I’m on ICQ - number’s in my profile, else email me, address is also in the profile. I’m happy to help, what with me being on my third non-Muslim boyfriend. 
Actually, my reason for bringing Irshad Manji into the discussion was to point out that she says that the Muslims who blame the Jews for everything, and espouse “extremist” views are in the majority, not minority.
Manji claims that these are symptoms of a cultural climate that is extremely oppressive, politically and intellectually. Manji says that extremist attitudes are flourishing because the very nature of Islam, as it is practiced right now, is unquestioning and “perfect”. Muslims are taught that the Koran is perfect, Islam is perfect, and there need be no inquiry, independent thought, or introspection.
It was not always this way. Way back when, when Islam was spreading along trade routes throughout Europe, an intellectual tradition called ijtihad was practiced among Muslims. It was the opposite of “infallibile” Islam: it encouraged debate and intellectual inquiry. As the Islamic empire grew, though, it began to splinter. Religious and polictical leaders, seeing the splintering, panicked and issued religious edicts to stamp out ijtihad. This was meant to be a temporary measure to unite the Islamic Empire, to strengthen it against the possibility of crumbling. Unfortunately, ijtihad was never revived.
But they’re not. Trust me, I’m a Muslim. Albeit a very liberal and moderate one, but I do know lots of Muslims who aren’t as liberal as I am, and they do not espouse such views.
It still exists. The Ismailis still follow this tradition. Knowledge and learning is seen as the most useful thing ever, and debate is encouraged. The Koran is seen as a guide from Allah, but a guide that must be interpreted according to the times in which one lives.
Yes, Manji said that she had been “accused” of being Ismaili, and added that some Muslims use “Ismaili” as an insult, like some teenaged boys use “gay”.
-
What is this “crusader” crap? Man, the Crusades occurred many centuries ago. If WE got this cranked up over stuff that happened that long ago, we’d be shooting Yankees every time they set foot in Texas with their Winnebagos every September. And don’t even get me started about the Muslim invasion of Spain. Pot calling the kettle, and all that.
-
“Mass conversions to Islam.” I find this disturbing. Could it be that someone’s seriously thinking about invading, and putting all the infidels to the sword? At least, the ones who won’t convert on the spot? Gee… that sounds a lot like a … CRUSADE, now, doesn’t it? Or am I just talking through my hat here?
Thought we might get to this. And I’ll try and explain.
No, Ismailis don’t pray five times a day. Why? Because, the herediary Imam, the Aga Khan, whom Ismailis believe to be their spiritual leader, a direct decendant of the Prophet Muhammad, and occupying the same status as Hazrat `Ali, i.e. authorised by Allah to make judgements on how the faith is practiced, saw it fit to realise that actually, it would interfere greatly in everyday life. And since Ismailis are supposed to keep their material and spiritual lives balanced, skipping meetings etc to go pray is seen as well, putting one above the other. Hence Ismaili prayer times are at dawn, dusk, and nightfall.
No, Ismaili mosques don’t have the Azaan to summon the faithful to pray. Why? Well, for starters, we all have watches. Secondly, the Ismaili mosques are either in residential areas, or, like the Ismaili Centre in London, in central Kensington! You’re going to cause disruption having the Azaan blaring out at 4am in the morning. One of the main rules of Ismailism is that you don’t disrupt your surroundings. Ergo, no Azaan at ridiculous times.
Contrary to popular belief, Ismailis do bow down in prayer. No, Ismailis don’t think that the Aga Khan is Allah on Earth, they do not worship him, nor is he held in some sort of Christ-like position. Ismailis do not believe that they are “above” all other Muslims - to an Ismaili all Muslims are equal. Hell, all people are equal, no matter what their creed.
Unfortunately, those who bandy “Ismaili” around as an insult really have no idea what they’re insulting. A form of Islam that’s liberal, morphs with the times, and whose followers tend to blend into their surroundings. Bump into an Ismaili in the western world, they’ll be in western dress, generally without headscarves. Bump into an Ismaili in Pakistan, they’ll be dressed in traditional salwar kameez, and the women will cover their heads, etc., etc.
I’m not going off on the deep end at you ** kung fu lola**, more the ignoramuses who spread the filth.
Angua, thank you so much for your post. I am very interested in the nuts-and-bolts of Islam. That’s what led me to reading Irshad Manji’s book. Now I’m trying to work out what segment of the Muslim population she speaks for.
For the record, what she had to say about the Ismaili thing was;
From here.
Yeah, she’s got her facts straight about the Ismaili community. If you want to know more, I’d suggest www.ismaili.net - its written by Ismailis, primarily for Ismailis, but there’s a lot of ‘starter’ information there. Also, for a history, go to www.iis.ac.uk, they’ve got a brief history section there. Plus, I’ll try and add as much information as I can, if requested.
Well, they weren’t true Scotsmen… er, I mean Muslims.
Huh? Please. Expand on that.
It’s a reference to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, which goes like this:
“no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”
“But my mate Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge”
“He’s not a Scotsman. No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”
which is the fallacy that someone on the Islamic messageboard seemed to be using re abuse in families and Islam. Although in that case it’s perfectly fair to say that abuse is unIslamic - although not fair to say this means it doesn’t exist in Muslim homes.
Thanks for that Tansu. Wasn’t sure about the point that was trying to be made.
What Tansu said. I would have explained sooner, but I haven’t been online in a few days. There are plenty of other fallacies to be found, I just picked one with good snark potential.
I was taught in my college Intro to Islam class that ijtihad is more a tradition in Shia Islam - taqlid (imitation - the “infallible” school) is more prevalent in Sunni tradition. Of course, the huge majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni, but I was given to understand that the ijtihad/taqlid line wasn’t a chronological one, but the same political line that exists between Sunni and Shia, and that ijtihad is still alive and well in Iran (the major Shia nation).
Perhaps someone else can provide more insight on the topic?
Religion and politics…no danger of that causing friction, as history has shown.
Sounds like they have lot in common with the fundamentalist Christians who go around insisting on Biblical literalism, Biblical infailibility, no need to question the Bible, blah blah blah.
Yeah, and so?
SO, I simply find it amusing that there are so many so-called fundamentalist aka, “fundies” going out and preaching about those evil Muslims, when they’re pretty much saying the same things.
Honestly, I don’t really have much more to add, other than to re-iterate Manji’s point about “Ismaili” being construed as an “insult”.
I remember chatting online with an Ismaili girl. I asked her if she was an Ismaili because something she said tipped me off, and she reacted by giving me a long explanation why Ismailis have the traditions that they do. It was like she automatically went on the defensive; like it’s her “default” position to defend herself as a “real” Muslim “in spite of” the fact that she is Ismaili.
Unfortunately, that is the case. Ismailis are seen as not “real” Muslims by other Muslims, and so, yes, we do immediately go onto the defensive, because, well, its what we’re used to having to do.