I am not a religious person, so I acknowledge that my views on this topic are biased. Nonetheless, it appears to me that Islam encourages more violence and leads to more closed mindedness than any other religion (in my humble opinion, Christianity is a close second, but that’s another discussion).
Let me elaborate on this a bit. After the Islamic revolution in Iran, the fanatics seemed empowered by their religion to not only take 52 Americans hostage; but they sponsored terrorism around the globe for over a decade. All in the name of Islam. Some religion! Praise Allah and pass the ammunition! It was after bombing Libya and decisive victory against Iraq did the reign of terror abate.
Of course, this religion has no problem making half of the population, namely women, second-class citizens by allowing men to have up to four wives, but forbidding women from having multiple husbands. Not to mention the overly protective dress women must wear in the name of this wonderful religion. What is astounding is why would any woman would want to be a muslim. It’s pretty much lifetime indentured servitude.
Of course, Afghanistan’s recent destruction of Buddhist statures speaks volumes about Islam’s tolerance and open mindedness. Or, another fine example of Islam tolerance of free speech is Khomeini issuing a death sentence against Rushdi for his book, Satanic Verses.
I challenge anyone to cite an example of a country that has flourished scientifically or culturally after adopting Islam as its main religion.
Yeah! Those fucking ragheads! Kill 'em all! Morph, don’t believe the hype, pal. Do you blame all Americans for Dresden? Or Oklahoma City? Or Waco? No, of course not.
So why blame all Muslims for the actions of a tiny number of people who share their faith?
Terrorists and the Taleban are not representative of the millions of Muslims in the world.
Islam as a religeon seems to be by it’s nature gentle and peaceful. It’s muslims who are such nutcases- and not all of them, either. What I’ve read of the Koran gives me a good feeling about it’s precepts: treat others, even animals, with respect and decency. Case in point: The Koran suggests that after a long journey, you unload your pack animals first, before anyone has a chance to rest- they’ve worked the entire trip and deserve the unburdening.
How Muslim leaders seem to arrive at their bloodthirsty policies seems to have to do with salvation; if you die, you don’t get to go directly to heaven unless you have died fighting in a Jihad, a holy war. So it seems as if there’s always someone creating a holy war for Muslims to fight. Well, there are other ways to Heaven but they’re not nearly as immediate as Jihad.
For all that, religeon in GENERAL has been the reason for a WHOLE lot of wars… Don’t forget, christians STARTED this whole deal by murdering scads of Islamic peoples during the Crusades. Till then, the islamic culture was pretty sedate, in most ways.
First, I would like to point out that Islam is no more a unified religion than Christianity can be called unified. It has not been since the four ?rightfully guided caliphs? and the origins of the sh?ii split over Ali.
Islam has religious leaders, called Imams, who make religious pronouncements. An example would be Khomeini, but an Imam has only as much sway as the Islamic world is willing to grant him. In other words, if he has few or isolated followers, (as in the Taliban) he is not very influential.
Islamic law has different 4 major schools of jurisprudence. These schools vary in their interpretations of the Shari?a (Islamic sayings) and range from the Hanafi- moderate (almost secular, like Turkey) to Hanabali-much more fundamentalist (Saudi Arabia or the extreme of the Taliban) with shades in-between.
As far as close mindedness and violence, how would you rate the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland? There are always violent fanatics in the cause of any religion. It?s just that recent memory of the acts of fundamentalist Islamic states such as Iran and Afghanistan is more vivid.
The seizure of the US embassy in Iran was triggered by a variety of reasons that were not based on religion. It was primarily against the US for supporting the Shah?s (not spotless) regime. As for terrorism, I think you?re confusing state sponsored terrorism with religious sponsored terrorism. Various states (Israel springs to mind) commit terrorist acts for non-religious reasons, even though they could be considered to be religiously inspired.
The status of women in Islam is as diverse as the schools of law. In the modern world, there are many bright and educated Islamic women who will tell you that they think women in Western society are treated worse than they are. I think that?s a case of the grass is always greener, etc.
You don?t see Turkish and Egyptian women forced to wear the chadoor or burkah. On the other hand, you have the extremist views of Saudi Arabia, where women can be punished for matters of dress. In the actual Qur?an itself, there are strictures against such things as female infanticide and in Moslem law, property rights and business ownership are historically and legally respected. The example of the Taliban is one where an isolated group with their own judges (qadis) and religious council have essentially interpreted the law in a unique (and prejudicial) way.
The four wives are permitted to a man that can support them. The emphasis is on supporting them properly. The vast majority of Moslems are monogamous and see no reason to change. There was, in times past, a system of concubinage amongst the elite. In these cases, the woman was still supposed to be supported.
The open-mindedness of Moslems should be noted in that the Buddhas were permitted in an Islamic country for at least 700 years. Historically, Islamic states permitted Judaism and Christianity and Zoroastrianism to be practiced.
Countries that have flourished after adopting Islam- first you might want to keep in mind that Islam has existed since the first revelation in C E 610. That said, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and Spain spring to mind.
Some examples: the preservation of classical Greek texts, (in Andalusia), the numerous philosophers and astronomers and architects that flourished throughout the Islamic world under various Caliphates, the founding and building of the cities of Baghdad (as a government center) and Cairo (as a trading center), the splendor of the Ottoman court (attested to by both European and Ottoman historians). The decline that you seem accredit to Islam is due in a greater part to other forces- governmental economic, weather, etc.
The people who do things like that are the fanatics. They take what’s written in whatever holy book they follow and twist it around to fit their own agendas.
Something that I commonly see misinterpreted is the concept of the Jihad. From what I recall (if anyone knows more specifics than I can remember, feel free to correct me), A Jihad is a ‘just war’, (actually it’s translated as ‘a striving’, but it’s used to describe a ‘just war’) and as such, can only be declared under specific circumstances, such as righting a wrong. For example, a neighbouring country is slaughtering tons of people; Jihad can be declared on this country to stop the killing. Best example I can come up with, but you see the point.
Now, some fanatics interpret Jihad to mean that they can wage war on anyone who they think is doing something wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with Islam, there’s nothing wrong with Muslims. A few crazies have ruined it for everyone else, as so often happens these days.
Islam is generally a peaceful and docile religion, but so is Christianity. Like the few “Christians” who think they’re justified in killing people, there are also a few Muslims who feel similarly compelled. It is the most modern of the Abrahamic religions, and Arabic culture flourished during the Medeivel(sp?) period in Christian Europe, rediscovering a lot of Geometry and Mathematics.
Generally, it seems to me that Muslims are the current group-to-hate, because a small number of them have been obnoxious.
Why are you so happy about the idea of basing your conjectures upon a religion upon a bunch of half-baked, half-assed nutcases in Afghanistan?
One country that flourished under Islam? Well, anything in the Islamic Empire during the middle ages of Europe. Most of our knowledge of the ancients comes straight through the Islamic Empire which recorded, preserved, and expounded upon their ideas. They played a larger role in preserving knowledge and even developing it when Christian Europe was sliding backwards into decay.
The light of the Islamic Empire was a major push in Europe’s turn around.
If your so down on Moslems, why are you not also bitching about Salman Rushdie, a self-professed Moslem?
I’ll try not to hijack this thread too much but some of the views expressed in the OP are typical of the way Americans tend to see reaction by people of other nations against Americans as being based upon religious tendencies, or other “illegitimate” grounds, when in fact the basis is all too often the fact that Americans are behaving like assholes.
Much of the Middle East despises Americans for a number of reasons, but the support of the inherently racist, bigoted, vicious, terrorist regime in Israel has much to do with it. But often the downtrodden, prisoner-in-their-own-land Palestinians are portrayed merely as fanatic Moslems, rather than people who are fanatical about being given the vote, or an entitlement to work and not be shot at. And America has provided enormous amounts of aid to Israel.
America has a habit of propping up dictators and other assholes who support American foreign policy goals in some way, regardless of their unsavoury ways. The Shah of Iran was one. This did not endear Americans to Iranians.
Comparatively recently, the Catholic Church provided a rallying point for an overthrow of the American-backed (Marcos) dictatorship in the Philippines. You will not see too many reports suggesting that “fanatical Christians” overthrew the government there. But you would have if it had been the Islamic church in the same role.
Try reading the world affairs section of a newspaper from an Islamic country. The first time I did so, I was shaken by the entirely logical, self-consistent but “other-worldly” view of events, in which America and the West were portrayed not as the civilised good guys, but as assholes. After being in deep denial to begin with, I eventually realised that what was so disturbing was the utter validity of the alternate views.
Yes, some forms of Islam are pretty unsupportable(women cop it badly in many places) but this is no different to dozens of other religions and cultures the world over, don’t damn the religion too quickly.
And next time you see a headline screaming about the unspeakable act of some “fanatic Moslem”, try substituting “fanatic nationalist” or “fanatic dictator” or whatever, and think whether there aren’t perfectly good reasons for their behaviour (which might well originate closer to home than you expect), or perfectly bad reasons that don’t relate to Islam.
Well, the OP has managed a post of staggering ignorance. Let’s try to help him get over that.
(Although doesn’t this ressemble another recent thread?)
I think everyone has noted how silly it is to over-generalize about the religion of several hundred million people. With numbers like that, you’re going to have some folks you just don’t want to share the same territory with.
Let me try some specifics:
In re science, of course any brief perusal of historical works will be enough to disabuse you of the notion that “Islam” is any more antithetical to science than any other religion.
During our Middle Ages the Islamic world quite clearly preserved and expanded on much classical learning which good old Europe managed largely to forget – caveats re gross generalizations here. Some things like algebra (al-Jibra) and the like are thanks to the Islamic world. Muslims make the argument that ‘properly’ read Islam is more open to science. There are some Qu’uranic verses they use to support that. Well, what the heck…we can say there is some textual support for respecting non-religious learning, now application? Anyways, it quite clear historically speaking the Islamic world fostered science. Current backwardness in this area is a historical issue and an issue of current poverty.
(In direct response to the OP, I name the entire Middle East, Islamic Spain etc. as all having flourished after adopting Islam.)
Islamic Revolution in Iran
Perhaps a little history. It’s always helpful to have a few facts around. The Iranian “fanatics” were empowered by a bitter political history in which the wonderful CIA played an important and rather nasty role. The flag was Islam, but it was politics. 1953, USA helps overthrow the Mossadegh government (considered to be anti-Western) and backed the Shah becoming for practical purposes an absolute ruler --evolution over time-- although early policies weren’t that bad. However, this degenerated in the 1970s to absolute rule through a very nasty secret police. American involvement with the regime was extensive and well-known.
The fanatics has some good reasons for wanting to poke the USA in the eye (note, while I think US policy was foolish, I am not making a statement against US interventionism generally. In Iran in particular, the CIA fucked up.)
The terrorism which followed, at Iranian sponsorship, was something of a war against the USA. If you’re a little guy, you use what you can. I’ll be frank, we in the West are piously agaisnt terrorism 'cause we’re on top. Tables turned, we’d do the same fucking thing. So, let’s fight terrorism, but let’s not kid ourselves about our or their morals.
Returning to the issue at hand, Iranian sponsoring terrorism can be understood in two frameworks: Arabo-Islamic reaction against US dominance through among the few real means available (note, not all Arabs are Muslims my dear boy, lots are in fact Xtians, esp… the Palestinians and Lebanese who contributed to the terror of the 1970s and 1980s – again, more a question of politics, once more.) Second, Iranian reaction against US reaction against them. Bad blood breeding bad blood.
Once more, religion is really just a drapery on the stage of this little show, despite all the rhetoric from both sides. Not meaningless, since religious differences definately feed into the cycle of hatred, but the true underlying reasons are socio-political.
Now this little gem:
So, lots of people do lots of things in the name of X, Y or Z. Tim Veigh (sp) blew up a building in the name of true Americans or some such…
Now, your timeline also is rather troublesome, but it would take way to long to correct, as your confusion of Libya, Iran, Iraq (our ally in fact for much of the period, ironically enough)…
Women
As did until very recently Western culture. Some perspective is required.
(a) the legit question of the place of women in Islam.
(b) a proper historical perspective lest we pat ourselves on the back too much.
In re the former issue, this is a real problem. I don’t find Arab socio-religious culture in re women too attractive. However, they are not the sole Muslims. Other non-Arab (and I’ll add non classical Middle Eastern cultures) have taken and do take considerably more liberal positions. Nonetheless its important to recognize that there is a sea of change going on in the Middle East in re women, and the Taliban are an exception. How much of this can be laid at the feet of Islam as a textual religion and how much at the feet of a patriarchal culture using that same religion is an interesting question…
In truth, outside of the Gulf, polygamy has largely died out. Few could afford it if they wanted to, and it strikes me from up close observation that social mores have shifted in re the question. More people note for me the Koranic precept that one must treat all wives equally and then note the practical impossibility.
So, let’s be aware of change.
Now, this is the one thing which gets me about Westerners commenting on Islam. The dress issue. I leave aside the clearly wrong-headed full body and face covering (purdah, burqah, etc.) which the Saudis and hyper-conservatives promote. That’s the minority. Rarely see it.
So, the hijab --hair/head covering-- and loose baggy clothes. Oppressive? I don’t know. Is it worse than Western women pressured to wear uncomfortable clothes in the name of fasion? Frankly, I don’t think so, not inherently so. Mind you, I prefer the short skirt but I’m not so stupid as to believe that this is anything to do with “women freedom” or any such rot. It’s my eye pleasure. So let’s this hypocrisy.
(I will note that in large part, in my experience in the Islamic world outside the Gulf women pretty much choose to wear what they want, lots choose the hijab.)
Who chooses anything about their beliefs, cultural appartenance? But, it strikes me you have an overly negative view of the place of women in Arab society. I ain’t gonna claim its great in comparision with say NYC society and freedoms women enjoy in the liberal, urban Western world. I will hazard the opinion that urban Arab women have more freedom than they are generally credited with. There are fundamental cultural differences which lead astray, we forget for example that typically the urban Arab woman keeps her money seperate and under the law, the hubby can’t touch it. If she works, that can be significant.
Taliban/Afghanistan
Ironically, it does. Just not the way you think it does.
Think about it. Afghanistan has been about 100% Muslim for over a THOUSAND YEARS. Yes, over one thousand. In that time, the buddhas went unmolested. The same can be said for the ancient monuments in the Middle East, excepting the rather ancient and universal practice of stealing stones from them to build your house (but that’s not particularly Muslim). Indeed, come here to Egypt and you find that most of the damage done to ancient Egyptian monuments was done by Xtians during the great waves of conversion.
Now, I will also point you to the reaction of the Islamic world. As mentioned in several threads at the time, the reaction was harshly negative. The Ulema, the learned religious scholars were virtually unanimous in condeming the Taliban actions. And I am speaking of Arabic press, nt stuff said for outside consumption. This was across the board, from the Gulf to the Sham. Egypt even sent a high-rankin delegation with important scholars to try to dissuade the Taliban.
Free Speech
I suppose it would be redundant to note your fallacy of composition here.
However, there are real problems in the region in re freedom of speech. However, I don’t see them as truly connected to religion but rather an issue of the culture which really does not have a tradition of criticism. Face saving, image… All very important. If the whole region was Xtian, I’d hazard the opinion the same problem would be here.
** A Few Added Words **
In re “clerics” in Islam:
There aren’t any in Sunni Islam. Rather like protestants, anyone who can attract a congregation is a religious leader. Since learning is esteemed, one generally but not always has to have some theological learning.
In Shiite Islam there are clerical ranks, but no true centralization.
In re Jihad:
The verb does mean to strive or to struggle (as in the try to do something). Really religious people do use it in a non-war sense. However, common usage has placed the noun in a sort of religious struggle context, maybe not necessarily war. The formal sense of Just War is also available.
In re utter validity of other views:
I disagree with Princhester but that would require a hijack of major proportions.
The thing to remember is that the laws espoused by the Taliban are NOT written down in the Qu’ran. The Taliban is (to simplify things) a dictatorship run by a charismatic leader in an area that wasn’t doing so well in the global economy.
as for the hijab, I know and have known several women and girls who choose to wear it in North America. One must remember that the Qu’ran dictates shape-concealing clothing for both sexes which makes sense when you consider when the religion originated.
The main goal of the hijab is to get rid of sexual tension. I don’t know about you, but there was a good long while there when I had a tough time looking up when talking to someone in tight or revealing clothing. If everyone was wandering around in smocks, it would certainly constrain the old gallant reflex.
As a co-worker of mine just said to me yesterday, “I think the Taliban are all nuts and they’re just using their religion to cover for it.”
Fanatics of any stripe can be barbaric, nuts, crazy, whatever. The fact that some choose to call their beliefs by a certain name doesn’t mean everybody who holds beliefs with a similar name subscribe to the same insanity.
Yeah, that poor Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan. She sure had it rough. And let’s not forget the current prime minister of Bangladesh (can’t recall her name). She lives a life of virtual slavery.
In America, we sure as hell treat our female Presidents a lot better.
I find it mildly amusing that Princhester, while deploring the stereotyping of Muslims, has no problem in stereotyping and condemning Israel. I, for one, recognize that there are many different groups of Palestinians – from the truly oppressed (mostly by their Arab brethren, not by Israel) to those who exploit their oppressed for their own political ends (like Mr Arafat.)
However, to get to the point: IMHO, all western religions have their fanatical and extremist element that is considered “barbaric” by a later generation. The Spanish Inquisition, the Puritan witch-trials, and so forth.
Most religions flourished in earlier eras, when education, communication, and technology was not widespread. Certainly western religions tended to appeal to the masses of people, as a comfort through difficult times – the comfort of certainty, perhaps, of Knowing THE Truth. And religion was related to community, so that the entire community tended to have the same beliefs. (Minority communities could exist withint the larger community, of course.) One God meant One Way as the Right Way and all other ways misguided, inferior, wrong, infidel or inimical (Satanic): and so it was appropriate to convert them by force or to kill them at your leisure.
The modern era is not one of community but of diversity. Among monotheists, there is a recognition that there can be many paths that lead to One God. And all religions have faced major trauma in trying to cope with that – some deal better, some worse. The “fundamentalists” try to oppose diversity and modernization. Those who cope with and adapt to diversity and modernization have become mainstream, and view the fundamentalists as fanatics, out-dated, and narrow-minded.
Examples:
American Catholicism, for instance, is diverging from Roman Catholicism on several major issues, in part (IMHO) because a typical American Catholic community/congregation/parish tends to be more diverse than ditto in Europe.
Fundamental Christians fight to overturn the theory of evolution, rather than find ways to cope with it and to embrace it as one of God’s processes.
Equal treatment of women is a major issue not only for traditional Islam, but for Catholicism and for Orthodox Judaism and for the Southern Baptists. Similar for attitudes towards homosexuality.
We need to remember that the world has changed in the last 100 years, beyond recognition. There has arguably been more change in the last 100 years than in the prior 1000. The modern home computer is scarcely 15 years old, and has revolutionized the world as much as the the car and airplane and electric light bulb did 75 years earlier. All these changes in technology and communication have brought about a recognition of the diversity of the world, and of the neighborhood.
Religions are trying to cope with these profound changes. Some subgroups try to fight the changes, and so are labelled fundamentalists or fanatics; other subgroups embrace and adapt to the changes and consider themselves more moderate and reasonable.
So, the reactions that we see amongst the extremists in Islam are perhaps neither better nor worse than the similar reactions in other religions.
As one who has a number of muslim friends (I’m a white American and atheist to boot), and has spent some time in Pakistan (which holds claim to being only one of two countries in the world founded on the basis of religion), I can tell you that I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with muslim people.
a) They don’t treat women all that poorly. I’ve never met or seen anyone with multiple wives. Although that certainly happens, it isn’t mainstream anymore, and is constantly declining. I’ve spent time working with the biggest universities in Pakistan, and there are plenty of women there, especially in engineering studies. I’ve met with high-powered muslim women in business. Granted, there are fewer women in positions of power generally, but that’s been changing, just like it has in the rest of the world.
b) I’ve never met or dealt with any that I would consider fanatical or zealous about waging a holy war. There’s crazy people who want war in all walks of life, but no more there than here. In fact, in general I’ve found muslim people to be very friendly and hospitable. Complete strangers in Pakistan took me into their home and gave me food, something you’d never see in America.
I will say that in the press in Pakistan, there was a lot of “In sha’Allah” (as Allah wills it) thrown about, something that’s a bit different, coming from a place where you’d never see religion as part of the papers or the government. But I just took that as part of the culture. It’s funny, when you see John Wayne in an old movie saying “We’ll cross that river, God willing”, it doesn’t sound so bad. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
I’d like to second the recommendation that if PRINCHESTER objects to the baseless stereotyping of certain groups he ought to put a little more thought into avoiding baseless stereotyping himself.
This thread is absurd (but I admit, that didn’t stop me from reading it.)
Enrolment in a 1st year religion course would make it plainly obvious that ALL the monotheistic religions are pretty barbaric…
The Hebrews did a pretty good job of annihilating the Canaanites, the Christians did a pretty good job of anihilating just about everybody, the Jews, the Spaniards, the dark-skinned CHRISTIANS?!?!, etc., etc.
Now, a small group of extremist Muslims is having their kick at the can.
To dismiss an entire religion based on the actions of a few fundamentalists is totally absurd.
Basically, you are speaking out of your ass. Read a book, maybe.
Al.
(and incidentally, if you want to find a religion that subjugates women, sadly, certain branches of Christianity do an excellent job. Ask a Catholic about the Cult of Thecla, for instance, and notice the blank stare)
