I haven’t hugged my children or grandchildren since school started again in September as now Covid numbers are shooting upwards. I’m sure as he*l not about to do any random “handshaking”. What a ridiculous reason to decline citizenship.
If, as in this case, your meaning of ‘fundamentalism’ is only ‘cannot speak a denial of the Koran’, then I don’t think that the German courts have ever taken that position.
Not being able to say words denying the Koran certainly doesn’t preclude an an oath of commitment to the liberal democratic basic order, and it would be a rejection of liberal democratic ideas to include such an idea. Most ideas of liberal democracy include the idea that you shouldn’t be forced to say anything.
Again, this happened in 2015, and it wasn’t about the handshake or it’s refusal, but about what it represents.
*its refusal
Damn autocorrect sneaked that past me, I thought I had caught it. *hangs head in shame
Then the muslims I know that shake hands with women without a problem are not actually “practicing muslims”? That’ll be a surprise to them.
Was he denied citizenship because he specifically refused to shake her hand, or was it because he refused to show respect to a woman? Because there are other ways of showing respect other than touching someone - I really wasn’t joking before about bowing.
No. See Above.
I didn’t read close enough to realize this is a “cold case” and not topical to today’s distancing rules.
Whether they choose to follow the rules/mores of the country they are in (ie, like this person who said he’s in Germany when asked about the rules to follow - which was seen as evasive) does not invalidate that a central tenant of the faith is the Koran was literally dictated by God. Which is also why Muslims read the Koran in Arabic - because that was the language that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) heard and transcribed the Koran.
Islam is a fundamentalist religion. How individual Muslims apply that may differ (FYI, fundamentalist Protestants even tend to disagree about the application of the text to society).
So a person could shake hands with a woman and still be a practising muslim?
Sure, but he can’t say the “text is wrong” which was the entire basis of this part of the conversation (posts #55, #57, #58).
(though I guess it depends on far you go for practicing - a Muslim saying the text of the Koran is wrong is akin to a Christian saying Jesus Christ was not God, I guess the later could be ‘practicing’ depending on how much you’ve stretched the word)
The unstated premise is that Germany bans Muslims who believe the Koran is literally dictated by God. But I did not say this, and neither does Germany (as far as I can tell).
There is a difference between saying a religious text is literally dictated by God and saying it should be interpreted literally. The former is not fundamentalism, the latter is (by definition). Whether one particular interpretation is the literal interpretation or not, or whether it is the correct interpretation or not, is a matter of theology. I don’t believe the German courts would go so far as to say one interpretation of the Koran is correct or not. They do seem to say, there are certain interpretations of certain parts which contradict the “liberal democratic basic order”. And they say that Islamic fundamentalists sometimes interpret the Koran such that their religious beliefs contradict the liberal democratic basic order.
If there is a contradiction between a person’s religious beliefs and the liberal democratic basic order of Germany, the law apparently requires that person to commit to the liberal democratic basic order and disavow their religion as a prerequisite for naturalization.
If “all practicing Muslims” hold such religious beliefs, it follows that “all practicing Muslims” cannot be naturalized. It does not follow that practicing Muslims who are already German citizens are affected in any way.
~Max
That, specifically, is where you and the German courts seem to disagree. (iff “denying the Koran” means denying certain literal interpretations)
~Max
Is there really? In Christianity the difference between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists comes down to the question of literal dictation - Fundamentalists believe Scripture is literally dictated by God (in a sort of possession sort of way) and therefore it must be interpreted literally. Other Christians believe that the writers of Scripture were inspired by God, but not literally dictated, so we can account for historical bias. That’s the main fault line between Fundamentalist Christianity and other forms of Christianity - because if God literally said it, then you have to follow it exact.
So in Islam, you are required to read the Koran and say the 5 times a day prayers in Arabic. Because that was the language that the Prophet Muhammed received the Koran in. I’m positive that my moderate parents (I joked that we were “Christmas and Easter Muslims”) would say the Koran was literally dictated by God and therefore is without error and should be interpreted literally. Now, they may also say that a lot of those requirements were appropriate for that time but not ~1500 years later.
So when I see answers that say he “doesn’t live in a country where those exist” or “before God, men and women are equal” it seems to me that he is attempting to say some of those principles don’t apply here and now while also holding fast to the core Islamic principle that the Koran is literally the words of God.
As a matter of logic, no conclusion can follow from a single premise. As you seem to admit,
This is the premise that distinguishes fundamentalism from non-fundamentalism.
~Max
It makes absolutely no sense for a believer to say that if God literally said it, we are free to follow it or not (granted all far right fundamentalists sometimes tie themselves in knots to distinguish things). It’s why non-fundamentalist Christianity takes pains to note that they do not believe that Scripture is the literal word of God.
I’ll also note, one of the biggest problems here is what @Melbourne has identified. We in the West tend to see religion so much through Western eyes that we have a hard time comprehending how Islam works. The divine literalness of the Koranic text (as opposed to the hadith, I should note) is one thing the major Islamic traditions all agree on.
Did you not just write that your parents believed the Koran is the literal word of God, yet parts of the Koran are inappropriate for the modern world?
Germany did not reject the man simply because he believed the Koran is the literal word of God. First he was rejected because he refused to shake the agent’s hand, after which the agency assumed he was insincere about his commitment to the constitution’s provisions relating to equality. In a lawsuit the court asked him about specific provisions of the Quran, and the court decided that he was unwilling to distance himself from interpretations that contradict the “liberal democratic basic order” that all naturalized citizens must take an oath to uphold (a term of art in German constitutional law).
~Max
Do Southern Baptists eat shrimp? (they do) However if you asked them about it, they would say those Old Testament laws don’t apply today. They are still referred to as Fundamentalists (I believe they are the people most folks think about when thinking of term fundamentalist)
The questions he was asked, which Germany used as a justification - because they said it wasn’t just about the hand shake - required him to disavow literal interpretations of the Koran. Which he answered by saying they don’t apply in Germany. As @Melbourne indicated in Post #56, he said in Germany he’ll act according to German law, but would not explicitly reject the Koranic text.
I have a feeling that the German authorities wouldn’t ask say our Southern Baptist friend to disavow Biblical provisions that contradict the liberal democratic basic order. Or a Catholic friend - both traditions who believe LGBTQ people should not be married (even though the Pope now indicates civil unions may be ok).
Let’s look at the questions, shall we?
The court asked whether he thinks Sharia law should be introduced in Germany. The doctor responded that it should not be introduced because the majority in Germany is not Muslim. The court notes that he declined to offer his personal opinion as to whether Sharia law should be introduced into Germany. The court also asserted that Sharia law is incompatible with the liberal democratic basic order.
The court asked his interpretation of provisions that sometimes are interpreted as meaning men are superior to women (4:34 and 2:2228). He responded that before God, men and women are equal. Apparently his response did not convince the court that he was committed to the equality provisions of the German constitution - they saw his followup responses to questions from his legal counsel as “lip service” (that no person should be discriminated on the basis of gender).
The court asked him about whether the children should always go to the man after a divorce (as in Islamic marriage law). The doctor responded by saying the child should have contact with both parents, but that the father should clearly receive custody. The court found that repugnant to the German constitution.
The court asked about inheritance law and whether female heirs should receive half of what is given to male heirs (as is apparently the case in Islamic law). The doctor responded that male heirs ought to share their inheritance when a sister is in need, while female heirs ought to keep the money. The court was looking for a clear ‘no, gender discrimination is contrary to the liberal democratic basic order’.
The court asked about his opinions on Sharia punishment for adultery and fornication (100 lashes according to 24:2-3). The doctor responded that God is merciful and that couples should discuss this together.
The court asked about his opinions on Sharia punishment for serious theft (amputation of the hand and, in repeat cases, foot). He responded that Sharia law did not apply in Germany - mind you, he refused to provide his personal opinion of Sharia law.
The court asked how the doctor felt about the Prophet allegedly consummating his marriage to his third wife when she was nine years old. He responded that there are girls in certain countries who are more mature than, for example, in Norway. The court took this as evidence that the doctor was okay with child marriage (and statutory rape), which is, as the court puts it, universally incompatible with human rights.
The court asked whether cartoons of the Prophet should be shown in Germany. The doctor responded that insulting other religions should be avoided because it is not good for national unity among religions. The court was unimpressed by this equivocal response.
Now, I’m not going to say the court of Germany asked the best questions. There might have been a language barrier, too.
But I don’t see the court anywhere asking him to reject the text of the Quran.
~Max
The parentheticals refer to Suras in the Koran. Sharia is made up of principles in the Koran and Hadith. So his answers being in middle allowed him to say that they were not relevant in Germany without rejecting parts of the Koran.
These don’t have to do with the Koran, but do you think any Muslim would a) say negative things about the Prophet? or b) think it was appropriate to show cartoons when its been a major no no in the faith for centuries?