Ah yes, that old chestnut, popularised by those who didn’t exactly like Ismailism.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but that’s just not within the Ismaili ethos…
The Isma’ilis of the ninth century were active missionaries and political organizers. While the Shi’a of Baghdad maintained their positions in 'Abbasid society and government, Isma’ilis set out to proselytize tribal and peasant people peoples in Arabia, Syria, Iraq, North Africa, and in the towns of Iran, preaching equality and justice, the need for reform and the coming of the mahdi. Isma’ili da’is converted new peoples to their version of Islam and led extensive rebellions against the 'Abbasid Caliphate. Isma’ili dynasties were founded in North Africa, the Caspian region, Bahrain, Multan, and other places. While Imami Shi’ism was politically quietist, Isma’ili Shi’ism carried the banner of revolution.
Bolding added.
From A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus ( 1988, Cambridge University Press )
Anyway, less I was misunderstood, I wasn’t comparing 9th-13th century Isma’ilism to, say, Osama bin Laden. Even the Nizari sect ( the so-called “Assassins” ) tended to get along well enough with their immediate, non-government Sunni neighbors.
But from the 9th century until at least the sack of Alamut, Isma’ilism was at the forefront of militant, armed Shi’ism, even more so than the Zaydis. In an odd way modern Imami and Isma’ili Shi’ism are somewhat flip-flopped relative to their medieval positions. The Fatimids are one very good example of Isma’ili militantism. The medieval Nizaris are another. Or the Qaramita ( Qarmatians ), who, in addition to attacking Basra and Kufa, raided the length and breadth of Arabia, sacking Mecca and Medina and carrying off the Ka’ba in 930 to their capital al-Ahsa ( later returned of course, through Fatimid mediation, I believe ).
- Tamerlane
OK. Just checking. Yes, I know of that part of Ismaili history, no it wasn’t pretty, but then medieval Imami Islam wasn’t all sweet and innoccent.
The Fatimids were huge empire builders, and yes they were rather militaristic. However, from what I can recall, Alamut was a refuge once the Fatimid Empire began to disintegrate, and the Imams weren’t so much vying for “empire” per say, but just to protect themselves.
Tamerlane,
“As a whole” I meant looking from the outside. Of course, looking from the outside Christianity can be perceived “as a whole”. Perhaps better description is in order.
I think the major division in Islam (Sunni/Shia) can be compared with Catholic/Orthodox division of Christianity. I am aware that there are many schisms inside Islam, just like inside Christianity. Those division and schisms have nothing to do with the Reformation, which was a uniquely European event: not by its origins, which were typically conservative and dogmatic, but by its political and social consequences.
The Reformation forever destabilized the Church in the West and created a fissure in Christian world, through which all sorts and creative and destructive energies keep on bursting forth. The Reformation signaled the death of Christian “harmony” and the birth of individual freedoms, democratic politics and free-market economics. Nothing like that has ever happened in Islamic world.
Islam continues to maintain its grip on power. Even in Iraq, where government was secular and influential Islamic clerics were persecuted, Islam remained as a real power in the background: every time Saddam needed popular support he would pretend to be a good Muslim and made concessions to Islam. This is in no wise to be compared with Bush’s religious pronouncements, which attract open scorn and ridicule from at least half of US public. The major point is that religion in the West is always suspect, uncertain, unstable, forced to compete for public attention, doesn’t automatically command respect and is denied all means of coercion. Situation in Islamic countries is completely opposite. Therein lies the major difference.
As an aside, many well-meaning people in the West are advocating Islamic reformation as a sure cure, hoping it will quickly modernize Islamic societies and make them just like other liberal and democratic systems in the West. Those good people are deluded; they need to learn how terrible the real European reformation was like, how uncertain was its future and how long it took to bring about any positive results.
collounsbury,
sigh…here we all are again, inside another islam thread. It brings a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye. We should all get together and sit round an open fire toasting marshmellows and chewing the cud until the sun rises.
Anyway, back to business…
Do you then deny the existence of the dhimmi concept? It seems to me that (according to Islam) there are three levels. At the top you have muslims, next you have “people of the book” (christians, jews and hindus) below them you have the athiests and other religions.
All non-muslims must pay a “humiliation tax” to muslims. This humiliation tax is supposed to symbolise the idea that the other religions are recognising the fact of Islam’s superiority over them.
Far as I’m aware, “people of the book” get three choices - convert, die or pay the tax. People who aren’t muslim or “people of the book” don’t even get that third choice.
You say that courts in muslim countries no longer consider the word of a non-muslim to be half that of a muslim. I’ll take your word for it. However, is it not true that this is part of sharia?
So countries that introduce sharia elements (like Nigeria or Pakistan for example) are heading towards reintroducing this concept.
Other silly sharia rules:
-
cutting off the hands of a thief - what if he turns out to be innocent?
-
stoning adulterous women - yeah right
-
is it not the case that for a muslim man to divorce his wife he just needs to say “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” and then he can can up sticks and leave. Doesn’t matter if there are kids or whatever.
I know that Christianity has had dodgy practices in the past but then Christianity is a load of crap as well. But in any case this argument doesn’t hold up because xtianity and islam are two different religions, you can’t compare them really.
Just because certain things have happened in xtian history doesn’t mean that the same things will happen in islam. They have different ideologies. In islam the koran is God speaking directly to us in the first person. Islam is much less amenable to change than xtianity - it can change but not by much.
In any case I think people are missing the whole point. People always talk about clashes of civilisations and whatnot. They talk about what will win in the end - christianity, islam, some other religion.
They talk about clashes between political systems - communism, democracy. They talk about clashes between different economic systems.
Everybody is missing the point. The thing that will “win” in the end is among us now but it is silent. It is present in many countries around the world, both muslim countries and western ones. It is older than religion and more powerful than any religion or any ideology.
It is unstoppable, relentless. It is astoundingly logical yet immensely complex. It is protecting you right now whether you are sitting in a room in Quetta, Pakistan or in a beach house in California. Either way, it is protecting you in exactly the same way.
It has survived everything. New religions have started up around it and yet it just continued unaffected. It is immune to religion. World wars have gone on around it and yet it remained unaffected. It is immune to war.
It is the greatest gift that has ever been given to mankind. Nothing can overcome it.
It’s called English Common Law and it will “win” in the end.
Actually atheist would probably rank rock-bottom in most cases. Your progression is roughly correct, though locally just who belonged to the “Peoples of the Book” was stretched at times.
However this is not drastically different from Chrisianity ( broadly construed and noting exceptions ), who regards any non-Christian as “unsaved” and throughout most of Christian history, inferior. Most religions consider themselves the only true path.
That and commutation of military service ( de facto, as women, children, and non-military age men were already technically exempt from the jizya ). Meanwhile Muslims were also subject to religious poll taxes ( zakat ), that non-Muslims were not. Not an equal system, of course, but the obligations cut both ways. The non-Muslims were required to pay special poll taxes and the Muslims were required to raise troops ands defend the non-Muslim community. Nonetheless, though a better system in some ways than others in the medieval world, by modern-day standards there is no doubt whatsoever that it created a distinct second-class citizenship. However…
To the best of my knowledge there are no modern Muslim states that currently imposes dhimmi status or the jizya. Not even Saudi Arabia or theocratic Iran. There are some thugs that terrorize Christians in Upper Egypt, for example, demanding extortionate “jizya”. But this is just Mafia-style protection rackets with a thin veneer of religiosity and is hardly sanctioned by the government. Since even the prophet Muhammed and some of his immediate successors talked about exempting folks from the jizya for whatever reason ( according to certain hadith ), it is not considered an absolute, unbendable obligation.
Or be expelled or subject to other sanction. However, again, the word is “got”, past tense. Not “get”, present tense.
People who aren’t muslim or “people of the book” don’t even get that third choice.
[/quote]
That would hardly account for the several hundred million Hindus around today, would it? No, in fact jizya was the standard for “pagan” peoples as well, at least under Hanafi ( the largest group of Sunni muslims ) and Maliki jurisprudence. Except when it wasn’t ( i.e. the Mughul Padishah Akbar abolishing the jizya in his Indian demesnes in 1579, with it being subsequently re-introduced in 1679 by his great-grandson Alamgir/Auranganzeb ).
In this particular instance, you’re probably thinking of women, not non-Muslims. In a few countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar a women’s testimony ( when admissable at all ) is worth half a man’s. Non-Muslims do have restricted legal rights in Muslim courts under some systems of shari’a, such as the Hanbali shari’a of Saudi Arabia ( but then so does non-Sunni Islam under that system, the state dept. reporting that testimony by self-admitted Shi’a being discounted in an auto accident case ). However the extent of those restrictions vary and are rather open to interpretation. Even the rule on women gets challenged from time to time:
*Ayatollah Mustafa Mohaqeqdamad, a dapper cleric with a full beard and an impish sense of humor, heads the Islamic Studies department of Iran’s Academy of Sciences in Tehran. His main focus for the past five years has been the state of Muslim women.
Mohaqeqdamad also issued a fatwa refuting a principle at the heart of the justice system that says the testimony of one man is equal to that of two female witnesses, which has long been interpreted to diminish the worth of women across the board.*
Rather analogous to the death penalty in the United States, isn’t it ;)?
Not mandated by the Qur’an, which calls for flogging. The idea of stoning comes from a hadith that is a matter of dispute and not universally accepted.
Another matter of great dispute, that does not derive from the Qur’an. In general Islamic divorce is not that easy and calls for dispensation by a judge and a three month waiting period. The “three strike thing” derives from an attempt to make divorce more difficult, by calling for two reconciliable divorces of three monts duration each ( where you’re supposed to try to work out your problems ), followed by a third irrevocable divorce. Further the Qur’an mandates compensation for the divorced woman, over and above the return of a dowry ( said compensation not being spelled out, however ). And the woman also has the right to petition for divorce, though her road is a bit more difficult.
The dodge is that the waiting periods are not mandated if the marriage has not been consummated, hence the occasional circumstance you cite. But I’ll note the above quoted Ayatollah Mohaqeqdamad has issued a fatwa against this dodge, as well:
His recent fatwas have declared that no man can divorce his wife by simply saying “I divorce thee” three times, a long-standing practice that has often left ex-wives stranded. “If marriage is a bilateral act, the divorce certainly can’t be a unilateral act,” he said.
Matter of opinion, I guess. I disagree.
- Tamerlane
By which I mean, the “say it three times and you’re done” interpretation doesn’t come straight from the Qur’an.
- Tamerlane
Not at all. It’s a clear historical fact. It’s also not current.
Like lots of unpleasant things in Xianity.
Not even in Iran is the concept applied in law.
Start getting your fucking complaints right or start admitting you don’t know what the fuck you’re complaining about.
It’s called a jiziyah, not the humiliation tax. The word comes from the root meaning portion or part, and it best translated as a poll tax.
To put it not distortive and not deliberately exagerated terms, the tax indicated submission to the Muslim conquest, or Iftah as they put it.
Nothing in any way different from the taxes the Byzantines imposed on their conquered territories, and indeed at least the Muslims were fairly restricted in their expropriations and allowed non-Muslims free practice of their religion. The Byzanitines didn’t, to the extent they controlled a territory.
Means of raising revenues,
Certainly they did. The Hindus and others were eventually legalistically included in “jiziyah” schemes insofar as other routes are available, e.g. any group that reaches a legal pact with the Muslims has to have their rights respected, unless they attack. That is, it is directly in the Quran that if you make peace, you respect it.
Of course you put this in the present tense which is stupid and deliberately distortive. None of this applies now.
In the future you are invited to actually know something of the facts before make wild accusations.
Well, as Tamerlane notes, that’s women but as for disadvantages in testomony for non-Muslims in courts, not for over a century in the vast majority of the Islamic world.
Returning to the disadvantages, it is true of some portions of the sharia at some times.
Now get the fuck up to date instead of arguing about half-understood and deliberately distorted factiods. Whinging on about things that have not existed for 100 years as if they are current simply underlines your blind and ignorant bigotry on this matter.
E.g. you neglect to mention that in general Muslims and non-Muslims ran seperate court systems, under the baqta and other agreements they had. The nexus comes when one or the other chooses to sue. It is indicative, by the way, that the system was not so ugly as you want to paint it, that Jews and Xians in the classical period seemed to have often opted for Muslim courts even for suits between themselves, apparently due to higher standards. I am thinking of commentary by Lewis on this.
Hand waving fear mongering blind argumentation.
First, Nigeria is not moving towards adopting sharia law, a few northern states have in those areas where the state, vs the Federal government, have competency. The movement has stalled out.
Second, Pakistan has hardly moved to introduce the dhimma, as noted not even fundamentalist Iran has. I suppose theologically they see it as superceded by the various legal conventions they have entered into, which is perfectly valid under most sharia tradition.
Now more ignorant squeeling about the sharia:
Yeah, well throwing a guy in prison for 30 years and trying to execute him happens in the West as well. Read up about Texas.
And? Not in modern civil codes for most anywhere but possibly the Kingdom and not done.
Xian law has similar ideas, whole Abrahamic tradition and all.
No, it is not the case under most modern Islamic countries civil laws. The repetition has to be legally validated in court. There is a dichotomy on divorce certainly, but it is hardly that easy in practice (and it is not socially acceptable to do so in any case.) Walking away from one’s family in the Arab world is a sure way to get oneself in deep disrepute.
Of course in economic stress and the like, families do fall apart.
Very enlightening.
I am not Xian, but I do endeavor to show a bit of respect. Both religions have, like all human systems, their positives and their negatives.
Of course you can. What kind of idiotic argument is this, one can’t compare different human institutions because they are different. That is uttelry bankrupt.
Certainly one should be well informed about the two institutions and not make facile and ignorant comparisions based on an impoverished understanding of one or the other.
I’ll begin to look at your pronouncements on Islam with something less than complete contempt when you begin to show that you have something approaching a clue as to what you are talking about. To date all you have done is refer to a bunch of exagerated and often out of date facts in a wild eyed slavering of fear mongering. It’s nothing but bigotry.
BTW the chest beating on English Common Law is fairly childish. Civil Code is out there as well, and more popular in many areas, more so than Common Law. I hardly believe Common Law, while a good thing, is really better than sliced bread.
I have an better cite for this from Abraham Marcus, which I’ll dig out when I get home this morning. It touches both on the above and its opposite, with Muslim businessmen occasionally opting to subject themselves to non-Muslim courts in matters of disputes with non-Muslim businessmen.
- Tamerlane
Right, it is hard to generalize. I believe Lewis’ comments were of course on the Golden Age, so we need to be careful temporally.
My cite is from 18th century Ottoman Aleppo. An excellent ( and award-winning ) book, by the way. Really very highly recommended as a social history.
Amazon link:
- Tamerlane
That makes sense, by the 18th century I would believe that we have Venetian et al commercial dominance in re sea traffic.
Collounsbury,
I don’t believe you are able to comprehend the meaning of the word “bigotry”, especially for someone like yourself who has been raised in your culture.
I’ll see your Xianity and raise you two Mohammedans.
And that would be which culture exactly? Why shouldn’t he be able to comprehend the nature of bigotry? Are you saying that you can because of how you’ve been raised??
And would you please like to tell us which culture Collounsbury was raised in?
Angua,
Read his previous posts.
You will note that he is quite consistent in his reference to Christianity as “Xianity”, yet if someone refers to Moslems as “Mohammedans” he thinks this is a sign of bigotry and seems to become quite emotionally disturbed. He appears to lack any sense of irony or detachment. An almost complete inability to see himself as others see him.
On this aspect, at least, I am far more enlightened and tolerant than he is.
His mind set is fairly consistent with someone who has been educated, if that is the right word, in what passes for the educational system of Arabia (I don’t believe the House of Saud is too long for this world, incidentally, so I dropped the “Saudi”).
The type of material that is included in the educational syllabus of any country is not merely freely available on the net but is actually placed there, almost proudly it would seem, by governments themselves.
This is why I recommend that people educate themselves about other cultures, and religions, by the material that those cultures and religious adherents post on the net about themselves.
There is no point in seeking truthful or accurate information on matters involving religion and culture by asking individuals on message boards such as this one. You will most likely be provided with a sanitized and very untruthful version.
If it’s accuracy you want, then conduct your own independent research on the net. I am sure you already know how easy that is.
There is no doubt that other predominantly Muslim cultures would tend to produce a more enlightened person than those who are, in general, produced by the Arabian educational system. I simply cited Collounsbury’s presumed educational culture, Arabia, which is only one Islamic country, incidentally, as a worst case example.
Hmmm… You know what? I think Collunsbury’s got a far better grip on the issues than you have. His insights on other cultures have not only been valuable, but accurate in many cases.
Whereas on the 'net everything is laid down in gory detail, you have no reference to the political (or otherwise) slant of the site creator, and you always get the truth. Right. :rolleyes:
Every claim that people make here has to be backed up with a cite, from a reputable source, so please don’t preach about accuracy to me.
Oh, and the Xianity thing - it tends to be a standard abbreviation. Mohammadian is an insult to Muslim beliefs and makes the user sound like an uneducated bigot.
Angua,
The “Xianity” thing is a standard abbreviation used by bigots, Mohammedan or not.
Well actually Collounsbury is not from the middle east, IIRC he is from the US but as he has travelled and worked there extensively he has a very good knowledge of the region.
Xianity is a standard abbr. and is frequently used by Christian fundamentalist for example. Mohammadian is an antiquated term now only used in an insulting manner.
Alan Owen Bless it is clear from your posts that you have no experince of the Muslim world and that you are not very careful in your selection of sources.
Better tell this guy, then ( pretty dead site from the looks of things, though ):
“Xtian”, unlike Mohammedan, implies nothing at all offensive. It is a standard abbreviation in use since the middle ages, from the Greek letter Chi for Christos, written as X.
I don’t use it myself, because I note some folks get twitchy about it. But I’ve never understood said twitchiness, when the derivation ( unlike Mohammedan ) is pretty harmless. People having certainly been saying “xmas” for many years without anyone getting upset.
- Tamerlane