Islam, the religion of peace...

Great Debates
201

Is it fair to say that Mohammed wasn’t the nicest, most caring person ever? He lead his people though countless wars and battles, made forced conversions and killed too many to imagine. He was a militant. He was also very oppresive to women, I believe he married a little kid (or had them as mistresses, maybe someone could clear that up.)

If you look at Judaism and Christianity, their Prophets/Leaders were caring, peaceful people. Just look at Jesus and Moses, for example. Jesus is a model example of what a good religious leader should be. Put the bad parts of Christianity aside. And Moses? Another peaceful person. Sure, kicking the rock wasn’t nice, especially when god told him not to (andhe was punished pretty badly for that). But he never told his people to get up and fight the Egyptians, despite being slaves.

202

Depends who you ask :).

It has argued that by the standards of his time he was relatively enlightened and progressive on women’s issues. But that is obviously a highly subjective assesment.

cutting and pasting from an earlier post on this subject:

Anywho, as to Muhammed and his wives - A contentious and somewhat hazy topic, as these things so often seem to be. Most of the writings on his wives and his relationships with them come from the Hadith, the collected ‘sayings’ of Muhammed and his close companions, and the problem with that is that there are multiple hadith and they don’t always match up perfectly. In fact there is something of a hiearchy of accuracy as regards different hadith, depending on which tradition you follow. Anyway the exact number of wives is in dispute. Some counts go as high as fifteen, but I believe at least five or six of those are considered dubious because they are only referenced in one source. As to the better confirmed wives…

His first and most significant wife is completely uncontested. Muhammed was first married at the age of 25 to the widow of a rich merchant fifteen years his senior, Khadija. They had a previous business relationship and it appears she proposed to him ( via intermediaries ). This marriage lasted 25 years and was apparently monogamous throughout. She bore him six children, two sons ( who both died young ) and four daughters, including the famous ‘favorite’, Fatima, who later married his nephew Ali and through which the modern Shi’a tradition considers the only true succesors of the Prophet to descend. Khadija was the first convert to Islam and if one wants to indulge in a bit of pop psychology, I might imagine that Muhammed’s relatively enlightened ( for his time ) views on female property rights might derive in good part from her influence. She died of natural causes at the age of 65.

Muhammed then married another widow, his own age ( 50 ), Sauda. Shortly thereafter, as attested to by two sources, he supposedly received a revelatory dream that led him to contract a marriage ( purportedly with Sauda’s approval ) with A’isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the first adult male convert to Islam ( Ali was the first male convert, period ), his closest companion and ally, and the man who would eventually be his immediate successor as the first Caliph. It’s A’isha that is the controversial one. She was, again purportedly, six years old at the time and went to actually live with Muhammed three years later at the age of nine. By at least one account, that is also the point when the marriage was consummated. But I have seen some dispute over that as well as her age. Regardless, the political significance of this union seems pretty apparent ( Muhammed also apparently married one of the daughters, a widow again I believe, of Umar, who would become Caliph #2 after Abu Bakr died ).

At any rate, the rest of his wives, of whatever confirmed or unconfirmed status, seem to fall into two clumps. The largest group seems to be made up of middle-aged war widows. A couple were manumitted slaves who were teenagers ( 17, I think ).

As to the provision in the Qur’an that allows only four wives ( or a de facto one, if you accept the reasonings of certain theologians ), I have seen at least one source that claims that all these marriages took place before he had that revelation and that this caused him to stop “collecting wives”, as it were. But I can’t really confirm that right this moment. If false, it would of course, make Muhammed’s behavior in this respect a pretty spectacular case of “do what I say, not what I do” :D.

So therein lies the basis for the charge of pedophelia at least.

Ah, but Islam accepts Moses and Jesus as prophets of equal stature to Muhammed ( Muhammed was just the last one, is all ) ;).

  • Tamerlane
203

clairobscur: yes, and yes.

204

Splanky: [Muhammad] was also very oppresive to women, I believe he married a little kid (or had them as mistresses, maybe someone could clear that up.)

According to the traditional account of Muhammad’s wives, he was monogamous until the death of his first wife, and all of his subsequent wives but one were between 17 and 50 at marriage. The exception was Aisha, to whom he was betrothed when she was 6 and whom he married when she was 9, as was not unusual in those days. I don’t know where you get the “oppressive” bit, as Muhammad is generally reported to have had fairly “advanced” views on the equality of men and women. Aisha, as his widow, was one of the most respected arbiters of religious questions in early Islam, and many hadiths come from her teachings.

I think it’s also a pretty feeble argument to try to address complicated questions about the essential “nature” of religions based on some kind of popularity contest between religious leaders. Everybody’s bound to vote for the leader of the religion they like best. You may think that Muhammad wasn’t the “nicest, most caring person ever”, but that superficial assessment (I can tell it’s superficial because if you can’t even figure out who Muhammad’s wives were, you obviously don’t have a very deep acquaintance with Islamic theology) is very different from Muslim teachings about him. Many Muslims could doubtless cite similar superficial data (say, the smashing of the Tablets or the scourging of the moneylenders in the Temple) to demonstrate that Jesus and Moses weren’t as nice and caring as Muhammad.

Or, in preview, what Tamerlane said. :slight_smile:

In short, I think there simply is no universally convincing argument that one religion is essentially, objectively better than another. Sure, you can come up with arguments about why your own religion is better that will convince you and your co-religionists, but members of other religions can easily do the same. It’s all the same rhetorical smoke and mirrors, marshaled for propaganda purposes.

Like I said, the question of how different religions intersect with particular historical circumstances to produce better and worse social effects at different times is a very interesting and meaningful one. But the question of which religion is intrinsically better or worse is pure propaganda.

205

tomndebb, I thank you for your answer. I think you are right that I’m asking a question which may not have been overtly asked earlier in this thread. So I will try again to ask it, or them, and I will try to clearly explain myself along the way.

Again I will start with a necessarily simplistic description of the incident. Feel free to tell me if I’m incorrect in major details. I will be necessarily incorrect on the minor ones.

[ul][1.] The violence erupted in direct response to a remark made about the founder of the Islamic religion.

Therefore I think that this is a concrete example of violence in response to an expressed idea, an idea so hypothetical that it would tickle my funny bone were the results not so tragic.

[2.] The violence was originally directed by followers of the religion at the newspaper which printed the remark.

…Which implies to me that it was at the outset a considered response. The place which caused the trouble was targeted and destroyed. After that the violence spun out of control and I won’t make any observations about what happened afterward, except to note that with 200 people dead it must have been a pretty big riot, and it managed to travel all the way to the capital city.

[3] The author of the offending article has been singled out in a religious proclamation demanding her death for writing the article.

Actually, it’s more than that. She’s been officially blamed for causing the incident. Not the rioters, not the murderers, and certainly not the religion, but the author.

[4] The religious proclamation demanding her death was broadcast on national television, and delivered by a government official.

This implies to me that the fatwa has some sort of official weight, and if I knew more about Islam in general I’d probably know whether or not Nigerian Sharia allows for fatwas demanding someone’s death. [/ul]

But I don’t, which is why I’m going to ask this question again, rephrased.

Can’t we ascribe some sort of responsibility for this incident to the religion itself?

Again, the followers of the religion were offended, the followers of the religion rioted and killed people, the followers of the religion assessed the blame upon the author of the offending article, and the followers of the religion then used their political power to issue the death demand. The death demand may well be sanctioned by the religious and official law of that land.

Why can’t I look at that incident in Nigeria and state, with complete assurance, that Islam was a major–if not the central–contributing cause? (And with a nod to tom, I’ll add, “in that place at that time.”)

And if that is the case (seriously, I will happy to be disabused), why can’t I conclude that in certain instances Islam in practice condones violence against those who would ridicule their religion, condones the issuance of proclamations asking for the death of the person upon whom they assess the blame, and condones the use of its own law and its own governments to permit the issuance of those proclamations?

And finally, what in the Sam Hill is peaceful about a religion which can be so horribly misconstrued by its own followers that such a thing can happen? Right now, I think it’s rather the opposite–that it’s indicative of a propensity for causing violence that runs straight from the mob on the street to the heads of state. And right now I think there’s something terribly wrong with that, because I’m an ignorant American who could use a good learnin’.

I encourage your comments, and I promise in advance to be civil and considerate of all responses.

206

oh. one more thing. without abrogation, the koran makes absolutely no sense. So, any muslim who says “naw I don’t wanna believe in that abrogation stuff” can’t believe in the Koran - at least not all of it. Which mean he/she is not a real muslim. All or nothing. Religious texts are not à la carte. Can’t pick and choose. If one line says “keep dogs as pets and care for them” and another line says “no dogs should be kept as pets, and all dogs should be slaughtered on the spot” … one of those lines needs to be “abrogated.” You can’t believe in both. It’s not possible.

FWIW I’d be more than happy to re-write the Koran. I’ll do it free of charge… and oh yeh, I’m divinely inspired, so mohammed will be writing through me. Any takers?

207

SK: Can’t we ascribe some sort of responsibility for this incident to the religion itself?

Sure we can; if we are equally willing to ascribe “some sort of responsibility” for terrorist/violent acts on the part of groups like Army of God and Christian Identity to Christianity itself. And some responsibility for BJP-instigated communal violence in India to Hinduism itself, and so on. I don’t think it’s a very useful or informative exercise, but if you want to say that violence committed in the name of one’s religion is somehow or to some extent the fault of that religion, go right ahead. Just be consistent.

*And if that is the case (seriously, I will happy to be disabused), why can’t I conclude that in certain instances Islam in practice condones violence against those who would ridicule their religion, condones the issuance of proclamations asking for the death of the person upon whom they assess the blame, and condones the use of its own law and its own governments to permit the issuance of those proclamations? *

I think it’s more accurate to say “in certain instances, some adherents of Islam use its teachings to condone…” etc. But you can put it your way if you like, as long as you’re equally willing to admit from the documentary evidence that in certain instances, Hinduism and Christianity etc. etc. do the same thing.

208

**

Now we are getting somewhere.

This may just be my own looney personal view but it seems to me religion has been the “great justifier” of many acts of violence throughout the ages. Some on this board have tried to act as if Christianity were somehow above all of this but the truth is that people are commiting murder even today in the name of Christianity as some of the cites brought up already have confirmed. To say that Islam = violence is to do a great injustice to the vast majority of practicing muslims that are not fanatic mass murderers.

209

Okay, the preview pane had already moved off to page 5 before I could see Tamerlane’s considerate response. Thank you for clarifying my misconceptions about fatwas.

If I may make another, final observation, I think my major gripe is that this religion as a whole appears to have no self-correcting mechanism. It appears to me to allow for interpretations which do encourage violence, and it appears to me that the religion decries any sort of criticism against itself, including the observation that it can be interpreted to encourage violence.

Therefore misguided people may be able to take cover within the otherwise benign folds of the Islamic cover, and that’s a serious problem.

210

Kalt: oh. one more thing. without abrogation, the koran makes absolutely no sense. So, any muslim who says “naw I don’t wanna believe in that abrogation stuff” can’t believe in the Koran - at least not all of it.

Well, according to their interpretation of it, they do. Just as Christians claim they believe the whole Bible, even if that requires them to rationalize or re-interpret some apparently contradictory or inappropriate teachings.

Which mean he/she is not a real muslim. All or nothing.

But nobody, except you, cares what you think a “real Muslim” is. We’re wrestling here with the more difficult and interesting question of how Muslims view Muslim belief and Islamic teaching, and how differences in interpretation of those issues interact with political and historical circumstances to produce different social consequences. The question of what Kalt considers a “real” or “fake” Muslim is irrelevant.

211

Oh, and you won’t see me defending Christianity, either. Kimstu. I may be willing to argue another time about scope and degree, but for the purposes of this debate you can assume that I consider all religions as capable of perversion. I see Bob Tilton hiding under the wool blanket on the other side of the room, along with lots of others under lots of other blankets.

212

SK: […] this religion as a whole appears to have no self-correcting mechanism. It appears to me to allow for interpretations which do encourage violence,

Yup; so do all other religions. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “no self-correcting mechanism”, but if you mean that there is no criticism of Islamic extremism and violence within Islam, or that there haven’t been various reformist movements in Islam throughout its history, you just—sorry, but as one ignorance-fighter to another—you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

*and it appears to me that the religion decries any sort of criticism against itself, including the observation that it can be interpreted to encourage violence. *

You seem to be conflating “the religion” of Islam as a whole with particular intolerant and extremist sects. Sure, Muslims in general do not admit that interpretations of Islam as “encouraging violence” are valid. How many Christians do you know who think that Christianity can be legitimately interpreted to encourage violence? “No, no,” they’ll say, “that is not true Christianity”, and in just the same way, you’ll find most Muslims saying “No, violent aggression in the name of Islam is not true Islam.” But Wahhabists go on planning terrorist attacks, and Army of God adherents go on planning clinic bombings, and they’re firmly convinced that their religion tells them to.

Therefore misguided people may be able to take cover within the otherwise benign folds of the Islamic cover, and that’s a serious problem.

It is a problem, and (excuse me again) you’re making it worse. Lumping all these different views together under the heading “Islam”, and complaining about the scary ones as characteristics of “Islam” without qualifications, is just lending legitimacy to the violent extremists who want their views to be considered mainstream Islam. If you really want a “self-correcting mechanism” that helps delegitimize violence in the name of Islam, you should be doing exactly the opposite; you should be making careful distinctions between extremist and moderate viewpoints, and making sure the moderate voices can be heard.

[Note added in preview: Thanks. Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that you were making this a contest between Christianity and Islam, and I’m sorry if my rhetoric got too heated.]

213

Oh, I think I’d disagree Sofa King. The fact that Islam is so fractionated today ( as with Christianity ) into a multiplicity of sects and even points of views within sects, points to a fair bit of internal dialogue and debate. The extremists do indeed decry any criticism, implied or real, and certain sects like the Wahhabi object to any innovation since the 10th century ( an extremely interesting take, I’ve always thought, as you would think a true "traditionalist"would decry any deviation from the death of Muhammed - But of course there is a certain amount of hypocrisy there, as they are very fond of certain 10th century innovations, a time when reactionary attitudes were on the rise due to the beginning of the collapse of the Pax Islamica in that period ). But as I’ve pointed out ( maybe obliquely ) elsewhere, modern Islamic theology often has a very different take on things than medieval Islamic theology. The evolution of thought on the meaning of jihad is just one example of this.

I will say that for whatever reason Islam does seem to have a higher proportion of medieval thinkers in this day and age, than, say, Christianity. But you can ascribe a whole host of possible causes to that, socioeconomic factors and the vagaries of modern history being high on the list IMHO.

Also, I agree there is at times some overly defensive knee-jerk denial by some Muslims about any interplay of Islam and violence, either historically or in terms of modern extremism. But I think that is usually reactive, if not always particularly well thought-out. Especially when criticism is framed in unequivocal and universal terms a la our friend Kalt here.

  • Tamerlane
214

So, Splanky, you’re completely unfamiliar with the Old Testament, it appears. If you’re not, then you’d know what those OT guys you describe as so beatifically nice-nice did and were told to do.

What were they told to do to the inhabitants of Canaan?

215

Well hey, I feel better informed now. Thank you Kimstu and Tamerlane and everyone else.

Let’s see if I have learned anything here. I think you folks are saying that Islam is just as fractionated as most other religions, with its attendant radicals and moderates. I’m being taken to task for pointing at Nigeria as somehow applicable to the religion as a whole. I’m actually hindering the (largely silent in Western media) majority by pointing out the violent propensity of the radicals.

And yet, I can’t help noticing that the majority has been overruled within entire nations on more than one occasion–in fact, fairly often, if I may cite Nigeria, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and Iran. It’s still my opinion that radical Islamic fundamentalism is far more than a lunatic fringe, but I’m willing to take what I’ve learned here with me and see what I can make of it. Thank you again for your responses.

216

As with Christianity and the Crusades, or the forced conversions of aboriginals in the US, Australia, and South America, or the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, or the Pogroms. You’re just taking a time slice, and not looking at the history of all religions.

Why do you ascribe these traits only to the current political situation in countries like Nigeria and not apply the same to Christianity in Europe in the past?

217

Well, if you cite Nigeria, Sudan, and Afghanistan, you should note that in each case it was a minority group of people who got hold of the best or most guns to impose their version–they did not win over converts to the cause. (In the case of Afghanistan, we had lots of good Muslims publicly rejoicing at the overthrow of the Taliban and lots of evidence that the supporters of the Taliban did it for cultural reasons (or tribal associations). In the cases of Nigeria and Sudan there are multi-sided battles going on that include extreme and moderate Muslims engaged in constantly shifting alliances with Christians and animists. In the case of Iran, we have a zealous minority that has seized power (and who were successful, in no small part, because of the reaction against the forced secularization imposed by the U.S. supported shah), who are being slowly and steadily forced to surrender small point after small point to the moderate and secular groups within the nation.

It is interesting that we are horrified at Nigerian mobs, yet no one seems interested in recalling the mobs in Baltimore and Philadelphia around 1844 and 1845 who burned Catholic churches and homes because those nasty Catholics had the temerity to ask to read their own version of the bible in school, or the Catholics who were murdered in Louisville, KY or threatened (but successfully fought back) in Cincinnati and New York, or the attempted lynching of a Vatican delegate to the U.S. in 1853.
(And if someone wants to claim that that is “old history,” they should be able to explain how that makes a difference, given that the U.S. was older in 1844 than Nigeria is, now.)

218

May I relate what happened yesterday morning on the lovely UC Davis Campus (no sarcasm: it’s a lovely campus)?

I walk into Olson Hall, stop at the water fountain for some water. Soon as I’m done rehydrating, I turn around and it so happens that I’m standing facing a young man and a young woman who are facing me. The woman says, facing me (apparently trying to include me in the conversation), “Wouldn’t you be bitter growing up in an Islamic country? I certainly would.”

Seems my shock at hearing such an inane comment was evident. The woman (hereafter referred to as the “MIQ,” short for “Moron in Question”) asked me, “What’s the matter?” So I responded, “That’s the most ignorant comment I’ve heard since I’ve been on this campus.” Her retort: “What’s your problem, man?” Mine: “I’m not impressed by bigots.”

Afterwards I started wondering: which Islamic countries would it have been that would make her bitter? I mean, she obviously didn’t grow up in one (see her comments quoted above) so it must’ve been that bitterly oppressive Islamic regime in the United States that got her that way.

Finally, why is it so many people who have supposedly demonstrated some knowledge of the world seek so desparately to maintain complete ignorance about Islam, its adherents, and its geographic spread?

219

SK: I’m actually hindering the (largely silent in Western media) majority by pointing out the violent propensity of the radicals.

No no no no no—what I objected to was not pointing out the violence of the radical extremists, but blurring the violent extremists together with Islam as a whole, which misrepresents most Muslims’ interpretation of Islam.

And yet, I can’t help noticing that the majority has been overruled within entire nations on more than one occasion

The people in power not infrequently have more extreme religious views than the average citizen. To take a much milder example from even our own far more developed, moderate, stable, and secular society: most Americans are not fundamentalist Christians and favor keeping abortion legal, but our chief executive is a fundamentalist Christian whose religious views favor criminalizing abortion.

Is there some innate tendency in Christianity that caused us to put a comparative extremist in power? Nope; it’s simply that the people with more extreme views tend to be more politically active and the moderates tend to be more acquiescent.

220

But it’s a false comparison. There have been people living in what is now Nigeria far longer than there have been people living in what is now Philadelphia or Baltimore, by an order of thousands of years.

So the most recent examples of religious riots in the U.S. are 150 years old, but the Nigerian religious riots happened within the last week? Why would that be?

As a group, Americans weren’t exactly horrified by slavery 150 years ago, but are now. How is being horrified by religious riots today any different?