If radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion

[A_isha]

@Hank_Beecher

That webpage does, but the verse it cites does not. It gives men the permission to have sex with their wives at night during Ramadan. It refers to men and women as each others garments, which according to one of many tafsirs is “a metaphor for their embraces or their need for one another”.

And scholars, from al-GhazalI to al-Munajjid interpret that to mean (as the link describes) that the husband is obligated to ensure his wife is satisfied sexually as she is to satisfy him sexually. What did you think “their need for one another” meant?

While the same texts are not at all shy about referring about male sexual desire and it’s fulfillment,for example:

“It is narrated from Imām ‘Alī (as): ‘When any of you wants to sleep with his wife, he must not rush her for indeed women have needs (too).’” (Wasāil ash-Shī‘a, vol. 20, pg. 118, no. 25184)

“It is narrated from the Prophet (s): ‘Do not engage in sexual intercourse with your wife like hens; rather, firstly engage in foreplay with your wife and flirt with her and then make love to her.’” (Halliyatul Muttaqīn, pg. 110)

“It is narrated from Imām ‘Alī (as): ‘Whoever wants to get close to his wife must not be hasty, because women before engaging in the act of love making must be engaged in foreplay so that they are ready for making love to.’” (Halliyatul Muttaqīn, pg. 115)

“It is narrated from Imām al-Ridā (as): ‘Do not engage in sexual intercourse unless you engage in foreplay, and play with her a lot and caress her breasts, and if you do this she will be overcome by passion (and excited to the full pitch) and her water will collect. This is so that the emission of the watery juices shoots off from the breasts and passion becomes evident from her face and her eyes and that she desires you in the same way you desire her.’” (Mustadrak al-Wasāil, vol. 2, pg. 545)

“Imām al-Kādhim (as) was asked: ‘Is there a problem if a person kisses the private part of his wife?’ The Imām responded: ‘There is no problem.’” (Niyāzhā wa Rawābith Jinsī was Zanāshuī, pg. 55)

[Kobal2]

…I’ll be in my bunk.

[Alex_Schindler]

Can you tell me a little bit about the source (madhhab, region, era) Halliyatu-l-Muttaqîn please? I’m very interested in use of the “like hens” simile ; rabbinic texts use the same admonition in a similar context.

[A_isha]

Ḥilyat al-Muttaqīn (“Ornament of the God-Wary”) is a Seventeenth Century Safavid Persian book compiled by Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi.

[nani]

Of course a thread like this pops up and gets 800 posts while I’m working 12+ hour days. Of course.

I haven’t had time to read through so I’ll give some brief thoughts on the title question:

In general Islam is not a pacifist religion (I’ve heard references to a few pacifist sects here and there, often mentioning Senegal, but have not investigated them more deeply). It is also not a wantonly violent or nihilistic religion. It rather accepts and attempts to regularize and monopolize violence, outlining both specific situations where violence (of various types) is an acceptable option and designating leaders who are tasked with making those decisions. “Radical Islam” is noteworthy not because of violence, but because of its authority claims that it uses to morally and religiously justify its violence. It represents two things:

1. The failure of mainstream governments and social leaders to monopolize violence, both in the sense of actually having the power and in the sense of convincing the people that it rightfully should monopolize this power;

2. The ongoing normalization of various forms of violence all over the world.

For addressing conflicts of all types, it is absolutely necessary to consider how religion and culture - two powerful but arbitrarily defined categories - contribute to both of these points, especially the latter one, because they do. Islam is no exception. However, just one of the real-world problems that inhibits this process is that often issues that are really about normalized violence - like FGM, for example - are put into a “radical violence” framework by outside observers because for us, they are not normalized. And proceeding this way is unhelpful, first because it usually leads to skewed perceptions of a situation and the groups involved, and secondly because effective strategies to address normalized violence are different from those that effectively address radical violence.

[Trinopus]

@Magiver

Here’s the problem, the 20,000 people who were torn to pieces by a religion (this year alone) were killed in the name of Islam. . . .

And some thousands of people died by gun violence in the U.S. So I’m sure you would favor treating the NRA exactly the same way you’re advocating treating Islam.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

Here are some not-too-expensive scholarly works on the subject of Muhammad’s life and warfare in Islam:

Yes, but that was true of all the leaders of all the factions in the Medinan/Meccan war. Caravan raids, carried out by Meccans, Medinans, and their respective allied tribes, were mostly how such conflicts were waged.

Same thing with slavery (and I note that Muhammad said more about improving the lot and treatment of slaves than Jesus, who also lived in an environment and culture of endemic slavery, ever did).

Because Muhammad and Islam represented an improvement over the status quo in 7th Century Arabia, particularly when it came to the interminable intertribal conflicts that were being waged.

1- Thank you for talking with me and giving me your responses and selecting some books for me.

2- I admit that my dislike, one could almost call it hatred if we were too be 100% honest, my dislike for modern mainstream Islam is unwarranted, unfair and bigoted. I admit that it is. It’s not a hard admission to make because my bias is patently obvious and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

3- I really do actually realize and will admit that for the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, not only is there not any problem with it as a system of thought I recognize that it gives value and purpose to peoples lives from devotion and seems to make people who follow the faith more generous and calm and happy, better people all around.

4- As I’ve told you before I’ve had Muslim roommates and classmates and I lived in NYC for 15 years and as you can maybe tell, I love love love talking to people. I probably talked to 100 people who were Muslim, hot dog salesmen and cab drivers and guys at the cash register at the Deli. Those are all good jobs to have, honest jobs, please don’t misunderstand what I am saying… my overall assessment of most mainstream Muslims is that they are people who are generous of spirit and good people to live with or work with and to talk to.
However

Points 3 and 4, while they are true, are actually completely separate category than all of the things that I left in the quote box from your comments. It is my assessment, therefor, that Muslims are good people in spite of the Koran and not because of it.

Just because everyone else was violent back then does not make it OK for Mohamed to do the things he did. Supposedly, a spiritual person would be light years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of Morality, not, just slightly better than his contemporaries.

Seriously, I can not stress enough how incredibly unspiritual rape theft and murder are.

This dialogue that Mohammed was a man of peace is some - serious - high level propaganda, like form the book 1984, where they brainwash the public by having them say over and over again “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery”.

EDIT: Point #5 - If I wanted one of those books to read which would be good. Like enjoyable to read as an introduction to that topic of history, not necessarily the most scholarly work.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

1- Thank you for talking with me and giving me your responses and selecting some books for me.

2- I admit that my dislike, one could almost call it hatred if we were too be 100% honest, my dislike for modern mainstream Islam is unwarranted, unfair and bigoted. I admit that it is. It’s not a hard admission to make because my bias is patently obvious and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

3- I really do actually realize and will admit that for the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, not only is there not any problem with it as a system of thought I recognize that it gives value and purpose to peoples lives from devotion and seems to make people who follow the faith more generous and calm and happy, better people all around.

4- As I’ve told you before I’ve had Muslim roommates and classmates and I lived in NYC for 15 years and as you can maybe tell, I love love love talking to people. I probably talked to 100 people who were Muslim, hot dog salesmen and cab drivers and guys at the cash register at the Deli. Those are all good jobs to have, honest jobs, please don’t misunderstand what I am saying… my overall assessment of most mainstream Muslims is that they are people who are generous of spirit and good people to live with or work with and to talk to.

I really appreciate your honesty about this, both with me, and with yourself (in your point 2 there).

That’s why, despite our probably profound disagreements here, I’m more than happy to discuss the topic with you!

Just because everyone else was violent back then does not make it OK for Mohamed to do the things he did. Supposedly, a spiritual person would be light years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of Morality, not, just slightly better than his contemporaries.

While I could argue with you about just how different Muhammad was from his contemporaries in terms of morality, I think that’s a particularly narrow and parochial definition of what “spirituality” means. That is, you seem to be using a metric based on a rather circular argument, defining “spiritual” as “what my interpretation of Jesus would think and do”, and describing anyone or anything that does not match that definition as, therefore, “unspiritual”.

But spirituality really means a connection to the divine, an expansion of one’s self beyond the material, and is not tied to modern notions of “WWJD”-ism, even among Christians.

EDIT: Point #5 - If I wanted one of those books to read which would be good. Like enjoyable to read as an introduction to that topic of history, not necessarily the most scholarly work.

Of the books I suggested, Kecia Ali’s “Lives of Muhammad” probably is the most enjoyable to read as a narrative of history as opposed to a dry academic tome.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

While I could argue with you about just how different Muhammad was from his contemporaries in terms of morality, I think that’s a particularly narrow and parochial definition of what “spirituality” means. That is, you seem to be using a metric based on a rather circular argument, defining “spiritual” as “what my interpretation of Jesus would think and do”, and describing anyone or anything that does not match that definition as, therefore, “unspiritual”.

But spirituality really means a connection to the divine, an expansion of one’s self beyond the material, and is not tied to modern notions of “WWJD”-ism, even among Christians.

What a bizarre set of statements! This is what american politicians and pundits call spin. Taking position A and trying to change it into position Z. Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft are just plain WRONG.

Doing so makes it very hard to give your position (not you personally)… it makes it very hard to give your position any credibility. In terms of whether you are being truly objective or not. It just seems natural to suspect the position or the rhetoric (I’m using rhetoric as a neutral connotation, not a derogatory one) of someone who is not being completely objective.

Really… are we going to quibble over the definition of spirituality or are we going to admit that Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft are wrong and have no real justification?

The only way your justification that it was long ago in a different time, the only way that justification works, is if Mohammed stopped his violent, immoral, evil actions after his religious conversion in the cave. He now has God’s direct message and has been transformed. So, did Mohammed completely stop his violent actions after his conversion in the cave?

[Robert163]

@A_isha

I really appreciate your honesty about this, both with me, and with yourself (in your point 2 there).

Ok, well let me make a distinction, in case it is not clear. Hopefully it is understood, I presume it is, but if not let me clarify. I hate religion, not religious people. To make a parallel example, I “hate” Republicans. Hard core Republicans, who hate poor people and immigrants (most of them won’t admit it). Well, I’m not saying all Republicans hate poor people and immigrants, I’m saying there is a large part of that group who does and their motivations and attitudes are readily transparent. Busting up unions and reducing food stamps is just wrong. I can’t say objectively it is wrong but my personal assessment is that it is wrong and there is no justification. If you want to reform a system that helps poor people, fine, ok, that is agreeable, but not to dismantle it and act all happy about it and sanctified while you do so.

So

Suppose it is late one night and very very cold and I am driving home and I see a car broken down with bumper sticker “Labor Unions are for Lazy Communists!!!”. I’m going to stop an pick that person up and drive them to their town or to their home. Any decent person would, I’m not taking credit for doing a good deed. I am saying there would not be a moment’s hesitation, not one, as to whether I should stop to help.

The point I probably do not like them but there is a separation between thought and action in this life.

Now the problem with my example is that probably 99% of Mainstream Muslims I would probably like better than 99% of hardcore Republicans. I do actually feel like most mainstream Muslims are likeable people, generous of spirit and fun to talk to or be around. Not every example crosses over to every other example without a lit bit of something being left out or something being lost.

Now, I suppose, the problem is if I have some inherent bias against the Muslim faith, then even if I do meet a Muslim person, with that bias present in my personality I am going to treat them at least a little bit differently than if I had no knowledge of their religious affiliation.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Doing so makes it very hard to give your position (not you personally)… it makes it very hard to give your position any credibility. In terms of whether you are being truly objective or not. It just seems natural to suspect the position or the rhetoric (I’m using rhetoric as a neutral connotation, not a derogatory one) of someone who is not being completely objective.

Really… are we going to quibble over the definition of spirituality or are we going to admit that Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft are wrong and have no real justification?

I’m saying that the issue of whether rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and theft are wrong is totally separate from the issue of “spirituality”. One can be very spiritual and still engage in all those things. In fact, it is and has been common (as even a glossary examination of Christian history - or the Old Testament, for that matter - will show).

The only way your justification that it was long ago in a different time, the only way that justification works, is if Mohammed stopped his violent, immoral, evil actions after his religious conversion in the cave. He now has God’s direct message and has been transformed. So, did Mohammed completely stop his violent actions after his conversion in the cave?

Muhammad preached sabr (forbearance and patience) towards tormentors, and when war between the Meccans and his community of Medina was unavoidable, Muhammad carried out as bloodless a war as was able to be waged during that time and place, taking and freeing prisoners instead of engaging in wholesale slaughter. Even when preparing to enter Mecca, Muhammad ordered his armies to refrain from any fighting unless the Meccans attacked. And, when his forces finally took Mecca from the polytheists, there were not only almost no casualties on the Meccan side (12 killed in a small skirmish in one part of the city), he expressly forbade any massacres or other reprisals against the populace.

Had Muhammad not wanted to minimize killing and conflict, he could have easily ordered his armies to do to the Meccans what…well, what Saul did to the Amalekites.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Now, I suppose, the problem is if I have some inherent bias against the Muslim faith, then even if I do meet a Muslim person, with that bias present in my personality I am going to treat them at least a little bit differently than if I had no knowledge of their religious affiliation.

I, at least, never felt that you had any personal animosity towards Muslims, or would treat a Muslim in your neighborhood or workplace (or one that you simply met randomly) badly just because they were Muslim. And I fully believe you when you say that you believe most Muslims are good people.

My issue with your posts has been your argument that those Muslims are good people despite their religion because their religion instructs them to be bad people.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

I’m saying that the issue of whether rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and theft are wrong is totally separate from the issue of “spirituality”. One can be very spiritual and still engage in all those things. In fact, it is and has been common (as even a glossary examination of Christian history - or the Old Testament, for that matter - will show).

Wow. One can be very spiritual and still commit Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft and still be spiritual. Wow. Can you commit these actions and still be a decent moral person?

Muhammad preached sabr (forbearance and patience) towards tormentors, and when war between the Meccans and his community of Medina was unavoidable, Muhammad carried out as bloodless a war as was able to be waged during that time and place, taking and freeing prisoners instead of engaging in wholesale slaughter. Even when preparing to enter Mecca, Muhammad ordered his armies to refrain from any fighting unless the Meccans attacked. And, when his forces finally took Mecca from the polytheists, there were not only almost no casualties on the Meccan side (12 killed in a small skirmish in one part of the city), he expressly forbade any massacres or other reprisals against the populace.

Had Muhammad not wanted to minimize killing and conflict, he could have easily ordered his armies to do to the Meccans what…well, what Saul did to the Amalekites.

1- I do not care at all, not 1% what he preached.

2- I care only about what he did.

3- By your own admission he invaded Mecca. Something he did not have to do. He could of lived his whole entire life and never once returned to Mecca. Those violent actions were completely his choice.

4- He killed 12 people to achieve his objective.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Wow. One can be very spiritual and still commit Rape, Murder, Genocide, Slavery and Theft and still be spiritual. Wow. Can you commit these actions and still be a decent moral person?

Again, spirituality and morality are not the same thing. They aren’t even linked.

1- I do not care at all, not 1% what he preached.

2- I care only about what he did.

Then why your earlier focus on what the Qur’an supposedly says? All the stuff about sabr is in there too.

3- By your own admission he invaded Mecca. Something he did not have to do. He could of lived his whole entire life and never once returned to Mecca. Those violent actions were completely his choice.

Not really. Not only did the Medinans have lots of friends and relatives among the polytheists of Mecca, Mecca was still the destination of the annual pilgrimage. Muhammad brokered the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccans, in which the Medinans would be allowed to peacefully enter the city as part of the pilgrimage. It lasted all of one year before the Meccans broke it. Muhammad didn’t just send his armies to take the city, he was perfectly happy to leave things as they were just as long as Medinans could carry out the annual pilgrimage unmolested.

4- He killed 12 people to achieve his objective.

No, his army killed 12 combatants who attacked his army first.

[Robert163]

@A_isha

Again, spirituality and morality are not the same thing. They aren’t even linked.

Wow

So now we are reduced, by your tactics, to debating what is “spiritual” rather than you simply admitting Rape, Murder, Slavery and Theft are wrong, full stop, wrong. It is almost like the degree to which you realize they are wrong are the same degree to which you justify his (immoral and evil) actions.

Not really. Not only did the Medinans have lots of friends and relatives among the polytheists of Mecca, Mecca was still the destination of the annual pilgrimage.
Muhammad brokered the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccans, in which the Medinans would be allowed to peacefully enter the city as part of the pilgrimage. It lasted all of one year before the Meccans broke it. Muhammad didn’t just send his armies to take the city, he was perfectly happy to leave things as they were just as long as Medinans could carry out the annual pilgrimage unmolested.

So? 12 people must die so that someone else can fulfill a ritual???

No, his army killed 12 combatants who attacked his army first.

They attacked him (his troops) because he invaded their city.

[Human_Action]

@Robert163

Wow

So now we are reduced, by your tactics, to debating what is “spiritual” rather than you simply admitting Rape, Murder, Slavery and Theft are wrong, full stop, wrong. It is almost like the degree to which you realize they are wrong are the same degree to which you justify his (immoral and evil) actions.

You introduced the “spiritual” tangent, and now you are criticizing A’isha for addressing your remarks.

Also, could you detail the rape, murder, slavery, and theft Muhammad engaged in?

[Robert163]

@Human_Action

You introduced the “spiritual” tangent, and now you are criticizing A’isha for addressing your remarks.

Also, could you detail the rape, murder, slavery, and theft Muhammad engaged in?

no

[Human_Action]

@Robert163

no

So, to date, your case against Muhammad consists of:

a) He advised his followers to use force against those who attacked them, but only until the attackers surrendered.

b) He brokered a peace treaty, and used force to uphold the terms his side was guaranteed under the treaty after the other side broke it and massacred some of his followers.

c) Insinuations that he engaged in other misdeeds, with zero support.

d) He isn’t Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I can see how challenging it is for Muslims to resist the urge to descend into wickedness and barbarism, with that monster behind their religion. Self-defense, peace treaties, mercy, forgiveness…it chills the bones, it does.

[A_isha]

@Robert163

Wow

So now we are reduced, by your tactics, to debating what is “spiritual” rather than you simply admitting Rape, Murder, Slavery and Theft are wrong, full stop, wrong. It is almost like the degree to which you realize they are wrong are the same degree to which you justify his (immoral and evil) actions.

Er, no. Rape, murder, slavery, and theft are wrong (especially now in the 21st century), but they have nothing to do with spirituality or the lack thereof.

So? 12 people must die so that someone else can fulfill a ritual???

Again, it was declared war. You keep trying to twist things to pretend that Muhammad and his Muslims just suddenly popped up in a totally innocent and unware Mecca and started murdering people for no reason at random.

They attacked him (his troops) because he invaded their city.

And he invaded their city because they broke a treaty with him and attacked him first.

Or do you also think FDR is a violent and immoral man because his army killed Wehrmacht soldiers during the invasion of Germany?

[Robert163]

@A_isha

Again, it was declared war. You keep trying to twist things to pretend that Muhammad and his Muslims just suddenly popped up in a totally innocent and unware Mecca and started murdering people for no reason at random.

So, So what? If you come from the position, as do I, that war is wrong, then a declaration of war is immaterial.

And he invaded their city because they broke a treaty with him and attacked him first.

So? Nothing required that he or any other person ever travel to Mecca. Nothing. A religious proclamation is not a requirement. Not for personal health or safety. Nothing else is worth killing for than your own actual freedom or safety. Not being able to make a religious pilgrimage is not oppression, it is not a lack of freedom, not when that freedom comes at the expense of 12 lives.

Or do you also think FDR is a violent and immoral man because his army killed Wehrmacht soldiers during the invasion of Germany?

There is a problem with your analogy. Mohamed never had to return to Mecca for any other reason than his own selfish desire to fulfill a religious obsession he was preoccupied with. If they had come to his town or where ever he was and attacked him, then and only then, “they attacked him first” applies. Only in that situation.

But that is not what happened.