There is no “encouragment” at all seen the fact that adultery is a crime under the Shari’a law.
The “free sex” societies are the one that make it extremely easy for both sexes to be married, yet to play a bit on the side. I wouldn’t want to count the numer of married men who cheat on their wives in non Islamic societies.
I wouldn’t want to count the number of women who do the same
to their husband.
I wouldn’t want to count the number of men who are even married twice in a society like the USA, where as it seems falsifying your identity and leading a double life isn’t all that difficult and where marriage isn’t that regulated and registred as it is in other societies.
I wouldn’t want to count all those mistresses provided for everything they need, including a house or flat, by Western married men who dream of polygamy in a society that forbids it.
I wouldn’t want to count all those forced marriages, and the honour killings that go on in your society, and you know what? I really do dislike you, you have come into my thread and completely hijacked it for your obvious ‘anti western sentiments’ just to get a reaction out of me. Well you got one, if you have got something worthwhile to contribute to this thread then do so, I’m not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of both societies, I’m here to find out if there could be a more liberal and relaxed version of Islam that could take precedent.
And another thing I didn’t say Islam encourages adultery, I said that a society of polygamy can make adultery easier to hide.
Wouldn’t a liberalization of Islam have to involve concluding that the Koran might not be the absolutely true word of Allah? I don’t think any subsects of Islam consider said book “divinely inspired but not to be accepted as without error”.
Could you elaborate on the US foreign policy that makes it so easy for you to see things the way they do, because I still don’t get it. From what little I’ve gathered of Muslims claiming to be moderates, they seem to sympathize a great deal with the militants, so much so, it makes me have doubts about their “moderate” claims.
Perhaps I should clarify here - I don’t see things the way they do. That would mean that I’m okay with killing innocents in the name of my religion, and that’s obviously untrue.
I’d rather not hijack this thread and turn it into a debate about US foreign Policy, but since you asked for specific examples, I think that the current situation in Iraq comes most readily to mind. A lot of Muslims feel that the war was a sham and a travesty, and that we were lied to about the reasons for war. While none of us have much love for Saddam, we have a lot of sympathy for the Iraqi people. We see it as an invasion, not as a liberation, and we see US foreign policy as arrogant, belligerent and domineering.
So while moderate Muslims do not sympathise with Militants, we can understand the reasons for their anger. The difference is that we choose to march in protest and lobby our congressmen to voice our anger rather than murder people.
I’ve only worked in the Middle East as an expat but from what I observed I would suggest it at least has something to do with self respect.
Many Muslims look back and see a “golden age” when they were one of the dominant world powers and observe the religious nature of that society at the time of the “Empire” and equate some sort of renewal of Muslim power with a renewal of a more “fundimentalist” religous society. It would also be linked then to the ideas I have heard in the former Soviet Central Asian states that a healing and unity in the muslim world is a prerequist to regaining that power and influence (the “Empire” was great therefore…)
A more understanding and equal handed foreign policy on behalf of the West might go a long way to assist moderating that view but there is so much damage to undue and so much distrust it would take a consistant policy for say 10 or 20 years to replace the mindset of the current generation IMHO.
I’m afraid I am pretty pessimistic about the prospects of that…
To sum up - religion is an outlet for the symptoms that arise from economic and political relations with the world for many many generations. Only my opinion of course and would welcome the views of residents of the Muslim world.
Islamic Liberalisation = Good thing.
American Liberalisation = Unpatriotic media conspiracy.
Either there’s dual standards going on here or we need to accept that no-one has the right declare their society the acceptable norm that others must aspire to.
I think my point was that it’s all a question of degrees and a matter of opinion. The degree of liberalisation the characteristics you mention are disputed even within American society (hence the conspiracy theories).
Other than that, I was playing devil’s advocate. A great deal of the thread seemed to be along the lines of “why can’t Islam be more like us?”
That’s pretty much how it sounded to me as well, Futile Gesture. When people ask “why Islam can’t be more liberalised?”, they usually mean “Why can’t Muslims be more like Americans?” No disrespect intended towards Ryan Liam of course.
Y’know, this is where I have a LOT of difficulty with Islamic advocates. Seems whenever a practice in an Islamic nation is “bad” it’s a cultural thing, whenever it’s “good” it’s an Islamic thing. You’ll pardon me if I don’t buy it.
What about such barbaric acts, based on Sharia I believe, as stoning women to death for adultery? Cutting off people’s hands? I would say it’s a product of culture that these penalties are based on Islamic law, but they’re DEFINITELY based on Islamic law, from what I have read.
Also, one major difference between the Western concept of marriage and the Islamic concept is that in Islam sex is reserved for a man and however many women he chooses to marry at a given time. Little different from monogamy, if I may point that out.
I think Islam is part of the cultural of most Islamic nations, and has much to do with their “cultural” practices, for good and for evil. Just creating this intellecutal fantasy “your” version of Islam and saying it’s nothing to do with how Islam is practiced in various countries is, well, misleading.
I think I understand where you’re coming from Evil Captor. Let me begin by saying that I do not have my “own version” of Islam. Whenever I refer to Islamic teachings, doctrine or practices, I am referring to anything that is specifically mentioned in the Quran, the Sunnah, or the Hadeeth. If it ain’t there, then it ain’t Islamic as far as I’m concerned. Therefore, any practices which are not promoted or encouraged in any of these three sources are filed under “cultural”.
The problem arises when you have long-standing cultural practices that may well have been around before Islam, and which local populations are reluctant to let go of. In such cases, people will point to a passage and either wilfully misinterpret it or flat-out twist the meaning to near-breaking point in an attempt to justify just about any damn foolishness they please.
So you get people like the Taliban who prohibit women from going to school or university and then claiming that it’s justified by Sharia, when in actual fact there are passages in The Quran that make is clear that the search for knowledge (ie education) is obligatory for all Muslims - male and female alike.
Similarly, many Christians used the story of Noah’s sons to justify the practice of slavery. My point is that it would be wrong to dismiss Christianity as an evil and oppressive religion because of Slavery, and it would be equally to dismiss Islam in the same way because of some of the practices mentioned here. Yes, some Muslims take Sharia law to extremes and subsequently commit barbarous acts - but such acts are a perversion of the Sharia, they are not the norm.
With regards to your point about Adultery, my understanding is that it is indeed viewed as a capital offense under Sharia, and that this applies to both men and women equally. “Adultery” as understood by Islam includes pre-marital sex as well as the extra-marital affairs that we normally associate with the word. But while it is still seen as a serious sin, the pre-marital form adultery is not as serious as the extra-marital form, and is not accorded the same punishment. Please also note that when being tried for Adultery, Sharia law stipulates that the actual physical act must have been witnessed by at least three diffrent witnesses in order for capital punishment to take place. And finally, nowhere does it say that the guilty must be stoned to death. If you can find a passage in the Quran, the Hadith, or the Sunnah that say different, I’d like to see it.
Moving on a bit, your point about sex and marriage seems a little confused. In Islam, sex should take place as part of a loving marriage - what’s wrong with that? Yes, men are allowed up to four wives, that doesn’t mean that they marry them all at the same time, and it doesn’t mean that they can marry the second wife behind the first wife’s back. The current wife (or wives) have to give consent for any subsequent marriages, otherwise it’s no-go. There are very strict rules on polygamy in Islam, and while it’s permitted under certain circumstances, it’s strongly discouraged. The rule on sex is the same - no sex outsude of marriage. If you have more than one wife, you must give them equal love and respect, and eqaul time in the bedroom.
Anyway, I hope that’s helped. Feel free to ask more questions if I’ve been unclear about anything. Oh, and I should probably add a little caveat here and say that I’m by no means a scholar or authority on matters of Sharia or Islam. I’m just a regular “joe-schmoe” Muslim trying to answer these questions as best as I can, so forgive me for any errors, and take what I say with a grain or two of salt…
I guess theres a grain of truth in that, but I see places like Japan where they have toook on a deal of western values, and yet still have retained most of their culture, I was wondering if Islam could do the same.
I think the difference there is that Japanese culture is, well… a culture, while Islam is a religion. People may be happy to eat more burgers and less noodles, but they are more averse to changing their religious beliefs as casually.
And I have to say that you can’t really point to any definitive “Islamic culture”. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, spanning places like the US, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Italy, Indonesia and China. Muslims living in these countries have different cultures, but share a common belief.
One woman’s attempt at bringing change: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34606
Fearing a backlash from radical Muslims, the author of a book called “The Trouble with Islam” is staying in close contact with police ahead of the title’s scheduled release tomorrow.
Irshad Manji, a Toronto Muslim journalist, is urging Muslims to purge Islam of fundamentalism, Canada’s National Post reported.
Once a man has one wife how does he ever even get to meet wife number 2?
In monogamous society, I think the idea is that once you get married you stop playing the field. If a man is allowed to get married again then it means he keeps his eye out for the next hot chick who happens along.
You say that there are very strict rules ie that he is not allowed to have sex with a woman. But he is allowed to take girls out on romantic dates - dinners, cinema etc. Whatever, as long as he doesn’t have sex.
He can romance this other woman as much as he wants (so long as he doesn’t have sex with her and so long as he treats his wife equally well). Then if, after a few months of dating, he decides she’s not the girl for him he can break off the relationship and move on to the next one.
Or if he decides she is the girl for him, he can marry her but even then he can carry on looking out for the next hot bit of stuff to come along since he’s still got two more marriages in the bank, so to speak.
If I was a woman (which I’m not) I don’t think I would want my husband dating other women and always looking out for the next chance to come along.
Also, do you have a cite from the Qur’an for this bit:
I’m not disagreeing with you, I just don’t recall reading that anywhere.
Also if one of the wives complains, what’s to stop him beating her up until she stops?
I know that, in practice, most muslims only take one wife but the Qur’an seems to be granting men licence to keep looking even after marriage.
I also know that many muslims believe that, since it is impossible to treat each wife the same, then the Qur’an must be telling them that they are in fact only allowed to have one wife, that the Qur’an is in fact banning them from polygamy.
However this interpretation is (I think) a fairly recent one albeit a growing one, and it is not a universal interpretation. You, for example, seem to think polygamy is ok and Aldebaran seemed to admit to having two wives earlier.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal lived 780-855 in Baghdad and his legalistic interpretation were far more centered on the hadith than the Qur’an ( indeed he was imprisoned for a period for his then unorthodox views on the uncreation of the Qur’an ), though they led him to embrace his “purist” view that rejected any but the most literal interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunna.
However this is incorrect. Hanbali jurisprudence and legal interpretation did not become the dominant theme in Islam and it isn’t today - theonly place you see Hanbali jurisprudence applied today is in the Wahabi countries of the Gulf, prinicipally Saudi Arabia. For them, the Hanbali interpretation, especially as filtered through the views of the conservative theologian Ibn Taymiyya ( who lived over four hundred years after Ibn Hanbal ), is central to their faith.
But the other major schools of jurisprudence - the Shaf’i, the Maliki, and especially the Hanafi, vastly outnumber the Hanbali.
No, most Muslims think differently. Also the Hashemites are a dynastic family and have nothing in particular to do with any brand of theology.
I’d largely agree.
Yes, though this view can be exaggerrated. The creep towards more rigid thought had begun earlier and Islam continued to have periodic cultural efflorescenses after ( ands even during ) the mongol period.
Again, I’d agree about the Crusades having an impact, but argue against taking the idea of it being unifying too far. In some ways it did, but in others it did not.
The Ottomans, on average weren’t particularly opressive at all. Indeed they were positively liberal in a number of respects and rather more so than most. This probably derives in part from the center of the early state being so dependant ( in terms of resources ) on the largely Christian, European areas in held. Rumelia was in many ways as important as Anatolia to Ottoman strength.
From the Hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4191 ( also see 4192- 4195 ):
*'Ubada b. as-Samit reported:
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me. Allah has ordained a way for those (women). When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.*
From the Hadith of Bukhari, book 8, no.809:
*Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah’s Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. “What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?” They replied, “Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya.” 'Abdullah bin Salam said, “O Allah’s Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah.” The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, “Lift up your hand.” Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah’s Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.*
Of course these verses are contested and there is queston as to when they date ( i.e. before or after the Qur’anic prescribed punishment was cited ).
I guess the key point here is what is meant by “promoted or encouraged.” Frex, I would say that on the whole, Christianity promotes and encourages ignorance and repression concerning sex. The most notable instance would the the writing of Paul and St. Augustine but that’s hardly ALL I’d mean. I’d include the historical actions of the Catholic Church and many Protestant subgroups, most notably in America. The Bible doesn’t say diddly fuck about any of them but there’s no doubt they were Christian churches and had powerful and baleful influences on sexuality in the West.
You seem to be saying we should ignore the history of the various Muslim sects (note: in the same sense that various Christian churches can be considered “sects”) in the development of culture in Islamic societies. I don’t buy it. I think the way Islam has been developed is PART and PARCEL of what Islamic nations have become, for good or for ill. And frankly, I see most of what Islam has done for the societies that follow it to be in the “for ill” category, particularly, most importantly and most strongly in the areas of sexuality and the treatment of women, which I think is shameful in most of the Islamic world.
I would also suspect that Islam has contributed toward the propensity for violence in the Middle East, though obviously history and geography have had a strong influence there too.
The problem arises when you have long-standing cultural practices that may well have been around before Islam, and which local populations are reluctant to let go of. In such cases, people will point to a passage and either wilfully misinterpret it or flat-out twist the meaning to near-breaking point in an attempt to justify just about any damn foolishness they please.
Sure, same with Christianity, but when most of a culture links these practices to their version of Islam, you soon find yourself in “No true Scotsman” territory if you deny all their beliefs.
With regards to your point about Adultery …
My point about adultery was that when you can marry up to four wives at once (and even in Wahabbi Saudi Arabia, some Saudi princes have many more than four wives, I believe – the number of wives gets a little abstract once it gets beyond “one”) you’re in a VERY different situation than someone who can marry only one wife at a time. If you don’t see that, there’s not much I can do to help you. Sure, the guy might love all four of his wives, but to me it’s just part of the rank sexism that pervades most Muslim societies.
(See, that’s me there.)