Of course, you will need to be able to show both how sexism is absolutely pervasive in all Muslim countries (many of which have had women in government and several of which have had women heads of state) and how it is Islam that separates the disfunctional countries from the better functioning ones.
How much energy and enthuiasm has been sapped by polygynous societies in the past? (This study should include the successful Muslim countries and non-Muslim polygynous societies of earlier centuries and the extremely prosperous territory of Utah that was quite successful before it amended its laws to outlaw polygyny in order to become a state.)
The problem I see with much of the criticism of Muslim society is that it is based on the snapshot effect. We see a particular view of the world at a particular time and attempt to generalize from that perspective. I can recall a lot of talk in the late 1970s about the “superior” European systems of government that included more socialist economic models at a time when Europe was appearing to produce a higher standard of living and more robust economies than the U.S. was. I don’t hear any of that sort of discussion, today. The snapshot was correct in 1979, but it was not a good predictor of events.
However, casting the discussion in deliberately skewed ways promotes ignorance. If you want to suggest an Islamic connection, I suggest that you need to demonstrate how the Muslim countries (all of which suffered from colonialism) are significantly different than the other countries that were subjected to colonialism. The “obvious” connection between Indonesia and the Philipines is colonial rule, not Christianity or Islam. The “obvious” difference between Hong Kong (or Singapore) and Indonesia (or the Philipines) is that the former were city states that were used to develop European trade in Asia while the latter were large lands that were used to supply raw materials to Europe rather than what religions are common in the countries.
If you enter the discussion with a religion filter, you are liable to see all/most issues as religious.
I think colonialism is a pretty poor excuse for a nation to blame its economic problems/exporting terrorism on. South Korea suffered quite badly under Japanese occupation and colonization, and then had a nasty war fought on its soil, yet today it is a wealthy country. And it just isn’t a “snapshot” picture of Islam makes it look bad - Islamic nations have suffered a decline from their peak power well before Europeans began to colonize them; that decline is what allowed the European powers to colonize them in the first place.
You participated in a thread that discussed What went wrong in Arab culture not too long ago. In short, the problem clearly is not Islam, no more than the Inquistion and the Dark Ages were the fault of Christianity. The abuse of religion by some to maintain and achieve power is more of a result than a cause in both cases, an unholy alliance between those who want power for its own sake and those who seek to impose some particular dogma for the sake of dogma. (As a great philosopher once said: “God uses the good ones, and the bad ones use God.” and “Daddy, an angel just got his wings!”)
AOB is back?
Anyway, the general of this op can be stated as “how do you deal with speech that you consider ignorant or hateful from a workplace superior?” How much do you engage? How much do you ignore? Where do you draw a line? Did this cross the line where action was required or desired?
Probably it depends on the person. If you have a respectful relationship with this person you might engage. What does he mean by enlightenment? What does he make out of the heights of Arab culture? How does he draw a difference between those who study an old book in Arabic versus older texts that are the basis of Christianity and Judaism? Does he believe that it is Islam that is is the root cause of violent fundamentalism in Arab lands or other factors. Look at some responses in the linked thread from the likes of Tom, Malthus, and Tamerlane for some ammunition.
Really? Every Islamic culture was in lockstep decline when Europeans showed up with firearms and increasing industrial base to overwhelm them? I’d enjoy seeing some evidence of that. (The Ottoman empire was in decline–and many of the nations that are now having problems were taken from the Turks by the Europeans, but that is hardly the history of the entire sweep of Muslim countries. Many, such as what is now Indonesia, were cut off by European intervention before they could achieve their potential.)
Alterrnatively, we can set our chronometers to about 750 and “prove” that Christianity is directly harmful to the management of nations as it struggled to survive the loss of Egypt and North Africa, Iberia, Palestine, Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East to Islam. We can even say that “Christianity was in decline.” Was this a result of a flaw in Christianty? Or was it the standard ebb and flow of power among nations and empires? Christiandom seems to have recovered without being forcibly “rescued” by the Muslim powers, so why should we presume that the Muslims are in a poor situation that is solely of their own making?
I dare say that if we had invested nearly as much in Afghanistan since 1953 as we have in Korea, the rise of the Taliban would have been much less likely to have occurred. Beyond that, as I noted in the earlier mention of Hong Kong and Singapore, not all colonizations are equal. Korea was an established nation with a solid internal infrastructure before Japan and China began directly interfering in its governance. Korea was a “colony” for a mere 35 years (however brutal much of it was). Many of the Japanese orders actually served to modernize and industrialize the Korean infrastructure (in contrast to the typical European style colonization or Turkish hegemony that tended to disrupt the existing structures or to ignore them in place of simple foreign dictates while using the colonies as mere sources of raw materials).
When there was the recent gunbattle between the Islamists and the Fallujah police the Islamic clerics in town sided with the police, and an “end to the violence.” There are moderating voices throughout Islam. I detect a rising sense that Islamist violence is senseless.
OTOH, there is a well-developed system of madrassas and clerics that do preach jihad the jihardway.
Pakistanis, Afghanis, Phillipino, US, whatever Islamic person might be perfectly reasonable. Thank goodness, I hear there are over a billion of them.
At the same time, though, any hypothesis that ignores the dominant belief system within a culture (especially a belief system as all-encompassing and strict as islam) is, in my view, an incomplete hypothesis.
Please. This is such an old SMDB trick. You make a statement and someone who doesn’t like it rushes in and says, “Prove the sky is blue first! PROVE it!” trying to negate your point by proving something that is generally accepted by everyone but the ideologue(s) in question. I think given the widespread acceptance of the notion that Islamic countries are sexist, YOU should be the one who has to prove that it isn’t. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, after all.
Yeah, but the thing about that social safety net they have in Europe is, even when the economy goes to hell, regular people don’t suffer like they do over here. And when the tide rises, all the boats float.
Of course, another “old SDMB trick” is erecting numerous strawmen to avoid addressing what was actually said. In fact, given the large number of clearly false beliefs regarding what is “true” about Islam. I see no reason to allow a statement that may be in error to be entered as “generally accepted.” Accepted by whom? Jerry Falwell? Ann Coulter? AOB?
Since there are many Mulsim countries in which women serve in government (even at the executive level) and there are a number of Muslim women in business and the sciences, generic claims regarding “Islamic sexism” appears to be the extraordinary claim. There clearly are sexist Islamic societies. A nuanced explanation of where and how sexism is actually operating might be worth discussing. Broad brush claims that are based on “generally accepted” (and unproven) notions held by people ignorant of those societies are not.
I did not insist that you “prove” anything. I asked that if you are going to claim that sexism is endemic to Islam and imply that it has interfered with the development of the Islamic world, you demonstrate that your claim has some basis in reality. Otherwise you are begging the question. We have already had threads that addressed relative positions of women in several (not all) Islamic societies and it was demonstrated that Muslim women throughout the world have far more rights than one would gather by looking at Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Wahabbist Saudi Arabia. (I’m sure that we can demonstrate that Switzerland is the least developed country in Europe, given that it was the last country to permit women to vote, right? And, certainly, Europe and North America wallowed as primitive backwaters until universal suffrage was finally established in the early 20th century.)
There may be some aspect of Islam that has hindered many countries from developing in the 21st century. However, so far I have seen only broad claims that “Islam may” (or “Islam has”) done so (apparently true for all Muslim countries) couched in broad generalizations with a serious lack of historical perspective.
great, ive got a question but i dont want to read all of the side-notes posted below…what is it, in the koran, that causes fundaentalist muslims to kill people? can you site the text and/or location of the quotes that can be interpreted by fundamentalist as a call to arms?
Bahrain
Bahrain is an example of Islam quietly reforming. They have a newly-formed legislature. Iran just took their two steps back. At least there are signs of movement.
I see seeds of democracy over time in Afghanistan and Iraq, if those that got us into the war would be kind enough to fund the necessary reconstructon that we have an ethical and legal duty to undertake. Not good enough? Self-interest then.
Saudi Arabia was (arguably) one of the worst examples of Islamic hostility. If there is real reform in the ideology there, I would argue, there could be real reform in any Islamic nation.
[flog dead horse] Other religions have spawned brutal thugs that terrorize women and children. OTOH, that’s like a magician waving his wand to distract attention from what’s going on right now.
I wish I knew - in my liberal interpretation of the Koran, I cannot find a single passage which says that mass murder, which is what I consider the fundamentalist sucide bombers to be doing, is a good thing. In fact, the taking of a human life, whether that human is Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever, is strictly forbidden.
In the Koran, Muslims are instructed to live in peace with the “People of the Book” - those whose religions have Abrahmic roots - i.e. Judaism and Christianity.
The call to arms, is a relic from the early days of Islam, when there were very real attempts to wipe it out. To protect the faith so to speak. Nowadays, we find ourselves having to defend ourselves against the fundementalists, who would sully the name of a religion, which, in its purest form, advocates peace.
I don’t have any cites on hand, as my copy of the Koran is at home, but this is my liberal understanding.
Although, the quran, like all “holy” books is open to interpretation and it does have an awful lot of verses in it that seem to emphasise kicking infidel butt whenever you get the chance and not taking the infidels as friends and so on.
And the dhimmi concept whereby other religious beliefs are not considered equal to islam doesn’t help.
And I wouldn’t say the call to arms is a relic of early islam really. Jihad (the fighting kind) is just as relevant today as it ever was (when it is required). In a religion of 1 billion people there’s bound to be a few people who think jihad is currently justified - maybe because of US troops in Saudi or western cultural influence in the middle east or whatever. Who knows?
If you really can’t find any justification for violence in the quran then you must be reading a different one to me. And a different one to al Q. In fact, you must be reading a different quran to all the other muslims in the world because my understanding is that jihad is permitted under certain circumstances eg when you are under attack.
Some define it as justified when islam is under attack but who defines when islam is under attack? You? Me? OBL?
And since when have those of the Abrahamic religions been infidels?
Er, last time I checked, the religous beliefs of Christians and Jews are considered equal to Islam, because there’s a common root. I mean, for goodness sake, Muslims even share certain dietary laws with Jews, and Kosher food is just as acceptable as Halal food.
And, yes, I know about the revelation at Ghadir-e-Kuhm, where Allah states that He has “perfected your religion for you, and completed My favour upon you”. However, I cannot see that as evidence for other religions being inferior in some way. We share the same core beliefs - how can it be that someone who believes in the Jewish God or the Christian God be inferior to one who believes in Allah - its the same God after all.
I can’t find any justification whatsoever for killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, regardless of religion.
Jojo:Although, the quran, like all “holy” books is open to interpretation and it does have an awful lot of verses in it that seem to emphasise kicking infidel butt whenever you get the chance and not taking the infidels as friends and so on.
Well, there’s a lot about kicking infidel butt in the Bible too.
And the dhimmi concept whereby other religious beliefs are not considered equal to islam doesn’t help.
Again, there are also plenty of passages in the Bible that have supported long-standing interpretations that Judaism (Jews as the “Chosen People”, other gods being “false”, etc.) or Christianity (“No one comes to the Father except through Me [Jesus]”, etc.) is somehow better or truer than other beliefs.
Now, if we don’t consider that these things make Judaism or Christianity somehow inherently “backwards” or “hostile”, then I fail to see how we can use similar aspects of the Qur’an to draw such conclusions about Islam.
Nope, I’m not trying to distract anyone’s attention away from current problems or to deny that there are any dangers in certain forms of militant extremist Islam. I’m just pointing out that if Judaism and Christianity can be successfully interpreted as “non-backwards” despite some scriptural rhetoric about we’re-number-one and slay-the-infidels (which has indeed sometimes been interpreted in very literal and violent ways), then so can Islam.
OK, but what about those not of the Abrahamic religions (those of no particular religion)? Like me, for instance, and a fair proportion of the other posters to this board. It’s ok to kill them?
Really? Maybe you should check again. For example the quran says:
Can you explain why I, Jojo, should pay a tax to you, Angua, purely on the grounds that you are a different religion to me?
I know, it sounds mad doesn’t it? Do you deny the existance of the dhimmi concept whereby a non-muslims word is worth half that of a muslim in a court of law. Where the building of churches and synagogues is restricted and not allowed at all in Saudi, the holy land (as per, a saying of Mohammed in the hadith).
Maybe you can’t but then you’re not about to join al Qaida anytime soon but obviously some people do find justification in the quran. Since some people do find justification that means that justification can be found.
Kimstu,
The bible isn’t the quran. The quran is God speaking directly to us in the first person. It’s much more in your face. And in any case, are you saying that:
“No one comes to the Father except through Me”
is on a par with, for example:
“Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.” 9:39
Jojo:The bible isn’t the quran. The quran is God speaking directly to us in the first person. It’s much more in your face.
Sounds like a pretty feeble rationalization to me: the Bible is also held, by those who believe it, to be entirely the divinely inspired Word of God, and contains many alleged direct quotes from God, including some we’re-number-one and slay-the-infidels rhetoric.
*And in any case, are you saying that:
“No one comes to the Father except through Me”
is on a par with, for example:
“Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.” 9:39*
You’re comparing some we’re-number-one rhetoric of the Bible with some slay-the-infidels rhetoric of the Qur’an: apples and oranges. A more appropriate comparison with your second quote would be “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
Nope, I see no fundamental, inherent difference between examples of such rhetoric in Christianity and Islam. Both can be (and often have been) interpreted symbolically to mean something other than actual violence against unbelievers; both can be (and often have been) interpreted very literally in order to justify such violence.
Er, no. The killing of anyone is forbidden. Its in the Koran.
[QUOTE=JojoCan you explain why I, Jojo, should pay a tax to you, Angua, purely on the grounds that you are a different religion to me?[/QUOTE]
No, I can’t. Sorry.
It was a Hadith was it? Or an interpretation of the Hadith? From the history I’ve read (and believe me, I’ve read a lot - I used to teach Islamic history at my local mosque), the Prophet was tolerant of all monotheistic religions…
Yeah, and because some people can find a justification for racism, etc etc, does that mean that that justification is right? No.
The quote you gave made it look like I was the one who gave the example of “Jews as chosen people”. That wasn’t me, it was kimstu. Unlike kimstu, I know what the “jews as chosen people” thing means and I’m not sure you’ve got it quite right.
What it means is that the jews have a number of obligations placed upon them by God (I think there’s about 95 of them) and jews have to obey all of these if they are to reach heaven. Non-jews don’t have to obey all these obligations and can enter heaven anyway. In other words jews are held to a higher standard then non-jews. This is the sense in which they are “chosen”.
Angua,
No, the killing of anyone is not forbidden. Killing is permitted under certain circumstances eg judicial killing, self-defence, wartime (jihad).
What a strange response. I admit you caught me off guard with that one.
Do you mean you can’t tell me because it’s a secret or do you mean you can’t tell me because you don’t know or do you mean you can’t tell me because it was ordained by God and you don’t know why God chooses to do things?
Islam wants me to pay you a tax for no other reason than you are a muslim and I’m not. Well, sorry, if I’m going to pay you a tax and thereby “feel myself humiliated” you’re gonna have to come up with a better reason than “my holy book says you have to”.
Religious discrimination leads to war and terrorism - look at Northern Ireland.
Apart from when he was slaughtering neighbouring jewish tribes and local arab pagans but that’s another thread.
As regards the hadith, It was, I believe, the last thing Mohammed ever said. He uttered these words on his deathbed:
Let not two religions exist in Arabia
It was, I believe, on the strength of this that the jews were expelled from Arabia and it is still a muslim belief today. It’s not just a case of those whacky wahabbi up to their old tricks again. I think it may be part of the reason why non-muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina.
This hadith ties in with a verse from the quran which says:
“He it is Who has sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the polytheists may dislike it.”
and this:
‘O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily Allah guides not the unjust people.’…5:52
Incidentally, why aren’t non-muslims allowed to enter Mecca and Medina? I don’t really care since I have no intention of ever going there anyway and it’s their country so they can do what they want. But it does appear to indicate that I may, in some way, taint the soil by bringing my disbelieving ass down there.
Likewise, non-muslims are not allowed to touch a muslim’s prayer mat for fear of tainting it. Again, I don’t really care, but what makes you think that y’all are so all high-faluting important?
On the subject of hadith, some of them are quite funny:
"Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, “Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him.”
Uh yeah, sure thing Mo.
"Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 86:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Allah does not accept prayer of anyone of you if he does Hadath (passes wind) till he performs the ablution (anew).”
No but they’re not basing their racism on an actual book which we can all point to. Terrorists *are]/i] basing their beliefs on an actual book.
Kimstu said:
Well, I think comparing the quran with the bible at all is a case of apples and oranges.
Likewise comparing islam with christianity is apples and oranges. They are different ideologies - it’s like comparing communism with democracy. They are both ideologies but the comparison ends there.
Bear in mind also that I’m not addressing the OP about people who follow the quran are backward, I’m addressing the question that was asked earlier about people being able to find things in the quran that justify violence and terrorism.
Far as I can see there’s tons of stuff in the quran and hadith that can justify jihad. In fact both quran and hadith pretty much bang on endlessly about the subject.
