I am not a Muslim, but I can say that almost every Muslim I have ever met has been white. One of my Muslim classmates is a blue-eyed blonde – at least her eyebrows are blonde, I’ve never seen the rest of her hair. The Palestinian students at my school are often mistaken for being French.
I am not sure why Americans often seem to think of Arabs (I suspect that “Arab” and “Muslim” are virtually synonymous to most Americans, although not all Arabs are Muslim and there are Muslims of every ethnic group) as not being white. The average Arab is certainly no darker of complexion than the average Southern European.
Two main points: 1) The Qur’an only authorizes defensive military action against attacking soldiers; 2) The Islamic law of war comes from the Prophet’s instructions to fight only soldiers on the battlefield, to never harm noncombatants or the environment. These terrorist guys have been breaking so many Islamic laws all over the place, it ain’t funny.
The Prophet was not only a man of wisdom, he had a lot of common sense, too. He wasn’t after conquering territory, he sought to win hearts and minds. It’s common sense to know you don’t persuade people by hurting them; you win them through affection and kindness. He didn’t want to fight, he fought only to survive because the little Muslim community at the beginning was in danger of being totally wiped out. He never initiated aggression, but tried to present Islam peacefully and was attacked for it.
For the first 14 or 15 years, he never fought at all, even though there were persecutions, murders, and assassination attempts against the Muslims. When they did take up arms, it was only defensive. When Muhammad finally returned to Mecca and took over, he used diplomacy and the city opened peacefully to him with no fighting or bloodshed. He gave general amnesty to all his former enemies and took no revenge. When Muslims retook Jerusalem after the First Crusade, likewise they allowed Christians and Jews to live there in peace as they always had and took no revenge.
These terrorist guys nowadays are doing crimes that Islam has always forbidden. The fact is, their actions are not connected with Islam at all. They are just exploiting the good name of Islam to serve their own purposes. They are bringing harm to the Muslim community and no benefit. Believe me, Muslims for years have had to deal with trouble from this type every day and wish we could be rid of them!
Thanks for opening this thread. It was a very courageous deed, given the baying madness of revenge that seems poised to take over so many hearts.
I don’t really have a specific question as such though… but as a (mostly secular) Neo-Pagan I’ll be reading the other questions and answers with great interest.
I knew you meant it in a friendly way, and I was just responding with a good-natured wisecrack. Yeah, this is my de-lurk.
Answer to your question: YES.
Anyone who kills any person without another soul being involved or causing mischief in the land, acts as if he had killed all mankind. Anyone who spares life acts as if he had granted life to all mankind. (5:30)
Allah only commands justice and the doing of good (16:90)
Do not take life—which Allah has made sacred—except for just cause.(17:33)
Let me say that as a Roman Catholic, in my religion there is a very clear cut idea of who is in charge. If someone professing to be acting in the name of Catholicism started to get a little wacky, I could look to the Pope for an answer. If the Pope said “hey, that guy’s a nut job*,” I would know to dismiss any religious clout the nut was attempting to throw around.
So, in Islam in general, is there a head honcho? About current events specifically, is there a religious figure to whom bin Laden claims to answer? Would bin Laden’s supporters be swayed if this person suddenly denounced him?
Not that I have ever heard the Pope call anyone a nut job, but then again, I don’t speak Polish.
Excellent question. A friend of mine, a lady from Pakistan named Asma Barlas, is a professor at Ithaca College and has a book coming out soon from U of Texas Press that shows how the Qur’an not only does not authorize patriarchy, it in fact degrades patriarchy. Fatima Mernissi from Morocco is the best-known Islamic feminist, who has seriously done her homework in the original sources and brought out the anti-patriarchal thrust of the original Islamic message. See especially her books The Veil and the Male Elite and Beyond the Veil.
See the Qur’an verse 33:35, which uses parallelism to establish complete spiritual equality between men and women.
Muslim men and Muslim women, believing men and believing women, devout men and devout women, truthful men and truthful women, patient men and patient women, reverent men and reverent women, charitable men and charitable women,
fasting men and fasting women, and men who safeguard their private parts and women who safeguard [theirs], and men who
remember God often and women who remember [Him]-for [all of] them God has prepared forgiveness and a splendid wage.*
You got that exactly right. The oppression of women in Muslim societies is the recrudescence of cultural attitudes that Islam couldn’t completely remove. What can I say? Even if the religion is good, the people who are supposed to implement it are just imperfect human beings who never quite do justice to the ideals they’re supposed to live up to. But knowing that the original message of Islam brought women’s liberation gives us Islamic feminists a firm basis for advocating feminism. Already a lot of the misogynist crap that mullas had inserted over the centuries has been successfully criticized in the light of original Islam and eliminated. Such as the alleged saying of the Prophet that women shouldn’t be educated: this has now been proved to be a fake hadith. Considering that a genuine hadith says “The seeking of knowledge is obligatory on every man and woman,” the phony anti-woman stuff is now being filtered out. This is one reason I love America: American Muslim women are free to live according to the full extent of the rights they had in original Islam. This is one reason why I think that America is the best country for Islam, why I love America and am proud and grateful to be an American.
As much as I dislike the modern fundamentalist goings-on, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon among them: a lot of the women fundamentalists, in researching back to the original sources of Islam, have found an amazing amount of women’s empowerment there and brought that to the forefront. They are not taking a back seat to the male fundamentalists anymore, but are setting their own agenda. I noticed this in the recent book by the fundie professor Rasha al-Disuqi, Resurgent Voice of Muslim Women. For more Islamic feminism, please check out Maryams.net.
As for Christianity having misogynist tendencies, I guess when you represent God, the supreme Reality, as exclusively male, with a penis and everything, it’s bound to make the whole picture somewhat unbalanced. There is certainly no such thing as a male God in Islam. Muslims cannot speak of Allah as Father, though the Prophet and others like Rumi have spoken of Allah as Mother. (To be fair to Christians, a few such as Julian of Norwich have addressed Jesus as Mother too.) Islamic theology derives all maleness and femaleness from the two poles of the divine nature: Majesty and Beauty, respectively. In Sufi love poetry, Allah as the beloved is invoked as a Woman. That’s where Eric Clapton’s song “Layla” gets its name from: he had been reading the Persian Sufi love epic Layla and Majnun. In this poem Majnun as a male represents the human soul in quest of God’s love, and the woman Layla represents Allah as the besought. Layla means she has hair as black as night. The blackness of night refers to the dissolving of all forms; the ultimate divine reality, the dhat or divine essence, is considered Feminine (as in Taoism: while Yin and Yang both proceed from the Tao, it tends to be ultimately Feminine).
Pretty similar to Christianity. The archangel Israfil (recognize his name from the poem by Edgar Allan Poe?) will sound the trumpet, and all beings will fall into a swoon. He will sound the trumpet again, and all the dead will be resurrected from the grave, and proceed to Judgment, where the righteous will be sorted out from the wicked: eternal bliss for the former and perdition for the latter. Among the believers, each prophet will lead his community (ummah) into Paradise: Moses with the Jews, Jesus with the Christians, Muhammad with the Muslims, and so on. At Judgment, your good deeds will be placed on a scale and weighed against your bad deeds. If you wronged your neighbor or owe a debt, he can take some of your good deeds for his scale. Everybody has their deeds, good and bad, written in a book, and you’ll get to see it at Judgment. But Allah is Merciful above all, and loves to forgive, and if He wants to pardon and erase all your bad deeds, He will, just as long as your heart has hope for His mercy. Inscribed on the Divine Throne is the phrase: “My mercy takes precedence over My wrath.”
The split originated with a disagreement over who should succeed the Prophet as the leader of the Muslim polity. The Shi‘ah began as the group who thought ‘Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, should be the first khalifah (successor). The majority opinion (which later came to be called “Sunni”) prevailed and three other khalifahs were elected before ‘Ali got to become the fourth khalifah. It’s really only a political or legal disagreement, not a religious one, because no one could succeed to the prophethood, as that came to an end with the death of Muhammad. The dispute was over the political leadership. Only the first four khalifahs are considered really correct. After them, the dynasties that set in lack the level of authority. The relations between the two sides became worse after the Umayyad dynasty began, and the second Umayyad caliph Yazid, a wicked ruler, put to death ‘Ali’s son, the prophet’s much beloved grandson al-Husayn. The Shi‘ah see their first twelve leaders beginning with ‘Ali as the twelve Imams who had a special role in interpreting the religion. Their faith emphasizes love for the Prophet’s immediate family centered on the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah (wife of ‘Ali and mother of al-Hasan and al-Husayn). Fatimah was a sensitive, intensely spiritual woman who cared for the poor and was not withdrawn from worldly things.
Sunni simply means those who follow the Prophet’s example (sunnah), which is kind of a misleading name, as the Shi‘ah also follow the Prophet’s sunnah too. They have coded Islamic law based on the Qur’an and the sunnah the same as other Muslims, and for the most part their school of jurisprudence resembles the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, but there are differences. The ongoing rivalry and conflict between Sunni and Shi‘ah, if you ask me, have more to do with human beings’ irrational hatreds and us-versus-them attitudes. Witness Catholics and Protestants for that matter. But there has been a movement toward Shi‘ite-Sunni rapprochement among the leaders of both sides. In 1960 they convened at al-Azhar university in Cairo and pledged to accept one another.
You know, I never really got what that was all about. The ostensible reason was that non-Muslims are not supposed to enter the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina. Now the troublemakers interpret that to mean the whole kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I say: get real. The sacred precincts are in the region of Hijaz, in the northwest of Arabia. The American troops are in eastern Saudi. The Saudi kingdom originated in the region of Najd, in the east. The present king’s father expanded the kingdom and in 1924 conquered the Hijaz from its traditional ruler the Sharif (great-grandfather of the king of Jordan). Strictly speaking, it was the Saudis who had no business taking over Mecca. But that was long ago anyway. My point is that eastern Saudi has never been considered “sacred land” and there are no American troops in Hijaz, so what’s the big deal about? I think the big deal is that these guys want to overthrow the kingdom, and are looking for some justification. You’d think they could come up with something better than that. Whether it’s a good thing for Americans to be stationed in the Middle East like that is a serious question, one that should be asked. I marched in protest against Desert Storm back in '91. But that does not mean you can make a religious issue out of it. These guys are only pretending to act for “Islam.” When you critically examine their claims, they fail.
I answered that in a post above. You’re right, it seems that way because over the centuries mullas took away women’s God-given rights. That is now being re-examined and questioned by Islamic feminists, so that little by little women are regaining their original equality. The women of the earliest generations of Islam fully exercised their equality, and their rights weren’t eroded until ‘Abbasid times—which was then given the false appearance of being the norm. I’m sorry to say that misogynists are using the excuse of Islamic fundamentalism to block the reinstatement of women’s rights in a reactionary way, although there are now women fundies who will not let them get away with that so easily!
Thanks, Muslim Guy, for de-lurking and being willing to answer questions. I’m impressed that you are willing to do this at such a difficult time for our nation. Fighting ignorance is the purpose of the Straight Dope, and there certainly is a lot of ignorance about Islam in the United States today.
I can only think of three questions right now.
What is the general attitude of Islam towards Judaism and Christianity?
What is the general attitude of Islam towards other religions in general, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.?
Is the Holy Bible considered sacred scripture in Islam?
Ultimate authority rests in the sacred texts: the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sunnah. Who interprets those sources to derive legislation? A lot of individual scholars, none of whom is boss over the others. It’s very much like the Jewish rabbis collectively working on the Talmud. The ones who demonstrate that they have the best understanding are ultimately the ones who are accorded the highest regard. The real finality comes with the important concept of general consensus (ijma‘). So to what authority can we appeal to show that Bin Laden & co. are out of bounds? To the fact that the overwhelming consensus of scholars agree that their actions are invalid (nut job). This consensus carries the weight of a papal pronouncement in Catholicism. The difference is that it’s distributed instead of contained within a personage. (Among the Shi‘ah, theoretically the Imam is the one with the final authority. But since the Twelfth Imam went into “occultation” some 1200 years ago and is unavailable for comment, in practice the Shi‘ites work from a consensus of scholars the same as the Sunnis.) Among the Sunnis, the scholarly establishment of al-Azhar in Cairo holds a high level of prestige.
No. Religious law cannot be settled by decree, but only by persuasion of the consensus.
He answers to no one. He is in rebellion against the whole Islamic community. Rulings in Islamic law depend on their appeal to human reason. When somebody goes off on such an irrational kick, and won’t listen to reason, what can anyone do? The scholars at al-Azhar have again and again ruled that terrorism is completely unlawful. The problem is how do you enforce this ruling. Stalin sarcastically asked how many divisions of troops the Pope commands. President Andy Jackson said arrogantly: “The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.” See, the leading scholars of Islamic law would have put a stop to Bin Laden already if they’d been able to. But he’s holed up in a renegade country whose nutjob rulers allow him to stay. The rest of the Islamic world rejects the Taliban, but realistically, what can they do about it?
First, I in no means mean to be trollish. I have been reading all the threads concerning Islam and I appreciate my greater understanding from them.
So here’s my however. However, today, I was listening to NPR and the host was interviewing a Middle-East expert, who I believe is a Muslim. I really was not paying much attention, until the end of the interview, when the host asked him about the perception of bin Laden in the Muslim world. His response was that bin Laden is the single most “popular” person in Islam.
I was taken aback. Is this true?
Did anyone else hear this? If I heard this incorrectly, I want to know.
I hope all’s going well for you, Muslim Guy, given the recent events this week. I’m at least glad to see the news media pay special attention to incidents of harassment of Muslims and those of Middle Eastern origin by some of my more ignorant countrymen. Hopefully, exposure of these incidents will encourage non-Muslims to learn more about what elbows called a “stikingly beautiful faith”, and realize that they really share far more than they percieved.
Speaking of which, my question – do you think Middle Eastern immigrants and Muslims are more or less assimilated into American culture than other ethnic groups and/or those who practice Judiasm? Many of us have seen very conservative Muslims in the supermarket or mall, with a covered woman walking with the children a few steps behind her husband. Unfortunately, I think it’s sights like this that cause some folks to think “they ain’t like us,” and thus assume the worst. Jews have assimilated over many years, yet still maintain a distinct sense of identity. As time goes on, I’ve seen fewer Asian Indians in traditional garb in neighborhoods where they have been established for many years, and no female Asian Indian children or young adults wearing saris.
Another question – if a mosque near me is experiencing security issues, what can I do to help?
Prophet Muhammad did not bring Islam as a new religion, but as a restoration of the same religion as the Hebrew prophets. Therefore he tried to work out a commonality that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could all share while respecting each other’s differences.
*SAY: “People of the Book, [let us] rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you, that we shall worship only God [Alone] a associate nothing else with Him, nor shall any of us take on others as lords instead of God.” If they should turn away, then say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” * (Qur’an 3:64)
There’s a distinction drawn between the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, & Sabi’ans) and kafirs (the Meccans who tried to exterminate Islam). As for Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions in other far-flung parts of the globe, they aren’t mentioned in the Qur’an at all. The original Muslim community did not encounter them. The People of the Book are recognized as kindred religions. The kafirs come in for condemnation because of their implacable enmity toward Islam. As for the rest who aren’t mentioned, it’s up to interpretation. Some have applied the concept of kafir to these other religions, although I do not find any justification for that when you examine what the word means in the Qur’an. There is an article titled “Islam and Plurality of Religions” by an Indian Muslim, Anwar Moazzam, published in the symposium book The Divine Peacock: Understanding Contemporary India (New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations, 1995), p. 113-121. A very good analysis of the question. He rejects identifying other religions as kafir and concludes: “Religious plurality is to be treated as a reality of human civilisation. No compulsion or use of force is permissible, except to meet any external threat to one’s survival, for the promotion of Islam or interest of Muslims and against other religions or followers of other religions.”
When Islam came to Iran, Zoroastrians (even though they’re not mentioned in the Qur’an) were classified as People of the Book for purposes of taxation and such. Each religious community was allowed to be internally governed by its own laws. During the Mughal Empire in India, a son of Shah Jahan, Prince Muhammad Dara Shikuh, studied Hinduism and concluded that Hindus are People of the Book too. He identified the Upanishads as a sacred scripture indirectly alluded to in the Qur’an. Many Muslims would disagree with this, but my point is there’s room for interpretation and I am advocating the more liberal possibilities. The 13th-century sage Muhyi al-Din ibn al-‘Arabi taught the universality of all religions. In fact, I think he was the first person in history ever to articulate this theory. In the present day, Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr at George Washington University, one of the foremost scholars in the Islamic world, argues that Islam accepts the validity of other religions, because Islamic law requires the Islamic state to protect its non-Muslim citizens. So if you believe these non-Muslims are destined for Hell, why would you be obligated to protect their lives, property, and interests? According to Dr. Nasr, this shows the basis for universality toward other religions in Islam, they are capable of salvation too. Ibn al-‘Arabi taught this 800 years ago; it took Christians until the 20th century to come around to this concept. Because Islam came as the last major religion, it has a perspective to look back on all the previous ones and see them all as revelations from the same divine Source. The Qur’an teaches that all nations in the world had prophets and messengers sent to them, all bringing essentially the same message, which is why they share so much in common. There was one Muslim shaykh who traveled to America and became friends with American Indians; he participated in the Sun Dance at Pine Ridge reservation and was adopted into the Lakota and Crow tribes. He recognized their religion of Wakan Tanka as very similar in essence to Islam. He had a Hindu friend from South India who likes to visit Muslim gatherings I attend; when we pray he holds his hands in namaste over his head to show the highest level of reverence. Then when he chants the Upanishads in Sanskrit we listen respectfully. There is a lot of basis for mutual respect and friendship between Islam and other religions. These are just a few examples.
Yes and no. The four sacred revealed scriptures specifically mentioned in the Qur’an are the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. The Qur’an accepts them in principle, but does not necessarily endorse every detail in them, since the versions now known may have been altered from the originals. Islam does not regard Jesus Christ as God or the son of God, but as a major prophet. Just as Moses had the Torah revealed to him, David had the Psalms, and Jesus had the Injil (Evangelion), Muhammad had the Qur’an revealed to him.
Again, I’m taking the liberal side, though not all Muslims will. There is room in Islam for a variety of interpretations. The final word on these issues is the Qur’an: verse 5:51 gives the basis for acceptance of religious pluralism—
Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you He made you as ye are. So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
I have a number of questions, but I’ll space them out.
I’ll start with this one (to totally change the topic).
I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong), that Islam permits a man to marry up to four wives. Is this true across all sects of Islam, or am I accessing some sect-specific information.
If so, what percentage of Muslim men do have more than one wife (I realize that you may just be guessing, but any info you have would be helpful).
In Judaism, there is a Talmudic dictum called dina d’malchusa dina. Translated, this means that the law of the land (where it does not conflict with Jewish law) must be followed. Is there a similar restriction in Islam. Specifically, with regard to polygamy, is there any Islamic restriction (aside from any civil restriction) against a Muslim taking more than one wife in a country where the civil law forbids it (such as in the United States).
I didn’t get a chance to listen to NPR today (it’s all I can do to keep up with responding to this thread).
It’s sad, the perverseness of human nature. Nice people get ignored. Mean people get all the attention. Once I saw on someone’s SUV a decal with a scowling figure and the words “BAD BOYS CLUB.” I wondered what that was all about. Upon reflection, I came up with the “Bad Boys Club” theory of politics. The present situation looks so unbearable, people just wish someone would come along and shake things up. To join the Bad Boys Club, you don’t need any coherent ideology, you don’t need to make any sense at all, you just need an attitude. They make the mistake of expecting anyone who is “bad” enough to stand up to The Man and “give the finger” is their hero. You know the saying “Be careful what you wish for”?
I don’t know how popular he actually is, certainly the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism, but I’m concerned that a lot of people haven’t thoroughly considered the consequences, haven’t really examined where this attitude is heading. They just react irrationally, emotionally. I don’t know. Once the unimaginable horror and evil of September 11 sinks in, people are now forced to reassess what they had been expecting. The best to hope for is people will come to their senses and see how Bin Ladin is accomplishing nothing but harming Muslims with his crimes. (Somehow I keep thinking of Alan Rickman in Die Hard sneering, “I’ll have you know I am an uncommon criminal!”)
OK, there have been outlaws who were popular heros in the past, but Jesse James, or Phoolan Devi the Bandit Queen, never practiced indiscriminate slaughter. If Bin Ladin really was behind September 11, he’s finished. Nobody will support him any more. I don’t know. I have never met a single Muslim who ever liked Bin Ladin, and I think his popularity is exaggerated.