There are no female imams, no female mullahs. That’s not actually as bad as it sounds though, because Islam does not have a priesthood. No priests. So not only does it not have female priests, it doesn’t have male priests either.
In another thread recently, someone posted “the mullahs would absolve them…” That’s not correct, as absolution, in Islam is the perogative only of God (Allah). Now, the mullahs and imams may teach that someone’s going to get God’s absolution of their sin but that’s a really dicey theological discussion.
Mullahs are, supposedly, very learned Islamic scholars; they aren’t priests.
Most of the folks I know are only trying to ensure that peaceful civilians are not targets of racism and bigotry. The closest I’ve heard (personally, that is) to your “saints” thing is the suggestion that hundreds of millions of people who practice Islam have not committed crimes or violence against anyone.
Let’s go after the terrorists. Fuck their religion or skin color–nothing could be less relevant
Monty, in the Ask the Muslim Guy thread, Muslim Guy said that there are female imams. I guess this is so in the liberal sect of Islam that he practices. But the reason why I’m concerned is that priest or not, imams appear to have A LOT of power to influence Muslims. Check out the sections “Beliefs” and “Shari’ah and Religion” at this website which details things that Muslims are forbidden to do. In both sections, it says that Muslims are not to rebel against or question what imams say. Frightening.
Of course this is only one website, and I’m sure there are probably others that are out there that would say that it’s okay to question what an imam or mullah says. Still, I imagine there are plenty of sects that advocate practices like not questioning the imam.
“Arab” isn’t precisely synonymous with “inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula” anymore. (I suppose people who are from the Arabian Peninsula could be called “Arabians”, and people who are from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which occupies most of the Arabian Peninsula, would be “Saudis”.) Arab is now a cultural and linguistic term; it embraces people who speak Arabic and self-identify themselves as Arabs. (Many Muslims have at least some knowledge of the Arabic language because of the Islamic belief that the Qur’an can’t really be translated from the original Arabic, but they don’t speak Arabic as their native language.) Arabs live in the Arabian Peninsula and the immediately adjacent countries north to the Turkish border and east to the Iranian border, and in northern Africa from Egypt to Morocco. There are a number of semi-Arab states on the fringes of the Arab world, including Mauritania, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, and the Comoros. The original Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula conqured this area in the name of Islam; they didn’t annihilate or displace the native peoples of all those territories–I suppose there are as many people in Egypt as there are in the entire Arabian Peninsular proper, and that population certainly wasn’t wiped out in the 7th Century C.E.; I’m sure most Egyptians have ancestors who have lived in the Nile Valley since the days of the Pharaohs–but those populations adopted the Arabic language, Arab culture, and, generally, Islam. There are a number of non-Arab ethnic minorities within the general geographic region of the Arab world, some of which are Muslim, and some of which are not, including the Jews of Israel and the Muslim Kurds of northern Iraq (whose language is related to Farsi or Persian–Iranian–and whose homeland straddles the borders of several states and extends beyond the Arab world into Turkey and Iran).
Although Islam was originally an exclusively Arab religion, many other peoples were subsequently converted to Islam without assuming an Arab ethno-linguistic identity, including the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and modern Turkey, the Iranians, at least a couple of distinct ethnic groups in the Balkan area of Europe (Slavic speaking Muslims and non-Slavic Albanians), and hundreds of millions of people of many different languages and ethnic groups in South and Southeast Asia. Conversely, although most Arabs are Muslims, there are minorities of Arabic-speaking self-identified Arabs who are members of other religions (including the Druze and several different branches of Christianity).
The Arabic language has been influential beyond the Arab world proper; as I already mentioned, many Muslims don’t really believe the Qur’an can be truly translated into any other language. In addition to such religions considerations, Arabic has also been important for reasons of trade and commerce and geo-politics. Many Arabic loanwords are found in Turkish, Farsi, and other non-Arabic languages spoken by mainly Muslim peoples. Arabic also forms a major part of the linguistic base (along with Bantu) of Swahili, spoken on the coast of East Africa.
Pakistanis come from a number of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, but the great majority of them speak Indo-European languages which are most closely related to either the Indian (Punjabi, Sindhi, and Urdu, a Hindustani lingua franca) or Iranian (Pashto, Baluchi) branches of that language family. Several of the chief Pakistani languages do incorporate many Arabic loanwords, and Urdu is written in a modified form of the Arabic script. Afghanistan’s population includes some of the same ethnic groups as are found in Pakistan, i.e., Pathans or Pashto-speakers, and also Hazaras and Tajiks (who speak a language related to Iranian) and Uzbeks (who speak a Turkic language). Although the languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan include many Arabic loanwords, none of them are related to Arabic; in fact, many of them (the Indo-European languages, of both the Indian and Iranian branches) are distantly related to English and other major European languages.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Great Debate.
This is quite possibly some of the most racist, bigotted hogwash I have ever seen at the SDMB. You deserve your pit thread, Kalt. Please get a life sometime soon. If you get one, it might mean that you could possibly have a pulse. If you get a pulse, you’d have a blood supply for your (putative) brain and that means you might effing think once in a while.
…are not incompatible. Not at all. There is no contradiction - Terrorists do represent only a small minority of Islam.
What do you think the results of a poll would be if this question was asked - “Do you think the WTC bombing and the death of thousands of innocents as described by the U.S. (note: You would have to use wording like this to cut through the conspiracy theories ) was justified?” If you got a substantial yes answer I’d be very, very surprised.
Again, suicide is forbidden by the Koran. The killing of innocents is forbidden by the Koran. The fact that there are thousands of Muslims ( out of hundreds of millions ) that can twist their justifications to make their actions seem religiously mandated does not mean that most Muslims can.
The al-Qaeda turncoat, Jamal Achmed al-Fadl, told U.S. authorities that an planned bombing of the U.S. embassy in Riyadh in 1993 ( to protest the arrest in the U.S. of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman ) caused an internal split because some members opposed the potential death of innocents. A number of Egyptian militants subsequently quit after that rift. Osama bin Laden himself originally said only military targets should be selected, before changing his tune.
If hardcore members of an actual terrorist organization can be conflicted over this issue, how do you imagine average Muslims feel? When a reporter recently visited one of the Taliban “schools” in Pakistan, he asked these very questions of the students. Their response was not one of justification of the actions, rather it was of disbelief - “Oh, the Mossad must have done it.” When he read one of bin Laden’s more infamous statements on the justification for attacking civilians, there was a moment of silence, then they replied that thatmust just be U.S. lies. Because, to them, bin Laden could never have said such things. When he asked what would there reaction be if they saw bin Laden on TV reading a similar statement and admitting guilt, they replied that the U.S. was so technically proficient that they could just put an image of Osama’s head on another’s body.
THAT is the sort of ignorance, brain-washing, and conspiracy theorizing that we are dealing with. People support the Taliban and bin Laden because they are ignorant and mislead, not because they believe what he does. As I pointed out elsewhere, the U.S. has been demonized relentlessly in that part of the world for over a quarter century, now ( and much more heavily since the intifida and the Gulf War ). For people to suddenly make a 180 degree turn and accept the superpower they perceive as the ultimate supervillain as the offended party, is very difficult indeed.
Does a large chunk ( by no means all, not even necessarily a majority, though I don’t know for sure ) of the Muslim world hate and fear the U.S. government? Yes. Do most of those same people hate all Americans as a people? No, I don’t think so.
That’s why I have occasionally referred to humanitarian relief as “counter-propaganda”, in the best meaning of that term. What is needed, in addition to simple military action ( which I support, by the way ), is to win hearts and minds as part and parcel of this campaign against terrorism. Which is going to be a difficult, even sisyphean task. It is certainly never going to be a complete success, because people always find reasons to hate. But it must be attempted, because it offers the best hope for achieving lasting peace.
I’ll make that claim.
I won’t make that one.
Nor that. Muslim attitudes against Israel are often unrealistic and badly biased ( and vice versa of course, but no point going into that here ).
Many have.
Why I’m sure they would be overjoyed if we nailed Mossad .
A fair and balanced comment. Nobody is a saint . Probably not even the actual Saints .
Kalt: Below is a very short thread ( 14 posts ) in which the topic of how Arab is defined was brought up ( about half-way down ). If you are honestly interested in learning something, I might suggest you check it out. “Arab” and “Muslim” are not synonomous. The Maronite Christians in Lebanon speak a dialect of Arabic. The Muslims in Malaysia do not.
"The stunning ignorance when it comes to this region
has rarely surprised me, I hope that Celestina can
pass along these corrective notes.
(a) In regards to polls in the 3rd world. Don’t
fucking bother. They are fucking useless. That is
not to argue the factual issue either way.
(i) only a small percent of the population is actually
contactable by phone or mail in an efficacious way in
news turnaround time.
(ii) in general in non-democratic societies, and above
in this region (Islamic Asia and the MENA region) the
paranioa level is high. Veracity is low in terms of
response.
(iii) conforming phenomena --tell the pollster what
one believes pollster wants to hear-- as a form of
politeness in traditional culture is a significant
source of error, above that of “Western” levels.
Even for well-funded corporate research, polling (like
trying to find out about acceptance of new grains or
products) is a bloody difficult affair. I know, it was
one of my concerns.
The better one, a native speaker(*) of the Arabic
language in its myriad dialects. Arabs, in this
definition include Xtians, Druze, Muslims and could
include even Jews depending on the time and place.
Racial definitions are just a crock as the Arab world
even by a tight linguistic definition excluding some
iffy-creoles, includes a immense physical variety,
from folks who don’t look that different from this
dark haired anglosaxon to folks who look classically
“Black African.”
(*: in practice fully functional bilingual minorities
in the Arab world often claim Arab identity when its
advantageous).
By the way, you didn’t mess up in re Pakistan.
Urdu is an Arabic (and more than Arabic,
Farsi/Persian) inflected dialect of Hindi. Remember
the tongue in cheek, a language is a dialect with an
army. Hindi and Urdu speakers can understand each
other, if they want to. However, that’s an if.
If you are using “anti-U.S.” as your criteria for hatred, you’d better revise your figures. There are many, many people here in Europe who are anti-U.S. If you try to defend U.S. policies here in France, you will be reminded of Vietnam, you will be told that America is in the same company as Iraq and Iran due to its support of the death penalty, you will be asked why Americans insist on their right to bear arms, plus a long list of other mockery. Now let’s take a trip to Russia, China, and, well, all over the world and do some polls there. I would say there are far more than 80 million people who “hate” you. And you, Opus1, are only helping to increase the ranks.
No, Kalt, please do take the word of someone who spends 9/10ths of his/her life praying and reading the Quran. I assure you that Usama bin Laden doesn’t.
Oh, 99.9999% of Afghanis support the Taliban? Then why were there 2 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan prior to September 11th? And I’m sure that all the Afghan women locked in their homes are singing songs of praise for the Taliban.
Oh yeah, there have never been any non-Muslim terrorists in America, have there?
Zenster, the Pakistani government has supported the U.S. against terrorism in the past. It helped in the arrest of terrorist Ramsi Yousef in 1995 and turned Aimal Kansi over to the CIA in 1997. Aimal Kansi shot two CIA agents in Virginia and then vanished without trace. He successfully hid, it is rumoured in Afghanistan, for four years until he foolishly decided to return to Pakistan. The Pakistani government turned him over to the CIA without a moment’s hesitation. It was no surprise to me that the Pakistani government agreed to co-operate with the United States over Usama bin Laden. Yes, they are making “expedient” decisions, decisions which serve their best interest. This is what every government does.
TQMshirt, do you not see any distinction between the events of September 11th and the “terror tactics” in Kashmir or Israel? Kashmir, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered occupied or disputed territories. Usually, “terrorist” activity in these areas is carried out by named organisations. These are not anonymous attacks on neutral territory. The conflict in Kashmir is considered by many people (not just Muslims) to be part of a valid struggle for self-determination. You can take whatever view of it you like, but it is a complex situation in which it is not easy to judge right and wrong. You can think of suicide bombers in Kashmir and the Gaza Strip as terrorists if you like, and I will not argue with that, but I believe that territorial conflicts are not in the same league as an anonymous attack on civilians of sixty different nations on the soil of a nation whose occupancy is not in question.
By the way, Pakistanis are NOT Arabs and they do NOT speak Arabic. They speak Urdu which is almost exactly the same language as Hindi, except written in a script which uses a combination of Arabic and Persian letters. A person speaking Urdu and a person speaking Hindi cannot be told apart. I have seen this happen in real life.
To Opus1, Kalt, TQMshirt:
Right now all the riots in Pakistan may involve death chants directed at the U.S. But there are riots all the time protesting local political parties or government policies which have nothing to do with the U.S. The mob is fickle. Right now it’s the Ay-rabs towards whom you direct your American hatred. Well, remember the Commie bastards?
Do you think that the only source of extreme behaviour in the world is Islam? When you think of genocide or ethnic cleansing, can you think of no examples involving non-Muslims? When it comes to nuclear weapons, which is the only country to have actually used them against an enemy? And finally, WHERE ARE ALL THE NATIVE AMERICANS?
I am sorry to have to start bringing up such ridiculous points. Here in Europe, at least 80% of the time I spend in conversation is devoted to defending America against all sorts of accusations coming from all sorts of people. You know, when I say that the majority of Americans are peace-loving people, I am met with roars of derisive laughter. I guess now I get to see the other side of the coin.
Most Muslim countries are Third World countries. Many Muslims live in mud huts and can’t read. If this only serves to add to your racism against them, so be it. But it is not unfair to compare the actions of Muslims living in these circumstances to the actions of those who were responsible for the Salem witch-hunts, the lynchings, the fire-bombing of African-American churches a few decades ago, and the general propensity towards mass hysteria in America in the days when not everyone had a high school education.
Here’s an interesting observation: The Quran prohibits theft, also. Now, wasn’t the hijacking of the four planes last month also stealing someone else’s property (the planes)?
I didn’t say I hate them. I didn’t say I want to lynch them. I didn’t even say I wouldn’t be friends with one. It may be politically incorrect and quite possibly factually inaccurate, but I don’t see how it is racist. Do you consider calling an “asian” person “oriental” to be racist and biggoted? I don’t (although I can only imagine the pit threads that would generate).
Pennylane: does that mean you’ll bet me? I’ll give you 2:1 odds
*Do you think that the only source of extreme behaviour in the world is Islam? When you think of genocide or ethnic cleansing, can you think of no examples involving non-Muslims? When it comes to nuclear weapons, which is the only country to have actually used them against an enemy? And finally, WHERE ARE ALL THE NATIVE AMERICANS? *
No, surely Islam is not the “only” source of extreme behavior in the world. Christians bomb things (abortion clinics) in the name of god, too. But Islam is unfortunately the most visible, vocal, and the most destructive right now, here in the present time. I know christianity had its crusades and inquisitions - but does that mean Islam gets a free pass because it has not had its turn yet? I hope not.
We used nuclear weapons on Japan to END a war - not to start one, and not to continue one. That is a bad comparison. But how about if we focus on the present, rather than looking at the past for politically-correct comfort? Right now in the year 2001, which group is causing a vast majority of the “trouble”?
As for the native americans… most of them died from smallpox blankets (ahh the irony)
Kalt, some Native Americans did die from blankets infected with smallpox that the US gave to them, but the picture is a LITTLE more complex than that.
Most of the Native Americans died of several more reasons than smallpox. Out west on the plains, many of them died of starvation because white folks went around killing and leaving to rot their main source of food: buffalo, and then forced those who remained onto reservations. Many of the Native Americans from the East died on the forced march west, what in history is known as The Trail of Tears. Many Native Americans have died living on reservations in this country–mind you some of these reservations are not even considered US soil and so do NOT fall under the protection of the US government. That means that most of those folks don’t have access to any of the social services that US citizens do. These reservations were the worst possible land to live on because it was difficult to raise crops on them and there weren’t that many animals to hunt for food either. Many Native Americans trapped on reservations have been cheated out of promises of money and support that the US government promised to them in treaties that they made. Today many Native Americans live on reservations, and their suicide and alcoholism rate is VERY high because they can’t get good jobs and because they have been beaten down pyschologically by their liminal status in the US. Many Native Americans have died FIGHTING FOR the US–so that you can have the freedom to sit right where you’re at and revel in your ignorance–in WWII and Vietnam, only to come home and face prejudice and ignorance.
You would do well to educate yourself on what has been happening with Native Americans instead of spouting off ignorant bullshit.
Kalt said:
“No, surely Islam is not the “only” source of extreme behavior in the world. Christians bomb things (abortion clinics) in the name of god, too. But Islam is unfortunately the most visible, vocal, and the most destructive right now, here in the present time. I know christianity had its crusades and inquisitions - but does that mean Islam gets a free pass because it has not had its turn yet? I hope not.”
No, Islam is NOT the most visible, vocal, or most destructive source of extreme behavior right now. IGNORANCE is. Have you learned nothing reading the information in the “Ask the Muslim Guy” threads? True Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and one of its central tenets is to not kill innocents. It’s NOT the religion of Islam, which has several sects, some more fundamental than others, that is to blame for the terrorist attacks. It’s psychopaths like ObL and his Taliban cronies who, using their warped versions of Islam in some Muslim religious schools, have brainwashed folks into becoming terrorists. I won’t deny that in the past Muslims have fought violent wars to conquer other lands (e.g. the formation of the Ottoman Empire), but it wasn’t Islam that led them to do that. It was the human quest for power and wealth. You would do well to make the distinction between religion and psychopathic human behavior.
.
. Probably not even the actual Saints 
.
(ahh the irony)