[Deleted]
So anyway…
Tamerlane an Captain - thanks for your posts.
At least in the UAE, it seems to go further than just raising the child a muslim. If the father is muslim -> the child is muslim, regardless of the mother’s religion or her intention of bringing it up. European-emirati children are all defined as muslim from birth, regardless of upbringing or parental preference. And they can’t change this status.
It goes so far that even people with “muslim” names (or names considered muslim, even if the person is christian/jewish/hindu) are still treated as muslim. I have a druze friend that can’t get an alcohol license, for example.
Just a request: I don’t know if is technically possible, but if so, could a mod/admin edit out above post by the now banned poster?
This is an interesting thread, it seems a shame to close it entirely, but that post is offensive beyond belief, and it would be good to limit the number of new people seeing it.
Well, this certainly appears problematic, but it may have more to do with fundamentalist/extreme attitudes in existence today than with Islam as a religion - though I am the first to admit that I don’t know.
I will point out that, from a Jewish perspective, the “golden age” of enlightenment and learning was during the tolerant Muslim rule of Spain, where Jews were given the freedom to develop to the best of their abilities in an atmosphere of religious and intellectual tolerence. Things were obviously not perfect, but compare Islamic al-Andalus to the inquisitions and expulsions to come … !
This example clearly proves that there is noting inevitable or “hard-wired” about Islam being anti-progressive. Just like any other religion, it may be progressive in the hands of progressive thinkers, and the reverse in the hands of fanatics who wish to fossilize the religion in some repressive form.
I think the great Persian Sufi poet Hafiz (c.1320-1389) put it best in his poem, “Stop being so religious”:
What
Do sad people have in
Common?
It seems
They have all built a shrine
To the past
And often go there
And do a strange wail and
Worship.
What is the beginning of
Happiness?
It is to stop being
So religious
Like
That.
Well, the assumption is, like you said, that the child takes his or her father’s religion, it being the father’s responsibility to educate his sons and daughters religiously. This is one of the reasons, for example, it’s permitted for Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women, but not for Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men.
And, Malthus, I like the poem, but have you ever heard Rumi’s Moses and the Shepherd? Moses sees a shepherd praying, using some distinctly common metaphors, and scolds him, saying that he lacks respect for God. God then scolds Moses for his intolerance, saying (in the Coleman Barks poetic translation)
This is a tremendous overstatement.
I don’t think this is correct. The “Golden Age” was more a Golden Age for Muslims than for Jews. IOW, it was a period of enlightenment and learning for Muslim scholarship, and this had an incidental effect on the Jews as well.
There was plenty of intolerance, repression and good old massacres during the “Golden Age”.
That’s certainly true, but as a rule, the Muslim world was more tolerant of Judaism than the Christian world.
Actually, although I have read some of Rumi’s work, I have not read this particular poem. But I like it, very much.
I think Rumi and Hafizs’ points of view are probably very similar - both were mystics, far more interested in the inward quality of a person’s relationship with the divine than any outward show of conformity to a particular practice. Certainly, Hafiz would not have cared what a person chose to call him or herself - the important thing was to free the mind and spirit, to be one with the divine.
Indeed, the poem (or part of the poem) you quote here is very similar to another Hafiz favorite of mine (both this and the one above are from the Ladinsky translation):
I
Have
Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call
Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
The Truth has shared so much of Itself
With me
That I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel,
Or even pure
Soul.
Love has
Befriended Hafiz so completely
It has turned me to ash
And freed
Me
Of every concept and image
My mind has ever known.
Maybe so. But I still stand by my statement.
As I noted, from a Jewish perspective Al-Andalus is remembered as a “Golden age”. That is what I was taught, and what Jews, particularly Shephardic Jews, tend to believe:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/2679/alandalu_english.htm
Now, it may be that on analyzing the history of the period, the “Golden age” will not seem so “golden” after all. No doubt there were massacres, persecutions, intolerences, and other problems.
But the time is remembered as a “golden age”, and there is also probably some very good reasons for that. Maybe it was “golden” by comparison to the standards of its time, rather than the standards of our own?
Well, I think that’s right…the Sufi movement was (is) based on the idea of a personal, emotional relationship with God, and against ritualism in worship. This has gotten them in trouble at times…
As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, I would like to take extreme issue with this statement. My ancestors were given a choice: pay the poll tax, convert to Islam, or die. I exist only because my ancestors were able to somehow pay this poll tax. We also have a very long history of martyrdom in our church at the hands of the Muslims–Millions of martyrs!! For you to claim that this did not happen is an insult to history. Christians in the Middle-East have faced the most severe religious persecution throughout history at the hands of the Muslims. Plain and simple. You can perhaps argue that they were defying the Quran, but to argue that they have not harshly persecuted other religions is absolutely absurd.
Do, but you should do so on historical rather than revisionist grounds.
Well, rather more accurate, they were given the choice of surrendering or not. Historical evidence suggests that the Coptic community colloborated with the incoming invaders to otherthrow the widely hated and oppressive Byzantine administration, which taxed the Egyptians rather more heavily than the jiziya and considered the Copts heretics.
There is little sign that in the early days the Muslims really made any effort at all to convert anyone.
Historical evidence suggests that the early Muslims, say first through third generations, saw Islam as an Arab religion, and also did not encourage conversion for the clear fiscal disadvantages (such as sharing of alms, differential tax rates, etc.)
The above characterization then flies in the face of what sober, non-partisan history has to say, although I am well aware of what the North American revisionists peddle. (As do the Leb Maronites)
Sure, somehow that tax was on average lower than the Imperial taxes paid to Constantine’s city.
Millions? Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Thousands, certainly, and if you total it up over the centuries, even hundreds of thousands.
The Coptic church also had martyrs at the hands of their ostensible coreligionists, the Rum church, so…?
Things of course were not all patty cake, patty cake, however it is fairly clear that on average, Islamic rule up to the late centuries was clearly more tolerant than Xian rule, either in Byzantium or in the Western Church.
Now this also clearly degenerated from the 15th century on, although probably the tolerance balance only really clearly tipped in favor of Euros in the 19th century, but that is highly subjective and depends on which countries we’re talking about.
Whatever, sober histories paint a rather more balanced history. Certainly there were periods of real oppression and nastiness, however to call it the “most severe religious opression” is quite simply a crock. A simple comparision with the manners in which the Islamic world treated its minorities with that of the Xian world shows that however flawed it was (and they were, humanity being what it is) it was far and away more tolerant on a sustained basis. Again, by the standards of the time, which it must be admitted were not precisely brilliant as compared to our own.
I might add my dear Mambo that my convos with Copts back in the home country left me with the clear impression that many find the POV put forth in the States to be far too extreme by a country mile – you are of course gettnig a selection bias on both ends, the disaffected versus the not-disaffected.
As for Izzy, if he should ever trouble himself to read Lewis, he may find that there is a balanced overview of just such questions, should he like to, for the novelty value, advance an informed judgement.
I for one would be very interested to hear what this banned poster had to say. Perhaps a mod could email it to me, if they felt that it was too offensive to show here?
Thanks
As noted, the term was primarily in reference to scientific/philosophical scholarship, rather than tolerance. This thread is about the latter.
Quite possible - it was in fact a relatively tolerant period. Still, what you are saying is a bit reduced, to “some times or places weren’t as bad as other times or places”. OK.
I am only objecting to the more extreme formulations such as put forth by astorian and yourself. I am not arguing with more moderate position as put forth by Captain Amazing. Not because I am convinced that it is true, but because I don’t know one way or the other. There was a lot of variation by time and place within Christian and Muslim regions, and were times and places when one was better and times and places when the other was. I don’t know if you can toss out a generalization without a more serious assessment of all the various areas and various times. Also you would have to balance one type of persecution against another (e.g. an occasional massacre vs. constant low-grade subjugation).
Also, it might be more meaningful to look at the treatment of minority religion members in the context of the general state of human rights, as opposed to in absolute. For example, there were times in Europe (e.g. 13th century France/Germany) when the vast majority of the Christian population were serfs, who were property of their owners - Jews by contrast were free people.
All in all it is a complex picture, and again, I am not looking to debate who had it better but only to object to the more extreme portrayals.
I doubt if I will read Lewis, and this is not an area in which I am interested in becoming an expert. However, unlike certain other people, I am aware of what I know and what I don’t know, and in limiting my remarks to the former category, am generally quite accurate. As indeed I was here, which is why, in looking for something to criticize, you were limited to an empty cheap shot personal attack. Way to go, bro.
I would also add that if it is “novelty value” that you are after, try to get through a post without that phrase. Constant reuse of the same clichés can get annoying. Need some new material.
Well, actually, in England and France in the 12th-13th century, Jews were considered the property of the King. While this had some advantage over serfdom (The king has a lot more to worry about than the baron, so he has less time to pay attention to you and get in the way of your life), it’s still not freedom, and in fact, Jews were expelled from France in the 12th century, and then from England and again from France in the 14th.
Actually, the place in Christian Europe where your comment that “Jews were free people” is most true is Poland/Lithuania, where medieval Jews found a niche for themselves as managers of the property of Polish nobles. It was there that Jews had the most freedom under the law, especially contrasted to that of the Polish serf/peasant, which was why there was such a large Jewish population in Poland/Lithunaia/the Ukraine.
Izzy- first off, I’m a Catholic, not a Moslem, and I don’t idealize Islam, by any means. Nor do I pretend that midieval Moslem states were a paradise of religious tolerance.
Nonetheless, by almost any standard, Jews have usually found a greater degree of acceptance and tolerance in Moslem lands than in Christian lands. In the years between 700-1945, which was more likely- Jews fleeing Christian persecution seeking refuge in Moslem lands, or the reverse?
The right answer doesn’t reflect well on my Church, and I’m not about to pretend that it does.
I’m not sure what you mean or what your source was. My comments were based on a Tosaphos who says explicitly that, unlike the farmers/peasants, the Jews were free people who could go where they wished. The Tosaphos were written in 13th/14th century France/Germany, so the writer was describing a contemporary phenomenon, and knew what he was talking about.
I guess it would be true that the Jews were considered property of the king in a sense that all people were property of the king. The crucial distinction was in whether it meant anything more than symbolic - in the case of serfs it certainly did, as they were obligated to work for their masters. I don’t know if being “owned” by the king indicated a different practical relationship than one might have to any other king.
Certainly the Jews have been expelled from all sorts of countries (including Muslim ones) regardless of issues of “ownership” by the king.
You are describing a later period. And your comment that “Jews found a niche for themselves” etc. is an oversimplification, in that only a tiny percentage of the population was actually managing property of Polish nobles. (Though of course the popular perception associated “Jews” as a whole with this occupation, with disastrous results in the Chmeilnicki uprising et al. So it is today with “Jewish” control of the media etc. etc. but I digress).
I don’t know if this is true - quite possibly it is, as above. Still, this represents a significant watering down of your original statement that I objected to.
Again, I don’t know.
I believe it is a fact that the Jewish population was at one point concentrated mostly in the Muslim countries (by a large margin), whereas most Jews today have Christian countries as their country of recent origin. This would suggest the opposite of your assertion. But there are certainly other factors involved, and I couldn’t say.
I do not think that the statement “from a Jewish perspective, it was a Golden age” is an “extreme formulation”.
What I am saying is that Jews today look back at that time as a “Golden age”. Which happens by and large to be the case.
Now, I am no expert on the history of al-Andalus. It could be that this whole “Golden age” stuff is a myth. I don’t know.
But the Shephardic Jews, the ones most closely concerned in the matter, seem to believe it was a “Golden age”. I assume there is some reason for this. You would think that, had they suffered much under Muslim rule, this fact would be remembered by their decendants, who have a very long historical memory for persecutions.
So, one can certainly argue (with the benefit of hindsight and scolarship) as to whether the time was “really” a Golden age or not. But one cannot plausably argue that it is not viewed as a “Golden age”, because it clearly is - see the link I posted.
First of all, Izzy, you’re right, and I apologize. The information about Poland does belong to a later period…the 15th-16th centuries, as my reference to Poland-Lithuania should have made clear to me. Sometimes you get going, and say, “Hey, here’s something interesting I should throw in” and throw it in, even though it’s only marginally relevant. That’s what happened to me. (And you’re right, property management was a minority profession. Sorry if I implied otherwise).
I also agree with you that Jews did have more mobility than serfs, for example. The Jews could go where they wished. However, when I say that legally, English and French Jews were property of the King, I don’t mean they were property of the king in the same way everybody was property of the king, in some sort of royal “I am the state” formulation. They were property of the king in the same way that a cow could be property of the king (and, in fact, in England, Jews were referred to as “the King’s milk-cows”) The difference is that, theoretically, (if not always practically) even the serf had certain rights under the law…the lord had certain obligations to the serf, and he was(again, not always practically) protected against mistreatment.
The king had no such obligations to the Jews. They belonged to him, and he could, legally, do whatever he wanted to them, which usually entailed property confiscation and the imposition of fines against Jewish communities. His only restraint was practical (You take to much, there’s no way to get more later. You kill the cow, you can’t get more milk)