Well, ummmm, I think the injunction against infanticide is certainly meritorious.
Also the command to care for widows and orphans. And giving alms to the poor. (Unless, of course, you’re a hard-core supply-sider who believes giving handouts is “immoral.”)
Say, Kalt, exactly how much of the Bible and the Koran did you say had read, anyway?
You know, with all your sweeping statements, your pigeonholing and your absolute certainty, you would be a good candidate to join a fundamentalist religion yourself.
The Qu’ran is NOT the only thing that Islam is made up of. Take a look at the life of its founder. Muhammad frequently killed opposition, and before the new religion was such an important regional force he killed to protect his business interests as a trader anyway. And if you look at Islam’s other authority, the Hadith, you will find frequent recommendations to kill unbelievers, and especially Jews.
UnoMundo, even though you claim that the Hadith had made “recommendations to kill unbelievers, and especially Jews”, did you know that -
non-Muslims had to pay higher taxes, and so the financial systems of many past Muslim empires were also dependent, to varying degrees, of these higher taxes? It was not to their advantage if more people converted.
Many Muslim rulers had employed non-Muslims as advisors instead of putting them to the axe? The Mughal emperors who really brought their empire to the peak were those who did not kill non-Muslims but relied on their advice in running the country.
The Arab-Israeli conflict was really quite a non-issue before the 20th century? Back then, without Israel, without the influx of Jews, there were no grounds for any major source of conflict.
Today’s Southeast Asian Muslims weren’t converted by sword but by trade? The Malacca Sultanate led the first wave of conversion when the Sultan married a Muslim princess in a bid to improve trading and commerce between the Middle East and his country.
Anyway, I remember Kalt saying that it’s silly for Muslims to wash their hands before praying, praying 5 times a day. But isn’t this kind of claim the same as saying that it’s silly for Buddhist monks to avoid eating meat and believe the Four Noble Truths, or it’s simply ridiculous for Christians to deny Christ as the son of God?
I think many Dopers are overwhelmed by the fact that most of the terrorists are committing misdeeds in the name of Islam. Many of us fail to also realise that there are also other terrorists that are committing crimes for other purposes or in the name of religion. For example:
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – its suicide bombers had targeted many Sri Lankan Sinhalese and even Tamil politicians. Is anyone going to claim that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the Tamils as a people, or something fundamentally wrong with Hinduism, which is the religion for most Sri Lankan Tamils?
Irish Republican Army – Is there something wrong with the Catholic society in which these terrorists were brought up in? Should we all try to avoid the Irish because they are Irish?
UnoMundo, even though you claim that the Hadith had made “recommendations to kill unbelievers, and especially Jews”, did you know that -
non-Muslims had to pay higher taxes, and so the financial systems of many past Muslim empires were also dependent, to varying degrees, of these higher taxes? It was not to their advantage if more people converted.
Many Muslim rulers had employed non-Muslims as advisors instead of putting them to the axe? The Mughal emperors who really brought their empire to the peak were those who did not kill non-Muslims but relied on their advice in running the country.
The Arab-Israeli conflict was really quite a non-issue before the 20th century? Back then, without Israel, without the influx of Jews, there were no grounds for any major source of conflict.
Today’s Southeast Asian Muslims weren’t converted by sword but by trade? The Malacca Sultanate led the first wave of conversion when the Sultan married a Muslim princess in a bid to improve trading and commerce between the Middle East and his country.
Anyway, I remember Kalt saying that it’s silly for Muslims to wash their hands before praying, praying 5 times a day. But isn’t this kind of claim the same as saying that it’s silly for Buddhist monks to avoid eating meat and believe the Four Noble Truths, or it’s simply ridiculous for Christians to deny Christ as the son of God?
I think many Dopers are overwhelmed by the fact that most of the terrorists are committing misdeeds in the name of Islam. Many of us fail to also realise that there are also other terrorists that are committing crimes for other purposes or in the name of religion. For example:
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – its suicide bombers had targeted many Sri Lankan Sinhalese and even Tamil politicians. Is anyone going to claim that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the Tamils as a people, or something fundamentally wrong with Hinduism, which is the religion for most Sri Lankan Tamils?
Irish Republican Army – Is there something wrong with the Catholic society in which these terrorists were brought up in? Should we all try to avoid the Irish because they are Irish?
UnoMundo, even though you claim that the Hadith had made “recommendations to kill unbelievers, and especially Jews”, did you know that -
non-Muslims had to pay higher taxes, and so the financial systems of many past Muslim empires were also dependent, to varying degrees, of these higher taxes? It was not to their advantage if more people converted.
Many Muslim rulers had employed non-Muslims as advisors instead of putting them to the axe? The Mughal emperors who really brought their empire to the peak were those who did not kill non-Muslims but relied on their advice in running the country.
The Arab-Israeli conflict was really quite a non-issue before the 20th century? Back then, without Israel, without the influx of Jews, there were no grounds for any major source of conflict.
Today’s Southeast Asian Muslims weren’t converted by sword but by trade? The Malacca Sultanate led the first wave of conversion when the Sultan married a Muslim princess in a bid to improve trading and commerce between the Middle East and his country.
Anyway, I remember Kalt saying that it’s silly for Muslims to wash their hands before praying, praying 5 times a day. But isn’t this kind of claim the same as saying that it’s silly for Buddhist monks to avoid eating meat and believe the Four Noble Truths, or it’s simply ridiculous for Christians to deny Christ as the son of God?
I think many Dopers are overwhelmed by the fact that most of the terrorists are committing misdeeds in the name of Islam. Many of us fail to also realise that there are also other terrorists that are committing crimes for other purposes or in the name of religion. For example:
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – its suicide bombers had targeted many Sri Lankan Sinhalese and even Tamil politicians. Is anyone going to claim that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the Tamils as a people, or something fundamentally wrong with Hinduism, which is the religion for most Sri Lankan Tamils?
Irish Republican Army – Is there something wrong with the Catholic society in which these terrorists were brought up in? Should we all try to avoid the Irish because they are Irish?
True, Hadith of various forms, tradition, and commentary also make up the body of theological thought, as in Xianity it is wide and often self-contradictory
Oh really now? Upon what learning do you base these statements, for they rather contradict the judgements of such major scholars as Bernard Lewis, as in his delightful little work, The Jews of Islam.
JThunder, the problem with the word “atheism” or “atheist” is that an “-ist” is someone actively doing something, and an “-ism” is something in and of itself. The only reason these words exist is because such a vast majority of the population is comprised of believers. They need a word to describe the minority. I don’t actively believe something, I just choose not to believe in what you believe in. If you ask me if I want to play a game of checkers with you and I decline, I have not gone off to start my own game, i just declined to play yours. If you want to label those who don’t follow your beliefs as some form of -ist that’s just fine, but don’t get confused by the semantics. I’m a non-believer.
“why must “true” Muslims or Christians only ascribe to the percieved negative aspects of their respective texts? Why not the good?”
They don’t. They should subscribe to both; however, when incompatible, the specific calls for violence have to supercede the general calls for kindness. If you’ll note, in all religious texts, all calls for violence are very specific (i.e. “kill the virgins when they’re raped” or “stone the children five times when they are disobedient”), whereas the nice-sounding stuff is very general (i.e. “be good to your neighbor”). As a rule of logic and statutory construction, the general stuff controls except where there are specific, express exceptions. Thus, religious people have to be good except when god wants them to be bad (to put it bluntly).
It’s from a Saudi textbook referenced here Frontline isn’t exactly a crackpot source.
This quotation from the Hadith can also be found at this site, which is a mainstream Islam missionary site, so it can be assumed that mainstream Islam approves the slaughter of Jews necessary for Muslim victory in the endtimes.
Wonderful Spanky. You’ve cited a Saudi textbook. It is rather uncontroversial that Saudi texts represent the worst fringe of the Wahhabi movement, and are hyper-xenophobic, so this is a bit of a red herring if we are attempting to characterize Islam in gross. I direct you to your statement “frequent” and your attempt to characterize this as a preponderant stream of Islamic thought.
Now, given the tendency here for the sub-literate, the blind and the otherwise dense to mischaracterize or otherwise distort statements on such subjects, let me rush to note in advance that the following comments include the cavaet that none of the following presumes to make the argument Islam is by its nature fundamentally better (or worse) in actual practice than other religions as a matter of theological referance.
First, please in the future refrain from citing to news organizations on matters theological, we should be rather relying on something rather better informed, shall we not? It might have the novelty value of actually interjecting something approaching information, as opposed to hysterical reaction, bigotry and downright ignorant prejudice into discussions of Islamic things. I personally prefer actual scholarship by established scholars as a point of reference.
Second, let us think a moment about the following:
I find such assertions… amusing. Ignorant, unlearned and a number of other terms I shall refrain from in the dim hope that this might be useful.
Primo: upon what basis do you conclude the site is “mainstream”? What learning regarding Islam and actual practice, modern and historical allows you to form an informed judgement (the key phrase here for the literate, the attentive and perhaps others is “informed judgement”) on this?
Secundo: How, on the basis of one site, whose provenance you do not know, and on the basis of what is cleary little if any at all substantive learning on Islam, do you draw the sweeping conclusion that “mainstream Islam” approves the slaughter of Jews - never mind the bizarre “end times” connexion.
But wait, don’t answer - although I am sure your answers will entertain me immensely, almost as much as they will cause a headache.
First, let me suggest that one has to know the political language of Islam and the historical and contemporary terminology that is applied by various groups in order to make a judgement. It is rather trivially simple to conclude you have not the slightest clue in this regard, as I will illustrate in a moment. To be helpful, I will suggest you read Bernard Lewis’ Political Language of Islam for a fair, thorough but understandable introduction for someone approaching a normal level of literacy. For others, I make no representations, but even the subliterate should be able to make their way through it.
Very well: two items suggest who these guys are:
First, they are Salafine (Islamists), and not only Salafi, they’re pretty hard core behind their sugary words.
(a) Their accusation of Kufr, the strongest thing you can say in Islam is wide and includes all Shi’ites. Not merely mistaken, they are Kufaar, unbelievers. If you think this is “normal” take note that they have a page defending to fellow Muslims http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/Dialogue.htm The same with Sufi turuq, although they pretend not to be too sweeping, but they appear to include just about any Sufi of any importance. These guys make the appearance of adopting reasonable tone, they are not. http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/main.htm http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/jamees.htm - the sin of not being the right kind of Salafi, being supported by the corrupt Saudis… (corrupt is hard to argue with one has to admit, but one has to read, and if only for the sheer outrageousness of it, understand the context.)
(b) Their list of “mistaken” Muslims who they do not quite accuse of Kufr is also fairly extensive and includes, it would appear, just about anyone who’s not their kind of Salafi.
Their Arabic pages have a similar tone, but don’t refer very politely to the Shi’ites, indeed they have some pretty insulting “dialogues” in Arabic.
Enough of that.
As to the Mahdi, millenialism is not a standard feature of Islam, one can hardly call a millenialist article “mainstream” - indeed the end of the world scenario with killing the Jews blah blah stinks to high heaven, to use a phrase ironically, of the more extreme end of the Salafi folks - more like Bin Laden’s desire to bring a final conflict than anything else.
Now, I am going to make a suggestion since I really don’t have time to correct the unplumbed depths of your prejudices and ignorance on this matter. My suggestion is that you read a balanced and critical scholar like Bernard Lewis, who I am pimping here since his works are so easily accessible. You can from such works as The Jews of Islam obtain a historically informed, critical evaluation of the very question you have ignorantly fumbled around with. It may spare you citing to me in such a bumbling ignorant fashion a Salafiste website, and at the very least I entertain the entirely fantastical hope that you will not waste my time with some fumblingly moronic, ignorant and elementary errors that could easily be avoided by any moderately literate person by actually obtaining some learning in this area.
Well, I haven’t quite managed to read through my copy yet, but the Nov./Dec. issue of Foreign Policy has what looks to be an interesting essay on the subject of Islamic education:
“Islam’s Medieval Outposts: The global spread of Islamic seminaries and their role in recruiting terrorists have cast their medievalist teachings in a new and dangerous light. A madrasa graduate takes a firsthand look at how they’ve changed and why fiddling with their curriculum is less important than opening students minds.” (by Husain Haqqani)
Haven’t made it through the whole issue yet, but the first page has an editorial on the current administration’s new national security strategy:
“Today, critics of President George Bush’s recently published national security strategy suggest the White House has embraced a messianic mission for the United States. Possesing ‘unprecedented - and unequalled - strength and influence in the world,’ the report notes, the ‘great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.’ Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis applauds the scope of Bush’s vision but detects a notable flaw: Its success presumes the rest of the world will welcome U.S.power with open arms. As always, we welcome your feedback at www.foreignpolicy.com.”
To any of you who have not lived abroad (a two-week Eurail tour is helpful, but doesn’t count for this purpose), please keep in mind how the rest of the world will perceive Americans, on an individual and a collective level, when we throw our weight around like this, especially in situations where the people making the decisions have not a clue about the nature and depth of the forces at work where they’re getting involved. It’s not conducive either to peace or to good diplomacy.
[hijack] And to any Chicago-area Dopers: there’s an interesting-looking event at the Chicago Humanities Festival: Nov. 9, “International Journalists Panel: Ourselves As Others See Us.” More info at www.ccfr.org. There’s also a lecture on U.S> involvement in Iraq on 11/12. Hope to see some of you there. [/hijack]
Toast (W-80’s or better) the whole Islamic bunch. I work for one; he’s never once made any sort of apology/explanation/theory for 9/11 (and later) actions “his” little pack of loonies have perpetrated on the world.
I was raised Baptist and married a Lutheran (well, they play tennis and like beer), but I am sick and tired of the “let’s- make-peace-with-the-most-blood-thirsty-bastards-the-planet has-ever-bumped-into” crowd.
It’s time to shut this troup of hyenas down. Crusade? Well, I don’t know if that’s the correct path…but, somehow the Black Flag commercials of yore come to mind; it’s time to put up or shut up. What side of the fence do you go to?
Please tell me I’m misunderstanding you and that you really don’t support the extermination of a billion people who have nothing really in common except some shared identification as “Muslim”.
