "Muslim" means one who submits [to the will of God], and since Ludovic's friend, as a Christian, submits to the will of God, Ludovic would consider himself a "Muslim".

I dunno...the term "Mohammedan" just seems so...19th century to me. When I hear it, I expect the speaker to go on to talk about how the Opium War is just ghastly, and ask me what I think of Mr. Dickens's new book.

Captain Amazing

07-16-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Tamerlane

( and by definition it has certainly never been "orthodox" in either a Sunni or Shi'a sense ),

Well, orthodoxy has always been a pretty nebulous term within Islam, especially among the Shi'a, who have historically always been splintering into various groups based on some point of esoteric doctrine. Ismailism isn't hetrodox to the same extent that say Bah'ai is hetrodox.

And actually, come to think of it, the Reformation in Christianity and Reform Judaism aren't really very similar....the Reformation was a purifying movement within Christianity that stressed an end to what they saw as doctrinal corruption, while Reform Judiasm was formed as an attempt to reconcile Judaism with modern scientific rationalism and liberalism. If you had to compare anything in Christianity to Reform Judaism, it would be higher criticism and Modernist Protestantism (higher criticism coming out of Germany at the same time Reform Judaism did).

I guess you could mention the Mu’tazilites if you want to talk about "Liberal Islam" (and who I've always had a kind of sympathy for), but if you had to compare them to anyone, it wouldn't be either the Protestants or Reform Judaism, but the Christian Scholastics and Maimonides in Judaism (both of which were influenced by the Mu’tazilites).

Captain Amazing

07-16-2003, 10:11 AM

You might want to look at the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, here:

http://www.islam-democracy.org/

which seems to ask the question "How can liberal democracy and Islam be reconciled. I don't really know anything about the group. Anybody hear of them?

Angua

07-16-2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Tamerlane

Yes, but outside of its current more liberal theology I wouldn't consider Isma'ilism a good analog of Reform Judaism, in the sense that it arose from a much different place, i.e. as a result of an 8th century doctrinal ( and probably partly political ) split within Shi'ism.

Agreed, to an extent. But then, Shi'ism and Sunni'ism arise from a doctrinal split also...

While it is a fairly liberal and apolitical sect these days ( and by definition it has certainly never been "orthodox" in either a Sunni or Shi'a sense ), it wasn't at founding and for a number of centuries afterwards. Indeed at one time it was the very definition of the firebrand militant sect.

Tamerlane, I respect and admire your knowledge of Islam, but as for your last sentence, could I have a cite please? Are you talking about the Fatimid period? Or what?

Of course in that facet, it is an excellent example of how Islam is hardly a static, unchanging religion.

A fact which is embodied into the very constitution of Ismailism.

Captain Amazing

07-16-2003, 10:36 AM

Captain Amazing

07-16-2003, 10:43 AM

Angua

07-16-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
I think he's talking about the Nizaris and the "assassin" phenomenon.

Ah yes, that old chestnut, popularised by those who didn't exactly like Ismailism.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but that's just not within the Ismaili ethos...

Tamerlane

07-16-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Angua

Tamerlane, I respect and admire your knowledge of Islam, but as for your last sentence, could I have a cite please? Are you talking about the Fatimid period? Or what?

The Isma'ilis of the ninth century were active missionaries and political organizers. While the Shi'a of Baghdad maintained their positions in 'Abbasid society and government, Isma'ilis set out to proselytize tribal and peasant people peoples in Arabia, Syria, Iraq, North Africa, and in the towns of Iran, preaching equality and justice, the need for reform and the coming of the mahdi. Isma'ili da'is converted new peoples to their version of Islam and led extensive rebellions against the 'Abbasid Caliphate. Isma'ili dynasties were founded in North Africa, the Caspian region, Bahrain, Multan, and other places. While Imami Shi'ism was politically quietist, Isma'ili Shi'ism carried the banner of revolution.

Bolding added.

From A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus ( 1988, Cambridge University Press )

Anyway, less I was misunderstood, I wasn't comparing 9th-13th century Isma'ilism to, say, Osama bin Laden. Even the Nizari sect ( the so-called "Assassins" ) tended to get along well enough with their immediate, non-government Sunni neighbors.

But from the 9th century until at least the sack of Alamut, Isma'ilism was at the forefront of militant, armed Shi'ism, even more so than the Zaydis. In an odd way modern Imami and Isma'ili Shi'ism are somewhat flip-flopped relative to their medieval positions. The Fatimids are one very good example of Isma'ili militantism. The medieval Nizaris are another. Or the Qaramita ( Qarmatians ), who, in addition to attacking Basra and Kufa, raided the length and breadth of Arabia, sacking Mecca and Medina and carrying off the Ka'ba in 930 to their capital al-Ahsa ( later returned of course, through Fatimid mediation, I believe ).

- Tamerlane

Angua

07-16-2003, 11:11 AM

OK. Just checking. Yes, I know of that part of Ismaili history, no it wasn't pretty, but then medieval Imami Islam wasn't all sweet and innoccent.

The Fatimids were huge empire builders, and yes they were rather militaristic. However, from what I can recall, Alamut was a refuge once the Fatimid Empire began to disintegrate, and the Imams weren't so much vying for "empire" per say, but just to protect themselves.

New Iskander

07-16-2003, 02:32 PM

Tamerlane,

“As a whole” I meant looking from the outside. Of course, looking from the outside Christianity can be perceived “as a whole”. Perhaps better description is in order.

I think the major division in Islam (Sunni/Shia) can be compared with Catholic/Orthodox division of Christianity. I am aware that there are many schisms inside Islam, just like inside Christianity. Those division and schisms have nothing to do with the Reformation, which was a uniquely European event: not by its origins, which were typically conservative and dogmatic, but by its political and social consequences.

The Reformation forever destabilized the Church in the West and created a fissure in Christian world, through which all sorts and creative and destructive energies keep on bursting forth. The Reformation signaled the death of Christian “harmony” and the birth of individual freedoms, democratic politics and free-market economics. Nothing like that has ever happened in Islamic world.

Islam continues to maintain its grip on power. Even in Iraq, where government was secular and influential Islamic clerics were persecuted, Islam remained as a real power in the background: every time Saddam needed popular support he would pretend to be a good Muslim and made concessions to Islam. This is in no wise to be compared with Bush’s religious pronouncements, which attract open scorn and ridicule from at least half of US public. The major point is that religion in the West is always suspect, uncertain, unstable, forced to compete for public attention, doesn’t automatically command respect and is denied all means of coercion. Situation in Islamic countries is completely opposite. Therein lies the major difference.

As an aside, many well-meaning people in the West are advocating Islamic reformation as a sure cure, hoping it will quickly modernize Islamic societies and make them just like other liberal and democratic systems in the West. Those good people are deluded; they need to learn how terrible the real European reformation was like, how uncertain was its future and how long it took to bring about any positive results.

Jojo

07-16-2003, 05:45 PM

collounsbury,

sigh..here we all are again, inside another islam thread. It brings a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye. We should all get together and sit round an open fire toasting marshmellows and chewing the cud until the sun rises.

Anyway, back to business...

Do you then deny the existence of the dhimmi concept? It seems to me that (according to Islam) there are three levels. At the top you have muslims, next you have "people of the book" (christians, jews and hindus) below them you have the athiests and other religions.

All non-muslims must pay a "humiliation tax" to muslims. This humiliation tax is supposed to symbolise the idea that the other religions are recognising the fact of Islam's superiority over them.

Far as I'm aware, "people of the book" get three choices - convert, die or pay the tax. People who aren't muslim or "people of the book" don't even get that third choice.

You say that courts in muslim countries no longer consider the word of a non-muslim to be half that of a muslim. I'll take your word for it. However, is it not true that this is part of sharia?

So countries that introduce sharia elements (like Nigeria or Pakistan for example) are heading towards reintroducing this concept.

Other silly sharia rules:

- cutting off the hands of a thief - what if he turns out to be innocent?

- stoning adulterous women - yeah right

- is it not the case that for a muslim man to divorce his wife he just needs to say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and then he can can up sticks and leave. Doesn't matter if there are kids or whatever.

I know that Christianity has had dodgy practices in the past but then Christianity is a load of crap as well. But in any case this argument doesn't hold up because xtianity and islam are two different religions, you can't compare them really.

Just because certain things have happened in xtian history doesn't mean that the same things will happen in islam. They have different ideologies. In islam the koran is God speaking directly to us in the first person. Islam is much less amenable to change than xtianity - it can change but not by much.

In any case I think people are missing the whole point. People always talk about clashes of civilisations and whatnot. They talk about what will win in the end - christianity, islam, some other religion.

They talk about clashes between political systems - communism, democracy. They talk about clashes between different economic systems.

Everybody is missing the point. The thing that will "win" in the end is among us now but it is silent. It is present in many countries around the world, both muslim countries and western ones. It is older than religion and more powerful than any religion or any ideology.

It is unstoppable, relentless. It is astoundingly logical yet immensely complex. It is protecting you right now whether you are sitting in a room in Quetta, Pakistan or in a beach house in California. Either way, it is protecting you in exactly the same way.

It has survived everything. New religions have started up around it and yet it just continued unaffected. It is immune to religion. World wars have gone on around it and yet it remained unaffected. It is immune to war.

It is the greatest gift that has ever been given to mankind. Nothing can overcome it.

It's called English Common Law and it will "win" in the end.

Tamerlane

07-16-2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Jojo

Do you then deny the existence of the dhimmi concept? It seems to me that (according to Islam) there are three levels. At the top you have muslims, next you have "people of the book" (christians, jews and hindus) below them you have the athiests and other religions.

Actually atheist would probably rank rock-bottom in most cases. Your progression is roughly correct, though locally just who belonged to the "Peoples of the Book" was stretched at times.

However this is not drastically different from Chrisianity ( broadly construed and noting exceptions ), who regards any non-Christian as "unsaved" and throughout most of Christian history, inferior. Most religions consider themselves the only true path.

All non-muslims must pay a "humiliation tax" to muslims. This humiliation tax is supposed to symbolise the idea that the other religions are recognising the fact of Islam's superiority over them.

That and commutation of military service ( de facto, as women, children, and non-military age men were already technically exempt from the jizya ). Meanwhile Muslims were also subject to religious poll taxes ( zakat ), that non-Muslims were not. Not an equal system, of course, but the obligations cut both ways. The non-Muslims were required to pay special poll taxes and the Muslims were required to raise troops ands defend the non-Muslim community. Nonetheless, though a better system in some ways than others in the medieval world, by modern-day standards there is no doubt whatsoever that it created a distinct second-class citizenship. However...

To the best of my knowledge there are no modern Muslim states that currently imposes dhimmi status or the jizya. Not even Saudi Arabia or theocratic Iran. There are some thugs that terrorize Christians in Upper Egypt, for example, demanding extortionate "jizya". But this is just Mafia-style protection rackets with a thin veneer of religiosity and is hardly sanctioned by the government. Since even the prophet Muhammed and some of his immediate successors talked about exempting folks from the jizya for whatever reason ( according to certain hadith ), it is not considered an absolute, unbendable obligation.

Far as I'm aware, "people of the book" get three choices - convert, die or pay the tax.

Or be expelled or subject to other sanction. However, again, the word is "got", past tense. Not "get", present tense.

People who aren't muslim or "people of the book" don't even get that third choice.[/quote]

That would hardly account for the several hundred million Hindus around today, would it? No, in fact jizya was the standard for "pagan" peoples as well, at least under Hanafi ( the largest group of Sunni muslims ) and Maliki jurisprudence. Except when it wasn't ( i.e. the Mughul Padishah Akbar abolishing the jizya in his Indian demesnes in 1579, with it being subsequently re-introduced in 1679 by his great-grandson Alamgir/Auranganzeb ).

You say that courts in muslim countries no longer consider the word of a non-muslim to be half that of a muslim. I'll take your word for it. However, is it not true that this is part of sharia?

In this particular instance, you're probably thinking of women, not non-Muslims. In a few countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar a women's testimony ( when admissable at all ) is worth half a man's. Non-Muslims do have restricted legal rights in Muslim courts under some systems of shari'a, such as the Hanbali shari'a of Saudi Arabia ( but then so does non-Sunni Islam under that system, the state dept. reporting that testimony by self-admitted Shi'a being discounted in an auto accident case ). However the extent of those restrictions vary and are rather open to interpretation. Even the rule on women gets challenged from time to time:

Ayatollah Mustafa Mohaqeqdamad, a dapper cleric with a full beard and an impish sense of humor, heads the Islamic Studies department of Iran's Academy of Sciences in Tehran. His main focus for the past five years has been the state of Muslim women.

Mohaqeqdamad also issued a fatwa refuting a principle at the heart of the justice system that says the testimony of one man is equal to that of two female witnesses, which has long been interpreted to diminish the worth of women across the board.

Other silly sharia rules:

- cutting off the hands of a thief - what if he turns out to be innocent?

Rather analogous to the death penalty in the United States, isn't it ;)?

- stoning adulterous women - yeah right

Not mandated by the Qur'an, which calls for flogging. The idea of stoning comes from a hadith that is a matter of dispute and not universally accepted.

- is it not the case that for a muslim man to divorce his wife he just needs to say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and then he can can up sticks and leave. Doesn't matter if there are kids or whatever.

Another matter of great dispute, that does not derive from the Qur'an. In general Islamic divorce is not that easy and calls for dispensation by a judge and a three month waiting period. The "three strike thing" derives from an attempt to make divorce more difficult, by calling for two reconciliable divorces of three monts duration each ( where you're supposed to try to work out your problems ), followed by a third irrevocable divorce. Further the Qur'an mandates compensation for the divorced woman, over and above the return of a dowry ( said compensation not being spelled out, however ). And the woman also has the right to petition for divorce, though her road is a bit more difficult.

The dodge is that the waiting periods are not mandated if the marriage has not been consummated, hence the occasional circumstance you cite. But I'll note the above quoted Ayatollah Mohaqeqdamad has issued a fatwa against this dodge, as well:

His recent fatwas have declared that no man can divorce his wife by simply saying "I divorce thee" three times, a long-standing practice that has often left ex-wives stranded. "If marriage is a bilateral act, the divorce certainly can't be a unilateral act," he said.

Islam is much less amenable to change than xtianity - it can change but not by much.

Matter of opinion, I guess. I disagree.

- Tamerlane

Tamerlane

07-16-2003, 08:43 PM

Another matter of great dispute, that does not derive from the Qur'an.

By which I mean, the "say it three times and you're done" interpretation doesn't come straight from the Qur'an.

- Tamerlane

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Jojo
Do you then deny the existence of the dhimmi concept?

Not at all. It's a clear historical fact. It's also not current.

Like lots of unpleasant things in Xianity.

Not even in Iran is the concept applied in law.

Start getting your fucking complaints right or start admitting you don't know what the fuck you're complaining about.

All non-muslims must pay a "humiliation tax" to muslims. This humiliation tax is supposed to symbolise the idea that the other religions are recognising the fact of Islam's superiority over them.

It's called a jiziyah, not the humiliation tax. The word comes from the root meaning portion or part, and it best translated as a poll tax.

To put it not distortive and not deliberately exagerated terms, the tax indicated submission to the Muslim conquest, or Iftah as they put it.

Nothing in any way different from the taxes the Byzantines imposed on their conquered territories, and indeed at least the Muslims were fairly restricted in their expropriations and allowed non-Muslims free practice of their religion. The Byzanitines didn't, to the extent they controlled a territory.

Means of raising revenues,

Far as I'm aware, "people of the book" get three choices - convert, die or pay the tax. People who aren't muslim or "people of the book" don't even get that third choice.

Certainly they did. The Hindus and others were eventually legalistically included in "jiziyah" schemes insofar as other routes are available, e.g. any group that reaches a legal pact with the Muslims has to have their rights respected, unless they attack. That is, it is directly in the Quran that if you make peace, you respect it.

Of course you put this in the present tense which is stupid and deliberately distortive. None of this applies now.

In the future you are invited to actually know something of the facts before make wild accusations.

You say that courts in muslim countries no longer consider the word of a non-muslim to be half that of a muslim. I'll take your word for it. However, is it not true that this is part of sharia?

Well, as Tamerlane notes, that's women but as for disadvantages in testomony for non-Muslims in courts, not for over a century in the vast majority of the Islamic world.

Returning to the disadvantages, it is true of some portions of the sharia at some times.

Now get the fuck up to date instead of arguing about half-understood and deliberately distorted factiods. Whinging on about things that have not existed for 100 years as if they are current simply underlines your blind and ignorant bigotry on this matter.

E.g. you neglect to mention that in general Muslims and non-Muslims ran seperate court systems, under the baqta and other agreements they had. The nexus comes when one or the other chooses to sue. It is indicative, by the way, that the system was not so ugly as you want to paint it, that Jews and Xians in the classical period seemed to have often opted for Muslim courts even for suits between themselves, apparently due to higher standards. I am thinking of commentary by Lewis on this.

So countries that introduce sharia elements (like Nigeria or Pakistan for example) are heading towards reintroducing this concept.

Hand waving fear mongering blind argumentation.

First, Nigeria is not moving towards adopting sharia law, a few northern states have in those areas where the state, vs the Federal government, have competency. The movement has stalled out.

Second, Pakistan has hardly moved to introduce the dhimma, as noted not even fundamentalist Iran has. I suppose theologically they see it as superceded by the various legal conventions they have entered into, which is perfectly valid under most sharia tradition.

Now more ignorant squeeling about the sharia:
- cutting off the hands of a thief - what if he turns out to be innocent?

Yeah, well throwing a guy in prison for 30 years and trying to execute him happens in the West as well. Read up about Texas.

- stoning adulterous women - yeah right

And? Not in modern civil codes for most anywhere but possibly the Kingdom and not done.

Xian law has similar ideas, whole Abrahamic tradition and all.

- is it not the case that for a muslim man to divorce his wife he just needs to say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and then he can can up sticks and leave. Doesn't matter if there are kids or whatever.

No, it is not the case under most modern Islamic countries civil laws. The repetition has to be legally validated in court. There is a dichotomy on divorce certainly, but it is hardly that easy in practice (and it is not socially acceptable to do so in any case.) Walking away from one's family in the Arab world is a sure way to get oneself in deep disrepute.

Of course in economic stress and the like, families do fall apart.

I know that Christianity has had dodgy practices in the past but then Christianity is a load of crap as well.

Very enlightening.

I am not Xian, but I do endeavor to show a bit of respect. Both religions have, like all human systems, their positives and their negatives.

But in any case this argument doesn't hold up because xtianity and islam are two different religions, you can't compare them really.

Of course you can. What kind of idiotic argument is this, one can't compare different human institutions because they are different. That is uttelry bankrupt.

Certainly one should be well informed about the two institutions and not make facile and ignorant comparisions based on an impoverished understanding of one or the other.

Islam is much less amenable to change than xtianity - it can change but not by much.

I'll begin to look at your pronouncements on Islam with something less than complete contempt when you begin to show that you have something approaching a clue as to what you are talking about. To date all you have done is refer to a bunch of exagerated and often out of date facts in a wild eyed slavering of fear mongering. It's nothing but bigotry.

BTW the chest beating on English Common Law is fairly childish. Civil Code is out there as well, and more popular in many areas, more so than Common Law. I hardly believe Common Law, while a good thing, is really better than sliced bread.

Tamerlane

07-17-2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury

It is indicative, by the way, that the system was not so ugly as you want to paint it, that Jews and Xians in the classical period seemed to have often opted for Muslim courts even for suits between themselves, apparently due to higher standards. I am thinking of commentary by Lewis on this.

I have an better cite for this from Abraham Marcus, which I'll dig out when I get home this morning. It touches both on the above and its opposite, with Muslim businessmen occasionally opting to subject themselves to non-Muslim courts in matters of disputes with non-Muslim businessmen.

- Tamerlane

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Tamerlane
I have an better cite for this from Abraham Marcus, which I'll dig out when I get home this morning. It touches both on the above and its opposite, with Muslim businessmen occasionally opting to subject themselves to non-Muslim courts in matters of disputes with non-Muslim businessmen.

- Tamerlane

Right, it is hard to generalize. I believe Lewis' comments were of course on the Golden Age, so we need to be careful temporally.

Tamerlane

07-17-2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Right, it is hard to generalize. I believe Lewis' comments were of course on the Golden Age, so we need to be careful temporally.

My cite is from 18th century Ottoman Aleppo. An excellent ( and award-winning ) book, by the way. Really very highly recommended as a social history.

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231065957/qid=1058429506/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-7059402-6947130

- Tamerlane

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Tamerlane
My cite is from 18th century Ottoman Aleppo. An excellent ( and award-winning ) book, by the way. Really very highly recommended as a social history.

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231065957/qid=1058429506/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-7059402-6947130

- Tamerlane

That makes sense, by the 18th century I would believe that we have Venetian et al commercial dominance in re sea traffic.

Alan Owes Bess

07-17-2003, 05:58 AM

Collounsbury,

I don't believe you are able to comprehend the meaning of the word "bigotry", especially for someone like yourself who has been raised in your culture.

I'll see your Xianity and raise you two Mohammedans.

Angua

07-17-2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Collounsbury,

I don't believe you are able to comprehend the meaning of the word "bigotry", especially for someone like yourself who has been raised in your culture.

And that would be which culture exactly? Why shouldn't he be able to comprehend the nature of bigotry? Are you saying that you can because of how you've been raised??

MC Master of Ceremonies

07-17-2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Collounsbury,

I don't believe you are able to comprehend the meaning of the word "bigotry", especially for someone like yourself who has been raised in your culture.

I'll see your Xianity and raise you two Mohammedans.

And would you please like to tell us which culture Collounsbury was raised in?

Alan Owes Bess

07-17-2003, 06:42 AM

Angua,

Read his previous posts.

You will note that he is quite consistent in his reference to Christianity as "Xianity", yet if someone refers to Moslems as "Mohammedans" he thinks this is a sign of bigotry and seems to become quite emotionally disturbed. He appears to lack any sense of irony or detachment. An almost complete inability to see himself as others see him.

On this aspect, at least, I am far more enlightened and tolerant than he is.

His mind set is fairly consistent with someone who has been educated, if that is the right word, in what passes for the educational system of Arabia (I don't believe the House of Saud is too long for this world, incidentally, so I dropped the "Saudi").

The type of material that is included in the educational syllabus of any country is not merely freely available on the net but is actually placed there, almost proudly it would seem, by governments themselves.

This is why I recommend that people educate themselves about other cultures, and religions, by the material that those cultures and religious adherents post on the net about themselves.

There is no point in seeking truthful or accurate information on matters involving religion and culture by asking individuals on message boards such as this one. You will most likely be provided with a sanitized and very untruthful version.

If it's accuracy you want, then conduct your own independent research on the net. I am sure you already know how easy that is.

There is no doubt that other predominantly Muslim cultures would tend to produce a more enlightened person than those who are, in general, produced by the Arabian educational system. I simply cited Collounsbury's presumed educational culture, Arabia, which is only one Islamic country, incidentally, as a worst case example.

Angua

07-17-2003, 06:50 AM

Hmmm... You know what? I think Collunsbury's got a far better grip on the issues than you have. His insights on other cultures have not only been valuable, but accurate in many cases.

There is no point in seeking truthful or accurate information on matters involving religion and culture by asking individuals on message boards such as this one. You will most likely be provided with a sanitized and very untruthful version.

Whereas on the 'net everything is laid down in gory detail, you have no reference to the political (or otherwise) slant of the site creator, and you always get the truth. Right. :rolleyes:

Every claim that people make here has to be backed up with a cite, from a reputable source, so please don't preach about accuracy to me.

Oh, and the Xianity thing - it tends to be a standard abbreviation. Mohammadian is an insult to Muslim beliefs and makes the user sound like an uneducated bigot.

Alan Owes Bess

07-17-2003, 06:57 AM

Angua,

The "Xianity" thing is a standard abbreviation used by bigots, Mohammedan or not.

MC Master of Ceremonies

07-17-2003, 07:04 AM

Well actually Collounsbury is not from the middle east, IIRC he is from the US but as he has travelled and worked there extensively he has a very good knowledge of the region.

Xianity is a standard abbr. and is frequently used by Christian fundamentalist for example. Mohammadian is an antiquated term now only used in an insulting manner.

Alan Owen Bless it is clear from your posts that you have no experince of the Muslim world and that you are not very careful in your selection of sources.

Tamerlane

07-17-2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Angua,

The "Xianity" thing is a standard abbreviation used by bigots, Mohammedan or not.

Better tell this guy, then ( pretty dead site from the looks of things, though ):

http://www.gen-xtian.org/

"Xtian", unlike Mohammedan, implies nothing at all offensive. It is a standard abbreviation in use since the middle ages, from the Greek letter Chi for Christos, written as X.

I don't use it myself, because I note some folks get twitchy about it. But I've never understood said twitchiness, when the derivation ( unlike Mohammedan ) is pretty harmless. People having certainly been saying "xmas" for many years without anyone getting upset.

- Tamerlane

tomndebb

07-17-2003, 07:14 AM

His mind set is fairly consistent with someone who has been educated, if that is the right word, in what passes for the educational system of Arabia
. . .
I simply cited Collounsbury's presumed educational culture, Arabia, which is only one Islamic country, incidentally, as a worst case example. An outstanding example of a person taking too few bits of information and leaping over the Grand Canyon to a bad end (conclusion).

Col uses xtian/xtianity for the same reason that he uses a lot of shortened words and abbreviations--he types in a hurry and hates using long words when there are shorter series of keystrokes that will convey the same meaning. (In this thread, alone, he has used evac. for "evacuation," w/o for "without," diff for "different," and his favorite ex- to mean "derived from" (in sometimes jarring contrast to the more typical usage meaning "former"). Since he was born, raised, and educated in the U.S. (with some additional studies outside that country), an attempt to smear his erudition based on a false claim that he was educated in Saudi Arabia looks rather silly. (A fairly modest amount of lurking would have allowed you to avoid both of these risisble conclusions. You might also want to consider your blanket condemnation of all Saudi education as a point that needs correction. Neither Oxford nor Harvard are seriously challenged, there, at the moment, and some elementary education can be problematic, but one can get an education in S.A.)

Tamerlane

07-17-2003, 07:15 AM

By the way, even if you find xtian offensive, that certainly doesn't imply you should be free to use another potentially offensive term, does it?

You're not going to offend Collounsbury by "retaliating" that way, as he isn't a Muslim. But you may well end up making yourself look provincial.

- Tamerlane

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Angua,

The "Xianity" thing is a standard abbreviation used by bigots, Mohammedan or not.

Amusing, AOB, really very amusing.

Let me give a bit of... well I won't say friendly advice, but advice. When in a hole, stop digging.

The explanations of the very Xian derivation and usage of Xian are already provided.

Your contention that it is a bigotted usage reflects the same level of knowledge as your many equally baseless contentions regarding the Islamic world, and indeed your continued use of the word Mohammedan which fairly reeks of stale and outdated bigotry.

I might add I have a very expensive private school education rather far from the sandy wastes of Saudi Arabia. New England-Middle States you know.

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Angua
His insights on other cultures have not only been valuable, but accurate in many cases.

Damned with faint praise.

Angua

07-17-2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Damned with faint praise.

I meant that as outright praise. I for one do value your insights - heck, you've even opened my eyes to a few things about my own culture!

Tamerlane

07-17-2003, 08:39 AM

Ah, here it is.

The non-Muslim minorities also exercised a measure of legal autonomy. The Christian archbishops adjudicated property and other disputes brought before them by their respective communities. The Jews, especially jealous of their comprehensive religious law, maintained a rabbinical court ( Heb. bet din ) headed by a single judge. It settled matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance, notarized business transactions, and adjudicated property disputes. A communal notary ( Heb. sofer ) drew up deeds and marriage contracts in accordance with legal norms. In many matters, including even intracommunal disputes, the Jews did resort to the shari'a court. The rabbis conceded to the need to abide by state law, but encouraged their flock to follow Jewish law whenever possible, even if it proved less favorable to their case than the shari'a. Out of respect for this religious obligation some Muslim businessmen had property disputes with Jews settled before the Jewish court in accordance with Jewish law. The Jewish judge in the late eighteenth century, Ephraim Laniado, described this as a fairly common occurence during his time on the bench.

*****

Regarding the shari'a court:

The pattern of verdicts rules out a decided court bias in favor of the strong and powerful. Government officials, members of distinguished families, ulama, and ashraf all lost cases to their social inferiors. Chrisians and Jews often prevailed over Muslims in litigation. In 1778 representatives of the Christians went to court to seek judicial protection against new dress restrictions that had been imposed on their community by the interim governor despite an official edict from Istanbul confirming their existing dress code. Confronted by the qadi, the interim governor backed down. Mustafa Bey, the son of a pasha, sued a Christian for debt and lost for lack of evidence; wtnesses he brought proved false and were disqualified. Ibrahim Effendi ibn Ishir Agha, in charge of the cheese tax farm in the city, was taken to court in 1757 by Jews who proved successfully that he was overtaxing them. Without official permission, the qadi reminded the revenue farmer, he could not alter the tax rates. A Muslim who made false claims against three Jews with the intent of harassing them suffered flogging by order of the judge.

The above from pgs. 108 & 112 of The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century by Abraham Marcus ( 1989, Colombia University Press ).

Again, highly recommended and, I should note, not an apologia. For example he does go into some detail on the second-class status of non-Muslims in Aleppo ( they comprised ~20% of the population in the eighteenth century ).

- Tamerlane

Eva Luna

07-17-2003, 09:35 AM

Well, just think, it could be worse. I’ve certainly seen Collounsbury get quite grumpy about the less than optimally accurate use of the word “reform” to describe less hardcore and/or literalist levels of Muslim religious observance. I was even the victim of said grumpiness in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2492046#post2492046

(Not that I hold a grudge or anything; I’ve long since gotten over it, but not forgotten it, for better or worse.) So to those who are busy slamming him at the moment, the virtual rhetoric has indeed been toned down. Although I do wish he would refrain from applying critical words to those who are not knowledgeable about a particular topic but are honestly trying to remedy the situation, no matter how near and dear the topic to his heart.

Some of us, myself included, have merely been victims of the tendency of the U.S. primary and secondary educational systems to completely ignore anything that takes place east of Germany or south of the Equator and/or the Straits of Gibraltar, and are left with no choice but to spend the rest of our lives playing catchup. If we want to fight our own ignorance, we have to start somewhere, and sometimes I’ve come to the realization that my own ignorance on a particular topic is so vast that I don’t know how or where to begin chipping away at the edges. How do you read a book before posting if you don’t have any way of knowing which books are good and which are crap? At least give the poor OP credit for trying.

(Oh, and by the way, Messrs. Tamerlane and Collounsbury, and anyone else who cares to contribute, where is that recommended reading list on Islam and MENA affairs you promised lo these many months ago?)

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 09:50 AM

Ahem.

First, I would say that I don't believe it is a bad thing for people diving into a subject to at the very least do a modicum of background reading, if only on the message board. I don't care to cover the same ground over and over. As I said, I am not a teacher.

Second, reading list, perhaps I will work on it this weekend, departing for presently. However I note that in that very thread linked there is a fine reading list which should get you started.

Third, I hardly think I was that harsh in that thread, all things considered. I have a somewhat brutal mode of expression, perhaps, by default.

Finally, I frankly think tolerating this AOB person should get me some fucking baraka even with the Fan Club.

Collounsbury

07-17-2003, 09:52 AM

BTW Tamerlane, by dear sower of destruction and the like, perhaps you could do the honors of the Cafe Thread - i believe some copy past from that linked thread should get things going. When I get back from weekend I'll add some French sources like Roy and some Maghrebine things.

Eva Luna

07-17-2003, 10:07 AM

Collounsbury, I know, I said I’d gotten over it, didn’t I? And in that very thread admitted that I was perhaps a tad hypersensitive because I was just then hacking my lungs up in small bloody chunks, aided by a rather nasty pharmaceutical cocktail? And you will note that I did go out and buy a couple of books, and have plowed my way through those and some others on less directly related fields in the interim. But it takes more than a couple of books, or even a semester college-level survey course, to create a solid knowledge base. And in any case I don’t think there should be a prerequisite of a university-level course in Islamic theological history to post a GQ, or even a GD.

But let’s face it, that list was only a few items, and mostly general survey-type texts in nature. I don’t think anything there would allow a person to conduct a knowledgeable debate on all modernizing movements within Islam. I’d love to see an expansion of the list, and others have echoed the sentiment on various occasions, notably in your Grand Return thread. IIRC there was even a small movement to have such a list stickied in Café Society for the duration of U.S. intervention in Iraq.

(And yes, even I, of the Grand Lack of Islamic Knowledge, am getting rather annoyed at the refusal of certain posters to accept viewpoints that deviate from their own, especially when they are based on actual factual knowledge and experience. I find a nice, soothing cup of herbal tea helps, but you may prefer something stronger.)

Monty

07-17-2003, 12:14 PM

Collounsbury and Tamerlane have done very good jobs all over the boards in explaining Islam, so I really don't think it's all that necessary to rehash all of that stuff. Of course, Alan Owes Bess hasn't checked any of the stuff he's denouncing, albeit a denunciation disguised as an "innocent question." As noted above, the tell-tale use of an insulting term shows that the source is probably a discredited source (Can you say "Chick?").

How about it, Alan Owes Bess? What're your primary references? Did you read an interpretation of the Qur'an? Have you actually read any translations of the Hadith? Do you understand anything at all about Islamic Jurisprudence? You've cast a number of assertions here and provided no actual sources for them. That's bad form, to say the least.

Aldebaran

07-17-2003, 04:33 PM

Alan OB

'If it's accuracy you want, then conduct your own independent research on the net. I am sure you already know how easy that is.

Oh God...

That is all one can give as comment on such incredible ignorance.

And as rightfully brought forward by both Tamerlane and Collounsbury - and I can go along with the brief comments and explanations they gave about the issues raised here in general, brief and therefore incomplete by necessity; we aren't here in a classroom - : The issues you bring up without placing them in historical context are by lack of this nothing but unsubstantianal rants about issues you have not the slightest idea about, let be that you would have "insight".

Salaam. A.

Aldebaran

07-17-2003, 04:46 PM

Alan OB

'If it's accuracy you want, then conduct your own independent research on the net. I am sure you already know how easy that is.

Oh God...

That is all one can give as comment on such an incredible "statement". The internet "accurate information source". Such a brilliant reasoning.
Shall I give you some Internet "accuracy" about Christianity, Judaism, Budhism, New Age, Witches, Satanists, England, the USA, Australia, Europe, UFO's, Start Trek.... Whatever?

That can become very funny.

Salaam. A.

And as rightfully brought forward by both Tamerlane and Collounsbury - and I can go along with the brief comments and explanations they gave about the issues raised here in general, brief and therefore incomplete by necessity; we aren't here in a classroom - : The issues you bring up without placing them in historical context are by lack of this nothing but unsubstantial rants about issues you have not the slightest idea about, let be that you would have "insight".

Salaam. A.

Aldebaran

07-17-2003, 05:21 PM

Sorry for the double posting, this server seems to be sometimes very slow.

And if someone is interested in reading an outstanding study published in the English language, handling about the problems of the MENA region, I can recommend the following work:

A Political Economy of The Middle East,
Second Edition
Alan Richards and John Waterbury
Westview Press, Oxford - Boulder, Colorado.
ISBN 0-8133-2411-4

It's not only about economics of course. It's a most excellent study that brings up a variety of different yet intertwined factors.
And although the sitiuation in a country like Iraq has drastically changed lately, and although the second edition saw light a few years before the 9/11 events which will have an ongoing impact, and although the authors didn't include the influence of several very influential outside factors , this work is the most outstanding study I've seen so far.
This work is valued by many in the field, in so far that it has since two years its place at the university where I studied where it is used as addition to course documents.

As for those interested in Islamic culture and Empire and how it was possible that the Islamic world came in the underdog position it holds now, there is this excellent work:

What went wrong?
Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response.
Bernard Lewis.
Publisher Weidenfeld & Nicholson

I only have the reference here of the paperback edition, published by Phoenix: ISBN 0 75381 675 x

You don't have to agree always with Lewis but his works are in any case interesting and insightful.
And this one in particular is a very good one to read for people who aren't informed yet interested to discover certain patterns of this part of Islamic History.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran

07-17-2003, 05:47 PM

For further information:

Yes, talking about Muslims using "Mohammedians" is not only insulting. It is an impossibility inherent to the very core of the religion Islam. Muslims aren't "followers of Muhammed"like is intented to describe by using that word. Of course the Prophet is the most outstanding example to follow for a Muslim in order to become the best Muslim possible (and that is why over-valuation of Sunna and Hadith became possible), but Muslims only follow and worship God.
Talking about Muslims as "Muhammedians" only shows the person using that word to be completely ignorant of the religion named Islam.

Christians are rightfully called Christians since following Christ -considering Jesus to be the son of God- is the very core of the religion.
It can be - as explained here - that in the English language there is a history of using Xtianity and Xtians with no denegrating/insulting intention at all. Yet I shall never make use of this because to me it does feel as insulting.

Salaam. A

Jojo

07-17-2003, 07:54 PM

collounsbury,

I'm glad you think everything's peachy down in the House of Islam, I'm not so sure.

It's nothing but bigotry.

No, my attitude to Islam isn't bigotry or contempt, more weary exasperation. I know maybe between 100 - 200 muslims. Maybe you don't have to listen to them droning on endlessly about halal this and haram that, but I do.

I've even taken to talking to them whilst munching on a ham sandwich or a pork pie just to annoy them. I know I shouldn't but sometimes I get overcome by the dark side and I think "must....annoy...religious...person". It's like I lose all self-control.

I haven't said anything here that I haven't said to them face to face. And they come out with much the same sorts of arguments that you and Tamerlane come out with. Please understand it's the ideology I don't like, not individual muslims who are like anyone else - some good, some bad.

Anyway, I know that a lot of the things I mentioned in my above post aren't currently going on but isn't it the case that they are part of Islam? The only reason they aren't happening now is because most muslim countries aren't "islamic" enough. The ideas may lie dormant for periods but they are still there, in the background.

You say that these things aren't happening but I've read reports that in parts of Iran non-muslim shopkeepers have to display a sticker in their window to indicate that they aren't muslim. Then of course we have those good old boys the Taliban, who forced Hindus to wear yellow armbands.

So such things do pop up in the muslim world from time to time. Tamerlane mentioned the thugs in Egypt who are demanding the jezyah from non-muslims. Tamerlane, you guessed well, it was Egypt that I was thinking of when I mentioned the jezyah. I've read articles from a (western) journalist on the plight of Christians in Egypt. Apparently when these people come to collect the tax they don't even bother to bring the sticks with them any more - people pay up because they know what happens if they don't.

And I'm unclear on what the Egyptian governments position is on this?

Getting back to human rights, I believe it is the case that Iran executes more people than any other country apart from China. And when I say "more people" I mean that literally not per capita. Yet compare the population of Iran to China.

Tamerlane,

You say that cutting off the hands of a thief is analogous to the death penalty in the US. Well I disagree with the death penalty for the same reasons - what if they're innocent?

But in any case the death penalty is only used for serious cases (murder). I would say that there is a difference between murder and theft, wouldn't you?

Also, cutting off a thief's hands is counter-productive. Once that thief has no hands, how is he supposed to get a job and become a productive member of society? Cutting off the hands of thieves means that you are accepting that there is no place for rehabilition in the criminal justice system. I'm not accepting that.

Theft is of course a reprehensible crime but if someone steals from me, I'm happy that they go to prison for a while and learn the error of their ways. I don't particularly see the need to cut off their hands.

A truly committed thief would probably still find ways to steal anyway, even with no hands.

But in general, a person with no hands would find it hard to get a job so they are reduced to begging/illegal activities/ living off the state.

I'd rather let them keep their hands and try and teach them that theft is wrong. I don't know about you?

My problem with Islam is that the reason Islam proscribes the cutting off of hands is simply because that's what the book says. The book says "cut off the hands" so that's what they must do. There seems to be no room for debate on the merits of such action. Islam seems to leave little room for manouvre in terms of evolving human ideas.

The Koran was written in the 7th Century and therefore Islam is a 7th Century belief system. It was NOT written by God, it was written by a bunch of Arabs out in the desert but because it purports to be the direct word of God then how can it evolve? I note your optimism but I'm just not entirely sure what evidence you ground your optimism on. Believe me, I hope you are right.

By the way, wasn't the historical Tamerlane a bad guy?

New Iskander

07-17-2003, 08:12 PM

I get the point that most accusations against Muslims are based on outdated or poorly interpreted material.

I understand that Islam is not the only religion that venerates ancient rites.

I know that there are some extremely archaic and brutal mitzvoth in Jewish religious books.

While Christian religion looks clean on paper, many atrocities were committed in its name.

Those are things of the past that most modern people like to think are left safely behind us.

I think it is obvious that current animosity to Islam in the West is based precisely on the fact that most people are afraid that barbaric past is trying to come back into the world through Islam. Every time Islam was allowed to dominate large groups of people or the whole countries nowadays, the results were Iran, Taleban, Al Quaida and such; never anything modern, fresh or original. Islamic culture used to be stimulating to the rest of the world in the golden ages of Islam; whatever we know of modern Islamic culture is depressing at best and often quite frightening.

Is it not true that all the positive changes (in modern Western view) in Islamic countries were made under pressure from the West and their roots remain weak and uncertain?

Tamerlane

07-18-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Jojo
collounsbury,

I'm glad you think everything's peachy down in the House of Islam, I'm not so sure.

Not a matter of peachy-keen IMO. But your implication that its hopeless is rather more off the mark.

Anyway, I know that a lot of the things I mentioned in my above post aren't currently going on but isn't it the case that they are part of Islam? The only reason they aren't happening now is because most muslim countries aren't "islamic" enough.

Eh, I once again call "No True Scotsman" on this. The implication that real[/iu] Muslims would be like such-and-such is unwarranted in my view. Real Muslims are all over the map and are not necessarily any less Muslim than any other, i.e. the conception that the only real Muslim, like the only real Christian, is a scripture-thumping firebreather is erroneous.

You say that these things aren't happening but I've read reports that in parts of Iran non-muslim shopkeepers have to display a sticker in their window to indicate that they aren't muslim.

Non-Muslims are discriminated against in Iran in certain ways, but I've never heard that one ( the State Dept. report for one doesn't mention it and they're usually pretty good on those things ). I doubt that's government proscribed, even if true.

Then of course we have those good old boys the Taliban, who forced Hindus to wear yellow armbands.

Sure. Atavistic throwbacks that even the Iranian mullahs detested. Again, pointing at extremists as being the purest symbol of Islam is not necessarily a strong argument.

So such things do pop up in the muslim world from time to time.

Absolutely.

Tamerlane, you guessed well, it was Egypt that I was thinking of when I mentioned the jezyah. I've read articles from a (western) journalist on the plight of Christians in Egypt. Apparently when these people come to collect the tax they don't even bother to bring the sticks with them any more - people pay up because they know what happens if they don't.

Sure. Just like the Mafia. Once again, extremists ( in this case criminal extremists looking for an easy extortion racket )

And I'm unclear on what the Egyptian governments position is on this?

Their position is that it is illegal and given that the same thugs tend to be opposed to the government, the government tends to imprison, torture, and shoot them.

Getting back to human rights, I believe it is the case that Iran executes more people than any other country apart from China.

So? Who's defending Iran?

You say that cutting off the hands of a thief is analogous to the death penalty in the US. Well I disagree with the death penalty for the same reasons - what if they're innocent?

I agree.

I'd rather let them keep their hands and try and teach them that theft is wrong. I don't know about you?

I agree again. Though I didn't go into it before, once again the interpretation that a thief's hands be cut off is not universal in Islam ( some say it just calls for marking them ). Just like stoning adulterers it has never been a universal practice in Islam and likely never will be.

But no, I don't agree with that sort of Abrahamic punishment. I'm not a religious guy and I find some facets of Islam ( and Christianity, and Judaism, and most other religions ) farcical and even mildly offensive.

But your seeming insistence that Islam is irredeemably the sum of its harshest tendencies just doesn't fly with me.

The book says "cut off the hands" so that's what they must do.

Not necessarily, see above.

There seems to be no room for debate on the merits of such action.

Nonsense. This sort of stuff is debated endlessly in Islamic circles and has been throughout its history.

Islam seems to leave little room for manouvre in terms of evolving human ideas.

Nonsense, again. IMHO from reading history. YMMV.

I note your optimism but I'm just not entirely sure what evidence you ground your optimism on.

History and my interpretation of it. I'm sure some disagree.

They're wrong of course ;).

By the way, wasn't the historical Tamerlane a bad guy?

Misunderstood. A great one for children's tea-parties and balloons, was Timur. That and skulls.

Great big stacks of skulls.

And balloons.

[i]Originally posted by New Iskander

Is it not true that all the positive changes (in modern Western view) in Islamic countries were made under pressure from the West and their roots remain weak and uncertain?

"Pressure?" Hmmm...Depends on your definition. I think "influence" would be more appropriate in some respects, though it would vary depending on the period and circumstances.

And, no, actually, not entirely - I'd say Islam already had some positive traits from a western perspective.

As to the weakness of westernization, there is something to that. Or at least the weakness of secularism, which has fallen on hard times. But I consider that less a matter of incompatability with Islam, than the historical legacy of the past century. IMHO, anyway.

Eva Luna - Thy will be done. I don't claim its a masterpiece.

- Tamerlane

Eva Luna

07-18-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Tamerlane

Eva Luna - Thy will be done. I don't claim its a masterpiece.

- Tamerlane

Thanks, Timur, Hun. ;)

Scott Dickerson

07-19-2003, 12:25 PM

Folk--

The debate in this thread seems to me generally productive. Thanks to some useful cites, I have found the specific answer to my OP question.

I myself have never run across the use of "X" as a substitute for "Christ-", except in a negative or repressive context. Specifically, I have been in situations in which those objecting to terms like "Christmas vacation" were pushing for "Xmas vacation" as a nonoffensive substitute. In other words, persons offended by "Christ-" viewed "X" as a negotiated compromise excising the offensive idea, not an alternative but equivalent representation.

I have never happened across the use of Xian or Xianity as a respectful form of Christian or Christianity: not in the daily news, the magazines, a variety of contemporary books on religion (all religions). As people I respect are informing me otherwise, I will accept that it CAN be used inoffensively. But such use does not appear to be widespread in the United States.

So I was wrong about the "X".

Likewise, there may be cases in which remarks or questions about putative practices in self-described Islamic states arise, not from willful ignorance and a desire to wound, but from sources of information that IN FACT are incomplete or misinterpreted, but in a way such that the error is systematically reinforced, rather than quickly disclosing itself. IMHO, it is better for such innocent misconception to be brought out in the open for polite correction, rather than being quick on the draw with "do the research first, or you're a bigot."

A closing thought: nothing can hide the contribution Islam has made to the intellectual and artistic development of the world.

Tamerlane

07-19-2003, 01:29 PM

Scott Dickerson: Here's a link to my Cafe Society thread ( that sounds odd to me for some reason - I can probably copunt the number of threads I have started in my years at the SDMB on one hand ). Don't know if anything on this list will be helpful to you in formulating your thoughts on this topic or not, but just in case you are interested:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198523

- Tamerlane

Collounsbury

07-20-2003, 08:06 AM

More and more:

No, my attitude to Islam isn't bigotry or contempt, more weary exasperation.

Your attitude, including your certitudes based on half-baked information appears to me to be functionally indistinguishable from bigotry.

I know maybe between 100 - 200 muslims. Maybe you don't have to listen to them droningg on endlessly about halal this and haram that, but I do.

Oh, poor Jojo, having to listen to Muslims droning, why I am sure they tie you down. I rather seem to recall you having a project to convert them (or a neighbor at least) to ‘reason.’

Well, I know literally thousands of Muslims, have spent the past decade or so immersed in them. I work and live with them, I’m hardly ever bothered. The odd conversion conversation is easily handled and hardly ever occurs – I’ve gotten far more and far more annoying conversion and Religious Law blather from Born Agains trying to save my unholy soul.

Must be me, or maybe you are looking for an itch to scratch. A scab to peel. Or maybe you’re a bigot searching for something to be all up in arms about.

I know I shouldn't but sometimes I get overcome by the dark side and I think "must....annoy...religious...person". It's like I lose all self-control.

Well, I believe the above more or less answers the question. You’re looking to get riled up.

I haven't said anything here that I haven't said to them face to face. And they come out with much the same sorts of arguments that you and Tamerlane come out with.

They, they, they.

Well, if you would start by learning something and not keep repeating the same half-baked crap, then perhaps there might be some progress. Unlikely, as it appears to be something fundamental, but one can hope.

Please understand it's the ideology I don't like, not individual muslims who are like anyone else - some good, some bad.

Primo, you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the “ideology” and secundo, I couldn’t give a flying fuck if “some of my best friends” are Muslims is true or not, arguing from ignorance remains ignorant..

Anyway, I know that a lot of the things I mentioned in my above post aren't currently going on but isn't it the case that they are part of Islam?

First, if you knew, then why did you use the present tense? I think you’re lying to cover up your embarrassment. You will deny of course, but Occcam’s razor.

As for being part of Islam, lots of things have been part of Islam in the widest sense of the word – i.e. religion as a culture and history.

The only reason they aren't happening now is because most muslim countries aren't "islamic" enough. The ideas may lie dormant for periods but they are still there, in the background.

Well, if one believes the Salafi extremists, then I suppose that may be the case, however since, despite their pretensions, the Salafi fundamentalists are not the only Muslims around, and indeed are probably but a minority, albeit a numerous one (but then so are Xian fundies), that’s neither here nor there.

I’ll take reality for 5, Alex, and not “No True Scotmen” arguments by someone who seems to have but a vague and unlearned acquaintance with Islam.

You say that these things aren't happening but I've read reports that in parts of Iran non-muslim shopkeepers have to display a sticker in their window to indicate that they aren't muslim.

Then cite to them, as Tamerlane noted, the major HR organizations haven’t mentioned anything of the sort. Again, enough of the hand waving I have heard bullshit.

Then of course we have those good old boys the Taliban, who forced Hindus to wear yellow armbands.

Considered actually, they didn’t quite get around to applying it in the end, ran out of time. However, insofar as you have thinkers like Qardaouie, himself not a liberal, and the Iranian clerical establishment or ulema condemning the Taleban as backward fucks, your argument rather looks sad and peevish.

So such things do pop up in the muslim world from time to time. Tamerlane mentioned the thugs in Egypt who are demanding the jezyah from non-muslims.

Well, first let me remind the readers of (a) your bullshit translation of the phrase, (b) that the demands are not by Egyptian “Muslims” or the state, but rather along the lines of extortion rackets. In the same way the Russian mafia, the Italian mafia, etc. do such. So it’s dressed up in religious terms, nothing unique there either, despite your attempts to paint this in gibbering fear mongering terms.

In any event, the issues in the Saed region of Egypt revolve around a declinging economy, failing land and immense social pressure. Some of it bleeds off into Xian versus Muslim, but as much into Muslim versus Muslim. In short, humanity scrabbling over a declining share of the pie, brings out the ugliness.

Tamerlane, you guessed well, it was Egypt that I was thinking of when I mentioned the jezyah. I've read articles from a (western) journalist on the plight of Christians in Egypt. Apparently when these people come to collect the tax they don't even bother to bring the sticks with them any more - people pay up because they know what happens if they don't.

And? Egypt is a big place. In the Saed, the government has a hard time enforcing the law – the rule of clan and vengeance – sometimes married with Islamic extremism – rules more than the State. It’s great to visit. Westerner or not, you have to go in an armed convoy. Yup, armed convoy, nice guys with machine guns mounted on their truck, and one’s driver doubles as a body guard. Doesn’t matter if you’re Muslim or Budhist, the folks just don’t like outsiders.

And this area is a world of difference from Cairo and the North, indeed in Cairo, the Xians are the heart of the private sector and generally pretty wealthy.

Are there problems, yes there are, but I see no reason to be using it as a flag against Islam, except for bigotry looking for handles.

And I'm unclear on what the Egyptian governments position is on this?

If you had a genuine interest, you would find it easy enough to find out, they’re against inter-communal violence, and there is no way in the world Mubarek and the Generals are for imposing medieval rules. Mubarek et al have numerous faults, they’re corrupt fucks, but they’re not bigots.

Getting back to human rights, I believe it is the case that Iran executes more people than any other country apart from China. And when I say "more people" I mean that literally not per capita. Yet compare the population of Iran to China.

Why don’t we have some actual numbers instead of the simple hand waving. Nevermind, I’ll do it for you:
AI 2001 figures:
China: noted as incomplete data, at least 2468
Iran: 139
Saudi Arabia: 79
USA: 66
The aforementioned accounting for “90 percent” of all known executions. I have no idea how fiable these figures are in really capturing the real number of executions in the world, but we can see three countries where fundie religion drives executions – perhaps you should be equally excited that in the US – where zapping people is exceedingly popular, the religious right is positively overjoyed by the thought of more executions and wants to limit rights of appeal.

I also note the majority of the Islamic world doesn’t pop up. Of course, Jojo the learned scholar of Islam simply declares them not real Muslims, you know “No True Scotsman.”

Islam seems to leave little room for manouvre in terms of evolving human ideas.

The observation might be worthy of comment if it was made by someone who reflected a real learning in the subject. Observations from pure bigotry are fundamentally uninteresting.

The Koran was written in the 7th Century and therefore Islam is a 7th Century belief system. It was NOT written by God, it was written by a bunch of Arabs out in the desert but because it purports to be the direct word of God then how can it evolve? I note your optimism but I'm just not entirely sure what evidence you ground your optimism on. Believe me, I hope you are right.

No, I don’t believe you, you’ve shown no sign of being anything more than someone very frightened of the Muslim who will go boo under the Bed.

As for your CAPITAL letter declaration that the Quran is not the work of God, well as non-believers, why do we care? I don’t particularly believe any of the books, Torah, Bible nor Quran are necessarily divinely inspired, but then I don’t run around commenting ignorantly on Judiasm and telling CD Dexter Haven, Zev, and other Board jews, above all the Orthodox among them, that their book is shite, that Mosiac law is crap, holding Kosher rules strictly shows how backward they are and and that none of it is “REALLY” inspired by God, and oh yes, you’re not “REALLY” (in case they missed it, the capital letters should help) God’s chosen people which only shows how bigoted and close minded Jews are against all other religions, etc.

Lucky me, if I did I would be rightly labeled a bigot. The same goes for the Boards Xians, believers of whatever stripe.

Jojo

07-21-2003, 06:36 PM

hmm...was going to let this thread die but then I decided not to.

First this by Scott:

it is better for such innocent misconception to be brought out in the open for polite correction, rather than being quick on the draw with "do the research first, or you're a bigot."

If you're talking about me and collounsbury then don't worry about us, we go way back and in fact love each other in a very deep way that may not be obvious to outsiders. But I would like to stress that our love is a purely sexual thing.

Tamerlane,

You compared the Egyptian boys to the mafia but surely the mafia don't use religious scripture to justify their extortion?

Re: the cutting off of hands issue. I don't know whether I'm being dumb here or you're being deliberately obtuse. Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly enough:

There are some people in America who support the death penalty. These people support the death penalty because they are persuaded by the arguments in favour of it - deterrent, just punishment, cheaper than prison etc etc.

I personally don't agree with their arguments but I can see where they are coming from. If these people could be persuaded that their arguments are erroneous then they would change their minds.

They are open to persuasion.

Not all interpretations of islam provide for the cutting off of hands but some muslims do belong to branches of islam that advocate hand-lopping. These muslims, that belong to the hand-lopping school, only advocate hand-removal because that is what the holy book says.

They don't believe in hand-removal because they think it's a deterrent or because they think it's a just punishment. They advocate hand-removal because they think that's what God says we should do.

They aren't open to persuasion. It is possible that they could be persuaded that they have misunderstood the book and that the book doesn't really say "remove the hands". In this case they would move to a different version of islam, a "keep the hands" version.

But they haven't been persuaded by force of argument that chopping off hands is bad idea. All they've been persuaded of is that the book says something slightly different to what they thought. But they are still obeying the book to the letter.

The death penalty is something that is continually being debated - should we do it, shouldn't we. Different countries arrrive at different verdicts but at least they arrive at their verdict after debating the merits of such a punishment.

In islam the argument just seems to be - does the book tell us to do it or not? No discussion as to whether we should do it, just, does the book tell us to do it?

Chopping off hands is probably a bad example because I don't think any countries (outside SA) actually do it but the principle is the same. When considering any course of action there should be some thought as to the inherent merits of that action not just argument as to whether the book recommends it or not.

You say:

This sort of stuff is debated endlessly in Islamic circles and has been throughout its history.

Is this true? Can you give me any examples? I'm not talking about debate as to what the book says, I'm talking about debate about the inherent merits of any given seemingly "islamic" course of action.

Collounsbury,

I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on Islam. You'll notice I hardly ever argue with you or Tamu. I raise questions or criticisms. If I'm still not sure what you mean I may come back to you but so what?

In any case I'm too scared to argue with Tamu (all those skulls).

Anyway:

Your attitude, including your certitudes based on half-baked information appears to me to be functionally indistinguishable from bigotry. my bold

Maybe you should get out more?

Oh, poor Jojo, having to listen to Muslims droning, why I am sure they tie you down. I rather seem to recall you having a project to convert them (or a neighbor at least) to ‘reason.’

Yes I don't like to listen to anyone droning. Maybe you do?

Yes I would like to convert them but then everyone wants to convert people. You want to convert people to the "collounsbury world view" I want to convert people to the "jojo world view". Nothing wrong with that.

If everybody in the world thought like me then there would be no war.

Well, I know literally thousands of Muslims, have spent the past decade or so immersed in them. I work and live with them,

No, I don't think you do know them. You know them but you don't know them. I don't think you really know a person until you reach the point where you can start insulting each other.

example - one guy was calling me gondhu for about a year before I got round to looking up what it meant. I thought it would be something respectful, turned out it means "donkey-shagger".

Now that I'm armed with that info I've taken to calling him soodu which (I think) means fuckface or somesuch.

The muslims I know and I have been through a lot together. When 9/11 happened one guy I know (who is a mullah) got chased down the street because he bears an unfortunate resemblance to OBL. When Iraq came along I had to bear the brunt of their displeasure since I am the only white person they know who they feel comfortable enough to argue with.

I reckon you kept your head down and tried to keep a low profile. I had stand up rows with them (friendly ones) and we're all still together. I reckon my relationship with the muslims I know is healthier than your relationship is with the muslims you know.

You (I think) are probably all respectful and fawning whereas if I think something's bullshit, I tell them. Works two-ways, they tell me if they think somethings bullshit.

Must be me, or maybe you are looking for an itch to scratch. A scab to peel. Or maybe you’re a bigot searching for something to be all up in arms about.

No, maybe you go around looking for putative bigots to get up in arms about.

Why don’t we have some actual numbers instead of the simple hand waving. Nevermind, I’ll do it for you:
AI 2001 figures:
China: noted as incomplete data, at least 2468
Iran: 139
Saudi Arabia: 79
USA: 66
The aforementioned accounting for “90 percent” of all known executions. I have no idea how fiable these figures are in really capturing the real number of executions in the world, but we can see three countries where fundie religion drives executions – perhaps you should be equally excited that in the US – where zapping people is exceedingly popular, the religious right is positively overjoyed by the thought of more executions and wants to limit rights of appeal.

Hmm...so I was right about Iran then. Second to China. I also seem to recall that the Taliban were executing 20 people a day at one point.

I (obviously) don't much like religious fundamentalism whether it's islamic or any other kind but islam seems to lend itself to harsh interpretations. As regards the US, I agree. I've already said I don't agree with the death penalty and in any case I'm not American so if you want to get into criticising America then I have no problem with that.

Muslim Heaven is so obviously the heaven of a 7th century arab man sitting out in the desert. When he goes to heaven there will be the shade of palm trees, oases of water and virgins.

Well, where I'm from, I would rather have slightly less rain not more. The only reason I would want a tree to stand under is to protect me from the rain and as for virgins....well I'll keep them. Although, to be honest, I would prefer women that weren't virgins really.

If Mohammed had been born in the UK I think Islamic heaven would look somewhat different.

And as for women in Islamic heaven, well ain't much there for them. Also re the virgins - are they only virgins until the first time you have sex with them and after that you've just got 72 non-virgin women to deal with or do they keep getting replenished so that you are continually getting new batches of virgins?

To be honest, although I am sexual dynamite, I think I could get bored with all these virgins every night wanting me to perform. And in any case, islamic heaven offers you alcohol as well. After a lifetime of abstinence I would really hit the bar when I reach heaven so I'm not sure I would be in any state to keep these virgins going.

In fact, wouldn't islamic heaven be full of alcoholics?

In any event, islam proves itself wrong by means of a fatal internal contradiction ie God made Jesus "resemble another" on the cross. By doing this God made everyone think that Jesus was crucified when he wasn't. This started Christianity.

So, on the one hand, Islam says that Christianity is wrong and yet, on the other hand, Islam says that God started Christianity.

Uh?

bbart4

07-21-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Jojo
Not all interpretations of islam provide for the cutting off of hands but some muslims do belong to branches of islam that advocate hand-lopping. These muslims, that belong to the hand-lopping school, only advocate hand-removal because that is what the holy book says.

But they haven't been persuaded by force of argument that chopping off hands is bad idea. All they've been persuaded of is that the book says something slightly different to what they thought. But they are still obeying the book to the letter.

Question for you: Who's "they"? Is it all Muslims, most Muslims, just those in SA, Muslims from the 7th century, Muslims you know or...? If most don't subscribe to it, why do you think they don't?

And as for women in Islamic heaven, well ain't much there for them. Also re the virgins - are they only virgins until the first time you have sex with them and after that you've just got 72 non-virgin women to deal with or do they keep getting replenished so that you are continually getting new batches of virgins?

I also know a lot of Muslims and I don't think anybody among them believes in this. What do they say about literal interpretation of a holy book? Especially one which is extremely difficult to interpret?

I don't know why you keep punding on this and force people to take your point of view when Coll and Tamerlane pointed out that you used past tense and when challanged you mentioned practices in SA. You know as well as I do that most Muslims (by a very very long mile) live outside of SA. In fact, most live outside of MidEast.

Just curious, do your Muslims friends agree with your POV?

Collounsbury

07-22-2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Jojo
You compared the Egyptian boys to the mafia but surely the mafia don't use religious scripture to justify their extortion?

Sure they can and do.

On executions and the like.

They are open to persuasion.

Wonderful, some are, some are not. Depends on who we're speaking to, but in the end quite evidently most Muslims are open to persuasion since the hand chopping thing is of great rarity nowadays in the Islamic world.

Not all interpretations of islam provide for the cutting off of hands but some muslims do belong to branches of islam that advocate hand-lopping. These muslims, that belong to the hand-lopping school, only advocate hand-removal because that is what the holy book says.

Some.... some.... Well some Xians in the state believe zapping people is all well good and holy, so what does this argument get us.

Further you make the assertion, again based off of Jojo logic, such as it is, that those Muslims who support cutting off do so solely because of the holy book.

Strong and sweeping assertion - again part of your continued use of the No True Scotsman fallacy to promote a shrill bit of panic mongering – I have no idea where you develop your assertions from, for example in Northern Nigeria interviews and reporting in the BBC, Washington Post and New York Times, to name but the English language reporting, all consistently found and report that the major impetus (aside from political power plays) for popular support was a desire for law and order. Secular courts are corrupt and inefficient, Nigerians reported a hope/belief that Sharia courts would be more efficient and help establish law and order.

But one example, but pertinent for showing that this rant of yours is fact free and driven by phobia.

They don't believe in hand-removal because they think it's a deterrent or because they think it's a just punishment. They advocate hand-removal because they think that's what God says we should do. [Etc. Etc. ad nauseum]

Assertions, based off of your own rather impoverished understanding of things.

I fail to see an issue for debate, you make a great deal of hand waving assertions about Muslims not being open to assertion (or in your back scuttling, “some Muslims”) – I see no engagement with fact.

You continually raise the same arguments and the same fact free panic mongering regarding Islam and Muslims. Bigotry.

bbart4

07-22-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by bbart4
I don't know why you keep punding on this and force people to take your point of view when Coll and Tamerlane pointed out that you used past tense and when challanged you mentioned practices in SA. You know as well as I do that most Muslims (by a very very long mile) live outside of SA. In fact, most live outside of MidEast.

The paragraph above should read as follows::smack:

I don't know why you keep pounding on this and force people to take your point of view when Coll and Tamerlane pointed out that you used present tense to describe past events (doubtful even if it was as widespread as you implied) and when challanged you mentioned practices only in SA.

Tamerlane

07-22-2003, 06:29 PM

I'm not talking about debate as to what the book says, I'm talking about debate about the inherent merits of any given seemingly "islamic" course of action.

Jojo: Well of course the thing is, is that religion, as a historical entity, doesn't really work that way. Not Islam and not any religion. That much is true. However that is not the same as saying Islam is not open to persuasion.

A good Muslim will tell you that the Qur'an is immutable and that their religious precepts stem from this immutable text. But immutable or not it is also an interpretive text and interpretations change all the time. Constantly, in fact. Now these interpretation are bounded to be sure. But a lot less tightly than I expect you think. Your argument that Muslims are not open to suasion and evolution of their faith just doesn't hold up. An example I've brought up before:

The Qur'an says a man may have up to four wives. It also says he must treat them all the same. Okay, fine - That was actually a moderately progressive view by the standard of 7th century mores. As it was relatively few men could afford multiple wives, especially in urban setting, so polygamy wasn't exactly rife throughout the Arab world. Nonetheless, it did occur and appeared to be sanctioned religiously. Well the 18th and 19th century rolls around and western notions start seeping into the Middle East. One of these, whether from moral or practical reasons, is the notion of monogamy as a superior instituition. This filters to theologians who start thinking on the issue of polygamy and then some of them suddenly come to the conclusion that the Qur'an actually says the opposite of what they thought. Because no man can truly treat all of his wives exactly the same, could they? Muhammed and other perfect prophets perhaps excepted. So what the Qur'an is actually saying is that de facto most Muslims are banned from having multiple wives, unless they can live up to near impossible standards.

Somewhat tortured reasoning? Sure - but the history of religion is full of tortured reasoning ( ObL's reasoning for believing he is sanctioned to kill civilians is far more tortured ). The fact of the matter is that the major, poly-cultural faiths always adapt themselves to reflect changing society. They also work in the other direction as well, of course. But there is always a synergy. The "clergy" in Iran, once determindedly apolitical, gradually became more politically active in reaction to changing events in Iran - they ( and their opposition within clerical circles ) found ammunition for this change in status within scriptural texts to justify this, yet somehow those same texts were perceived to have said something different to them generations earlier. I can cite innumerable examples of philosophical debates from within Islam over fairly large and fundamental, but also small and practical, issues. But frankly you'd better off reading a book than some post I composed for this message board.

If you like one can draw an analogy to the U.S. Constitution and the constant interpreting and re-interpreting of its actual message. Does an 18th century document still actually reflect a working 21rst century society? Some would say no, but many would say yes. Now of course the counter-claim is that the Constituition is flexible because it can be amended. But insomuch as the Qur'an ( not even to mention the hadith ), like the Bible, are several orders of magnitude more complex and open to interpretation than even the Constitution, the re-interpretation can almost be functionally equivalent to amending ( see example above ).

I'm not a Muslim and I believe that it can be a very dangerous force at times. However it can also be pretty peaceable and humanistic. And to call it unchanging and unopen to persuasion ( from a cultural standpoint, at the very least ), is simply erroneous.

- Tamerlane