So far no comment on why Islam manifests its religious tolerance by building mosques on others’ holiest sites.
Meanwhile, a response to Tamerlane’s assertion that the anti-jewish sentiments in the Qu’raan were situational only and reflected only that there weren’t any learned Jews in the area:
Well, by 590 Jewish academic institutions were prospering in Mesopatamia. The major academies were in full force. Moreover the nature of Jewish practice was always that every Jew (well, male Jew) should be studying Torah. They were not just ignorant Hebrews around Muhammad at the time; they were learned people with differing beliefs. Blasphemous beliefs apparently.
In 622 Jews of Arabian peninsula joined with the Arab tribes of Banu al-Aws and Banu Khazraj in supporting Muhammad, but by 624 Muhammad was driving Jewish tribes out of Arabia.
Straight dope: In the centuries that follow Muhammad and the birth of Islam, the Church was engaged in forcing conversion, exile, torture, and death upon Jewish communities. Mere oppression in Muslim communities was preferred. Some Muslim rulers were indeed tolerant, and Jews would often aid Muslims in driving out Christian forces, preferring Muslim to Christian rule; other Muslim rulers forced Jews to wear yellow patches, forbade them from holding many types of jobs, and subjected them to heavy special taxation. I guess if you define the abscence of torure til forced conversion or death and the lack of mass murder as tolerant, then Islam was tolerant.
Again, I appreciate that Islam has much of beauty. And that the tapestry of that religious tradition has many threads of peace and tolerance. Still, let us honestly acknowledge that those threads that are called upon by some to justify violence and Jew-hating are also real threads of the same cloth. Don’t whitewash it.
Also I feel the need to add a little to Muslim Guy’s history:
Yes, Jews resettled in Jerusalum under Islamic rule. And many periods of peaceful cohabitation existed. But don’t ignore that many various Islamic leaders also expelled Jews and forced conversions (Do you really need the whole list enumerated? One of the most famous was in Yemen in the 1100s, massacres in Morocco in the 1200s, destroying syngogues in Jerusalum in the 1400s, I could go on …) Jews, mostly driven out by both Christians and Muslims didn’t start to return until the 1800s. Turkey (The Ottomans)was oppressing and terrorizing the Jews of Palestine during WW1 and only eased up at the intervention of US ambassador Henry Morgentau, Sr. To portray the Jewish-Arab conflict as all the Brits fault is a bit inaccurate.
Err…I didn’t quite say that. I think you are combining my comments with someone else’s. I did express my belief that the language in the Koran vis-a-vis the Jews seems partially situational, yes. As I said, there appear to be two conflicting impulses at work, there. There is absolutely no doubt that Muhammed’s struggle with the Jews in Medina and elsewhere in Arabia was very bitter and I think the Koran reflects that bitterness very clearly. Afterall, Muhammed did consider Jews to be ‘backsliders’ and heretical for not accepting his message.
But it is also true he had respect for their common Judeo-Christian heritage and he did indeed specifically abjure violence towards those who did not war with Muslims. In practice that generally meant, did not resist Muslim rule, which is obviously a lot less egalitarian.
But then I never claimed that Islam has always been egalitarian. Or is even inherently egalitarian. Quite the contrary. There are reasons I am an atheist, you know .
I never made that second comment about the lack of learned Jews, at all.
Yes, this early rapproachment was during the period where Muhammed was hopeful that the local Jews would eventually accept his new faith. When it became clear that they had no intention of doing so, things turned nasty. Not that it makes much difference, but I think the really serious breach happened in 626, but I’d have to double-check that.
Yep, that’s about the whole of it - Relative to neighboring contemporary Christian states, Islamic states tended to be rather more tolerant. This generally included a certain amount of internal community autonomy. States such as the the Ottoman Sultanate generally accepted local religious or secular leaders as spokesman and allowed them to enforce their own religious laws within their community.
But nothing you have stated above is untrue ( though I might quibble that forced conversion on any serious scale was a lot rarer than many people seem to think - Before the tenth century, it wasn’t teribbly common at all, and even after that was hardly widespread ). You get no argument from me, that Islam historically treated all non-Muslims as distinct second-class citizens.
No whitewashing here. Religious-inspired calls to slaughter civilians are indeed a thread of Islam. But only one thread. Just as the Fred Phelps of the world represent only one thread of Christianity.
The goal of my participation in this thread is not to laud Islam, but to dispel the notion that Islam is a monolith, in which enjoinders to hate and kill are accepted by all. The problem in the western world, is while it is generally recognized that Jerry Falwell doesn’t speak for all Christians, there is less certainty about just what Islam is all about.
Actually, I missed this question ( and plenty of others I’m sure - I’m only intermittently sticking my nose in here ) - But I think you have your answer already. It is an expression of intolerance in some followers of Islam. Not too dissimilar to the Hindus tearing down mosques built centuries ago by zealot Muslim Sultans over old Hindu temples. Or Charlemagne destroying pagan sites of worship in old Saxony. Or the Spanish reconquistadores converting Spanish mosques into churches. Or the Isma’ili Shi’ite Qaramita raiding Mecca and stealing the Ka’bah in 930 C.E. to liberate it from Sunni control. Etc. A common impulse in all religions, when folks let their “My God, is better than your God” impulses run wild.
The key is to remember that not every member of that religion accepts those actions as good and right. And that’s all this thread is about ( to me ).
My apologies if I am coming off as an apologist for past atrocities - Certainly not my intention .
I have seen some awesome threads on this board before, but I have to say that this thread, and Muslim Guy in particular, rocks bigtime - how sad that it took such a tragedy to bring you out of lurk mode. I hope to read very many of your posts on many other topics from this point on. You are an asset not just to your faith, but to this board in particular and to humanity in general.
I only have one question, and it’s a fairly trivial one. For many years now, my daughter has celebrated Ramadan with a Muslim family in the next street. As Ramamdan occurs in the height of summer here, this family doesn’t expect children to go some 16 hours without fluids (which would be quite dangerous in the heat of an Aussie summer)? Are they breaking the letter of Islam law or is some allowance made in the scriptures regarding Ramadan which acknowledges that it simply isn’t healthy for all people to go without fluids on a daily basis for such a long period of time?
I’m sure that the scriptures did not intend that people subject themselves to ritualised dehydration at the expense of their health - can you shed some light on the origins of Ramadan (the closest Christian parallel I can call to mind is Lent), and any dispensations from strict observance which the scriptures allow.
Once again, I would like to say you rock, and like to affirm the comments made so many times already in this thread that Islam as it is practised by the Muslims I have the honour to call my friends is a truly beautiful faith.
I would first like to add my voice to those thanking Muslim Guy for his great efforts in fighting ignorance concerning Islam. It is indeed a shame that your words, though read by hundreds here, are not reaching the millions of Americans and others around the world who truly need this education.
Related to the discussion on forms of government, I would also like to point out that although Turkey has banned certain parties, notice that this primarily involves Islamic fundamentalists. Modern Turkey is an almost obsessively secular state, including forms of discrimination against those carrying out Muslim traditions such as women wearing veils.
Concerning Indonesia, Pakistan and a number of other authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states there and in other parts of the world – please remember who it was that helped keep these regimes in power, especially during the Cold War.
It would certainly be very refreshing to see more true democratic rule in that part of the world, but one needs to remember that democracy and democratic thinking cannot simply be conjured up overnight.
And lastly, a question of a somewhat different nature for Muslim Guy: is it true, as I have been told, that it is very difficult to learn to read Quranic Arabic? I once heard an Arabic teacher tell a beginning student not to bother if that was her primary goal, and I think she did in fact give it up.
Thank you for answering my questions with regard to the Qur’an’s sentiments towards Jews, Muslim Guy, Tamerlane, et al. I’m still not wholly convinced that the Qur’an doesn’t call for the hatred of Jews or that it is the pilar of tolerance that you believe it is. I’m not criticizing your right to view it that way - as a matter of fact, I applaud it. It just seems to me that you’ve merely made a conscious choice to ignore or gloss over those sections because they don’t gell with your personal morality. This is a good thing, don’t get me wrong. But what it doesn’t do is convince me that there is any real way to convince those Muslims who do read those passages as a call toward hatred and violence that they are wrong to do so.
Muslim Guy said…
And now we have the above linked article stating:
But while Tamerlane says that
What is the “individual and collective pull” of these scholars? I’m greatly concerned that any vocal concensus will be viewed by the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims as authority enough to continue their hatred and terrorism in the name of Allah.
How on EARTH can we stop this? Is there nothing that can be pointed to that specifically denounces these passages and interpretations of them, that categorically proves that they’re just plain wrong?
I won’t argue historical fact (especially since
Tamerlane agrees with you). But, many of those acts were
in direct violation of the Qur’an, just as the Inquisition
violated Jesus’ teachings.
Thus, the problem is not the teachings of Islam, but
Muslims who forget, misinterpret, and disobey those teachings. Were all the peoples of the Book to actually read and live by their respective books, this would be a better world.
Muslem Guy-I wasn't trying to say 'we said it first.'
Just the opposite. The Qur’an and the Torah resemble each other for another reason entirely.
"The truth is the truth no matter who says it."*
*Enemy Mine- A film that about a human and a hermaphroditic, reptilian alien. The film deals with issues rather relevant to this thread though.
Umm… one is an existential outlook on life, the other is the penal code. They’re on two different ontological levels.
*Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying.
Temptation’s page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover
That you’d just be
One more person crying.*
You raise a good question, one I’ve often wondered about myself. I can’t claim to know the answer, but this is my guess: if the enemy sues for peace, the Muslims have to accept a peace treaty. The Byzantines began aggression in northern Arabia on the frontier of Muslim territory very early, even during the Prophet’s lifetime. As the expanding Caliphate pushed back the Byzantines, if the latter never sued for peace and entered into a treaty, then the jihad would have just kept pushing them indefinitely until they weren’t there anymore. I’m guessing something similar happened with the Sasanid Persian empire (which however fell very quickly, in a few years).
A propos of nothing in particular, Tamerlane may tell you that the damage inflicted on Byzantium by the Latins in the Fourth Crusade was a blow they never recovered from.
So now as I’m leavin’
I’m weary as Hell
The confusion I’m feelin’
Ain’t no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God’s on our side
He’ll stop the next war.
sum things up very well. But it might be equally erroneous to portray it as monolithic in the opposite direction, as you acknowledge. What I wonder about is the relative strength of each position, which seems difficult to ascertain.
A comment to Shayna about your emphasis on the unanimous agreement of the scholars: I would imagine that this unanimity simply reflects the fact that like-minded scholars were selected to participate (the fact that the conference took place in Baghdad is likely also not coincidental). But I agree with the rest of your post - I would imagine that (as with many religions) there are different interpretations that can be reasonably made to the religious texts, and that the fortunes of the various interpretations can rise and fall based on both internal and external influences.
I liked all the religions. I still do. I don’t find fault with any of them in essence because I believe they’re all directed to the same God. When I went off to college I quit participating in the Catholic Church I’d been raised in. I felt it didn’t do anything for me spiritually but at that age youth feels restless and wants to try new things.
Why I settled on Islam is a long story, and a lot of things went into it; suffice to say that many strands of thought in my life all began aligning in the same direction (Islam) at a time in my life when I needed a direction, when my whole existence had been shaken and I was looking for a better way to live. The kindness and beauty of soul I saw in my Muslim friends was the most important attraction of all. When I read the Qur’an it opened a new world of meaning for me. It was a lot of things all together, really. In the final analysis, I prayed a lot that year (1984) and Islam took on a reality as the answer to my prayers.
Here is a personal anecdote you may find amusingly ironic. It was Salman Rushdie who helped me get into Islam. One of my Christian Pakistani friends recommended Midnight’s Children. That was an astonishingly good novel written by Rushdie who hasn’t written anything good since. In the first chapter he quotes from the first verses of the Qur’an to be revealed:
Read, in the name of thy Lord who created,
Created man from a clot of blood.
It was as if I was seeing the Qur’an for the first time. I found those verses so fascinating that I began reading the whole Qur’an and got deeply into it and converted to Islam some months later.
Aarrghgh, I wish there could exist a religion or nonreligion that didn’t have this type in it. I wonder what it is about human nature that we always get cursed with this.
Yes, I saw that. There was another thread where somebody was giving Cat Stevens’s explanation that he wasn’t actually out to get Rushdie and had been misunderstood. Haven’t seen the book. 10,000 Maniacs came and played in my small town’s festival last year. I didn’t know they still existed. Without Natalie, they’ve really hit the small time.
Of war and peace the truth just twists
Its curfew gull just glides
Upon four-legged forest clouds
The cowboy angel rides
With his candle lit into the sun
Though its glow is waxed in black
All except when 'neath the trees of Eden
Everyone stands facing toward Mecca, and begins the prayer by lifting hands to ears and saying “Allah is greater.” Then they recite the first surah from the Qur’an (*al-Fatihah[i/]) and another selection from anywhere else in the Qur’an. They bow from the waist and straighten up, reciting praises and glorificartions of Allah. Then they lower their foreheads to the ground, sit up, and lower foreheads to the ground again, all the while repeating glorifications of the Most High. That makes one cycle, one unit or or module of prayer (called a rak‘ah). The complete set consists of two, three, or four rak‘ahs in succession, the number depending on the time of day. You can either pray this in the mosque in congregation or alone by yourself, or in a group of any size anywhere. The imam who leads the prayer is not a priest. Each Muslim man and women is his or her own priest. The imam prays the exact same prayer as everyone else; he or she just stands in front to synchronize everyone else in the congregation.
Women pray exactly the same prayer the men do, in exactly the same manner. Women participated in the congregational prayer and all the other community events in the Prophet’s original mosque in Medina, all in one big open space. The practice of excluding women from mosques or segregating them in a separate room is totally bogus and one of the worst ways Muslims have fallen off from the Prophet’s practice. Fortunately many of the mosques in America have enough sense not to segregate women.
Yes
No. The “sabbath” if one uses that term is al-sabt in Arabic, which is the name for Saturday. But there’s no day of rest in Islam. The Qur’an says when you hear the call to prayer on Friday, leave off business and attend to congregational prayer (al-Jumu‘ah) in the mosque. After the prayer is done, go out and seek the bounty of Allah (i.e. make money). In modern Muslim countries, they tend to treat Friday as a weekend. But there’s no real “sabbath” as such.
**They are ‘Id al-Fitr (the feast of breaking the fast) celebrating the end of Ramadan, and ‘Id al-Adha (the feast of the sacrifice) celebrating Abraham’s willingness to obey God’s command to sacrifice his son, which coincides with the Hajj on the Islamic lunar calendar. On both occasions people gather in the morning and pray then hear a sermon. These are the two days in the year when no one can do a voluntary fast: you have to feast.
What Farrakhan leads is a continuation of the “Lost-Found Nation” founded by W. D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad in the early 1930s in Detroit. Fard disappeared mysteriously and Elijah built it up into a movement of African-American empowerment. He used the name “Islam” although it really had practically nothing in common with Islam (apart from not eating pork). Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam was a movement that said the white man is the Devil and the black man is Original Man. That the devil white race was created by a mad scientist who grafted germs to take the color out of people. There was a science fiction side to it. Elijah said there was a spaceship hiding behind an asteroid that was just waiting for the right moment to come and take away all the Black Muslims and destroy white America. (Parliament/Funkadelic based their album Mothership Connection on this concept.) Elijah’s main message was that African-Americans should develop their own economy and self-reliance; he built up their self-respect and confidence and emphasized hard work and austere clean living along with racial separation.
Malcolm X started out in this movement and became its most dynamic promoter. After he began to criticize some inconsistencies he found in the leadership, he was expelled and certain persons in the Nation conspired to assassinate him. But before Malcolm died he had made the pilgrimage to Mecca and discovered that real Islam was nothing like Elijah’s teaching. For one thing, real Islam exemplifies racial equality which profoundly impressed Malcolm and got him to convert to real Islam in the last year of his life.
Elijah Muhammad’s teaching was that when you die you cease to exist; real Islam says your soul survives in eternity. Elijah said Allah was a black man (W. D. Fard, who in fact wasn’t even black); real Islam says Allah is transcendent over all creatures and is not a man. Elijah said he was a prophet and messenger of Allah; real Islam says the last prophet and messenger was Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, 1400 years ago, and there are no more after him.
Elijah’s son Wallace was a friend of Malcolm X and was influenced by him to learn real Islam. When his father died he took over the Nation and transformed it into real Islam. As Warith Din (‘inheritor of the religion’) Muhammad, he still leads this largest association of American Muslims but it has no differences with regular Islam anywhere in the world. Meanwhile Farrakhan rebelled and reestablished the Nation of Islam to continue Elijah’s version of it. In recent years he has brought it closer to real Islam while still preserving some of the differences.
Growing the beard is strongly encouraged. As Tamerlane said, it isn’t in the Qur’an, it’s from the sunnah. (Look, most things aren’t in the Qur’an. The sunnah is much more extensive and detailed; the Qur’an is fairly brief—it gives some details but mainly focuses on the overall picture.) In the Prophet’s sayings I don’t find anything about shaving being effeminate, that would be something people came up with later. What the Prophet actually said was “the beard honors a man’s face and shaving disgraces it.” Growing the beard is considered one of the primordial aspects of good grooming, along with trimming the nails and mustache, and shaving the armpit hair and pubic hair.
It has always been a matter of personal choice, not something to be enforced by the state, which was never done before those idiot Taliban fascists came along. There was a Muslim in California who wrote a newspaper article when the Taliban took over: he’d always had a beard but he shaved it to protest the Taliban. I haven’t shaved mine—I like it too much—but I am trimming it short now. That pisses off the Taliban too. I’m also growing my hair long, since the Prophet wore his long hair down to his shoulders. I don’t know why the modern fundamentalists insist on ultra-short hair, since that is not in the sunna.
Here we go, one more SDMB shave-your-pubic-hair thread! Why not? It’s all the rage around here. Dopers may be interested to know the Islamic world was way ahead of them in this fad.
Burton is a fascinating character. He’s got you all fooled.
He really was a Muslim all along, secretly. To the British reading public he presented himself as a non-Muslim disguised as a Muslim because he knew it would sell better. In fact he was a Muslim disguised as a non-Muslim disguised as a Muslim. These multiple layers of deception and intrigue are the sort of thing that appealed to his complex devious mind.
Just for a little light relief I thought I’d mention I’ve visited Sir Richard Burtons____ tomb on several occasions. It’s a representation of a Bedouin tent and tucked away in a small graveyard in SW London (Westminster or St Pauls were out of the question because of the Victorian’s distaste for his marital indiscretions).
Not really worth travelling to see but, for me, it’s a boyhood hero thing.
Muslim Guy: Like your mischievous sense of humour
Thanks again to everyone who’s contributed to this thread.
.
.