I don't think I'm ever going to understand Islam

15 middle school girls died trying to escape a fire at their school. They were forced back into the burning building by the religious police for not being properly attired.

I can only hope these are the extremists and not the norm.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020318-13680770.htm

All I can say is…:mad: :frowning:

I’m not sure how this gets translated to “Islam.”

The newspapers are (for the first time in memory) openly criticizing the “Religious Police.” The Chief of the civil police has criticized their actions. The head of the “Religious Police” is backpedalling, furiously, trying to avoid blame for the incident.

If this was a case of “Islam” holding inhuman standards, then I would expect that the papers would simply be stating that it was a great tragedy that the girls did not have time to don their robes before they were overcome by smoke and the police (“religious” and civil) would not even be commenting on this event.

Instead, we see an openly hostile attitude from most (all?) sections of that Muslim society.

Is it likely that extreme zealotry caused this tragedy? Sure. However, zealots come in all denominations and are not limited to Islam.

Yes, they are extremists. By definition, the religious police in Saudi Arabia are the most extreme guys one can find, taking Wahhabite doctrice to its illogical extreme. Indeed what they did can clearly be considered un-Islamic as the religion teaches --clearly and explicitely in the Quran-- that saving life comes before rules or even prayers. (Thus clear dispensations from praying and fasting where it is burdensome)

Whereas their (the religious police’s) obsession with women covering up every inch of skin has at best weak textual support based on ambiguous passages and poorly supported sayings. So, does this sound familiar? Text-obsessed religious freaks acting against the spirit of the religion based on personal problems with sex? (cough, fundies in the US? cough)

A hint of the extremity of the act is the fact it has raised a furor in a country where these drooling morons rarely can be questioned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41187-2002Mar17.html – do note that it was the Saudi press publishing the critiques and it is somewhat unclear exactely what happened, that is the extent of interference. Oh but wait, that’s more or less the same AP article, how queer that.

Now, when some Xtians do something incredibly ignorant, do you sit back and wonder if all Xtians are like that?

Probably not. I hope not.

What I don’t understand is how people can manage to extract such vast generalizations like “Islam” as opposed to “extremist religious police.”

I agree with tomndebb - an entire religion should not be condemned for the actions of those who hold extreme views within it. Would it make sense to say you don’t understand Christianity because of Fred Phelps?

On the other hand, it will certainly be interesting to see how the Bush administration reacts to this incident, seeing as how they’re claiming to be fighting for women’s rights in Afghanistan.

I think some of my concern here is that these ‘Religious Police’ are usually described as Wahhabi, that these extremes of doctrine are the Wahhabi way, and that the Wahhabi schools are AFAIK run with the Saudi Arabian state’s blessing. (If I’m wrong there, someone correct me).

Collounsbury asked whether we assume all Christians are bad if a group of extreme Christians does something like this, and to be honest, I don’t.

I also don’t see groups of extremist Christian ‘Religious Police’ operating with the state’s full knowledge and lack of interference. They’re also not generally supported by the Christian churches, and are often condemned by those churces. I’m only just starting to see this condemnation coming from other Islamic leaders for the things that Wahhabis have done, so yes, I did wonder why and how the Saudi Arabian government could turn a blind eye to such murderous acts of religious extremism, and why Muslim clerics did not condemn and denounce such acts.

If, for example, 15 gays and lesbians died in a burning building because a group of ultra-Catholic ‘Religious Police’ in America prevented them from leaving the flames because it would create an ‘immoral’ situation, and the Vatican did not condemn that act - I’d begin to wonder what the hell kind of a clergy could turn a blind eye to an act like that. I’d wonder what was wrong with Christianity as a whole to not jump up and try to STOP the extremists from carrying out such atrocity.

This is a tragedy, no doubt. What I’m glad of is that it seems Saudi Arabian officials and police are actually starting to realize that the ‘Religious Police’ were WRONG this time, and maybe this won’t happen again.

Except the story may not be true, or it may be inaccurate.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/077/world/Saudi_interior_minister_defend:.shtml

An observation. How many of you who say that you don’t see denunciations of X in Islam read Arabic? (Or in the alternative, read Farsi. Or yet weaker still, read the English language Islamic press)

May I suggest that unless you do, it is rather a weak argument and objection / critique. The issue is as much lack of attention in the Western press as lack of denunciation. One should take pause and think about the logic of the statement.

Now, I do. Unfortunately, there is not enough denunciation of religious idiocy in the Arab world. And especially so in the Gulf. In general, there isn’t enough public criticism, but this is a cultural feature of Arab society. Direct criticism is, well, stunningly impolite and implies a lot more than it does in say the English world’s cultural framework. The Gulf and esp Saudi Arabia are even more so than other areas, in my opinion. When it does occur, as in this case, it has a bigger impact than you might think, in terms of … shall I say shock to the system. Unhealthy? Perhaps, but cultures don’t change overnight.

Now, clearly a comparison with late 20th century or early 21st century America is going to have the maximum difference value, however in re religious extremists in control in Xtian countries, one need not go too far back in history to find examples. The lesson remains the same. (a) Saudi Arabia is not all Islam (b) historically when theocrats are in control of a government –directly or indirectly, it tends to be unaccountable and ugly.

By the way, in regards to the religious doctrine, Wahhabi doctrine is the state doctrine in Saudi Arabia. By definition, the religious police are Wahhabite. In other contexts the adjective may be by analogy (although may be literally true as the Saudis have tried to spread their doctrine, both through official and unofficial support.).

In re the veracity of the reports, well who knows. It may be there was some exaggeration, given the Arab press I find that easy to believe. However, I suspect given the context of the original quotes and who they are coming from (e.g. a Saudi police official) there was indeed some inappropriate interference on the part of the religious police, at the very least, even if the more lurid parts might not be true. But then reflect, if such is the case, it says something about the position of the police that (a) people would attribute such behaviour to them, true or not (b) that such reports would receive airing in a very tightly controlled society where, regardless of governmental censorship, society in general doesn’t like public complaints or critiques unless the person / body / entity / organization in question has really transgressed popular standards.

As such, one might reflect on how this should be undrestood. Perhaps not at all in the OP’s sense.

Right catsix, there are extremists of all stripes, but Islamic society, or the islamic movement if you will, is particularly rife with various manifestations of extremism. We are greeted with an almost daily litany of outrages pepetrated in the name of Islam. If, for example, someone were to publicly question the traditional interpreations of the Quran, you can set your watch by the death treats he would recieve.

There are many more examples of different kinds and at different levels, and by now most of us are pretty familiar with what they are. It’s just that, taken as a whole, they are far too overwhelming to be dismissed as the actions of a few isolated individuals or to be neutralized by comparisons wth other groups.

It’s importabt to be reminded that there are moderate Muslims and that moderate interpretations of the Quran are possible, but the stereotyoing issue should not be used as a ‘smokescreen’. And they may not entirely descerve it, but there is a certain responsibility for moderate Muslims to take the lead and confront the more radical elements of their group.

In the wake of Sept. 11, a certain amount of lip service was paid to that last point. My question is, what actions along these lines have been taken up till now? Anyone have any links? If they’re intimidated I can understand, but that just reinforces the main point.

I guess this just brings home to me the danger of any religious group having police power, and using that police power to impose their morals on others. I’m very glad we have freedom of (or from, if you wish) religion here. (Although I still can’t buy wine before noon on Sunday in my county…oh well, I’m not going to die because of that…)

God is too big to fit in one religion.

Squeels dear fellow. See my prior post. Especially in regards to the first half.

It is likely to be as helpful and useful, if I may be so very bold, if it brought home to you the dangers of sweeping generalizations.

I appreciate your knowlegability, Colounsbury, but do you kno of any sites where I can ‘listen in’ (in English) as some of these issues are being debated within the Islamic world?

Saudi minister dismisses fire criticism: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18/saudi.fire.ap/index.html
And, on a related note: A woman in Nigeria was sentenced to die by stoning for committing adultery. The case has provoked outrage in the European Union who condemned the ruling. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18/saudi.fire.ap/index.html

Personally I do not care much what the Koran says just as I do not care what the Bible says. The fact is that by and large Christian countries are much more civilized places to live in. Whether Muslim countries are misinterpreting the Koran is of very little relevance to me. The only thing that counts to me is their interpretation and I don’t like it.

In the last few days I have seen on TV images of women being stoned, beheaded, beaten… and all in the name of the law. It is sickening.

May I suggest the Princess books by Jean Sasson. My heart goes out to these women that have to live under such conditions.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967673747/qid=1016491719/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-7176778-6796063

So someone in Saudi Arabia has it in for the religious police. Gotcha.

  1. I don’t know what examples of religious extremists in control of Christian countries that you have in mind.
  2. The West has been hostile towards theocracy since at the 18th century. And in terms of doctrine, there is a strong scriptural tradition of suspicion towards central authorities, given the unfortunate experience of J of Nazareth.
  3. OTOH, there seem to be a fair number of Muslims who want to re-establish the Caliphate. Furthermore, adversaries of sharif law make arguments like, “Well, those laws are only valid in a mature Islamic state, which clearly we don’t have.” That’s not exactly an attack on the fundamental idea of a theocratic state.

Islam appears to have characteristics that resist the possibility of a Western-style reformation. Unlike the west, Islam has experienced successful theocracy, specifically during the decades following Mohammed’s rise to power.*

I trust that Xtianity has had other doctrinal problems that have needed to be papered over. My point is that I see fewer anti-theocratic traditions that Muslims can draw upon when forming institutions that separate church and state.

This gives me the creeps. How does a culture adapt without self-examination? Or perhaps they have methods of adapting without explicit critical examination. (Or perhaps their methods are optimized for much smaller (tribal) societies.) Houston, we have a problem.

  • Or maybe not that successful. The point is that they perceive it that way; in fact, it’s part of their religious doctrine, as I understand it.

Actually one can find a number of “pocket theocracies” in Christian areas, particularly in Germany ( but not solely )in the late medieval and renaissance eras. “Prince-Bishops” of places like Bamberg were not at all uncommon, I could give a pretty extensive list if you like. And those places could be horrific when excessive piety combined with hysteria or greed. Many of the really horrible slaughters of suspected witches, for example, occured in such places ( things that make Salem look positively mild ). Then there were the Papal States, “pseudo-theocracies” like the Puritan regime of Cromwell, or the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic. Or areas under powerful church influence like Iberia under the Inquistion ( the inquisition had enormous political power ). etc.

But here you’re quite correct. Islam had a very different evolurtion than Christianity. While Christianity started out as a small underground cult well outside of the political mainstream that grew slowly before starting to snow-ball, Islam began as an explicitly politized movement. Islam pervades politics in the region and always has. Indeed a number of genuine Islamic sects began more from political splits than religious ones ( there were always religious overtones, of course ), the Shi’a/Sunni split being the ultimate example.

So yes, there is a greater acceptance of ideas like theocracy in Islam than Christianity. But it’s only relative. Though you see a lot of clamoring for the concept pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism ( more rarely ) that hearkens back to the supposed ideal of the Caliphate ( actually more often it hearkens back to the less explicitly theocratic Ottomans ), I only rarely see calls for a re-establishment of a theocratic “Caliphate” from the mainstream. From my understanding ( which may be flawed, I’m not a genius ) you are, at least by implication, over-stating the actual state of affairs today. Even most Iranians don’t seem to be thrilled with their genuine theocracy ( the only real one I can think of - SA comes close but not quite, the former Taliban regime closer and may have qualified, as a religious leader was in charge ). And just as their are ultra-orthodox Jews that reject the idea of the state of Israel ( for now ) on religious grounds, there are/have been philosophical schools in Islam ( including the Imami Shi’ism practiced in Iran - obviously that faction lost ) that reject theocracy ( for now - i.e. it is more suited for the biblical end times ).

Most Islamic countries are still in the process of “modernizing” ( not just economically, but intellectually - until the 1950’s SA was as backward and medieval a state as you could find, mentally it still is ), consequently many are, by some western standards and at least in terms of human rights, shitholes. As are Buddhist Burma and Christian Colombia. An unfortunate reality. And yes, extremist Islam and medieval thought is far too common in some of those areas and a real burden on society ( and the world ). But it is far from universal and many ( most, I dare say ) people are not consumed by it in most areas. Self-examination exists and even increases in reaction to crises like our current predicament ( though so, it’s true, does defensiveness ). It’s unfortunate that it is not yet more widespread ( and this whole notion is very complicated as it is tied up with modern politics, culture as Collounsbury said, and history, including some real present-day inferiority/superiority complexes vis-a-vis the “West” ), but it is there. For example ( A westernized individual, granted, and I don’t 100% agree with his historical and political analysis, but an interesting article anyway ):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37263-2001Dec28

'course you can excoriate SA until the cows come home and I won’t disagree much. It is a repulsive and thoroughly medieval regime in many respects. And it is Islam. But only one face.

  • Tamerlane

I see Tamerlane beat me.

In regards to my comments on criticism in Arab society, I think you have badly misread my comments. I did not say there is no public criticism, no internal critiques in Arab society, but rather than it is certainly not as direct and perhaps as well-developed as in the West. However, that need not be a barrier. Japan to my limited exposure does not particularly care for the sort of blunt criticism that we see in the West. I am sure you can infer from the historical record that Islamo-Arab society is more than simply small scale tribal cultures.

However that aside, yes there is a problem of how the societies, in the plural, adapt to modern urbanized social life. It is something which will happen slowly. In regards to my comments in re religious extremists and government, may I note that I did not use the term theocracy. It wasn’t an accident, my dear flowbark, so let us not confuse terminology. I was actually, as I wrote, thinking of my own dear ancestors and the wonderful things they did in the name of purity and revolting against the Roman church, etc, coming to the Americas and establishing their own little paradise. True it burned itself out, but…. Not before some burnings and the like. Similarly we can find various sorts of religiously motivated obscurantist repression in Euro-xtian history up to the last century or so as to comfort ourselves on the non-uniqueness of the tendency.

Now, in regards to secularism, the Caliphate and all that, I’d have to write quite a long essay on this which I have neither time nor inclination to do. However, I for one approach this rather skeptically. As my “good” friend Rifaat El-Said has argued, there has never been an Islamic state in the manner that modern Islamists imagine it – perhaps excepting the first four caliphs. With the exception of the Shiites, rarely if ever have the ulema, religious scholars and the best approximation of clerics, actually held power. Removing the obfuscation, there is more separation of ‘church’ and ‘state’ than first meets the eye and more bases on which to possibly build this. But then I am not a religious scholar and could give a flying fuck about theology, so I simply note that stepping back and looking at history critically suggest there is more to this than meets the eye.

But this aside, to actually understand the problems of secularism in the Arab world – not to be confused of necessity with the Islamic world—one has to look at colonial history and get a sense of the degree to which the events of the late 19th century poisoned the well of secularism in the Arab world.

Perhaps Tamerlane can expound further, but I note
(a) The existence of secular movements from the 19th century forward
(b) Their failure on a number of bases, but certainly including the
(i) failure in confronting the West in the immediate colonial period
(ii) the failure of Arab nationalism – secularism (a movement begun by Xtian Arabs) for a wide variety of reasons including corruption of those regimes and lack of truly strong social bases upon which to build nations – the strongest social glue having been religion.
© The association of secular government with the colonial governments and consequent contamination of the concept,
(d) Dependence of post-colonial nation building programs (education, propaganda) on pointing to glorious past – an Islamic past also by default of history and framing in the educational system.
(e) Association of secularism in general (perhaps related to point c) with the West and ‘Islamo-Arab’ societies’ humiliation. Combined with the educational programs one encounters in the Arab world, there is little preparation for tackling the rather pitiful position of most of the Arab world, with its poverty etc.

As such it strikes me as a bit naïve to take the rhetoric at face value. I don’t see the urge to Caliphate as really driven by religious concerns at all –with some exceptions. Rather kids learn about the glories of the past

As for Sailor’s comments, well again I point to my comments in regards to the poor coverage of the Islamic world in the western media. I seriously doubt Sailor has very much of an idea as to the representativeness of what he’s cited here, or the context. I might suggest that presuming the stoning occurred in Northern Nigeria that what you’re seeing is two or three things:
(a) A law and order reaction as the country stumbles through its chronic lawlessness and chaos – given our American attachment to the death penalty and a number of criminal rules which the rest of the civilized Xtian world finds largely abhorrent we should pause for a moment. No they are not comparable, however too rarely do we step outside of our skins to reflect, so I think I shall throw this up for thought on comparative understanding.
(b) A cynical exploitation of inter-communal tensions and fear of lawlessness by the Northern (Muslim) military elite which has been losing influence in the government – an elite which was decidedly ‘unorthodox’ in the past
© And a cynical, sad playing by the same elite to religious extremist elements(*) in part driven by the slowly collapsing society, in part driven by imported fanaticism and in part reviving old ‘Jihadist’ traditions dead for at least a century.

Does this apply to the entire Islamic world? The majority of Muslims living in SE Asia, or the relatively more liberal and secularized North and West African Muslim majority states? A question to be pondered before one expresses one’s distaste for the entire religion, or ‘interpretation’ or whatever for if one can’t answer it, then one should try to come up with a somewhat more limited critique.

Sqweels: I am afraid I don’t regularly read Islamic press in English – I’ve not much reason to—so I can’t help very well. I believe that Muslim Guy had some threads while I was largely absent from the board which gave some valuable cites. Not that there is not a wealth of ‘Islamic’ sites on-line but I can’t pretend to tell which are truly popular or not. I know the regional media as I read it for professional reasons, but not the on-line stuff.

All in all while I am no fan of anything discussed in this thread, caring not for Saudi society in the least, and finding the ‘machism’ of the conservative wing of Islam –not only the Islamists but the whole damn conservative wing with its stinking obscurantism, idiotic attachment to moldering traditions etc. etc. etc.—I am equally as annoyed by the easy superiority which creeps into these discussions, rants and so forth in re a part of the world I know quite well. Annoyed enough to raise some implicit and explicit comparisons which I would not hold to of necessity but spring to mind.

Why so annoyed? Too much commentary stinks of self-satisfied ignorance. At least that’s how I see it. Perhaps I am wrong.

(*: One can note a similar phenom arising in the Xtian south. I fear Nigeria has a grim future.)

Direct criticism is indeed culturally difficult in many Middle-Eastern cultures but that doesn’t really explain the deafening silence in Saudi society.

Back when the cash first started to flow, the Saudi ruling elite reached a modus vivendi with the traditional religious establishment. “Look, here’s the deal. We’re going to bankroll you and let you run society. You can write the elementary school textbooks, preach xenophobia and anti-Americanism, set up your own religious police, whatever. We don’t care. The one thing you can’t do is attack us, the ruling elite. Your job is to cover our backs while we live it up. In return, we’ll see to it that you get a free hand. Deal? Excellent! Well, we’re off to London now. Don’t wait up!”

That’s the way it’s been ever since. Those wacky Wahhabis get to brain-wash Saudi society and turn it into a religious police state so long as they turn a blind eye to the gross excesses and irreligion of many of the ruling elite. It’s a marriage made in, well, somewhere.

[hijack]
Tamerlane
There are still Prince-Bishops. Well, Co-Prince-Bishops, anyway. The Bishop of Urgell has been co-head of state of Andorra since the late 13th century. (His co-prince is the President of France.) The Bishop of Urgell had to intervene “militarily” in Andorra as late as 1933.
[/hijack]

Coullounsbury draws a parallel between militant Islamists and pre-20th century Western Christians who used their religious doctrine to justify all manner of mayhem. Point taken and granted, I thought you were asserting the existence of recent theocracies.[sup]1[/sup]

Tamberlane notes the existence of Renaissance and medieval theocracies. This was news to me, and I found it interesting. They seem to be headed under the category of “not particularly glorious” however. (Oh, and thanks for the info. Cites appreciated only if connected with entertainingly grisly anecdotes. I occasionally can find use for anti-Xtian examples.)

My point was that the West has cultural anti-bodies against theocratic governments while the Islamic world lacks these defenses, because they believe they can point to an examples of well-functioning theocratic states.[sup]2[/sup] Furthermore, the Holy Koran appears to be rather explicit regarding issues that, within a Xtian tradition, appear worldly and therefore outside of the Church’s purview. So we are f**ked big time. It’s TEOTWAWKI.

Responses:

  1. It’s sharia flowbark, not sharif.
  2. Whatever the talking heads say, all societies have many influences, only some of which are religious. A Buddhist with a casual understanding of the Bible might be TEOTWAKIng if he took the phrase, “What would Jesus do?”, seriously. Religious practitioners, in contrast, get used to reflexively hemming and hawing. So flowbark should calm down a little.

Fine. The point remains that the Arab world lacks sufficient cultural anti-bodies against both theocracy and religious fanaticism. The US, in contrast, only suffers from the latter ailment.

Ok, I think Coulloun et al’s underlying point is that there is nothing inevitable about Islamic support for theocracy. For example in Nigeria, much of the support for sharia is connected with its “law and order” appeal, something that observers of the US political scene are familiar with. If secularism can provide jobs and relatively decent governmental services, then support for the mullahs will dwindle.

[hijack]I would be interested in learning how internal self-evaluation works in Saudi Arabia (or in any dictatorship for that matter). At the same time, I understand that this question is sorta big, and probably fodder for another thread.[/hijack]
[sub]1. Truth Seeker Thanks for the Andorra cite.
2. Yes, I am referring to the 1st 4 caliphs. No, I’m not convinced that they presided over a land of milk and honey. (Although I’ve heard that Baghdad was nice near this time.) I am claiming (correctly or not) that the perfection of the prophet’s rule (and that of his immediate successors) is part Islamic doctrine. Or at least some Muslims’ doctrine.[/sub]