babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Who truly hijacked the Islamic faith?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Who truly hijacked the Islamic faith?
box_o_chocolates
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6448

posted 10 July 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for box_o_chocolates     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since September 11th, there have been a lot of Muslim leaders that have come out and claimed that terrorist groups such as the Taliban have hijacked Islam and therefore have brought shame to all Muslims in the world. What they forget to mention is that these “terrorists” have been able to “hijack” Islam only because mainstream Muslims have allowed them to get away with it. Being a Muslim, it is shameful for me to admit that my fellow “brothers and sisters” have been nothing more then mute bystanders who do not have the courage to stand up for their religion. And when we do stand up for something, it’s always about bashing Israel or the West.
Most Muslims continue to complain that America is helping Israel in their deliberate extermination of the Palestinians. We organize massive protests and rallies decrying all the torture that Palestinian refugees have to suffer at the hand of the Israelis. However, when it comes to helping out Palestinian refugees, Arab nations turn a blind eye to the matter. How else can you explain the Saudis not taking in Palestinians as citizens? Or Kuwait banishing at least 300 000 Palestinians from inside its borders as payback for Yasser Arafat’s support of the invading of Saddam Hussein.
Whenever it’s Muslims brutalizing other Muslims or non-Muslims, Muslims remain silent and choose to ignore the issue. I am Bangladeshi by birth. When the Pakistani army attacked and ravaged my country killing millions of Bengali Muslims and non-Muslims alike, where was the conscience of the Muslim world? And who can forget the Lebanese civil war which cost around 150 000 lives, most of them belonging to Palestinians. I don’t think that even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has cost so many lives in fifty years of combat. All such issues are avoided and almost never discussed among Muslims. Why?
It seems that we as Muslims have failed in our duty to protect our religion from being abused.

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: box_o_chocolates ]


From: Windsor, ON, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 10 July 2004 08:47 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has a major Islamic cleric ever declared fatwah against Osama, if for no other reason than he brought disrepute on Islam?
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 10 July 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by box_o_chocolates:
It seems that we as Muslims have failed in our duty to protect our religion from being abused. Unfortunately, we continue to do nothing to stop it because Islam is the only of the Western religions where mainstream religious ideology is rooted to ignorance and hypocrisy.

I'd say Islam is far from the only one, so don't feel so bad.

As to the reasons, I'm not educated enough on the subject to even offer a guess, but I can tell you that apathy on deadly serious subjects is again far from an Arab-only trait.

Finally, its worth pointing out in disucssions of Israel-Palestine relations that the situation is far from "Israel surrounded by hostile Arabs" and that in spite of being critical of Israel, other Arabic nations have often failed to offer support to the Palestinian refugees who need it most.


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 10 July 2004 09:15 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
The people who hijacked islam are the people who refused any kind of a reformist movement, and refused to acknowledge any possibility of coexistence between islam as a faith and secular states.
They are the people who didn't listen to Mohammad Abdo or Sheikh jamal eddin el afghani, but branded them as "infidels".
They are the people who tell Dr. Nawal Saadawi "You're an atheist" when she says "I'm a progressive muslim"
Who are they? They are the hearts of darkness.

From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 July 2004 09:15 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by box_o_chocolates:
[QB] How else can you explain the Saudis not taking in Palestinians as citizens? Or Kuwait banishing at least 300 000 Palestinians from inside its borders as payback for Yasser Arafat’s support of the invading of Saddam Hussein.

Actually, neither of these states is controlled by 'mainstream Muslims' - i.e. regular people.

quote:
Whenever it’s Muslims brutalizing other Muslims or non-Muslims, Muslims remain silent and choose to ignore the issue.

Not so. In fact, your opening paragraph contradicts this assertion. For one, if Muslims were "remaining silent" over the brutalisation of Muslims and non-Muslims, why is it that post-Septermber 11, 2001, Muslim pundit after Muslim pundit was there to denounce the act, the Taliban, and everything they stand for?


quote:
And who can forget the Lebanese civil war which cost around 150 000 lives, most of them belonging to Palestinians.

This war had plenty of Christian and Jewish involvement.

quote:
Unfortunately, we continue to do nothing to stop it because Islam is the only of the Western religions where mainstream religious ideology is rooted to ignorance and hypocrisy.

That's a doozy, and I imagine it is also in breach of Babble policy....

First - Islam is a 'Western' religion?

Second, what if I tried these roughly equivalent statements:

1) Mainstream Christian ideology is rooted in ignorance and hypocrisy.

2) Mainstream Jewish ideology is rooted in ignorance and hypocrisy.

Methinks you are neither Muslim, nor concerned, but a run-of-the-mill anti-Islam troll....

Back to Little Green Footballs with you...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 10 July 2004 10:30 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
since you haven't provided a link, i'm going to assume that you've written this yourself, as a Bangladeshi Muslim, and address you accordingly.

i agree with you on your main point, more or less--whatever mainstream Islam has turned into is partly due to the inaction of people who think like you and me. i think that what you're talking about, however (judging from your examples) is Islamicate politics rather than Islam as a faith. i think we'd both agree that both of these things are in crisis.

of course, as Courage has pointed out, it isn't constructive to say that "Islam is the only of the Western religions where mainstream religious ideology is rooted to ignorance and hypocrisy." it's also disputable.

and, as C has also pointed out, when we're talking about the inhospitality of Arab nations toward Palestinians, we have to remember that the actions of these governments don't necessarily square with how the population feels. many people are angry about it and do take a stand, but it's not translating into concrete change. muslims that i speak to (whether on the left or the religious right) are in many cases are pissed off at these governments.

Bangladesh is a different story; i haven't researched it, but my guess is that popular sentiment in West Pakistan would have been for the war, which is shameful. the accounts of the massacres and the targeting of the intellectual infrastructure are harrowing.

as for Islam the faith (in the West), what i can say is that Muslims in academia are often striking the right notes, and i have a sense that my own generation will be even better in this regard. on the issue of women's rights, people like Mernissi, Barlas and Wadood have written very important stuff, though in all three cases i think there's more work that needs to be done. again, when it comes to queers, Scott Sirajuddin Kugle is doing exciting things, and there are Muslims completing their theses on this issue as we speak. i wrote something very preliminary on this myself that i'm trying to turn into a journal article.

imo, what we need is a continuation of the historical studies of these issues in Islam, but we also need much closer readings of the Qur'an itself if we want to have a radical position that can withstand orthodox critique. the one big obstacle, i think, is that whether we're academics or not, we often don't bother or feel unable to really gain an understanding of the structure of Islam. i'll speak for myself: after a long period of reading western philosophers and taking from them what i needed, i've started to go back to the Sufi roots of my own world-view, reading people like Shabistari, `Iraqi, Ghazzali and especially Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn `Arabi. but i feel like i'll always lack something until i understand Sunni fiqh (jurisprudence) and do hifz (memorization of the Qur'an). i especially want to do the latter. but to do it right you've got to go to a shaykh and ideally get yourself to a madrasa. kinda daunting.

gotta run.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 July 2004 11:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I could point out that in the past various Roman Catholic Popes have "hijacked" the Christian faith for their own ends, and so have European kings and emperors. Even politicians in the United States "hijack" the Christian faith for their own ideological ends, such as George Bush's bald-faced statement that God told him to blast the bejeezus out of Al Qaeda.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 10 July 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And who can forget the Lebanese civil war which cost around 150 000 lives, most of them belonging to Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This war had plenty of Christian and Jewish involvement.


Really? Do you believe it is within Babble policy to identify groups by their faith and then negatively stereotype two entire religious traditions?

And dont tell me that since box_o_chocolates did it first that makes it OK.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 July 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]Really? Do you believe it is within Babble policy to identify groups by their faith and then negatively stereotype two entire religious traditions?

I did no such thing. I made a statement of fact - there was Christian and Jewish (as in Christians and Jews) involvement in the Lebanese civil war.

I did not use those pronouns in an abstracted sense to point to those 'faiths' but to the self-identification of the participants. In short, I was speaking not of the influence of religious doctrine on the motives of the participants in that conflict, but of what they call themselves.

But next I suppose you'll tell us (for the purposes of this argument) that Israelis don't consider Jewishness that important, or that Maronite Christians don't really consider themselves Christians.

You are so bad at this.

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 11 July 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Really? Do you believe it is within Babble policy to identify groups by their faith and then negatively stereotype two entire religious traditions?

uh...i think it's pretty clear that Courage is saying "This war had plenty of Christian and Jewish involvement" as in "Christians and Jews were involved in this war," not as in "Christianity and Judaism were the root causes of this war." that would be reading a lot into such a sentence.

true, it doesn't matter that some of those involved were Jewish or Christian, except as a corrective to the idea that the war in Lebanon was just a Muslim thing. which is the point.

back on track...please?

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 July 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Really? Do you believe it is within Babble policy to identify groups by their faith and then negatively stereotype two entire religious traditions?

How about letting the moderators decide whether his post is within babble policy, and if you have a concern about it, write to one of us. That way you won't sidetrack another entire thread.

I agree with Mohamad Khan's analysis.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 July 2004 12:10 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mohamad Khan:

uh...i think it's pretty clear that Courage is saying "This war had plenty of Christian and Jewish involvement" as in "Christians and Jews were involved in this war," not as in "Christianity and Judaism were the root causes of this war." that would be reading a lot into such a sentence.

true, it doesn't matter that some of those involved were Jewish or Christian, except as a corrective to the idea that the war in Lebanon was just a Muslim thing. which is the point.

back on track...please?

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]



Thanks, Mo. I got in just before you.

Back on track - the issue of 'hijacking' a faith is interesting. I find it really interesting that in claiming that the 'true' Islamic faith is tolerant and peaceful, that the advocates of said position do precisely what they accuse the 'radicals' of: that is, they foreclose the boundaries of what is "Islamic" thought and constrain it to a series of doctrines rather than to the behaviour which some other Muslims call 'Islamic'.

Intolerant tolerance?

Which is the "real" Islam?

Similarly, which is the "real" Christianity - The New Testament, or The Crusades? What of Mother Theresa? How about the "real" Judaism - The Torah, or The Occupation carried out in the name of protecting Judaism? What of 'Democracy' - The American constitution, or the illegal wars on Iraq and Vietnam, and Nicaragua, etc.?

"Obscene underbellies" (as the psychoanalysts would have it) abound.

Can a faith exist seperately of the beings that generate action in the world in its name?

I can't say I see a clear answer. Further discussion, I hope, but not tonight.

Existentialist meanderings past and drinking to come...

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
box_o_chocolates
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6448

posted 11 July 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for box_o_chocolates     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Actually, neither of these states is controlled by 'mainstream Muslims' - i.e. regular people.

why is it that post-Septermber 11, 2001, Muslim pundit after Muslim pundit was there to denounce the act, the Taliban, and everything they stand for?

First - Islam is a 'Western' religion?

Methinks you are neither Muslim, nor concerned, but a run-of-the-mill anti-Islam troll....


Hmmm… what is a “normal person”? Could you define it for me? Who is part of mainstream Islam?

Yes, it is true that Muslim pundits did voice their opposition to the Taliban after 9/11. But why did we need the death of thousands for these pundits to lash out against a hate group. Where were they when the Taliban regime decided to impose Sharia Law on the Afghanis? Where were they when they destroyed the statues of Buddha, massacring human history in the name of religion?

If you decided to a little research, you would have come to know that Islam is in fact a “Western” religion. The three Western religions are Christianity, Islam and Judaism. (There are a few others) All three religions originated from the “West”, or what was considered to be the Western side of the world at the time of the religions’ origins.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone or broken Babble policy; however, Courage, you have no right to question my faith. I am getting a little tired with my run-ins with fellow Muslims who have a very narrow vision of the interpretations and practices of Islam.

“A run of the mill anti-Islam troll”? That’s new! You know I have seen this type of reaction from many others, almost all Muslims, who do not have the courage to think or question actions that may be taken on behalf of their faith by others. In fact, some even call me a Jew! Believe it or not, that is often seen as the worst accusation against a Muslim. Well I couldn’t care less! I’m not at all offended and neither should any other “progressive” Muslim. Just because one person can’t defend his or her position doesn’t mean that they have the right to start flinging accusations.


From: Windsor, ON, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 July 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by box_o_chocolates:
[QB]

Hmmm… what is a “normal person”? Could you define it for me? Who is part of mainstream Islam?


I posed that exact question above, actually. I'm not sure.

quote:
Where were they when the Taliban regime decided to impose Sharia Law on the Afghanis? Where were they when they destroyed the statues of Buddha, massacring human history in the name of religion?

There has been opposition to Wahabbism in many corners of Islamic thought, in fact. Among 'mainstream Muslims' there has also been much opposition. Recall that the Taliban didn't just breeze into power - there were a lot of people who liked the kind of Islam that they had developed outside of the purview of centralised Saudi Arabian-based ideology. The Taliban 'won' because they had better funding and more guns than the opposition - which was not only socialist/Soviet-backed, but also among the regular everyday middle-of-the-road Afghani 'Muslim'.

quote:
If you decided to a little research, you would have come to know that Islam is in fact a “Western” religion.
The three Western religions are Christianity, Islam and Judaism. (There are a few others) All three religions originated from the “West”, or what was considered to be the Western side of the world at the time of the religions’ origins.

This is patently absurd from a historical perspective. This is a "Western" (Occidental) classification system (Western/Eastern) that did not exist at the time that these religions were first posited. There are strains of this in both literature (i.e. the attempted classification of philosophical thinking into two distinct catagories/geneologies) and geography. In the second case the conception of the earth at that time (the Mercator projection is the main root of this East - West division that is now commonplace) was not such that this division was yet in play.

Notice that in the geographical East/West divide, Europe (England, mostly) is at the centre. The Prime Meridian as an excellent example. Europe was a backwater at the time that these religions developed. Greece had their hey-day, but by no means had they come to think of themselves as 'Western' as opposed to the 'East'. A cursory examination of contemporary thought in the period of the development of these religions shows something quite different. Even from a literary perspective, it is not so clear that the "Western Canon" can be thought to include the largely Egyptian origins of the monotheisms in question, though attempts have often been made to provide for such a geneology.

In the case of Judaism the Bible and Egyptian records are a good resource. Nowhere in the Torah do we find a global or two-dimensional (map-based) conception of the 'East' and 'West'.

For Christianity we see that Roman thought didn't show this tendency as yet. Later there was an 'East-West' divide in Christianity, but it was largely internal and not thought to extend to the current horizons of 'East/West' that include North America (as yet just a legend in European thought).

With Islam, Europe (the 'Center AND West') was hardly known as a cohesive civilisation in the 6th Century. This conception is much, much more recent - dating to the early-to-mid European imperial period.

And even assuming your anachronism to be correct, Saudi Arabia was not then - or is it now - in "the West". What is clear is that this classification appeared as a part of modern European academic study of literature and the geographical conceptions wrought by European exploration and imperial expansion.

Anyway, none of this really matters. I suppose that if you are from Bangaladesh, that Islam is from "The West", but let's not go fudging up history too much now, shall we?

quote:
I am sorry if I have offended anyone or broken Babble policy; however, Courage, you have no right to question my faith. I am getting a little tired with my run-ins with fellow Muslims who have a very narrow vision of the interpretations and practices of Islam.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun there. We get waaaaaaaay too many knee-jerk anti-Muslim bigots around here to keep track of. There has been a resurgence of these types in the past few months. Your contention that the corpus of Islamic thought is rooted in 'hypocrisy and ignorance' is what I took issue with. Such bald statements are usually not kosher around here, though there are a few atheists around who consider ANY religion to be based in hypocrisy and ignorance...

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
box_o_chocolates
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6448

posted 11 July 2004 04:19 PM      Profile for box_o_chocolates     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since you brought it up, Courage, maybe you can help me here. What is the actual extent of Wahabbism in Islam? I mean, is it only a Saudi Arabia thing or an Arab-nations thing or something else? Just curious!

BTW, hypocrisy and ignorance were the wrong choice of words. My only issue mainstream Islam is the tendency to strictly stick to literal interpretation of Islamic laws and texts. I personally consider the Quran to be more metaphoric in nature but I accept that you may completely disagree with me and I strongly encourage the opportunity to debate and exchange ideas.

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: box_o_chocolates ]


From: Windsor, ON, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 July 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by box_o_chocolates:
[QB]Since you brought it up, Courage, maybe you can help me here. What is the actual extent of Wahabbism in Islam? I mean, is it only a Saudi Arabia thing or an Arab-nations thing or something else? Just curious!

Well, as I understand it, by virtue of Mecca being the geographic centre of Islam, and Mecca being in SA, and the SA royals being rich AND Wahabbites - this strain of thought has been exported throughout much of the world. To what degree it has become part of the 'everyday' Muslim's interpretation of the Koran and related doctrines is hard to tell. It probably has had influence even where it is not the primary interpretation.

Since Wahabbism was a kind of Protestant Reformation for Islam, this is like asking how far Luther's doctrines have spread - it's labyrinthine.

quote:
My only issue mainstream Islam is the tendency to strictly stick to literal interpretation of Islamic laws and texts. I personally consider the Quran to be more metaphoric in nature but I accept that you may completely disagree with me and I strongly encourage the opportunity to debate and exchange ideas.

I've had this experience somewhat. Though I have also met a lot of people with quite metaphoric interpretations of the Quran - and not just Sufis.

Personally, I think that an either/or dichotomy is not the way to go. I think that there are a number of layers of meaning deliberately written into the text by its authors. Some sections need to be taken at face value, or thought to contain metaphoric meaning. Others are metaphoric. I think that the job of the practitioner is to work to ber able to tell the difference.

This brings me to an opinon that I have about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (among others). The modern fascination with literalism (and with the written-word, literally) extends - in part - from the Egypto-Judeo-Christo-Islamic geneology where 'the Word' is 'the Truth'. Modern printing technology have lead, I think, to the conception that 'The True Word' is 'The Written Word' and that for the purposes of religious practice, all that is necessary is a copy of the religious text in question and a proper literary interpretation.

I think that this is a folly. It seems that throughout history there was a concomitant oral and even physical (dances, ritual movements, etc.) teaching to accompany the text and this was carefully transmitted in order to ensure the least possible reinterpretation. This oral/physical teaching was intended as a corrective to over-emphasis on text and textual interpretation as such over-emphasis was thought to create a psychological/spiritual imbalance. One can still see the remnants of this in Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious practice, but it still seems that information about textual interpretion has become paramount over these other practices whereas in the past the oral/physical teaching would have held at least as much, if not MORE sway. Take Judaism, for example. Kaballah (the study of a inner or secret teaching in the Torah) is still practiced as a kind of side project by some Jews. However, this practice is less and less common, and the 'metaphoric' interpretation of the Torah contained within Kabbalic teaching is less and less apart of everyday thought. Moreover, it is also clear that it was long thought that only SOME were capable of such a reading, and that common people needed a simple world-view full of steadfast laws and rules, while only those accomplished enough intellectually and spiritually could handle the power and responsibility of the 'inner' teaching.

It is perhaps in these lost ways that the 'key' to the act of interpretation may be found. To a Muslim, I probably sound like a Sufi, but so be it...

[ 11 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 11 July 2004 10:19 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Since you brought it up, Courage, maybe you can help me here. What is the actual extent of Wahabbism in Islam? I mean, is it only a Saudi Arabia thing or an Arab-nations thing or something else? Just curious!

in addition to Courage's explanation, i think it has a lot to do with the fact that Wahhabism is getting so much attention, sometimes unnecessarily. i had a friend, now a history prof in Winnipeg, who gave a lecture entitled "The Wahhabis Are Coming!" to debunk Wahhabi conspiracy theories with regard to South Asia.

quote:
My only issue mainstream Islam is the tendency to strictly stick to literal interpretation of Islamic laws and texts. I personally consider the Quran to be more metaphoric in nature but I accept that you may completely disagree with me and I strongly encourage the opportunity to debate and exchange ideas.

with regard to literalism, i totally understand what both of you are saying, and i've said similar things on this board. but i also think that "literalism" is probably the wrong word to use. i increasingly believe that readings of the Qur'an are not literalistic enough, if we say that a literalistic reading is a reading that pays close attention and respect to the word of the Qur'an. on the other hand, Ibn `Arabi is a real literalist even though his readings of the Qur'an seem outrageously blasphemous sometimes. he's a literalist because he respects each word, its grammatical function, its etymology, and the meanings that it shelters within it. for instance, in the chapter on Ishmael in the Fusus al-Hikam (Bezels of Wisdom), he points out that the Qur'anic word for "punishment" (`adhaab) comes from a root meaning "sweetness," and this helps him to rethink the idea of Hell. (every Muslim, by the way, should be made to read the Fusus.) so i think that what we call literalism is strictly speaking not literalism at all; it's just a sort of monosemism or uncritical imitation (taqlid).

quote:
It seems that throughout history there was a concomitant oral and even physical (dances, ritual movements, etc.) teaching to accompany the text and this was carefully transmitted in order to ensure the least possible reinterpretation. This oral/physical teaching was intended as a corrective to over-emphasis on text and textual interpretation as such over-emphasis was thought to create a psychological/spiritual imbalance.

that's an interesting idea. care to elaborate?

i think that one of the problems with "mysticism" (at least in the way that we understand or interpret it) is that so much emphasis is placed on the inner meaning vs. outer meaning dichotomy, leading to a kind of elitism. i think that we need to look into that aspect of it more deeply, and to trouble it if necessary.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 July 2004 10:37 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This just in!:

Christianity is responsible for the actions of David Koresh and Jim Jones. Shame, shame, shame, letting the Christian religion get abused in such a way. Tsk.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 12 July 2004 11:42 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now Sarcasmo, you know and I know that every Muslim has complete control over the actions of every other Muslim, so it's a mere bagatelle for any concerned Muslim to eradicate all intolerance that may emanate from other people of the Muslim faith. It's like flipping a switch, really...
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 12 July 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri brings up an interesting point.

Take a look at David Koresh. Then read up on the prophet Mohammed.

Mohammed got his power from the fact that God sent the angel Gabriel to speak to Mohammed.

From this we have the Quran.

David Koresh like Mohammed fancied himself a prophet also.

The other thing they have in common is that they both like young girls.

Just for giggles read up on Koresh and then read up on Mohammed. Peas in a Pod.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 July 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You should read up on the Prophet John the Baptist, Jack. Word has it that he wrote a bunch of silly stuff about knowing the Son of God personally. He used his insane notions as a lure to dunk bunches of people in a river somewhere. Quite the insane zealot, if you ask me.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 July 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just for giggles read up on Jesus Christ and then read up on Charles Manson.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 12 July 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri,

If you compare Koresh with Muhammed you might come to the conclusion (logical) that Muhammed like Koresh is/was a false prophet.

If you look at there actions you might add delusional, psychotic or a whole host of adjectives to discribing them.

You as a relativist might want to add any and all religous figures in with Koresh and Muhammed. I don't have a problem with that.

To answer the original question of "Who hijacked the Islamic faith?" the answer is no one.

Since the Quran is the literal word of God according to Muslims then there is knothing to hijack. As a relativist you can now make fun of the Bible/Torah or any religous book you can find.

Osama or any other religous Muslim is simply following whats in the Quran which cannot be question and cannot be reformed since it is the literal word of God.

For moderate Muslims or secular Muslims they find themselves in the impossible position of trying to edit/soften something that cannot be changed.

If they leave their religon or become apostates the penality is what?

Bore yourself and look up the penality for leaving Islam.

Just for giggles.

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 July 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I did a Google search for "leaving Islam", but only found a bunch of wacko fundie Christian sites listing "the evils of Islam", not any substanstive (or reprintable) information. I reverted to relativism to point out the principle fallacy of BOC's principle argument. However, it appear that relativism can also be used to rile up the racists. Point noted.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
box_o_chocolates
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6448

posted 12 July 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for box_o_chocolates     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
Sarcasmobri,

Since the Quran is the literal word of God according to Muslims then there is knothing to hijack.


The Quran may be the literal word of God but what many are forgetting is that the Quran itself was composed by humans from the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Now I’m not suggesting that there was this giant conspiracy to conform the faith and its teachings to control all the followers but it is true that throughout centuries, many have abused all religions to justify their goals or actions.

BTW, Islam is not at all a strict religion where no questioning or interpretation is allowed. In fact, during Islam’s Golden Ages during 700 and 1250 CE a unique tradition known as ijtihad (ij-tee-had) was fully practiced. It is the Islamic tradition of independent reasoning, which allows every Muslim to update his or her religious practice in light of contemporary circumstances. Islam allows for free thought and independent thinking.


From: Windsor, ON, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 July 2004 03:43 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Osama or any other religous Muslim is simply following whats in the Quran which cannot be question and cannot be reformed since it is the literal word of God.

But to a Muslim, 'literal' doesn't mean the same kind of thing that it means to, say, some Christian Fundamentalists - many of whom seem to think the Bible was written in English and that no interpretation has been carried out over time. In the case of the Qu'ran, the admonition in favour of 'literalism' is to ensure that nothing is added or subtracted from the Qu'ran - i.e. no editing - so that the book is handed down intact from generation to generation without addition or subtraction. This doesn't mean that the meaning of its texts is clear on first sight, but only that the material remains static for each successive generation of Muslims to interpret and expand their understanding of it's lessons.

There is nothing in the Quran to suggest that its meaning is clear and foreclosed. Accordingly, in Islamic practice there is - just as there is in Christianity - a long tradition of exegesis and hermeneutics which aims to properly interpret the Quran.

The evidence that there are any number of interpretations available to a Muslim is obvious in the ongoing battle between varying interpretations enunciated by Muslims and non-Muslims. If the meaning is so clear to see, why is there so much debate? Moreover, if we assume - as you do - that 'literalist' interpretation along the lines of the Wahabbites is the only 'correct' Islam, are we not simply buying into their interpretation as opposed to others? In this very act, you confirm the possibility of other interpretations, though you - without evidence, as usual - assume that all interpretations which do not match your image of Islam as brutal, false, etc. as 'incorrect'.

Also, to an Arabic speaker, the Quran is not so set-in-stone in terms of meaning because of the way that Arabic is constructed. Translators who have attempted to translate the Quran and Arabic poetry into English often mention this well-known problem. In addition to the common use of metaphoric language (which happens in all languages) and symbolic images, Arabic is capable of producing a deep lattice-work of meanings and connected interpretations because of how words are constructed from basic three-letter memes. These memes, when found in several different - and otherwise seemingly unrelated - words, connect the words together in the conception of an Arab speaker. For instance, the word ain is the root of the words knee, eye, fountain, and The Sun and as such the use of ain would conjour up a number of possible associations and interpretations.

So, basically, you don't know Jack shit....

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 12 July 2004 04:06 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Osama or any other religous Muslim is simply following whats in the Quran which cannot be question and cannot be reformed since it is the literal word of God.

For moderate Muslims or secular Muslims they find themselves in the impossible position of trying to edit/soften something that cannot be changed.


i doubt it's going to be useful to respond to this, but.... first of all, this argument is clearly bs given that interpretations of the Qur'an differ so widely from century to century, sect to sect, madhhab to madhhab, and individual to individual. people who argue this are confusing the word of God with the meaning of the word. if God says,

"Bill, please!"

then you might be able to say that these two words are unchanging. but the words don't matter at all, it's the meaning that matters, because we don't have any immediate access to what's signified. if you say, "what God means is that She wants the bill," then someone else can say, "actually, God is beseeching Bill to do something."

people like Jack just take their own narrow-minded literalism and project it onto Islam, assuming that if they believe that the Qur'an should be taken at face value, so must Muslims. in other words, Jack is precisely the kind of guy who has the potential to become a Bin Laden himself.

i think that part of our problem is that Muslims listen so much to people like Jack (who must be absolutely clueless when confronted with poetry) that we start to think this way ourselves. it's important that we shut out the outside commentators who are saying "we know your religion better than you do" and get on with the task of ijtihad.

Courage and b_o_c, i look forward to more discussion with you guys.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 12 July 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For instance, the word ain is the root of the words knee, eye, fountain, and The Sun and as such the use of ain would conjour up a number of possible associations and interpretations.

`ayn also means something's "essence." Courage, i wrote a paper on Shabistari's Gulshan-i Raaz and its use of the various meanings of `ayn in connection with what it says about blindness and vision. it gave me a whole new perspective on the Qur'anic story of Dhu al-Qarnayn:

fa atba`a sababan / Hatta iDhaa balaGha maGhriba al-shamsi wajada-haa taGhrubu fii `aynin Hami'atin

"he followed a path / until he reached the place where the sun sets, and he found it setting in a murky spring..." (18.85-86)

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 July 2004 04:22 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
`ayn also means something's "essence."

... so if we think about Ayn Rand and the RAND Corporation at the same time... oh, dear...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 July 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[QB]
If they leave their religon or become apostates the penality is what?

Bore yourself and look up the penality for leaving Islam.


The penalty of death for apostates is not explicitly laid out in the Quran, and is based on interpretation of the Quran in collections of exegesis penned by high-ranking Imams later on. In fact, there is no explicit Quranic basis for this penalty and it was developed from authoritative interpretations of the Quran.

The question then becomes: how much stock should an individual Muslim put in the words and interpretations of men versus interpreting the Quran with the light of their own reason? And the answer to that is, of course, a matter of interpretation...

But wait, Jack, I thought that the Quran couldn't be interpreted by men, and was clear from the get go and that no argument could be made for different meanings?

So which is it Jack? Since you know so much about Islam, should a Muslim follow the Quran - which according to you is clear and inarguable in its meaning - or the words of some politician/priest? If its the former, the basis for your Islam-bashing disappears, but if it is the latter, than your position on Quranic literalism (and why Osama is 'real' Islam) disappears...

Wow, what a conundrum, eh Jack?

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 12 July 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri,

Funny, How your browser only hits fundie christian sites.

Start with Salman Rushdie. The leader of Iran "Khomeni" felt that a Fatwa "death sentance" was due to Rushdie for writing Satanic Verses.

Khomeni also charged him with apostasy. Funny I don't remember the moderate Muslim protesting for Rushdie.

Courage,

Start another thread to talk about Christain Fundies. I'll join in with many of the same arguements that I use on Islam.

I get tired of the "what about the Christian-fundies" as a retort to anything writen about Islam.

The not understanding the Quran because it was written in Arabic is bunk.

This is a favourite of Muslim apologists. If you then qoute an English translation they will tell you the translation is wrong. They will then use the "you have to speak and read Arabic line".

When the Saudies go American T.V. they say they are cracking down on terrorism.

When they go on Arabic T.V. terrorism is blamed on a Zionist plot.

They do the same thing with the Quran. One version for consumption in the Islamic world and the waterdowned less killing version for the Western world.

Cat Stevens did a great job of clarifying the penality for apostasy with regards to Rushdie.

quote:
"...that is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it. Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live. -

So I guess what that means is that if Rushdie by some weird twist of fate took a wrong turn and ended up in Iran that according to Old-Cat-Stevens that it would be perfectly O.K. to kill Salman Rushdie.

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 July 2004 04:47 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I get tired of the "what about the Christian-fundies" as a retort to anything writen about Islam.

That's nice.

I didn't make that argument, did I?

Keep avoiding the point.

It suits you.

BTW, Cat Stevens is the last word in Islam, now huh?

Fab argument, Jack...

I do note that you haven't made a single substantive response to my charges against your argument.

Like a house built on sand...

Go look that one up....

For giggles...

quote:
The not understanding the Quran because it was written in Arabic is bunk.

Why so? You say it, but you don't offer any evidence for why it is true. In fact, your response to this is to talk about diplomatic duplicity on the part of some Saudi Arabian leaders. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevence of this point to the issue of Quranic exegesis.

Could you please explain how the words of some Saudi Arabian politicians about issues not pertaining to religion or Quranic interpretation have to do with Quranic interpretation?

While you're at it, perhaps you could expound on the price of hot beverages in Cathay...

quote:
This is a favourite of Muslim apologists. If you then qoute an English translation they will tell you the translation is wrong. They will then use the "you have to speak and read Arabic line".

Can you please demonstrate why their position is wrong? Simply affirming that your opponents position is false is not an argument. Just because you don't have the requisite skills to test their theory doesn't make it false. Interestingly, in order to prove that your English translation is correct, you would likely have to learn Arabic, wouldn't you. And then, of course, you would have....oh never mind....

[ 12 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 12 July 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Jack should also be reminded that many Muslims do not consider the Sunnas an authoritative interpetation at all, they're called Shiites, and even devout Sunnis disagree on how they maybe interpreted. There are some violent passages in the Quran, but nomore so than in the Bible, and like the Bible, what believers make of it depends largely on...what believers make of it.

From what I've read, there is in fact very little agreement within "Islam" beyond 5 pillars of faith which say nothing about death penalties for anything, and a few common traditions which don't carry the same authority among Muslims. Now, if Jack wants to point out certain passages of the Quran, I'm sure I can give him the proper context of said passage and how Muslims have often differed on its interpretation.

Re Christians, unfair generalizations may sometimes be made on the left (usually in jest) but the difference between conservatives and progressives is that progressives are usually more interested in criticising beliefs *within* the culture they know, their own. I should also add that most progressive thinkers are well aware of the differences between politically active Fundamentalists, their nominally Christian neighbours and their dear old auntie Flo.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 12 July 2004 06:11 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... so if we think about Ayn Rand and the RAND Corporation at the same time... oh, dear...

the essence of RAND?!

quote:
Cat Stevens is the last word in Islam, now huh?

are you kidding? Cat Stevens is the Hidden Imam, the Shaykhul Islam! every moslem on the planet must bow down before his interpretive rigor!

quote:
This is a favourite of Muslim apologists. If you then qoute an English translation they will tell you the translation is wrong. They will then use the "you have to speak and read Arabic line".

of course, as Courage pointed out, you haven't made any arguments against this position, other than saying that it's "bunk." what a blow-away rebuttal.

translations are always wrong, in a sense, even if, to paraphrase Rushdie, there's something gained as well as lost along the way. if you just have blind faith in translations, even when the translators themselves admit that they haven't captured everything, there's something wrong.

or, maybe you're right. let's see...there's this verse from the Gulshan-i Raz that goes:

"vale tashbiih-i kullii niist mumkin / za just o juuy-i aa~ mii-baash saakin"

what does it mean? let's go to some translators. Leonard Lewisohn translates it like this:

"Yet universal correspondence doesn't exist: / Abate your quest for it."

W.H. Whinfield translates it like this:

"Although perfect analogies are unnattainable / Nevertheless continue steadfast in seeking them."

okay, so let's forget about the fact that one says "universal correspondence" and the other says "perfect analogies" for "tashbiih-i kullii." what should concern us is that Lewisohn says "stop looking for it," whereas Whinfield says "keep looking for it"--two completely opposite translations of the same verse.

however, based on these translations, Jack ought to be able to tell us what Shabistari means. it doesn't matter if he doesn't understand Persian. so? what's the answer?


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 July 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the essence of RAND?!

Just so. You can see why I too felt the need to use the emoticon.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 12 July 2004 07:34 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lance, I saw your essence of RAND quote, on the active topics list. I come here expecting praise or insults. Alas, it was not about me.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 July 2004 07:40 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My dear fellow. Don't be downhearted. For one thing, your knowledge of Newfoundland geography is... encyclopedic.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 13 July 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Courage,

quote:
The official government Saudi Press Agency (SPA) ran the following headline: "SPA - Crown Prince says Zionism is behind the actions in the kingdom." The SPA site reported further that Crown Prince Abdallah declared while addressing a May 2 gathering of Saudi officials and members of the royal family: "It became clear to us now that Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the kingdom. I can say that I am 95% sure of that."(1)

Courage I'm not as smart as you. Are the Zionists behind the attacks in Saudi Arabia?

It must be one crazy Zionist to load up and head out to Saudi Arabia to commit these terrorist acts.

Since I'm not as smart as you my first reaction when someone offers up the fact that I don't speak/read Arabic so I couldn't possibly understand whats actually in the Quran is to doubt the person making the arguement.

For giggles search around and look for translations of the Quran by Muslims, Western Apologists and Muslim apostates.

The translations of Muslim Apostates who do read and speak Arabic usually have diffferent interpations compared to the apologists.

The old tag line used to be that Islam "Is a religon of peace". Somewhere along the line I started to doubt this.

I doubt know why I doubted it. I just did.

So when you used the word "duplicity" it always takes me back to the fact that the Saudies say one thing to the western world and one thing to their own folks.

Kinda like saying Islam "is a religon of peace".

Erik the Red,

Sure, most of the knocks with regard to the Quran can also be applied to the Bible.

I might be wrong but my understanding is that since the Quran is the word of God via Mohammed that the Quran would be? Second person respoken via Mohammed?

I don't think that the Bible is considered the actual word of God?

Mohammed Khan,

You got me. I don't speak Arabic. I have trouble with English my first language.

My general sense of reading the English translations of some the violent versus from the Quran boils down to this.

Find the non-belivers "pagans"/"infidels" and kill them. Unless they become Muslims.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 13 July 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Historically, Islamic culture was surprisingly accepting of religious minorities in their midst. Really, "convert or die" was much more of a Christian phenomenon.

There were large numbers of renegados - Christians fleeing Europe - who lived quite happily and persecution-free in the Ottoman Empire.


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 13 July 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[QB]Courage,

Courage I'm not as smart as you. Are the Zionists behind the attacks in Saudi Arabia?


Irrelevent.


quote:
Since I'm not as smart as you my first reaction when someone offers up the fact that I don't speak/read Arabic so I couldn't possibly understand whats actually in the Quran is to doubt the person making the arguement.

In other words, since you don't have the tools to test the theory, doubt the theory. That's like saying - well, I doubt there really IS a difference between hot and cold because I don't have a thermometer to check...

quote:
For giggles search around and look for translations of the Quran by Muslims, Western Apologists and Muslim apostates.

I've read plenty. The problem of translation remains. Moreover, it is interesting that the only one of these catagories that contains an explicit 'moral' distinction is the so-called 'Western Apologist' catagory. This actually demonstrates the paucity of your position. Apparently you are capable of telling which translations are correct (Muslim Apostates seem to be at the top of your list and, of course, they have no axe to grind...) without knowing the source text. This brings us back to your irrational bias dealt with above...

quote:
The old tag line used to be that Islam "Is a religon of peace". Somewhere along the line I started to doubt this.

Perhaps you should give a demonstration of how these translations differ and your reasons for preferring one over the other. Again, back to your irrational, unsubstantiated bias...

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 13 July 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alix:
Historically, Islamic culture was surprisingly accepting of religious minorities in their midst. Really, "convert or die" was much more of a Christian phenomenon.

There were large numbers of renegados - Christians fleeing Europe - who lived quite happily and persecution-free in the Ottoman Empire.


Great numbers of Jewish refugees also found their way from Christian Europe to the Ottoman Empire during the other 1492 - i.e. The Spanish Inquisition. Also, huge communities of Jews lived relatively peacefully in various Arab and Muslim communities around Asia. Baghdad comes to mind. It was only during the inflammation of European-style 'nationalist' xenophobia when Jews were pushed out of these states and/or headed to Israel and elsewhere.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 14 July 2004 11:49 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Courage,

I have to ask.

If the Islamic world was as friendly as you described it why the need for Israel?

As Europe went through a number of cycles of killing/expelling Jews the Ottoman empire seems according to you the logical place for Jews to land.

I can see the Palestinians being upset but why the need for Israel to be the bogeyman for the Islamic world.

500 years ago every famine and plague could be blamed on the Jews because they were different.

Why the need to hang the failure of Islamic world on the Jews. Don't worry about the lack of freedom in the Muslim world lets focus on the evil jews.

If I had a choice between freedom and Jew haiting I would focus on freedom. For some reason freedom doesn't hold a candle to Jew haiting for the angry Muslm street.

The next question is what happened between now and what was the "Golden Age" of Islam.

Christianity after an inquisition, a bunch of wars and two world wars seems to the leading indicatior of freedom in the world.

You would think that with all the time spent with Europeans killing each other that Islam would have gone to the top of the list with regards to quality of life.

I must not get it.

Again, I'm not that smurt.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Christianity after an inquisition, a bunch of wars and two world wars seems to the leading indicatior of freedom in the world.

No it isn't. I would say secularism is, coupled with relative prosperity, rule of law, respect for human rights, low incidence of corruption, strong public education...

You know, real indicators. Not some simple little factoid to cling to to make complex problems seem simple to resolve.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 14 July 2004 02:13 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland,

So why are Christian countries secular. At a minimum the Pope should be running Italy.

Did Christianity come first with secularism second or was it the other way around.

Why doesn't secularism get a foot hold in Islamic countries.

How does the idea of "rule of law" apply to Islamic countries that practice Sharia?

You would think that since Sharia is based in the Quran and that since the Quran is the word of God that it would trump any silly old man made law.

Prosperity and human rights are common in most Christian countries but the opposite seems to be true in Islamic countries.

I could argue that since most Islamic countries are non-free that the chance for prosperity and human rights is pretty slim.

Your point about complex problems really hit home for me. The idea that the Muslim world is behind the rest of the world because of Islam is too simple.

Only a Zionist plot so diabalacle and so secret can explain the current state of the Muslim world.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I only can only deal with one statement at a time.

quote:
So why are Christian countries secular. At a minimum the Pope should be running Italy.

"Christian" secular countries aren't Christian, they're secular. You need to understand that difference. Canada is not a "Christian" country, for example. Even the claim that it's Christian by virtue of the fact that most of the Europeans who first came here were Christian is a) irrelevant, given the current make-up of the population and b) a bit of a joke, considering the commitment most people here make to their "Christianity".

In any case, you're an outsider to Islam (and you're not particularly well-versed in the faith or its history, at that), and in the history of humankind, outsiders rarely convince anyone with debate that their particular world-view is the one they should adopt. I have no real answers here, Jack, and neither do you.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
Hinterland,
So when you used the word "duplicity" it always takes me back to the fact that the Saudies say one thing to the western world and one thing to their own folks.

Wrong, the Sauds says what they want to different audiences as long as it's in the best interest of the false Royal Family and their friends. Just the same as the American regime or any other regime, for that matter. This is not an Arab or Muslim problem.
quote:
Why doesn't secularism get a foot hold in Islamic countries.
Many attempts have been made in the past by Arabs themselves. Such as Nasser of Egypt and Antoon Saadi of Syria. Both brutaliy murdered to crush secularism and Near East Unification. These days, these false Kingdoms work in favour of Capitalists on both sides (East & West). For them, it's cetainly better than democracy and secularism.
quote:
I could argue that since most Islamic countries are non-free that the chance for prosperity and human rights is pretty slim
Keep in mind Jack01, that the status quo is harsh on some, but other reap the benefits.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 14 July 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland,

Same old lazy relativist arguements.

Your right I couldn't possibly understand the difference.

Not being as smrat as Courage I lack all of the critical cognitive skills required to understand both the faith and history of Islam.

Now that I realize that my world view is not going to change anyone's mind I should go back to the seadoo website and pine for toys that I can't afford.

Power in the English world before the Magna Carta was God-King-Country-You. The Magna Carta comes along and then individuals had rights.

More like God-You-Country-King. It took a while but eventually it held.

After a few wars and a whole bunch of years later the USA comes up with the bill of rights.

The Islamists want to plug themselves into God-Islamists-Country-You. To get the power to do this they use the Quran.

The alternatives in the Muslim world are Faccist dictators. Saddam. Militarianism. Turkey and Pakistan. Theocracies. Iran. Or Monarchies. S-Arabia, Jordan.

Couple that with Sharia as the law governing the land and the idea of individual rights and secular government go out the window.

Do I have the answer to who truely hijacked the Islamic faith? Again, I don't think it got hijacked.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your right I couldn't possibly understand the difference.

I never said that. If you're just going to rave on like this, it's pointless to engage you in discussion.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 July 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

I never said that.

No, but if you had you would apparently have been quite correct.

Who truly hijacked the Islamic faith . . . thread?
I'd say it was Jack01. Pity, it was looking rather interesting until the warty little troll popped up. Clearly, some of the participants are quite knowledgeable and it would be a treat for me to see all of you ignore the idiot and continue with the discussion you were having before, which I was finding enlightening.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 15 July 2004 05:28 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Power in the English world before the Magna Carta was God-King-Country-You. The Magna Carta comes along and then individuals had rights.

More like God-You-Country-King. It took a while but eventually it held.


Read a history book. Preferably one without pictures.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 15 July 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
aRoused,

Help me.

I might have got it wrong.

In the Muslim world.

Does power to rule come from God?

Is the power to rule in "we the people"

I'm not good with history.

How is power political/personal derived in the Islamic world and who has it?


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 15 July 2004 01:05 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, 'read a history book' as in read a history book and discover that individual rights, while enshrined to a certain degree in the Magna Carta, were recognized previous to this by systems such as the Anglo-Saxon wergild, by which each man's life was accorded a specific value, to attempt to guard against indiscriminate killing and wounding.

The Magna Carta itself was just a bargaining chip for King John, and represents just one step along the path from William of Normandy mixing English and Norman law, to the modern-day legal system of Britain. In terms of codifying laws, Henry II (c. 1154) smoothed out much of local variations in application of the law (which, incidentally, is a term derived from Norse, ie, brought by the Vikings).

What Magna Carta *did* do, and the only portion of it which has persisted to this day, is state that the King was subject to the laws of the country, which arguably he had been since Anglo-Saxon times (as the king was the topmost rung of the wergild system), but which (I believe) was never strictly stated before 1215.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 15 July 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the preamble to the Lebanese constitution:

quote:
Preamble
a. Lebanon is a sovereign, free, and independent country. It is a final homeland for all its citizens. It is unified in its territory, people, and institutions within the boundaries defined in this constitution and recognized internationally.
b. Lebanon is Arab in its identity and in its association. It is a founding and active member of the League of Arab States and abides by its pacts and covenants. Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception.
c. Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic based on respect for public liberties, especially the freedom of opinion and belief, and respect for social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination.
d. The people are the source of authority and sovereignty; they shall exercise these powers through the constitutional institutions.
e. The political system is established on the principle of separation, balance, and cooperation amongst the various branches of Government.
f. The economic system is free and ensures private initiative and the right to private property.
g. The even development among regions on the educational, social, and economic levels shall be a basic pillar of the unity of the state and the stability of the system.
h. The abolition of political confessionalism is a basic national goal and shall be achieved according to a gradual plan.
i. Lebanese territory is one for all Lebanese. Every Lebanese has the right to live in any part of it and to enjoy the sovereignty of law wherever he resides. There is no
segregation of the people on the basis of any type of belonging, and no fragmentation, partition, or colonization. j. There is no constitutional legitimacy for any authority which contradicts the 'pact of communal coexistence'. This Constitutional Law shall be published in the Official Gazette.

(emphases mine)


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 15 July 2004 01:15 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the Algerian Constitution:

quote:
Article 6 [Popular Sovereignty]
(1) The People are the source of any power.
(2) The national sovereignty belongs exclusively to the People.

Article 7 [Constituent Power, Referendum]
(1) The constituent power belongs to the People.
(2) The People exercise their sovereignty through institutions they set up.
(3) The People exercise it by means of referendum and through the elected representatives.
(4) The President of the Republic may resort directly to the expression of the People's will.

From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 July 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
aRoused,

Help me.

I might have got it wrong.

In the Muslim world.

Does power to rule come from God?

Is the power to rule in "we the people"

I'm not good with history.

How is power political/personal derived in the Islamic world and who has it?


You've introduced a comparison.

However, if you look at "Western" (Christian, really) society, you find that the concept of temporal state and personal power is also derived from God. The geneology of the notion of 'political power' always ends up at "The Father's" (or some other stand-in's) doorstep.

Our 'secular' societies are hardly that. The American Constitution, you'll recall, simply skips over the part where an individual's 'power' and 'value' are vested in them. This is largely because it was assumed that it came from A Creator, who had made all men equal, yaddy-yaddah.
In considering the American Constitution, one cannot take it as seperate from the Declaration of Independence, which was essentially the philosophical backdrop for the creation of the Constitution. What you have there is "all men created equal" and endowed with power by their "Creator". This equality is - we are told - a "self-evident" truth. Well, this doesn't seem "self-evident" at all! In fact, we need to know something about their Creator to see this as self-evident. But then, who or what created man? Man creating God to create Man?

The Declaration of Independence provides us with this theological story:

quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.




The problem is that you need some kind of 'extra-legal' force which can enact the legal/political system. But where do you get that?
By definition you can't legislate it. It has to come from something like 'will' or 'soul' or some other creative force which, geneologically speaking, is inseperable from some larger creative force that has a purpose and meaning - i.e. God. This is simply how our political theory works.

This has been a problematic in political/social theory for eons, in fact: how to justify the rule of some men over others? How to justify and root the concept of 'rights' and 'worth' located in the individual; i.e. what makes an 'individual' an 'individual' and not just a lump of carbon and water that produces some electric charges that can be shuffled around and used at will.

Now, Jack, if you've developed a wholy (holy?) secular ethics and political theory, I'd like to hear about it. The Marxists have come closest, and I'm sure you won't be allying yourself with them, now will you?

Since turnabout is fair play, I suggest we balance things out with another quote from American mythology:

In God We Trust.

-- OR --

In America, political power derives from God => Man => State - though if you really study it, the paradox is that the state is needed to protect the power invested in Man by God.

That's a Gordian knot only a Scholastic could untie...

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 July 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To answer your question most succinctly, Jacko - power is invested in the Muslim individual the same way that power is vested in the Western (Christian) individual - by an Almighty Creator who sanctifies and provides for all things....

Sorry Jacko, but you're batting waaaaaaaaaaay below the Mendoza line....

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 July 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The guiding hand of providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause: the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty. This is America's solemn duty."

Ronald Reagan

Not only is too much of US politics faith-based, but God even went out of her way to create America.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 15 July 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not being as smrat as Courage I lack all of the critical cognitive skills required to understand both the faith and history of Islam.

Clearly.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 16 July 2004 11:52 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
aRoused,

I hope that Lebanon will be and can stay secular. Their constitution is clear and inclusive. However,

Afghanistan Constitution:

1. With firm faith in God Almighty on His mercy, and Believing in the Sacred religon of Islam.

Article 3: No law can be contrary to the sacred religon of Islam and the values of the Constitution.

quote:
http://www.constitution-afg.com/resrouces/Draft.Constitution.pdf

Iran:

Article 1
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2\% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Pakistan:

12th April, 1973

Preamble
Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order :-

Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;

Courage,

I'm not crazy about the "in God we trust" stuff.

The trick about creator is that I can say the rights I have come from my mother and father. To stretch it my rights are inheirented from my parents as a human being.

Yeah, the God stuff is there but you also have "we the people". Were the framers spliting it down the middle? Were they that smart?

To nit pick "God" is what to who? In the Afghan, Iranian and Pakistan constitution its an Islamic God. Their creator is an Islamic one.

In North America your creator might be your Mom/Dad or Mother Earth. Is it implied and reinforced that its a Christian God. Sure. But not necessarily.

To give credit to the Lebanese/Algerians they avoided that trap.

[ 16 July 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 July 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here Jackanapes; a site you can use to help you in your arguments.

"My god is bigger than your god"


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 16 July 2004 02:48 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
al-Qa-bong,

Its funny. I'm not quite sure who has the bigger God.

Now while General Boynton has a bigger God than his enemies I find it ironic that Mohammed is the final prophet.

Seems convienent doesn't it? God talks to Mo via the angel Gabriel. From this we get the Quran.

And, since Mo is the final prophet I guess the idea that God is going to send another angel to talk to someone else in a cave won't ever happen.

So, instead of getting a new Quran or set of advice from God say every 50 years we are stuck with something from the 7th century.

For the relativist out there, No. God has not sent us a daughter via virgin birth.

Score card: General Boynton biggest God. Mohammed final and last prophet, forever and forever.

The biggest God I know is Godzilla.

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet). Godzilla is this size in Godzilla vs. Mothra, released in the U.S. as Godzilla and Mothra: Battle for Earth (1992) and the following sequels; Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla (1993), Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla (1994) and Godzilla vs. Destroyah (1995). When the series returned after the TriStar fiasco with Godzilla 2000, the King of the Monsters returned to the 80 meters (267 feet) version, and has stayed at that height ever since. These changes in Godzilla's height has meant a little confusion for collectors, especially when trying to estimate Godzilla's scale in relation to his height. But first, let's go over what scale is.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 July 2004 08:56 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, you asked me if 'in the Muslim world' the power to rule came from God, or from the people. Your implication was that, if I looked, I'd find that every country with a predominantly Muslim population would have a constitution of the type you listed for Afghanistan (you know, the Mare-Cans aren't doing too well there if they let that through), Iran (incidentally, who was supporting the Shah?), and Pakistan. All I needed to do to disprove your claim was find one counterexample. I found two. Case closed. One can have a predominantly Muslim state while still deriving power from the 'will of the people'.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 July 2004 12:52 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We still observe the Christian sabbath every week here, right?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 17 July 2004 08:55 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and to answer Jack01's questions. The authority of the Koran/Quran among believers is no more or less than believers in Christianity, depending on the sect. Some may interpret it as set in stone at the time of its writing, but still about 6 hundred years ahead of where the Bible was last set....unless we're including Mormons here.

Imams, Mullahs, Qadis(jurists) and Sufis have about as much leeway and/or authority in interpretting these injuctions as Ministers, Patriarchs and Bishops do. Or Rabbis. Only real differences from a theological viewpoint is that Muhammed only stated he was last in long line of prophets rather than the actual incarnation of GOD, and he also recognised Jesus as a great prophet, unlike Christian leaders who don't recognise Muhammed at all. Except perhaps as a fraud or worse.

I hope that helped clear a few things up.

[ 17 July 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 17 July 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 18 July 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The trick about creator is that I can say the rights I have come from my mother and father. To stretch it my rights are inheirented from my parents as a human being.

This brings us back to the same problem, which the "Framers" were well aware of: who gave your parents those rights? That's just it, Jacko, our 'Western' manner of conceiving politics is rooted in the marking off of the 'citizen' (member of the political community, subject of law, individual with rights and responsibilities) from 'bare life' (pure animal-like existence). There is nothing in the simple physical existence of you or me that can make a claim for 'rights' - as we conceive of them - on its own. 'Rights' are always based in something transcendental, because in our physicality, there is little to mark us off from dung beetles.

For instance, if we were to try to root 'rights' in bare existence, we could do so with what justification? That you are simply here? But what is the importance of 'simply being here?' There is where the theology usually starts. And whether or not we call it 'Nature' or 'God' the notion contains elements that define it as a seperate, yet encompassing Being, somehow out of human control, and yet within our power to grasp and harmonise with. The figure will have a kind of 'essence' or 'personality' demanding certain moral implications on humans and/or will contain a telelogy of development - a past and future (God's Plan, Evolution).

quote:
In North America your creator might be your Mom/Dad or Mother Earth. Is it implied and reinforced that its a Christian God. Sure. But not necessarily.

Sure, because Muslims all think that children are brought by The Stork? Taking basic orthodox Islamic conceptions into account, we find that humans are dually made from the divine and the natural:"He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation. Then He made him complete and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you the ears and the eyes and the hearts; little is it that you give thanks.(Sura 32,7-8 of the Shakir trans. - online HERE)

However, what is your evidence that 'everyone' in Muslim societies holds fast to this view? You do have some evidence for your invidious comparison, right?

Also, the same 'implication and reinforcement' takes place in Muslim societies. Much like in our own, people think different things about God and Nature - they do not all concieve of the universe in the same monolithic way. There is - in different ways in different places - mechanisms for enforcing the hegemony of this worldview (The centrality of the 'Islamic God') in public discourse. However, that such battles between 'correct' and 'incorrect' belief are being waged tells us that there is plenty of 'incorrect' thought out there - i.e. diversity. The Taliban, for example, had to kill to get their point across because there were a whole lot of people who weren't (aren't) that impressed with their worldview. Just because we don't hear from them is no reason to think they aren't there.

Your entire defense comes down to claiming a diversity on the part of 'we' in North America, while claiming - without evidence - that there is no such diversity of thought in Muslim societies.

[ 18 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zahid Zaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6459

posted 18 July 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for Zahid Zaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
al-Qa-bong,

Its funny. I'm not quite sure who has the bigger God.

Now while General Boynton has a bigger God than his enemies I find it ironic that Mohammed is the final prophet.

Seems convienent doesn't it? God talks to Mo via the angel Gabriel. From this we get the Quran.

And, since Mo is the final prophet I guess the idea that God is going to send another angel to talk to someone else in a cave won't ever happen.

So, instead of getting a new Quran or set of advice from God say every 50 years we are stuck with something from the 7th century.

For the relativist out there, No. God has not sent us a daughter via virgin birth.

Score card: General Boynton biggest God. Mohammed final and last prophet, forever and forever.

The biggest God I know is Godzilla.

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet). Godzilla is this size in Godzilla vs. Mothra, released in the U.S. as Godzilla and Mothra: Battle for Earth (1992) and the following sequels; Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla (1993), Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla (1994) and Godzilla vs. Destroyah (1995). When the series returned after the TriStar fiasco with Godzilla 2000, the King of the Monsters returned to the 80 meters (267 feet) version, and has stayed at that height ever since. These changes in Godzilla's height has meant a little confusion for collectors, especially when trying to estimate Godzilla's scale in relation to his height. But first, let's go over what scale is.



Jack01, I as a Muslim, can't take anyone who calls Muhammad (pbuh) as "Mo" seriously. The fact that you would reduce one the central concepts in the Islamic faith to a slang nickname shows your bigotry. Try to be more religiously tolerant next time if you want the opposition to take your arguments seriously.


From: Mississauga/Waterloo, ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 19 July 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
aRoused,

For giggles I read the Algerian Constitution. At first it reads pretty well. Yes, power is derived as defined in the constitution by the people. When you read down all the way the Islamic stuff gets thrown in. Only a Muslim can be president.

Does Algeria have seperation of Mosque and State? No.

There is more but the following gives a good example of whats in there.

quote:
Chapter II - Consultative Institutions

Article 171
A High Islamic Council is instituted to the President of the Republic and is trusted, in particular, with:
- encouraging and promoting "Ijtihad";
- expressing its views in comparison with religious precepts on matters submitted to it;
- presenting a periodic report of activity to the President of the Republic.

Article 172
The High Islamic Council is composed of fifteen (15) members, including a president appointed by the President of the Republic among national personalities highly qualified in various fields of science.

Courage,

The only thing needed for rights is exsistance. Thats the point. The fact that anyone exsists at all is all thats needed. Not God, Not King, Not Country. Its something that we as individuals can extend to each other and if we decied to do so extend as a group for a reason to rule. "We the people".

It is a choice. What Muslims may or may not believe I don't know. But for a large percentage they really don't get to deceide if they want to extend rights to each other or for that matter expect them as individuals.

Zahid,

I'm disapointed that you choose to use the "bigotry" tag. I also hate that Political Correctness gets used as an axe in the defense of Islam.

If you feel that Muhammed is part of the central concepts of Islam then what I take from that is that Islam is based on something bad.

Does Muhammed deserve respect? No. He was a bad person who did bad things.

Thats what I find so ironic. The whole PBUH thing. If you want to talk about Muhammed as a leader or warrior thats one thing. Just drop the religous context.

But, the "peace" tag line or religon of peace thing is a joke.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 July 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm disapointed that you choose to use the "bigotry" tag. I also hate that Political Correctness gets used as an axe in the defense of Islam.

If you feel that Muhammed is part of the central concepts of Islam then what I take from that is that Islam is based on something bad.

Does Muhammed deserve respect? No. He was a bad person who did bad things.


Get thee to a nunnery, jackanapes.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 20 July 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone know if there's been a "Complete Works..." released about God yet? I know there's one for Shakespeare, but I was wondering if there was some sort of version which contained the New and Old Testaments, the Quran, maybe even the Tao of Pooh.

It'd be a really great resource material for these little discussions, I could just go to the index and look up "Quran" then go to "leaving Islam" and I'd immediately know what you were all talking about.

I checked Amazon, but they didn't have it, anyone know where I could get such a book?

Thanks in Advance,

Agnostic.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's been years since I've read it, but Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy might be worth a look.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 20 July 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Zahid Zaman:


Jack01, I as a Muslim, can't take anyone who calls Muhammad (pbuh) as "Mo" seriously. The fact that you would reduce one the central concepts in the Islamic faith to a slang nickname shows your bigotry. Try to be more religiously tolerant next time if you want the opposition to take your arguments seriously.


Personally, I feel 'nicknames' such as "mo" or "jc" or "popey" add a little humanity to the discussion of religion and keep the subject matter from becoming too serious.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 July 2004 08:07 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The only thing needed for rights is exsistance. Thats the point. The fact that anyone exsists at all is all thats needed. Not God, Not King, Not Country. Its something that we as individuals can extend to each other and if we decied to do so extend as a group for a reason to rule. "We the people".

Well Jack, that's some fancy equivocation. You see, you brought up this problem of the genesis of rights by way of a comparison. I showed that the comparison was a false one. You have now gone into another matter entirely.

However, I'll bite - what right do you have to exist? There is nothing in your mere existence that commands any moral value, let alone any particular set of demands on me to refrain from harming you. Why shouldn't you kill me on first sight?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 July 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cart:

Personally, I feel 'nicknames' such as "mo" or "jc" or "popey" add a little humanity to the discussion of religion and keep the subject matter from becoming too serious.


Depends on how they are used, and who is using them, I would say.

Jack has shown an interest in denigrating all things 'Islamic' - why should his use of this terminology be considered anything more than a provocation?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zahid Zaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6459

posted 20 July 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Zahid Zaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:

Zahid,

I'm disapointed that you choose to use the "bigotry" tag. I also hate that Political Correctness gets used as an axe in the defense of Islam.

If you feel that Muhammed is part of the central concepts of Islam then what I take from that is that Islam is based on something bad.

Does Muhammed deserve respect? No. He was a bad person who did bad things.

Thats what I find so ironic. The whole PBUH thing. If you want to talk about Muhammed as a leader or warrior thats one thing. Just drop the religous context.

But, the "peace" tag line or religon of peace thing is a joke.


Can you give me concrete examples of why Muhammad (pbuh) was a bad person and what were the bed things he did. I think I can in the same manner denounce every major religion. Just think of all the stuff you can say was wrong with Jesus or Moses. Concrete example please. And trust me, I'm not throwing in a bigotry tag. Muhammad (pbuh) was the founder of Islam. Its like saying that Jesus is not a central concept to Christianity.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Zahid Zaman ]


From: Mississauga/Waterloo, ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zahid Zaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6459

posted 20 July 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for Zahid Zaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cart:

Personally, I feel 'nicknames' such as "mo" or "jc" or "popey" add a little humanity to the discussion of religion and keep the subject matter from becoming too serious.


No it sure as hell doesn't for a Muslim. If you talk like that to a Muslim, you can't expect them to take you seriously. I think its important to approach all religion with respect, if not for the religion then for the person who represents it. That way, you can win the "opponents" respect and get your point through.


From: Mississauga/Waterloo, ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 21 July 2004 04:47 AM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, it was a muslim who first brought this kind of conversational slang to my attention. He said that though Islam was the central theme in which his life followed, he felt that humour, or at least casual conversation, was the best approach when discussing different religions.

Of course in his personal life, in prayer and with other Muslims, he wouldn't use the term 'Mo' and 'The Q' as lightly.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 21 July 2004 12:25 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Courage,

"Because". You might prefer "inalienable".

The fact that you or I exsist and are conscious is again all we need to extend rights to each other.

If you kill another human you then void that exsistence or inalienable right to be. The State my frown up on it and send you to jail. But even without the state punishing you if you have a conscious you know that murder is wrong even if there is no punishment.

Religon, State, King, God are all contexts which may or may not define my rights. My problem with religon and power is that its anti-freedom.

Having consciousness without self determination is a horrible thing.

Taken to the end you have what we have today which is Political Islam. Power to rule based on religon. Its not exclusive to Islam. But for most Muslim countries Islam is the referrent power.

I don't want for myself or anyone else to have to live their lives by rules written in the 7th century.

Zahid,

I apologize for being harsh. For me I see Muhammed in the same context as Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan. Military conquerors.

Muhammed massacered his prisoners of war.

Muhammed had slaves.

Muhammed had his enemies assisinated.

I can't place him in a religous context or place him in a position of respect.

[ 21 July 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]

[ 21 July 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 23 July 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and Jack, since you still insist on confusing Islam, Muslims, Muhammed, his lieutenants, and the history of Islamic nations, without making any distinctions between differing Islamic groups or schools of thought, then you'd do well to consider that Christianity/Christians/Jesus followers of various sects have killed more people than all other religions combined. At least in recorded history. Still do. Something to consider the next time you're tempted to slag hundreds of millions of people you've never met.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca