Because the other thread was too long.
Didn’t want that amazing thread to get lost.
Carry on; I’m learning so much.
Dear Tamerlane,
Thanks for the response! I had heard and read (a little) about Islam’s position on homosexuality, but I wanted a more authoritative commentary. As Muslim Guy has pointed out, what Americans have heard thru the media regarding Islam is horribly one-sided. :rolleyes:
Both you and b]Muslim Guy** have pointed out that you take a rather liberal interpretation of Islam, if that’s the case, is anyone doing a re-interpretation of the various texts with the Qu’arn and its commentaries to give a more sympathetic view of homosexuality?
If we’ve established that no conscientious Muslim could be on Al Quaeda’s side on this; could they be on the west’s? Could a Muslim enlist in the US army and go to Afghanistan and hunt Bin Laden.
I have seen several proposals (some more intelligent than others) that we form some sort of a Arab-American battalion, or a mercenary force of Saudis or something and “let them handle it.” Leaving out some of the uglier aspects of this idea, my question is, from a strictly religious aspect, would this be OK?
If nothing else, I’ve got to believe that there would be great PR value if we could show “PFC Mustafa Muhammed Pyle, USMC, from Dearborn MI” or whoever heading off to the gulf to fight for his country. If nothing else it would shut up the rednecks. It seems to me statistically impossible, given the numbers of Arab-Americans in the US, that PFC Pyle doesn’t exist; the media is just not catching on.
Or is there something I’m missing?
Well, it’s not much, but I’ve known more than one middle-eastern-born, Muslim, United States soldier. Obviously they are willing to fight on the side of the US against all enemies. One definitely fought in the Gulf War.
Don’t you suppose we have Muslims in our Army?
Well, it’s not much, but I’ve known more than one middle-eastern-born, Muslim, United States soldier. Obviously they are willing to fight on the side of the US against all enemies. One definitely fought in the Gulf War.
Just in the time I’ve been waiting for this to be posted, I thought of a half-dozen more Muslim soldiers I’ve known.
Maybe it would be kind of a good idea to profile one on the news.
Here’s an interesting link on how the two are intertwined.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=98990
Sorry about my first post–I realized I had misread while I was waiting on my computer. Ignore first post, second post is good.
I have three questions:
- I know quite a lot of muslims. Some of them are very devout - they pray 5 times a day, go to the mosque, don’t drink etc. Other ones are less devout - they don’t pray, only go to the mosque occasionally, drink etc.
However even the lax muslims believe in God and I don’t think any of them would eat pork. I don’t think I’ve ever met an atheist or agnostic ex-muslim, why is this? You get plenty of agnostic/atheist ex-christians or ex-Jews - why not muslims?
- The muslims I know (who are all Bengali and Pakistani, by the way) seem to think the Taliban are a bunch of nutcases. They don’t particularly support the war because they don’t like to see muslims getting bombed. But as long as the bombing is restricted to al-qaeda, military targets and the Taliban, they don’t seem to mind too much.
I have a feeling they would take a similar view if we took action to remove Saddam. As long as the Iraqi people weren’t targeted and as long as the West made it clear that it is NOT a war on Islam, they would go along with it.
Would this be your feeling too?
- India is a hugely religious country and yet they think it is essential to have a secular government - to separate Church and State. All western democracies also think it is essential to separate Church from State. The attitude is that, whilst religious leaders have their place in society, they should on no account be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.
Many muslim countries implement Sharia law (to a greater or lesser extent). I can see the argument for this: since Allah laid down rules for the functioning of laws in society these laws should be followed.
But, in reality, centuries-old laws for the regulation of a fair society have little relevance today. The Bible contains numerous “God-given” laws but “Christian” countries don’t actually implement them because many of them are quite clearly insane and not at all appropriate for a modern society.
Why do so many muslims wish to see Sharia law implemented when it is clearly not a wise move to have religious leaders dictating the laws of the country?
I was just thinking, while the other thread was loading, that it was getting pretty long. Yea, Czarcasm. 
I’m still learning too, hence this reply.
Peace,
mangeorge
furt,
On the topic of Muslim soldiers: I found this link that is a RealMedia clip on Muslims in the military, speaking out against the terrorist acts…
xanakis,
Boy, I wish I could answer your questions :). As for your why there are no ex-Muslims, one could be sarcastic and say that it’s because we kill you for leaving Islam (we don’t! we don’t! put the cannon down!)… There certainly are ex-Muslims, though… I don’t know much about numbers, or how many retain belief in God or certain practices of Islam. I do know “lax” Muslims who maybe don’t follow any of the rituals of Islam, but nonetheless will proudly refrain from eating pork or drinking alcohol.
My own attempt to explain this would be dreadfully biased – as a convert I feel that Islam is intellectually satisfying and encourages investigation where doubts linger, and so if one has decided for oneself that it’s true, that foundation stays strong (I don’t know of any ex-Buddhists, either, for the record). But at best I’m only answering for myself.
As for the situation in Iraq, ending the sanctions would sure go a long way in getting support for any US cause – I’d start there, if anything. I can’t speak for other Muslims, and I’m not schooled enough on the perspective of those Muslims living in the affected areas to say, but if such a plan (to oust Saddam) were revealed, what I’d want to know is what was being offered as an alternative. The US has a history of supporting the ouster of a leader who was a thorn in their sides, only to allow another to rise up who treats the people even more badly… I’d want to know if the Iraqi people were truly the government’s priority in the ouster. If they were not, well…
Regarding Sharia law versus secular government, the first thing to remember is that the vast majority of Muslims, regardless of how observant they are or what other views they may hold, view the Qur’an as infallible scripture. Portions of it may not be applicable to society today, as it was dictated to deal with specific situations in the life of the Prophet, but to say that any of the Qur’an is “irrelevent” will make most Muslims cringe. That said, the Sharia is derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (way of life) of the Prophet and his companions – BUT – it is, ideally, adaptable to the needs of the time and the place.
Further, there is a sort of separation of church and state inherent in the Sharia as well – non-Muslims, as I understand it, are to be allowed to govern themselves according to their own laws, for example.
I would say that the problem is not so much that Muslims want to be governed by the Sharia, but that we haven’t seriously gone back and adapted the Sharia – which should evolve – to the requirements of today’s world. I believe that a society truly governed by Sharia would not be far removed from the democracy of the United States, with freedom of religion – or no religion – and equal human rights for all.
There are three ex-muslims who attend my Unitarian church. Two have gender issues - not with Islam per se, but with the Muslim community (which they feel are two different things). Another is a lesbian and was no longer welcome once she came out. One still-Muslim woman who is married to one of the church members attends the church on occasion as well. She is happy being a Muslim and has no intention on leaving. I’m not sure how much flak she gets for marrying a non-Muslim.
Still, I find that ex-Muslims are a rare thing too. I meet disaffected ones, but few who actually leave.
I’m not sure if the punishment for apostacy is an issue or perhaps a feeling that even though there may be issues in the community, Islam itself is fine. The latter is the feeling I get from Muslim friends who are either disaffected or choose to practice solo without participation in the community.
Tahireh,
I did not mean to imply that the Qur’an is irrelevant. I meant the precise laws detailed therein may not be the best way of dealing with problems in this day and age. The sentiments expressed in the Qur’an are still true but isn’t the laws and punishments section of the Qur’an more a product of the age in which it was written, rather than something which needs to be followed dogmatically in a modern civilised society?
I agree with your interpretation - that it is possible to extrapolate the general meaning of the Qur’an and form laws around that general meaning but it is not necessary to implement every single law exactly as it is laid down in the Qur’an. For example, an Islamic court in Nigeria today sentenced a pregnant woman to be stoned to death for having premarital sex. This was done in accordance with Sharia law.
I’ve got more questions. 
-
What do you think would be a flexible enough system of governance for folks in Saudi Arabia and/or other Muslim countries that will work in accordance with the variety of sects of Islam, allow women the right granted to them in the Qur’an to pursue education to express themselves in the public sphere and to be an active part of the governing process (e.g. hold government positions), if that is what they desire to do, but also allow these countries to be able to exist in the global economy of which we all have a share?
-
Why do you think that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries fear Westernism so much? I mean if the Islamic state is so great, then that ought to be attractive enough to withstand whatever so-called “temptations” that Western societies/cultures have?
Well, not quite. Again, not being Muslim I don’t take a particular stance for myself. My approach to, and interest in Islam, is as a historian ( not that that’s my day job or anything 
).
Instead I’m more interested in making the argument that liberal interpretations of Islam exist. I just think that is an important point to make, to counter the more commonly seen ( in the West ) examples of Islamic extremeism.
A trivial difference maybe - But I just thought I should be clear .
I honestly don’t know . I’m sure such has been done, or is being done, somewhere. The fact that Gay and Lesbian Islamic societies actually exist seems to imply it. But I haven’t studied enough to now what rationale is being applied to reconcile the seeming incompatability of observant Islam and open homosexuality.
Just in the realm of idle speculation, I’ll toss out the notion that most Islamic theologians that are anti-Gay seem to consider it, much as fundamentalist Christians do, a “choice”. Either conscious, or a psychological deviance caused by childhood trauma that is “unnatural” and curable. If one modifies that view to say that homosexuality is not a choice ( certainly my belief to a large extent ), it is possible that one could apply some relevant passages of the Koran ( please don’t ask for examples - I’m not a Koranic scholar ) or Sunnah about the importance of self and happiness to try and supersede the anti-homosexual passages. But again, that’s just pure supposition.
Well, I’d say that the uglier aspects make this idea a no-starter for me, personally. The army has ( at least officially ) been de-segregated since WW II and that’s the way I like it. And my view of mercenaries is pretty much the same as that expressed by John Cale in the opening passage of his live album Sabotage ( thought I’d stick in a non-Islamic obscure reference for once ).
Aside from that, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Islam doesn’t forbid fighting supposed Muslims that violate Islam’s precepts. Rather the contrary, actually. So the only impediment in this specific case then becomes whether you consider the Taliban to be “good Muslims” or not.
Xanakis: I think I touched on your third enquiry ( the question of Shari’a, cultural accretions to it, and applications ), a little earlier in this thread ( whenever it was I started with quoting someone’s long e-mail verbatim ). So for myself, I’ll mostly just direct you there.
But just as a brief additional comment, I’ll note that Islam never had that separation of the secular and religious that Christianity did ( odd exceptions such as the Investiture Contest aside ). Islam was overtly political from the get go and all political questions in Islamic history have intertwined ( even if only in lip service ) with the religious ever since. The modern idea of separation of church and state, is, well, modern. And only recently introduced into the Islamic world in the teeth of a long tradition of just the opposite. It’s not surprising it hasn’t taken strong hold anywhere except for former communist regimes ( Bosnia, Albania ) where religion was actively frowned upon. Or long-term colonies ( South and Southeast Asia ) of Western powers. Or the singular case of Turkey, for reasons a little too involved to go into right now.
Celestina: On you first question: Well, jeez - Ask for the moon why don’cha? 
As soon as you specify “a variety of sects”, the answer probably becomes none, unless you are very careful what sects you include. In general I favor more secular societies like Turkey ( hopefully minus the occasional coups and overly politicized military ), where religion and religious observance becomes a matter of personal choice, rather than state mandate. But that is my own bias coming through.
On your second question: Yeah, why do the French cultural critics fear McDonald’s so much? Certainly French society and culinary tradition is strong enough to adapt to…oh, wait - What were you asking?
It’s the same old chesnut writ large - conservative parochialism. If you want I can go into probably mind-numbing detail on why some Muslim clerics regard the pervasive spread of western cultures and its supposed attendent depravities like leather minis and tube-tops, to be so destabilizing to Islamic society ( I’m being facetious of course - But only slightly - the question of modesty and morality is very important in Islam and some traditionalist views can clash pretty heavily with the western norm at times ).
- Tamerlane
Xanakis: Here we go:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87474&pagenumber=5
It was the post replying to Jay. It’s at least tangentially related, if not quite the answer you may have been looking for.
- Tamerlane
Celestina: Actually my answer to your first question probably came off as excessively negative. I don’t think that an explicitly Islamic state is necessarily incompatible with anything you listed ( though I’ll leave the exercise of describing one to someone else - certainly many Islamic countries, including Iran for all its other failings, do grant educational and political rights to women ). My point was more that I do think certain sects, such as the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, are at least partly so. And when you start trying to reconcile multiple sects, especially conservative ones, it becomes even more difficult.
- Tamerlane
Tamerlane said:
“Celestina: On you first question: Well, jeez - Ask for the moon why don’cha?”
LOL! Well, I didn’t want to set my sights TOO low. Seriously, I’m sorry if I got carried away with my questions. I have a really difficult time narrowing things down sometimes. I appreciate your responses, dear, and I hope that others will respond too.
“As soon as you specify “a variety of sects”, the answer probably becomes none, unless you are very careful what sects you include.”
Well, actually, since I really don’t know what characterizes the different sects of Islam, maybe the question I should have asked was: What sects of Islam would work best to make up an Islamic state that could be true to the different sects of Islam, govern themselves accordingly, and would not be threatened by, but rather would be able to interact with and trade with Western societies. But I think what I was wondering with that question too, was can a theocratic state, in this instance, an Islamic one, be a viable player in the increasingly global economic arena where technology considerably shortens time and distance boundaries?
"In general I favor more secular societies like Turkey ( hopefully minus the occasional coups and overly politicized military ), where religion and religious observance becomes a matter of personal choice, rather than state mandate. But that is my own bias coming through.
Yes. I agree with you on this because I just have problems with a government telling folks what religion they must practice and how they must practice it.
On your second question: Yeah, why do the French cultural critics fear McDonald’s so much? Certainly French society and culinary tradition is strong enough to adapt to…oh, wait - What were you asking?
Well, I don’t understand a French cultural critic’s fear of MacDonalds either. Really, how can le Big Mac compare with Coq au Vin?
It’s the same old chesnut writ large - conservative parochialism. If you want I can go into probably mind-numbing detail on why some Muslim clerics regard the pervasive spread of western cultures and its supposed attendent depravities like leather minis and tube-tops, to be so destabilizing to Islamic society ( I’m being facetious of course - But only slightly - the question of modesty and morality is very important in Islam and some traditionalist views can clash pretty heavily with the western norm at times ).
I’m not sure if I’m saying this right, but I can understand a little and respect Muslim concerns about morality and modesty. From what little I’ve managed to learn to date about Muslim notions of modesty for women, I can even see ties between that and conventions for modesty in Western societies. Even with the objectification of men and women in the media right now, we’ve struggled and continue to struggle with notions of propriety. In the 19th Century, women were required to dress very modestly; basically it was scandalous for a gentlewoman to show her ankle to a man she wasn’t related or married to. Victorian era women and actually Southern belles and mistresses of slave plantations in the American South had to work within the conventions of the “angel of the hearth” ideology, which basically posited that women belonged in the home. Their primary function was to see to the upkeep of the house, have kids, and not sully their hands with the dirty work of the outside world. My, this would make an outstanding discussion for a multicultural class. Hmmm.
However, my concern is that humans tend to fear what we don’t know or understand, and I fear that this is part of the process going on with some conservative Muslim clerics, perhaps the very ones brainwashing fellas to go destroy the “Great Satan.” Western societies are about more than “tube tops” and “leather minis,” just like Muslim societies are about more than just veils and jihads. Westerners have innovations in technology, medicine, and even an examination of the socio-economic and political struggles (e.g. the Civil Rights Movement in America or our present day struggles over the concept of race and gender) that form a part of Western history provide valuable insights into the human condition and may lend themselves readily to establishing common ground to build relations with non-Western societies. But we can’t do that if Muslim countries shut themselves away from Western cultures out of fear of being somehow tainted by them. Likewise, Western cultures should not shut themselves away from interacting with Muslim cultures.
I think that for Muslim clerics and/or government officials in Muslim countries to essentialize Western societies to the point that a populace may only get or accept one narrow view of Westerners is dangerous and really does not give credit to Muslims to make up their own minds that although some folks may wear short skirts, that doesn’t make those folks bad and that doesn’t mean that Muslims have to wear short skirts either. Likewise, just because Muslim women decide to dress modestly I don’t think that makes them bad, and it doesn’t mean I have to go out and dress the way they do just because I’ve been exposed to their culture. They’re just different, and engaging that difference can help folks grow and enrich, reinforce, or revise views of what modest behavior can and should be. We all have to live on this planet. To censor one society from another out of fear of being tainted by them doesn’t help us to progress. I’m not saying that all Muslims censor themselves from Western societies, but I am disturbed by essentializations of Western and Muslim cultures that promote fear rather than understanding.
I’d like for some of those more knowledgabel than me to respond to these two articles. Clearly, they are critical of Islam, but are they fair in their criticism, and how do Muslims respond to them.
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/glazov10-16-01.htm
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/glazov10-12-01.htm