gum,
I know all about that and about other such lunatics. What they write is of course available, yet it has no meaning other then that it is what they write.
You must deliver proof that they are official representatives for Islam and that what they write is what Islam teaches.
Salaam.A
The “raving idiot”, as you put it, represents himself as a cleric; that is, one who has pursued religious studies, guides people in worship and offers himself as an official interpreter of Islam for other adherants. If you disagree with this definition of a cleric, that’s fine; please supply your own more correct definition. Here is your chance to fight ignorance for once, rather than hurl your usual insults: please describe the role of an Islamic cleric for those of us who, in your view, misunderstand.
While you are at it, as I’m sure you know, most major Christian denominations have a hierarchy of high level that determines how issues of doctrine are dealt with by individual ministers. What you seem to be implying here is that there is no such hierarchy within Islam: in other words, that the words of any particular cleric on a religious issue have equal weight. In the case of the Dutch Imam, and assuming what he is saying is an incorrect interpretation of Islamic principles, who decides that this is so? Do other clerics speak out against him? Is there a committee that issues some sort of ruling that says he is incorrect?
I believe, in a word, what Alde would call the “raving idiot” an “imposter” - one who makes false claims to represent an ideology and spreads his political agenda under that guise.
First sentence of second para should read:
Aldebaran, [umm, mods: Am I allowed to remark Alde’s post, isn’t very intelligent? ]
Proof? An Imam is selling those books. An Imam is ** teaching that to young kids** You wanna say there’s no such person as Imam El Shershaby of the Amsterdam mosque, El Tawheed?
You wanna say the whole government of the Netherlands is hallucinating?
You want me to ask the Imam to write you a letter? In a language you’ve studied?
Originally posted by ** Zagadka**
Believe what you like. Fact is: That Imam teaches hundreds of kids the islam.
He teaches them to throw homosexuals head first off high buildings. If not killed on hitting the ground, they should then be stoned to death.
I get that part. What I am asking is, is there any scholarly or doctrinal body within islam that has authority to identify the Imam as (in their view) an imposter?
[El_Kablong** The extremists Imams are organized in the Islamic Ahl-Soennah
Committee for Europe Foundation in AmsterdamThey don’t think he’s an imposter.
I think that the quibble is directed at the (straw)issue of the extent to which THIS muslim may be said to stand for ISLAM.
I would offer (tentatively) the following:
Altho there is no central authority, the comingling of state and mosque must result, at least on a national level, in some recognized repository of “orthodoxy”, if only as that is reflected by state financial support of the particular institution (school, mosque, etc.)
In Iran, of course, it is formalized as the council of guardians.
Do not the muslims of holland have any proto-clerical association that would, in the “happy” event of the arrival of an Dutch Islamic Republic morph into a national organized body?
And the KKK advocates hanging blacks from trees. Doesn’t mean they represent Christianity.
posted by Zagadka
That’s by far the most bizarre thing I’ve heard. There’s a difference between advocating and teaching. The KKK doesn’t teach young children in authorised governmental institutes, do they?
posted by** alaricthegoth**
It is a straw issue. THAT muslim is an IMAM. He teaches the ISLAM. Legally.
No-one in the council of guardians in Iran has denounced him. He’s here. And thanks to our freedom of religion, he’ll stay here and teach children to become murderers.
Not openly, anymore, but not so long ago, there existed a status in many states where KKK members basically ran local government AND churches. But hte last time I checked, the US gov’t doesn’t teach young children ANY religion in “authorized governmental institutes”
There are large differences between Muslim and Christian clerics. There is no set hierarchy (the word itself means an order of priests) in Islam; that is, there is no ‘pope’, ‘bishops’ etc, but merely local clerics who have only the following they can gain with their own words and their own piousness. There is no organised church and no notion that religious law can emanate from anything other than God’s words, as interpreted by religious scholars (as opposed to divinely-inspired but specifically human-created dogma in some Christian churches).
Thus, a Muslim cleric might only be superior to another in that he is more respected, and thus his interpretation of divine law is more respected. There is no committee that can overrule him, though a committee of other clerics might be seen to be more learned and respectable, and thus more authoritative. Think of it like academia - there isn’t an international committee of academics in, say, music, which can formally overrule a professor of music. All they can do is argue that his analysis of Brahms’ Lullaby is not good, and present their own case.
This only goes for mainstream Sunni Muslims. The Shi’a have somewhat of a hierarchy, as do some smaller sects.
I’m off to bed. It’s nearly 2:00.
I hope you’re not too much in shock, due to the fact that a left-winger is refusing to kiss ass with fundamentalistic Imams who teach hate.
Goodnight.
Zagadka: Very lame.
The Pit is 3 doors down the hall, on the right. We try to respond with actual “thinking” here.
Aldebaran:
Never said it was. Hatred and violence are natural human conditions that can be led to by exessive strictness in enforcing the precepts of just about any ideological dogma. I would say that one characteristic of fundamentalism is the emphasis on the negative aspects of the dogma–strictness in personal morality, disagreeing with science, making enemies of liberals, etc.
Can you blame me?
Most fundamentalist Muslims and most fundamentalist Christians are anti-gay. Only a small percentage of either are extremist enough to become terrorists. The phenomena called “religious fundamentalism” that we’re analyzing is fairly complex but there *are * common threads.
Right, that’s pretty much what I was curious about, and thanks for the explanation. In any event, while I’ve known enough muslims to understand that the views of the referenced Dutch Imam are not exactly mainstream, there is still a dilemma here: the Imam, and presumably some followers, apparently personally believe they are following the tenets of Islam. Who can say they are not? I see no particular reason to accept Aldebaran’s statement that they are not Islamic at all as factual, as this is merely his personal interpretation, not necessarily the judgement of any generally accepted doctrinal authority or even a majority of other adherants.
The same, I think, can be said of terrorists who have claimed to be carrying out their acts based on their interpretations of religious principles. Probably not bin Laden, for example, since he apparently is not in fact a cleric, but my understanding is that some (few maybe, but some) clerics support his organization.
Please note that I am not by any means saying, as some seem to have said here, that all muslims are responsible for the acts of these few, nor that there is something inherently “wrong” with Islam (other than that it is a religion, and blind obedience to illogical religious rules is silly in my view); just that the assertion that these people are “not Islamic” is pretty much meaningless. They think they are Islamic, their followers think they are Islamic, there’s no accepted authority to say otherwise, so hey, they’re Islamic.
What are they, then? I don’t see them rewriting a religion so much as ignoring some parts and playing up others.
I’m taking their word for it. What would you call the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the government in Saudi Arabia if not fundamentalist Islam?
The problem is that I don’t see a total rewriting of Islam here, and I don’t think Islam is completely separable from their goals. And if you actually did accept some of the basic teachings of Hinduism and argued in favor of a strict, literal interpretation of Hindu scripture, yes, you could probably be called a fundamentalist.
There is a preacher, who teaches young christians. He sells tapes in his church. Tapes like “Intolerance of, Discrimination Against and the Death Penalty for Homosexuals is prescribed in the Bible”
Don’t tell me that idiot has no influence. He teaches young kids, fer crying out loud. (Don’t forget, Sunday School is at 9:30 every Sunday morning).
Yes, this is in America. No, the government has not closed his church. His name is Pete Peters, and he arguably has a much broader audience nationwide than the Imam above. He’s been on syndicated radio, the cover of magazines, and even has an outreach program. Oh, he’s also an asshole, and doesn’t speak for most, or even many, christians. With that said, he’s also far from the only example in this country.