Arab News runs an interesting piece on minarets, written by an assistant professor at Rutgers University, in New Jersey. The article delves into the history of the minaret—the earliest mosques lacked them—and suggests that they developed as a counterpoint to Christian bell towers. The writer, Tarek Kahlaoui, makes a few assertions for which I’d like to see some documentation, however, including that the ‘dome and minaret’ idiom of Islamic architecture actually is the product of ‘Western Orientalists’.
The reason for the article, of course, is the recent vote by the Swiss to ban the building of minarets at new mosques. This, the author says, is motivated by a false fear that minarets represent the ‘bayonets’ of Islamic expansion, building on an unfortunate turn of phrase by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in 1997. Instead, the author argues, minarets are substantially just architectural decoration that, at one time, performed a useful function. Now, he says, many modern mosques are being built without them.
Misunderstanding the minaret
Tarek KahlaouiTHE controversy over the Swiss vote against the construction of new minarets seems to emphasize political and constitutional issues, notably the restructuring of many right-wing parties around the issue of a “European-Christian” identity standing against an “Islamization of Europe” and the possible conflict between the democratic right to make decisions by voting and the constitutional principle of freedom of faith. Yet the main argument suggested to support the ban position is rarely discussed.
The basic reasoning of the ban position is presented in a flyer prepared by the “Federal Popular Initiative Against Minarets”, which is initiated by a provincial “Egerkinger Kommittee”, and it focuses on the significance of the minaret. The key idea lays in the following assertion: “The minaret is an expression of willingness to have politico-religious power.” The two-page flyer suggests that this is the case because the minaret “has nothing to do with faith,” and also because of what Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in 1997 when he compared, playing with the words of a 1912 Ottoman poem, the minarets to “the bayonets” in an Islamist march to power.
Rejecting Erdogan’s statement as irrelevant to this discussion or especially to use it as proof that building minarets signify an intention of politico-religious conquest by Switzerland’s Muslim diaspora is the easier part. Since Erdogan also suggested then that the domes of mosques are their “helmets”, then it would be incomprehensible not to include the “domes” in the referendum. Then the “Egerkinger Kommittee” should include the “believers” themselves as a forbidden entity because they are characterized in the same quote as Erdogan’s “soldiers”. Obviously what is said rhetorically by a man at a time when he was still part of an Islamist hard-core group involved in a heated debate in the Turkey of 1990s should not be even considered as a statement of any worth in the debate over the meaning of the minaret for more than one billion Muslims.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
December:12:2009 - 11:38
Near my house is the mosque of “Rifqa Bary” fame…the girl who fled to Florida to live with a Christian minister because she was afraid of her father’s reaction to her converting to Christianity…whole ‘nother story. Anyway, one day I went to the mosque which is no more than 7 to 10 minutes from my house. I have to say at least from the outside it is beautiful. Grounds are well kept, LOTS of parking so I can only assume that they must have many congregants, and no minarets although a lovely dome…I am assuming that it might be because of zoning laws. Just like churches can no longer ring their bells throughout the day due to zoning issues I am assuming the same is true for other houses of worship. From a non Muslim eye the structure is lovely and huge! and I personally don’t think it loses any of it’s attractiveness because it doesn’t have minarets. Physically speaking it fits the area well and I think that they have done a lovely job architecturally. As for minarets being Muslim identity, that may be true, however, even the typical church “look” is changing. It is no longer easy at an immediate glance to tell if a church is what kind of church and it also seems that the usual bell tower is either less obvious or not there altogether in the newer churches. As time moves forward so do architectural designs and I personally don’t think that is a bad thing. It doesn’t diminish the worthiness of a house of worship whatever it may be.
December:12:2009 - 12:47
If you drive around the Algarve in southern Portugal (I don’t know about the rest of Portugal) all the houses have chimney’s reminiscent of minarets. It’s very charming. And I don’t think any of the locals associate it in any way with there Islamic past. It just became part of the architecture.
December:12:2009 - 13:23
My parish church, when I was a child, not only had no bell tower, it had no steeple. It was ‘new’ architecture, built in the round. Actually, it hearkened back to early Greco-Roman architecture, but with modern flourishes.
December:12:2009 - 14:53
I understand the need within the Muslim world to couch every criticism of something by calling it un-Islamic, but this one takes the cake. There isn’t a Muslim alive today who remembers the world of Islam before minarets. If you look at photos of Saudi Arabia, there are many many minarets, and I doubt anyone is reminded of Christian bell towers anymore.
Other than that, I do think the minaret is a cultural reminder rather than a banner promoting Islamic dominance in Europe. Muslims in Switzerland should involve themselves in the existing system. Use the court system to attack this silly law. Make the right wing look stupid by showing how integrated you really are.
December:12:2009 - 15:00
I thought people needed the minaret to climb up it and call to prayer but with the advent of the loudspeaker probably technically unnecessary.
December:12:2009 - 15:58
Quote: what is said rhetorically by a man at a time when he was still part of an Islamist hard-core group involved in a heated debate in the Turkey of 1990s should not be even considered as a statement of any worth..
And why not? Because it is inconvenient? Because Erdogan has another song now? Because he is in power? because it reflects poorly on Islamic intentuions?
Like it or not, the minaret is a symbol of Islam, one of several, just as the cross and steeple are a symbol of Christianity. The issue is not the tower but the religion. The vote is simply a reaction to Islam. It is a manifestation about how some people feel about Islam. The questions that must be asked are: 1. Is the vote wrong? and 2. Is it unreasonable to be apprehensive about the presence of Islam? Yes and no, respectively. The vote is also a loud and clear message of the people to their government about the policies of multiculturalism and the political correctness.
The Economist says that the vote “was still a troubling landmark in Europe’s dealings with Islam, and in the global relationship between the monotheistic faiths.” This comment shows how out of touch Europe’s elites (media, government and most institutions are with their subjects. The vote was morally wrong but probably necessary. Hopefully it will cause these elites to consider what they are doing. I doubt it. It should also cause Muslims to consider what they are doing and why. I doubt that this will happen, either. Muslims have too often proven themselves to the incapable of moral reflection when the issue is their faith.
The Economist also says: “Western governments, including the Vatican, have refused to play a game of reciprocity, where the freedom of their own Muslim citizens is held hostage to the status of Christians and other minorities in the Islamic world. But as the Swiss vote suggests, European governments may find it hard to resist populist calls for a tit-for-tat approach”. But then again, maybe a tit-for-tat approach should be tried since for over a generation the approach adopted by Europeans has been an abysmal failure. Doing more of what Europe has been doing is a recipe for disaster. The only ones to gain with present policies are the right-wing parties. If this happens, and I believe it will, the blame rests on Muslims and Europeans leaders.
Be prepared for more actions and reactions of both sides. Take note of the increasing radicalization of Muslims, not just in Europe, the US and even Turkey. The future will not be nice.
December:12:2009 - 18:09
Excellent article from Arab News! Thanks, John.
When I read about this vote, I can only see it in the context of that particular Far Right party gaining ground in the last number of elections with a general “the immigrants are stealing our jobs” platform that is working better than usual because of the economy.
I agree with Tarek Kahlaoui, but I think he misses the party politics behind the vote; and that the fear mongering minaret/missile or bayonet works because the Swiss have little concept of the real meaning of a minaret or the mosque to the Muslim diaspora, which in Switzerland is small, Eastern European in part, and Turkish, with a few North Africans.
Kahlaoui gives an interesting history of the minaret, but as has been pointed out, architecture, including religious architecture, evolves. The nearest mosque to me is a major, well-funded, brand new one, and its design is urban contemporary, along with its surroundings. Any semblance of a minaret is a token. However the mosques in the suburbs have minarets that do make them visible from the highway, and easier to locate. Having negotiated my way walking around various Moroccan cities, minaret to minaret, or former bell tower, to former bell tower, I can see their function as a visual rallying point for the community–not a political call to arms.
Jay–thanks for the tip I will look for the Economist article.
BTW All–I have started my own blog, Chez Chiara, where my previous posts of the last 5 months appear: http://www.chezchiara.com (the www must be typed in for now). All are welcome to read, enjoy, and comment!
John–you are on the blog roll but I don’t see it as one of those strict reciprocity, Christmas card list, type things. LOL
December:12:2009 - 21:20
Chiara…here is the link to the Economist
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017128
Might have to copy and paste
December:12:2009 - 22:51
“The Economist says that the vote “was still a troubling landmark in Europe’s dealings with Islam, and in the global relationship between the monotheistic faiths.” This comment shows how out of touch Europe’s elites (media, government and most institutions are with their subjects. The vote was morally wrong but probably necessary. Hopefully it will cause these elites to consider what they are doing.”
What do you think happens to mainstream media organizations, businessmen, politicians, and diplomats who offend Arab rulers or who insult Islam? If they don’t get slain by terrorists they get banned from profit-seeking contacts. So The Economist writers and editors may even admire what the Swiss did, yet find it impolitic and unsafe to say so.
December:13:2009 - 04:21
The minaret was earlier used to spread the sound of azan (Islamic call for prayer) to a long distance. However, nowadays everywhere the loudspeakers are used for this purpose and minaret has become a decorative piece of architecture, retained in the mosque only for the sake of tradition – it is never used.
I have been following the stories of this event and am quite impressed by the democratic world’s concern of the growing right-wing’s fear of Islamisation of the West and hence, their opposition to this Swiss ban. However, by now several other aspects have emerged from this controversy.
In some places it has been remarked that majority of the voters were women. While the democratic groups wouldn’t explicitly blame the women for the wrongs done in a society as it happens in traditional societies, somewhere in the subconscious of even these democratic groups, this idea lies that women are responsible for this uproar and the tarnishing of the image of Switzerland. Throughout history, men have made innumerable mistakes in making political decisions, but it is never remarked that the majority of those policy-makers were men!
This is not an issue of Islam vs Christianity. There are other issues like rising immigrants in Switzerland involved here. These immigrants are not only Muslims. It needs to be asked – will Switzerland – and Europe – take similar attitude towards Sikhs, Hindus, Jains and so many other communities? If not, why not? Why single out the Muslims? Are these different communities perceived differently by the host population?
Seeing the extent of outrage about the minarets, it is necessary to ask – why don’t the same democratic forces raise a strong opposition to the encroachment upon religious freedom in the Islamic countries and against the gross violation of human rights taking place there in the name of Shariah-rule? What stops these people from taking the Islamic countries to account in those violations, which are much more serious than a piece of architecture?
Are we compelled by our need for oil and gas and our business with the West Asia so much that we must turn a blind eye to the human rights violations taking place there and oppose only Switzerland?
Why can’t we oppose both Switzerland AND the Islamic countries for religious encroachment and for draconian laws the Islamic countries have? Are our indices of democracy different for different parts of the world and guided by our self-interests?
On some sites it has been remarked that Switzerland is a democracy and “more enlightened”, thereby implying that West Asia is ideologically “backward.” I feel this is ideological arrogance and doesn’t reflect the reality. The truth is that West Asian countries not only understand the norms of democracy, in this case they have demanded a democratic treatment from Switzerland. If that is so, then they should return the courtesy by following these norms in their own countries and it is only fair that the world should demand from them this courtesy.
I have also come across some writings from Muslim writers from the Arab world, who have talked about the hypocricy of the Islamic countries and have said that they shouldn’t demand a democratic treatment from Europe when they are not willing to follow the democratic norms themselves. I do feel their approach is commendable – they have the honesty and the courage to denounce the wrongs being done in the Islamic countries.
December:13:2009 - 10:18
There are many explanations of the swiss vote, but I as far as I can se the main reason is that the muslim population hasn’t really delivered.
The main reason isn’t as Chiara writes that “the immigrants are stealing our jobs”, but the other way around, that they don’t work enough. All over Western Europe muslim are are under employed, and draw heavenly on social benefits, it may be social benefits, unemployment support or disability pensions, take then that they have big problems coping in schools, and the young men is involved in a lot of petty crime. The politicians has promised that all this will be solved by the second or third generation but it looks like it’s not gonna happen. One of the reason is of course poverty creates poverty, but some groups has very difficult to adopt to the traditions in the society where they live. The muslim groups is being seen as groups that make demands and claim rights without giving enough.
December:13:2009 - 11:13
Accelerated Links: Hanukah, Israel And Obama…
Golda Meir to Poland: Don’t send us your sick or disabled Jews.
Hanukah and mosque burning.
Analysing Ross Douthat’s stance on Muslims in the west.
The myth of Israel’s settlement myth.
Obama and the Noble prize – a man of con…
December:13:2009 - 11:13
They usually mount the microphones (usually 4-one for each direction) in the minaret- so they can more readily compete with the neighboring mosque on who is the noisiest. I wish we would go back to someone just calling the prayer. The way it is now, feels like an assault.(I’ve never liked to be yelled at)
December:13:2009 - 11:29
There was a 16th century Hindi poet in India called Kabir, whose devotional poetry is highly respected in Hindi literature and also because he talked about communal harmony between various communities in India. He also opposed the meaningless rituals in all religions. Following is a couplet from him regarding the call of the Islamic prayer –
“A mosque has been built by piecing together stones and gravels. The Muezzin climbs on top of the mosque (on minaret) and calls in a loud voce – has Allah become deaf? (so that he needs to be called in a loud voice?)”
December:13:2009 - 12:43
He may be a wonderful gifted poet- but he missed the point on the call to prayer. The Muezzin isn’t calling Allah to the prayer- but members of the community.
December:13:2009 - 19:11
Just to clarify, I didn’t say that the problem is immigrants stealing Swiss jobs, but rather that the Far Right wing party that proposed and campaigned for this ban has been running on a platform of scaring the Swiss about immigrants taking jobs, and has been steadily gaining ground in each new election. Switzerland for all its internal cohesion has been difficult about immigration generally, preferring to bring in “guest workers” than to foster an immigration program where people would stay and their children born on Swiss soil would be automatic Swiss citizens.
It seems to me that most people are addressing this issue in the same emotional, clash of cultures way that the Far Right wing party wants them to, rather than see it as trumped up against a very small religious minority, most of whom are European Muslims, in order to gain votes to advance their own economic and social agenda.
December:13:2009 - 22:11
He knew the purpose of the azan (call for prayer) – he was half Muslim, though didn’t pray through any organised religion. The point he was making was that the truly devoted people should pray on their own and without disturbing others; there is no need for the Muezzin to call them for prayer at the top of his voice. In his verses he also emphasised on good humane conduct as more important than spending most of one’s time in praying through organised religion and not engaging in humane conduct.
December:13:2009 - 23:38
Then his poem didn’t make his point. There is a place for community worship in many faiths- and the adhan ritually calling people can be very beautiful, as can the act of community prayer. And it does not exclude praying on one’s own or engaging in humane conduct. That said, sadly most of the adhans I hear are too loud- and sometimes ugly.
And you can’t be half Mulsim. If you believe in Islam you are one- if you don’t you are not.
December:14:2009 - 03:41
Well, he had nothing against the azan or community worship, but he was making the point against the people who invest a lot of energy in prayers – in any religion – but not in engaging in beautiful humane behaviour. What’s the point in beautiful azan or church bells or beautiful devotional hymns in a Hindu temple or in a Buddhist monastery if the devotees only lay importance on these rituals and not on good humanitarian conduct and why do people have to be reminded of prayer time if they really love God? That was his point and I think it was a valid one.
Indians tend to experiment with a very wide dimension of religiosity because this country has had thousands of years of interfaith interaction between all the major religions of the world. Hence, in a country like India, religiosity has very fluid boundaries – it’s not as clearcut as believing or not believing in Islam or in any other religion. Very often you’ll find people following practices from different religions together – they tend to borrow and share with each other’s practices. And this is regarded as a strength of the Indian people – it enables them to live together peacefully.
As for Kabir, his mother was a Hindu widow, his father had died before his birth and his mother died in childbirth. This orphaned child was raised by a Muslim weaver as his own child. Thus, his early life was influenced by both Hindu and Muslim religiosities, because he interacted with both communities. Perhaps this kind of childhood resulted in his rejecting the meaningless rituals of the organised religion if they were not accompanied by humanitarian conduct, which for him was more important. He criticised the meaningless rituals of both Hinduism and Islam and stressed that people should live in harmony with each other and should emphasise on humane values rather than just empty devotionalism. Hence, he can’t be called either a Hindu or a Muslim, but at the same time he was not an atheist – his poetry is very devotional in nature. He believed in a divine power that couldn’t be bound within the boundaries of any religion. So you can see why I said he was a half Muslim, eventhough that’s not an accurate description of his religiosity.
In fact, India has many mosques which regularly call the azan from the loudspeakers, though not installed over all the 4 minarets, so the sound is not all that blaring and disturbing and no one minds it, eventhough muslims are in a minority here. The minarets are also not all that tall here.
December:14:2009 - 06:04
Thank you for the background. I do agree that rituals without the behavior to back them up are meaningless- the the verse still doesn’t get that point across to me. Maybe it loses something in translation.
I guess in a situation like this he is whatever he says he is. If he does not claim to be a Muslim, he isn’t one- if he says he is- who am I to judge? Maybe he would say he is “influenced” by Islam. I would say also, that not all Muslims believe that divine power is bound up in one faith.
December:14:2009 - 07:10
He never claimed to be either Hindu or Muslim. That’s why he is regarded as a fine example of the composite inter-faith religious culture of India, which as I said, is looked at positively here. Yes, you are right, he was influenced by both religions. Perhaps the translation doesn’t carry the implicit meaning it does in the original verse – you may be right about that.
December:14:2009 - 10:41
Oby, thank you for the link… I should have put it in….
Even more interesting than the article are the comments. Initially about 90% favor the ban. Later a bunch of Muslims jump in and the debate heats up. I am sure we will see more of this type of dialogue.
For those of us that have an interest in Arab culture, I give you an interesting link about “15 things to never discuss with an Arab.”
http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/12/15-things-never-to-discuss-with-an-arab.html
December:14:2009 - 10:51
I tend to agree with NielsC when he says part of the reaction to the vote might be because of the Muslims failure to deliver on their responsibility to contribute to their adopted societies. I read recently that in Denmark Muslims are 5% of the population but consume more than 40% of the social services. A well off country has nothing to gain by allowing people(Muslims or not) to enter their country and then live off the system. I do think that there has to be a certain caring for people who are persecuted and allowances be made for those who might other wise be killed…but wholesale immigration of people who can receive social services for generations is not in any countries’ best interest. I am NOT saying people don’t need help or a hand up, but often rather than be a temporary thing it becomes long term. It was not meant to be a lifestyle. It was meant to be a helping hand. Everyone can need help now and again. Our family needed social services when we were kids temporarily, but as soon as things got better and my dad found employment(he worked three jobs at times) we got off the social services. It didn’t become a way of life.
Look at America 100-125 years ago or so…anyone coming to this country for the most part knew that there was no social services, no safety net to help them, no one to support them through a few generations and they most likely were never going home. Many of the first and even second generations lived in poverty because they were poor laborers with few skills, but the difference they had was a work ethic(they had to or they starved) and the idea that they were now “Americans” and with that came the dream that their children could become whatever they wanted. Was it a valid dream? For many probably not. Did they experience racism? You bet. But it propelled them forward and they pushed their children to get their education and learn, they took English lessons and maybe most importantly they fully embraced their new country and looked upon themselves as “Americans” all the while retaining their cultural heritage. We have so many customs that we think of as American that are really from somewhere else, but the people who brought them adapted so well that it has become part of the culture.
We have generational welfare in the USA too. People who live that lifestyle and then pass it on to their children and they in turn pass it on to their children. For some reason each generation has lots of kids (which can only make it tougher.) Why? They are poor and there is no need for help as there was in agricultural families.In many ways I believe these social services have taken away people’s need/desire to work to their full potential.They don’t have the same drive.
I do understand that poverty is a grinding situation that is difficult to climb out of…my own immigrant relatives had to work their hearts out and make it better for their children who in turn did so for theirs and so on.
I think one of the differences in societies today is that people come from poorer countries but they don’t embrace the culture that they join. They make use of the resources and then either leave or remain in these little enclaves where they are not required to speak the language, learn or embrace the culture and continue to live as they did in their home countries. They don’t make an effort to assimilate or identify themselves as American, Swiss,German or whatever-pick a country. When my great grandparents were growing up (we lived right outside of NYC) and the neighborhood was full of every kind of culture imaginable and the Jews knew the Catholics and the Hungarians said hello to the Italians and kids from every nationality and tongue played together so they got to know each other. Even though they were different, they were neighbors and that made them invested in each other. That whole dynamic has changed. And I don’t think it is for the better.
December:14:2009 - 11:21
As unpopular as this opinion will be, I think it is wrong to demand your “rights” but be unwilling to give those same rights that you want for yourself to others. If they want minarets and the freedom to express their identity why don’t the countries of the Middle East offer those same freedoms to non Muslims? You can’t always declare what you want and not give a little. Obviously, I realize that these people are not responsible for that, but maybe the Swiss vote is a tit for tat reaction…I don’t know. But fair or unfair it was voted on in a democratic election. And though I might not agree with the result, I am concerned that it would be overridden by the government. What does that say about democratic votes? That they are only OK when it goes the way we want? If that is the case why have the vote at all? I didn’t vote for Obama, but I must go with the majority vote…that’s the way it works.
And yes I see the irony between freedom of religion and the democratic process. Not sure what the answer might be.
December:14:2009 - 11:25
Oby,
You are right. This is what I argued above, though in a different language.
December:14:2009 - 11:41
A problem in Europe–and I think it’s a huge problem–is that democratic votes can be overridden by various EU bureaucracies and treaties. It works for some things, but on the whole, I think, tends toward ‘lowest common denominator’ decisions, those things which can gather wide support rather than necessarily being good policy.
But then, I’m one who believes good government is small government that stays out of the way of the people, and individuals, most of the time.
December:14:2009 - 12:57
If I’m understanding you correctly, you could say it’s a problem in the US as well. For example we have some basic standards- which are enormously difficult to change even if the majority were to vote for it. Some “minority rights” trump any “majority vote”. We have a constitution which (in theory) has to be abided by. We cannot just reinstate slavery for example. (an exagaration, but it makes my point).
Unless you’re talking about EU over-riding a member country policy. But even that is similar to the whole “states rights” vs. national in the US.
December:14:2009 - 14:21
Well, in the US, “states’ rights” arguments went into an eclipse following the fights over racial equality. They’re becoming important again, to some degree, as federal courts seem to be paying more attention to federalism issues, though that’s the Supreme Court more than the District Courts, so far as I can tell.
Maybe it’s must my sense of individualism, but I see great benefit in allowing members of a union or federation to go off in their own directions, particularly on social issues. Let them individually try things out. If they fail, they fail. If they succeed, they might be usefully adopted by other members. I do think that trying to cram disparate pegs into holes of a specific shape is usually the wrong choice.
December:14:2009 - 17:11
First I would say, that I don’t think that banning minarets is that wise, although a lot of the minarets (and mosques) after my humble opinion from a architectural point of view are characterized by a pseudo ‘orientalism’.
The swiss vote points back to a tradition for a rough discussion in the public sphere which was a part of the western european societies in century leading up to he second world war. Often immigrants forget that the western societies not always has been what they are today. In fact the development since the war has been extremely fast (could by thats why many pakistanis didn’t feel so different in England in the fifties, when they first arrived) but since then the culture and daily life has changed a lot. And as a child of the fifties I have to say mostly to the better.
One of the thing that changed was that the political discourse have been more civilized. The experience from the totalitarian regimes, and the headache after colonialism has meant that the western elites some times are overly self critical and tolerant. The swiss vote, but a lot of other developments in the last years has shown that in parts of the public, but also deep in the elites there’s feeling, that important to preserve the culture and the insights that have been developed in the last generations.Hopefully it can be done without to much muslim bashing.
It’s of course not right to se muslim immigration as a threat, simply because there is no such thing as a muslim migration. Muslims are divided by nationality, ethnicity, social classes and politics just like they are in their home countries.
December:14:2009 - 18:01
Oby, you have no idea. Actually you do, but it may be worse than you image. I am in the welfare business, kindof. I deal with a certain class of people and with those in government that service them.
I estimate that 15% of the people in the US are functionally illiterate and/or have no skills that will allow them to hold a job. Then there are those with “behavioral” issues – these would add maybe another 10% to the equation. Of course these groups overlap.
I hate to say it, and I know that I am over-generalizing, but these people have no purpose in life beyond getting a welfare check, watching Oprah or providing employment to corrections officers. I even feel sorrow for them. Note this does not include the “cheaters” that steal from taxpayers by receiving benefits through fraud. I have a nice collection of pictures of Mercedes, Beamers, Humvees, Lexus and other vehicles driven by people going to their periodic interviews with caseworkers.
Welfare has its time and place. It is also a cancer that kills people and society. It not only kills initiative but it stimulates an unproductive, unhealthy lifestyle. I am in favor of welfare, but at an uncomfortable level.
As if this is not enough we have a contributing and not unrelated problem in American schools. Many schools don’t teach and even those that do leave a lot to be desired. Consider the recent case of test results in Detroit schools. One official said:”These numbers are only slightly better than what one would expect by chance as if the kids had never gone to school and simply guessed at the answers.” These results were for 4th and 8th graders. It was almost as if the kids never went to school. Eight years in school and they score 30% on a 4-choice multiple question test?
Welfare policy and educational theory are, in my view, responsible for a large part of the poverty and decay we see in the US. As it we don’t have enough problems, our “educators” are going to inflict something called “21st Century standards” (P21) on our kids. This latest concept promises to promote “critical thinking” rather than content or rote learning. This is just another stupid idea from the educational establishment that will go the same way as whole language, new math, history standards and other educational fads.
Add to these the ideas of Multiculturalism and “political correctness” and we have a time bomb. Now not only are things bad, but we can’t criticize anybody (except the dominant white culture) because it is “not their fault” and we must be non-judgemental about other cultures, so they tell us. Of course, there is also the fact that the poor and immigrants can be counted on to vote for certain parties so some people maybe like this situation.
The US, Europe, Canada and Australia are all afflicted by this in different degrees. Because of stupidity, or compassion, our leaders have made decisions that will cause much grief to all of us. They reward speculation, tax personal industry, promote laziness and destroy the family. They feed our worse spirits. They send jobs overseas for an extra dollar of profit and then hire illegal labor to save another 50 cents. Worse yet, the people that promote these policies are proud of themselves because they see themselves as doing good.
So the poor, the uneducated and the immigrant are used and abused. They will not have the same chance that immigrants had 100 years ago. Of course some immigrants will prosper, but many will be trapped in a tangle of policies and behaviors.
What I am saying is that we cannot fault Muslims for all the problems they cause and will continue to cause. Our leaders have helped create this mess. It would be really nice if they would take responsibility instead of blaming the common people, as in the case in Switzerland. The fact that the Econmist believes that “decent, right-thinking” people would not support the ban on minarets shows what the elites think of us.
So only indecent, evil people would vote for the ban. And remember that this is a country that defines multiculturalism with two very different religious heritages and four languages. The fact that this has happened in Switzerland shows that things have changed. There is something rotten in Denmark, I mean Switzerland, I mean the West. The elites had better stop blaming the people, or else.
Kactuz
PS: NeilsC – two things: 1. the elites care little about our culture, only about their egos. 2. yes, there is something called Muslim immigration and it is perfectly logical to see Muslim immigration as a threat given the very basic differences in values.
December:14:2009 - 20:31
I think citizens of a country can be justly worried about ‘Muslim immigration’ when groups of those Muslims start arguing that Shariah law should become part of the nation’s law. I think that Shariah law is extremely limited in its utility, as Saudi Arabia is discovering. If it were perfect, there wouldn’t be legal reform going on in the Kingdom.
But particularly when cultural values are mingled with religious law, people get very nervous. Death for apostasy? Honor killings? Secondary status for women? Bigamy? These are all argued as being religious values by some Muslim. They are also pretty antithetical to most contemporary Western values.
If it is to be argued that perceptions can be false, it should also be argued that those who project false perceptions (or erroneous perceptions) are not without fault.
December:14:2009 - 20:36
Kactuz: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘critical thinking’ education, per se. But for it to be useful presupposes a basis of facts. Criticizing things in a vacuum doesn’t accomplish much, and cultural relativity–particularly when it’s purpose seems to be to denigrate the dominant culture–doesn’t leave anything to compare or be critical about! Scatter-shot criticism isn’t criticism, it’s cynicism, a very different and corrosive thing.
December:14:2009 - 20:38
J. Kactuz
I think some of the problem to a big degree is the dual whammy of victomhood and entitlement. Hey,when your condition is not your fault and those in authority around you be it politicians, religious leaders and others tell you that you deserve better in life and it is someone else’s fault that you are uneducated, unmotivated and poor why look inside yourself for the answer?
What makes people’s condition of today worse than 100 years ago? It isn’t…it is far far better even with the welfare. Ask the people who lived in tenements in NYC at the turn of the century where whole families were jammed in one or two rooms with no running water and the whole building had to share an outhouse, TB was rampant and children often worked to supplement the families income or missed school to take care of their little siblings while the parents worked. It was a grinding and TOUGH existence, but people worked as hard as they could to get out of that condition because they wanted MORE for themselves and their families. And they passed that work hard and make something of yourself ethic to their children.
December:14:2009 - 22:10
John, I will be the first to admit I am cynical. Actually, to be just cynical I will have to be somewhat more trusting of human motives. It would be a step up. I am beyond cynical. It is a good thing I am not god because if I were you humans would be in deep trouble.
Critical thinking is a 5-cent word that means nothing, like “self-esteem” and “diversity.” As you say unless one has a basis for thinking – a store of experience and knowledge – there is nothing to critically think about. It is a concept educators use to hide the fact that they are actually teaching very little. My opinion. As far as I know, there is no study to show that so-called “critically thinking” works better, or even works. If a child knows little or nothing, his/her thinking is limited by his/her limited understanding of life and all its complexities and processes. Last year I met two college students that didn’t know who Fidel Castro was. Why blame the kids in Detroit?
Oby, I hate to say it but you nailed it again. And yes, people are better today than 100 or 50 years ago, even the very poor. Most of them are not undernourished, either (Bite your tongue, old man!). Sadly, to a person on welfare, working more can mean having less because of welfare rules on income and eligibility.
This minaret thing is just a bump in a rocky road. On the other hand, it is things like the following that will lead to revolution and violence because there is a point beyond which people cannot be pushed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235604/Single-mother-living-2-6m-mansion–Labours-housing-benefit-crackdown.html
Is there any rational explanation for this? There were 1000+ comments. When those people vote BNP will it be because they are racists and evil? To a lesser degree the minaret ban can be traced to things like this elsewhere in Europe.
Are we mad? Why have we taken leave of all common sense? Do we hate ourselves? I can’t really answer these questions. I guess that would be critical thinking and I don’t do it. At least I’m not the only one asking questions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1235638/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Just-Archbishop-right-Treating-Christians-cranks-act-cultural-suicide.html?ITO=1490
The only thing I am certain of is it will get worse. The BNP, SVP, FPO, VB, PP DPP and all rightwing parties will only gain because liberals have abandoned all pretense of equality, justice and basic human values and replaced them with cute but empty words that they use selectively, at best. I am glad I don’t have to make that choice.
K.
PS: I am not just cynical, I have a pessimistic side too.
December:14:2009 - 23:28
Well, I’m mostly with you, though I am an optimist.
Critical thinking is necessary, as voting is necessary, but they don’t spring out of the void fully formed. I’ll certainly agree with you that contemporary education is, well, crap. Fluffy non-thinking is taught in the name of being sensitive to other threads of history. That need not be the case. One can accept that other people view things differently without making value judgments, particularly negative ones about one’s own culture and history. One can, but modern schools do not seem to do that.
It’s more than ironic that we work to get the schools in certain countries (e.g. the KSA) to stop demonizing ‘the other’ while American schools seem quite content to demonize the self.
I’ll certainly be skeptical; I can be snarky. I try to avoid cynicism, though, as a cancer of the soul.
December:15:2009 - 03:22
I deal with undergraduate students from various US universities regularly. They come from prestigious as well as lesser-known universities, a wide range of disciplines and ethnic backgrounds. All are born and brought up in the US and are American citizens. It is indeed shocking to see the low level of understanding they have of the world – its history, polity, geography, religion, culture and economy and the students from well-known universities are no exceptions. An Indian student from an Indian college has a much higher level of understanding of these aspects. This is obviously the result of the kind of pre-college education the American students get.
They are not only unaware of many aspects of different regions of the world, they also have the arrogance that they come from the most powerful country in the world, which makes it very difficult to teach them anything that they don’t know. They don’t like to accept that they may be wrong about something. And this problem is more serious with the students from well-known universities – they are not only citizens of the most powerful country, but they also study in a prestigious university – sometimes because their parents happen to be rich. It’s very difficult to teach such students with their large egos.
I am in fact a strong advocate of education based on critical and innovative thinking and certainly in this life I can never understand what it feels like to be born as the citizen of the most powerful country in the world. But I do feel that the American school – and undergraduate level education – is seriously flawed. There should be a balance between teaching the contents and critical and innovative analysis. I wouldn’t lay too much emphasis on either of these, with exclusion of the other. Especially in school level, the students must be taught various aspects of all subjects, including about different regions of the world. And in this increasingly globalised world, there should be a strong emphasis on the non-Western world.
I also agree with Oby and J. Kactuz about welfare money actually inducing the people not to work. We don’t have this system in India – people here have to either take care of themselves or fall below the poverty line. But I do know the case of an American middle-aged man, who used to stay for 6 months in the US, collect his welfare money and come to stay in India for 6 months, where his money got multiplied in Indian currency. He never did any work and his family in the US had disowned him. He had made friendship with Indian students and when he needed money, he used to borrow from these students, by playing on their sympathy because he was discarded from his family and had no one in the world etc.
But the examples which J Kactuz has given from Daily Mail are really shocking.
I feel it’s a good system that the State takes care of its helpless citizens, so that they are not left to starve and die as in India where the government doesn’t have money to give to the helpless, but there should be some measures to cross-check how the people are using this money and whether they are in fact misusing it.
December:15:2009 - 03:54
Self-criticism in any country is very democratic and enlightened and perhaps a need of a multi-cultural, democratic society. But continuous criticism of only the dominant group – by themselves or by others, and ignoring the faults of other less-dominant groups can create hidden wounds in the society that run deep and can erupt suddenly to take ugly forms.
India too is beginning to feel it now. The various clashes between the social groups that erupt sometimes are the symptom of these hidden wounds running deep. But there are not many takers for this idea of mine. I hope it’s not too late before people realise it.
What is required is self-criticism from all groups, with an honest acknowledgement of their faults and also appreciation of each other sometimes.
December:15:2009 - 07:44
Back in the 1990s, American welfare got a bit of reform. One of the major changes was that one could not just sit back and collect payments indefinitely. They put a time limit on how long one could remain on the dole, unless there were extenuating circumstances–health, children, mental ability, etc. To the surprise of some, this did not lead to mass starvation or rising crime rates. It did lead to more people getting jobs.
In a bad economy, it is going to be harder to find those jobs, but the practice remains.
December:15:2009 - 10:47
John,
In a bad economy there won’t be any money to give away in welfare! But it’s a good idea to give them this money for a limited period so that they don’t just collect money without working. Yes, now that you say it, I can understand now – after about 2 years this man went back to the US to find a job for himself.
December:15:2009 - 19:56
I am a little late back to the party! Hectic 24 hours…anyway, as you mentioned John, there have been changes thankfully, for recipients of welfare which I think is a good thing. But I’ll tell you IMO what one of the big problems with welfare is that it rewards bad behavior. For every child that they have they give them money. Now, I think children are a blessing, BUT when you don’t have two nickels to rub together I think it completely unfair and ludicrous that the government reward people for having more wards of the state. That to me is an insult to every tax paying citizen. I think everyone has a right to however many children they want IF I AM NOT SUPPORTING THEM AND THE PARENTS ARE. I’ll give you an example. My brother and his wife several years ago were earning in the lower middle class range…bought a small home, NOTHING great but theirs and making regular payments on it. They were OK financially but not really making enough to save a lot. My brother had his ear to the ground for a new job. Meanwhile, despite precautions they got pregnant with twins. Now, at 6 people they were just about at the poverty line. Still making it but barely. Junker cars, used furniture, etc. they wouldn’t go on welfare due to a sense of pride though I lobbied him very hard for it at least temporarily. My brothers boss didn’t come to him and say “Hey Joe…you now have two more mouths to feed. Tell you what… I am going to give you a raise to take care of those two kids.” Heck No! He had to make what went for 4 stretch to 6. Why should a man who is hardworking and being responsible for his family have LESS than someone on welfare….it makes no moral sense. I think that there needs to be a limit on the amount of support a person gets for the kids…if you chose to have more it is up to you to manage the money and make it spread like everyone else NOT on welfare must do. BTW, he found a better job, almost doubled his salary though it required a move and is now doing better financially. All without the support of welfare or credit cards.
The second problem is that they make it EASIER to be on welfare than to work. There needs to be some sort of support for those kids but it shouldn’t be discretionary, meaning they hand it to the parents to do with as they chose. Perhaps financial credits for day care while the parent is out working. Or a small amount of supplemental help in paying their electricity or rent while they are working and a requirement of it is to be gainfully employed. But when welfare pays more than gainful employment why would people work?
I remember when we went through the time when my parents had to use food stamps…stupid us…we used it like it was meant to be used. I clearly remember this lady in front of me in the checkout line one time with an expensive purse, a professional manicure,hands loaded with jewelry, dressed nicely buying cigarettes and using food stamps for her food. As a kid that made a big impression on me because I wondered how they were able to afford all that stuff and still be on food stamps. What I didn’t understand at the time is that we didn’t abuse the system and they almost assuredly did.
December:15:2009 - 21:10
I guess I have ‘old fashioned values’ too. What you said makes good sense. I get a little warm under the collar, too, when I hear people moan that they can’t afford health insurance, but somehow they can afford huge flat-screen TV and to replace their cars every other year. Me, I guess I’m dim. I have health insurance, but drive a 14-year-old car and have a 19″ glass tube TV.
Actually, I like both of those things! I don’t watch a lot of TV and my car runs very well and has better mileage than the EPA average for 2009. Too, my car insurance bills are very low.
Would I like better and bigger? Probably, but unless Santa is very good to me this year, I won’t be getting them.
Just in case Santa is checking the blog, though, let me suggest the Maserati Quattroporte Sport GTS S, in Verde Deep Emerald, cuoio interior. Sure, it costs more than many homes, but I’ve been good this year!!
December:15:2009 - 21:57
John,
I enjoyed your last comment very much!
December:16:2009 - 00:34
So, are you starting to pass the hat?
A red hat, with white furry trim, of course…
December:16:2009 - 02:27
Yes, of course! If only I can get a Christmas vacation in Goa in return – what better place to celebrate Christmas than Goa!!
December:16:2009 - 05:30
John you’re already getting everybodys “two cents”!
(sorry-couldn’t resist…it’s bad, I know)
December:16:2009 - 06:22
Uh oh… now you’re making me second-guess my choice! I absolutely love Goa, even if the sun will give me a 2nd degree burn within 5 minutes of stepping on the beach!
December:16:2009 - 06:23
Pretty good, actually! But you know what they say about opinions: “My opinion and $4.00 will get me a coffee at Starbucks.”
December:16:2009 - 06:40
I don’t know how you got the idea of a sunburn in Goa. People from all over the world go to Goa to celebrate Christmas and New Year. And that’s the time when weather is absolutley beautiful – sun is never too hot then. And you have your sunscreen lotions etc. to protect yourself. You find so many Western people lying on the beach there to get a suntan at that time of the year – they don’t get a sunburn. The Indians of course are born with a beautiful natural tan, so they don’t care about sunbathing – they wade into the sea with their full clothes on!
It seems you’ll make a good businessman now that you are retired – opinions for coffee and expensive cars and TV and/or a trip to Goa! Not bad at all!
December:16:2009 - 07:50
As one of Celtic descent, I have the complexion known as ‘fish-belly white’. Consequently, I burn in the light of a candle!
The beaches in Goa are fabulous, indeed. And I did note how Indians were wading, fully dressed, at the beaches in front of the hotels. I also noticed that the farther you went from the hotel, the less people were wearing, until poof! They weren’t wearing anything at all!
Imagination remains a low cost option in life. While I would appreciate being put to the test of wisely dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, I’m not counting on it. If you have a few hundred million to spare, you can observe the experiment, though…
December:16:2009 - 08:25
Daisy…
I have been to Goa. LOVED it, but didn’t go swimming. Very pretty. I really would like to go to Pondicherry someday too.
John, my car is a ’98, (bought used) which now has 175,000 miles on it. I take really good care of it and I play a game with myself…I am hoping to get 250,000 miles out of it. My parents had one that had more than that on it when the transmission went out and they decided it was time to lay it to rest.LOL!
December:16:2009 - 09:04
What with moving to different countries every few years, I’ve had my current car longer than any other. I’m hoping to get more than 100K miles out of it as I do take good care of it and don’t put a lot of miles on it.
December:16:2009 - 09:09
INterestingly enough under the Arab News title “Book those responsible for flood misery” you will find anything but that subject! But you will find Pr. Talal’s opinion on the banning of minarets. Does the minaret have any and I mean ANY Religious significance?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=129702&d=16&m=12&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
December:16:2009 - 09:48
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18514
No religious significance…and my cell phone can be programmed to call me to prayer as can other other electrical device. However, I find that they can be lovely piece of architecture so I don’t understand the ban unless people fear the call to prayer will be blasted over loadspeakers which is a significant noise pollution especially when the volume isn’t regulated.
And Pr. Talal thinks its racist he just needs to get over himself. What does race have to do with religion???
December:16:2009 - 10:09
Oby,
Of course everyone falls in love with Goa on going there – that place has some kind of enchantment to it.
You must go to Pondicherry and especially see the French side. Unlike Goa, where Indian and Portuguese elements intermingle along the coast and you have to go into the villages deep in the forests to see the indigenous culture, Pondicherry was sharply divided into a French side and an Indian side. I have been there several times and to cross over from the Indian side to the French side, which is along the coast is an ethereal experience – you are suddenly in a completely different world! I of course lived in a French villa on the French side and loved it. Unfortunately there is no beach there, as the French docked up the entire coastal stretch to build a harbour there. But it’s nice to sit on open terrace and have continental cuisine and French wine in the restaurants with sea-waves lapping up the walls of the terrace. The Indian side is of course like any other small town of India. I wasn’t much excited to see it.
Cochin in Kerala is another place you should see – the Portugeuses were in Cochin before they went to Goa and that place is again very cosmoplitan and a mix of two cultures. It also has a fine Synagogue which was patroniased and embellished under the patronage of the local rulers when many Jews migrated to Kerala to avoid persecution in Europe and Persia.
December:16:2009 - 10:19
Never been to Goa but have come accross quite a few people from there. They were all proud of its jesuit heritage and the fact that old St. Francis Xavier is buried there. The old generation still speaks Portuguese, even after all these years. Must be nice and interesting.
December:16:2009 - 10:43
John,
I am a poor person from the Third World so don’t have much money; you are the one from the rich and powerful America and having earned a lot of money as a Diplomat and so on and so forth. So if you want to invest your earnings in an industry, I can be the Director of your Advisory Board, giving you several million dollar ideas! I am best at advising people with imaginative ideas and you know that such people don’t usually have money.
Since Oby says she has taken good care of her car, perhaps you can sell your car and buy hers for a mutually agreeable price – and both of you can pay me a small fee for giving you this idea – apart from the Christmas vacation in Goa of course.
December:16:2009 - 10:44
I’m not sure ‘buried’ is the right word here. His body is on display in a glass case in the Cathedral.
There’s not so much Portuguese these days. Last time I was there, with a Portuguese friend, in 2003, it was hard to find anyone other than tour guides who spoke the language.
It is striking, though, to see the many churches and chapels splashed across the countryside, very different from the look of the myriad temples found in the rest of India.
I haven’t been to Pondicherry since the mid-60s, just a few years after it reverted to Indian control. It was still very, very French at the time.
December:16:2009 - 10:49
J. Kactuz,
Yes, Goa is beautiful but now English is spoken more frequently there than Portuguese, which is spoken only by the older generation. And it is the most cosmopolitan place in India. You should see its exquisite churches which are on the UNESCO World Heritage list and rival the churches anywhere in the world. There is one modelled on the St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
John,
You are riht about St. Xavier’s casket – it’s displayed to the public every 12 yrs, otherwise the casket is enshrined in the Church of Bom Jesus. Pondicherry is still very French – I mean the French side. The French have retained their villas and they come there for a couple of weeks from France. The Ecole Francaise carries out cultural research on India. The political control is of course, Indian as you say.
Sparky,
This minarets business is a complex issue and goes beyond religion and race. Please see my comment above and see the following links –
http://thegulfblog.com/2009/12/01/musings-on-the-swiss-minaret-ban/
http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/muslims-should-learn-to-build-bridges-before-they-demand-any-more-minarets/#comment-4336
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=129448&d=12&m=12&y=2009
December:16:2009 - 12:29
Actually, it’s on public display constantly. It’s in a niche, some 12-15 feet above an altar, in the front right of Bom Jesus.
December:16:2009 - 14:31
ChaDaisy:
To me it all about getting Muslims a huffin and puffin in another direction. I wonder how many actually really care. Is one to make one believe that if a minaret is decapitated that somehow someone’s identity or power is decapitated too?
Minerats? People are they attached to let’s say some type of symbol. K if you all want it that way. I guess I have no choice but to agree.
December:16:2009 - 14:57
And that’s the REAL MADRID
Peace OuT
December:16:2009 - 21:38
Perhaps targeting the minaret as a symbol, aside from emphasizing the otherness of the immigrants this party claims are stealing Swiss jobs in a bad economy, is meant to invoke as well Turkey (the Ottoman style of mosque has the most minarets), and its attempt to join the EU, as well as the main non-European Muslim population in Switzerland,ie the Turks. Discrimination against Turks, specifically difficulty finding and maintaining work, is a major problem, at least according to a colleague in the mental health division at the WHO, where research was focused in part on exactly that dilemma of the difficulty for Turks, particularly in German Cantons.
Integration is a 2-way process: the host community has to be open to acceptance of the guest community, in the sense of allowing full participation and equal opportunities.
December:16:2009 - 21:52
That’s the difference, I think, in the experience of the US and Canada on the one hand and France, Germany, Switzerland, and friends on the other. In some countries, assimilation works because it is a two-way street. In others, the host culture seems bound to keep the aliens alienated.
[BTW, not dissing Australia here. Just don't have any facts to support an opinion either way!]
December:16:2009 - 22:25
Yes, the casket is publicly displayed constantly in the niche – and people pray to it as if they were praying in front of a Hindu shrine! That’s why I used the word “enshrined.” That’s the composite religiosity of Goa. Once in 12 yrs the body is shown to the public by opening the casket in a pupblic ceremony.
I am with John and Chiara – immigant integration has to be a 2-way process. And that’s one of the reasons behind the uproar – one argument runs the way Chiara says it – host community should be open to accept the guest community’s ways. The Swiss have tended to stress the other side of the coin – the guest community should show a sensitivity towards the host culture and try to accept it as much as their own culture. The orthodox Islamic argument is that this can not be possible in Islam in the context of Europe. The truth is that Muslims outside the Arab world have changed their religion to accommodate it within the local culture where they are living. Somehow Arabs find it difficult to do this and don’t even accept non-Arab Muslims as “Muslims.” For example, Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are treated with the same kind of hatred in Arab countries – Indian Muslims are not regarded as “Muslims” by them. Never mind that there are more Muslims in India than in the Arab coutries.
So the 2-way process means that both the host and the guest communities should be accepting of each other. If anyone of them shows a disdain for the other, problems are bound to erupt.
And as I said above, you can’t argue that Europe is more “enlightened” than West Asia, therefore the burden is more on Europe to accept the Other. The truth is that West Asia has shown in this case that they understand the norms of democracy and also demand it from others. In that case, it’s high time they begin to follow these norms themselves. It can’t be a one-way process. Because of this I argued that BOTH the Swiss vote and the West Asian undemocratic laws should be denounced, not only one of them, turning a blind eye to the other.
December:16:2009 - 22:50
John–agreed, and I share your ignorance of the reality in Australia.
Daisy–The Arab Muslims I know in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain have all adapted to European ways–which wasn’t terribly difficult as they were educated in European ways through schooling in their own countries and abroad. Most Arab Muslims know far more about European culture and Christianity than vice versa. I think the problems are more systemic in the host countries, taking the example of France which is what I know best. Deliberately importing (ie going and fetching) massive numbers of male North African immigrants to be labourers during the 50′s and 60′s and into the 70′s, and creating separate housing ie apartment blocks for them, not allowing immigration status, or bring wives and children easily, not allowing citizenship for children born to them in France and who never set foot anywhere else, did little to favour integration, and a lot to favour the need to stick together, and to see their time in France as temporary (which was of course the intention). However, 40 years on (average work life) tant bien que mal France became home, and certainly became home for their children, who spoke little Arabic and certainly not enough to function in an academic or career environment in their “home country”. This system which of course has been revised, laid the foundation for the current turmoil in the Parisian suburbs, and those outside of other major immigrant cities like Lyon, and Marseille.
To give you the flavour, one of the debates during an electoral campaign in the late 70′s was to have the far right promise to force the immigrants to France (still no citizenship remember) to return home, and in the meantime to make sure that their children born in France and therefore entitled to public schooling did not benefit from the summer camps that nearly all French children attend for a month in the summer. Dreadful! The response of Giscard d’Estaing(ie the more centre right)? To say both were dreadful propositions, and to reassure the voting public that while his party wouldn’t engage in massive deportations they would get the (legal) immigrants out as fast as possible, and that of course a certain number of their children should be allowed to go to summer camp. Disgusting!
The only good thing was that after re-election all such campaign promises were allowed to fade into oblivion.
December:16:2009 - 23:04
What I can agree with is the two way process. Otherwise uninterested people will all of a suden go on the defensive whereas otherwise they had no real invested interest. All of this because there because some “perceived” threat to their identiy.
Keeping aliens alienated isn’t a good idea
John that was revelation!
December:16:2009 - 23:39
I hate to rain on this parade, but I don’t see this as a two-way street. As far as I am concerned the burden is not on the host country but the immigrants. Those who argue otherwise would never take this position accept for a Western Country. There are some things that are incompatible and cannot be “worked out” – you know, small things like freedom of speech and religion, democracy, equality and women’s rights.
Even if the Swiss vote is reversed it will make no difference. Things will not change in Muslim societies. Any chance there was for integration and accommodation died with the birth of multiculturalism and political correctness in the 70s. This alienation among immigrants that certainly exists is a secondary issue – the real issue is values. As I have stated before, I do not believe that Islam’s values are those of what is generally known as “Western Civilization.” There is nothing that Europe can do to make Muslims happy except suicide. They are slowly learning this. It is obvious that more and more Europeans are drawing a line in the sand about this issue. I don’t know what will happen, but it will not be pretty.
December:17:2009 - 00:00
I don’t think host countries have to go very far out of their ways on this point. You’re right: the one coming to country X to benefit in whatever manner is the one who needs to do the bulk of the adjustment. ‘When in Rome…”
That is to say, though that host countries, as a matter of good policy if not law, should not raise artificial barriers to assimilation. Pushing foreigners into ghettos, keeping them from participating in the political process at all levels, providing a substantially smaller suite of rights, making sure they get the short end of every stick… that’s not good policy, that’s a recipe for trouble.
Immigrants need to understand in their own minds what they’re looking for. If it’s just to earn more money than they could at home, then fine; that’s a clear objective. It does not entail participating in the political process beyond a certain, very low level. Nor does it require much of a change in their socio-religious attitudes. But by making this the objective, they lose the ability to try to shape the outer environment to any significant degree. They’re only short-timers, with little to no investment in the country as a whole. At the end of the term of the visa, they should also be shown the door.
If they are immigrating to enjoy the political and social liberties of another country, then much more is needed in the form of adaptation and change. It’s sort of stupid, actually, to insist on recreating the dysfunctional country and culture they were fleeing, isn’t it? This doesn’t mean that one must now spit on the former culture. It can be appreciated, enjoyed, even revered to an extent. But it cannot be made the touchstone of defining a good culture. Were it perfect, there’d have been no need to emigrate, right?
Host cultures will change as the result of immigration, in ways big and small. The change has to be organic, however, not imposed by politics or courts. Thanks to the Irish immigrants, for example, Americans say, ‘He went to the hospital’ not the Britishism, ‘He went to hospital.’ They also brought, indirectly, Irish Coffee. They have their Hibernian organizations, step dancing clubs, and let’s not forget St. Patrick’s Day! Less salubrious, perhaps, they also brought a certain attitude toward policing.
Thanks to the Italians, pizza is a national dish in the US, along with spaghetti and meatballs. The Sons of Italy played an important role in helping Italian immigrants adjust to the realities of the New World. And then there’s Columbus Day.
I think it’s perfectly fine for the US to acknowledge the Eids, to host Iftars. It should not (and is not) offering to permit Shariah law to substitute for constitutionally derived law, though some accommodations in family ‘courts’ are extended, the same as they are for other religious groups. Cultures can adapt to newcomers and their values, but the bulk of the changing has to be on the part of the newcomer.
December:17:2009 - 00:41
With the talk of Turkey it has brought to mind the glorious terrains of fluttering butterflies alongside the aromas of barbecued shik kabobs in what Muslims did to churches, decapitating statues, erasing faces and many other things. I understand your sentiment J. Kactuz
However Sun Tzu said, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
People are generally won over by acceptance…
I can give a simple example. The US embassy tried to hassle me about covering my hair. They wanted to show my ears and hair. I felt that was a form of humiliation and they were generally non-accepting of my beliefs. I made a stink of it and said, “I want to appear the way I appear when I travel and I don’t want to show my hair.” BLAH BLAH I made a stink over it including calling Washington D.C. (some office) to report a crime.
Actually Muslims in other countries weren’t harassed that way from my research. My husband said, “You are a maniac. This is a country and it has rules.” I am a maniac hah I am dancing with my leg warmers on. I said, “Watch and see. They will accept my picture. I know my country and it is a democracy and they respect all people. Watch.” To make a long story short they accepted the picture and apologized.
After that, I felt more love for my country and I thought I don’t even want to cover my hair. Seriously!
So Saudi wants to redirect this movie AYE?
December:17:2009 - 05:21
I agree with Chiara and John again that the immigrants should not be treated as non-entities as Chiara has described in the case of France and that they should be given their share in the democratic political process.
But here comes the problem – when you are giving the immigrants a share in your democratic political process, what kind of political norms are you giving a share in the political process of your country – a set of norms based on social equality, human rights, equal opportunity to all, no distinction based on gender, right to make decisions about one’s life, or on the other hand, values that are associated with an alien religion – a religion that explicitly makes an unequal distinction between men and women, their voices, their decision-making capacities as free and intelligent individuals, the treatment of women and offsprings as property, polygamy, an attitute that explicitly proclaims that theirs is the only true religion and all other religions are false and there is no space for an alternative religious or non-religious thought in this religion?
Are you seriously willing to accommodate all these norms into your constitution? To what extent are you willing to accommodate them in your political process and on what terms? I think it should be made absolutely clear in all countries that invite immigrants that the basic democratic norms of these countries will not be tampered with because of the immigrants’ different cultural patterns, which must be respected on a personal level by the host population.
And when I say this, please note that my country sends amongst the maximum number of emigrants abroad each year.
You have to understand that many traditional societies follow a set of norms that are not compatible with the norms of democracy. And if these people immigrate to a democracy for whatever reasons, they must respect the democratic values of their host countries. And their parent countries should not show the hypocrisy of decrying any undemocratic step in a Western country while flaunting all the norms of democracy in their own lands.
Chiara’s example of France is very convincing. But the Islamic countries regularly employ people from South and South-East Asia on wages much lower than promised, they give them jobs other than they promised in the beginning, confiscate their passports illegally, don’t give them leave to go back home, treat them as dirt, behave in an atrocious manner with them, in case of low-class jobs, rape, exploitation, coerced treatment is rampant. To add to these, Muslims from these countries are not treated as fellow Muslims by the Arabs, who think of themselves as superior to everyone else.
I am opposed to the Swiss ban and to the mistreatment of immigrants in France as Chiara described. My question is only this – why isn’t the democratic world opposing this inhuman treatment of South Asians and South-East Asian workers in West Asia? Is it because West Asia matters more and the South and South-East Asian countries don’t matter that much for the West? What legitimate right do the Islamic countries have of decrying the undemocratic step of Switzerland? Why is no one questioning this and why are such people being supported in the name of democracy?
Do we need their oil so much? Is it then not a question of democracy vs non-democratic systems but the self-interests guided by economy?
December:17:2009 - 06:05
It seems that a democratic vote voted out minarets by 57%?
Right or wrong and the consequences I don’t know. To me it is just extra cement and bricks.
There seem to be so many other things worth fighting for.
December:17:2009 - 10:54
I think in essence Daisy is right. Yes, the West is democratic and has equal freedoms…and that is a blessing as well as a curse of sorts… When people come from countries that have such incompatible values vs the West, they then have a right(if they are fully integrated) to demand their share of rights. Often, however, what they want and what the West wants are conflicting and this causes a lot of friction. You can’t go through the values of the host country line by line and make it work for everyone…it is not possible nor should it be. YOU are going to their country. There are too many competing wants and desires and ideas about how things should be done. If these things are not gelled properly you have a hodge podge mess where no one talks to anyone or trusts anyone because they are too different. The country will lose it cohesion.
I think the host country needs to be accepting to a degree of the immigrants rights but it can only be accepting to the point that it doesn’t dilute itself in so much political correctness that it is no longer recognizable as itself. That, in my opinion, is where immigrants have to sort of suck it up and realize they cannot transplant their country to the new one and everything will be fine. As John said they can retain some of their cherished traditions but they have to now think of themselves as “American, French, German,Swiss etc.” and forget about some of the things that they want to see in their new home country. If those things are so very important then they should stay where they came from…don’t try to import them to the host country. I don’t think that is xenophobic, I think it is fair. As I said in an earlier post, so many immigrants came to America and brought some of their traditions with them and yet they EMBRACED their new country and thought of themselves as Americans and bent over backward to fit in as best they could. They fit to the country NOT the other way around. I think to a huge degree that is what made their immigration successful. They didn’t try to turn America into another Italy or Germany or Ireland. They blended instead.
About the minarets…I have the same feeling about both viewpoints…”What? Get over it!” By that I mean it was two minarets for heaven’s sake. Not a whole fleet of them. But to the Muslims I also feel like saying the same thing. HOW important is this really? Again, it is two minarets…they didn’t outlaw Islam or the practice of it in any way. So they don’t want minarets? Big deal. 99% of the mosques there don’t have them. Why make such a stink over this? Perhaps some things should be just accepted as “that’s life”.
I look at it like this…if I were to go to a Middle Eastern country would I be allowed to walk around without covering? Could I put up a nativity scene in front of my house at Christmas? Would I be able to worship freely in a well kept church that has been repaired and maintained (or would it be crumbling in disarray IF I could find one at all),could I find any hint of any of my religious or American holidays? No, I almost assuredly could not. But if I choose to live in that country I know that and it might be something that I have to accept. Do I have any rights? NO! People who come to the West do so for a reason and they need to accept life is not going to be like it was at home and you can’t muscle your “rights” through without ruffling a few feathers. You can’t have everything you want. Even as an American I don’t have everything I want in my own country.
Finally, on a simplistic level it feels very much to me like being on a playground and the one kid(the Middle East) says to the other(the West) “you have NO RIGHT to play in my sandbox, but I DEMAND to play in yours.”
And I think a fair question to ask in regard to the Middle Eastern countries when it comes to rights is, how much tolerance should be afforded to INTOLERANCE? When can people say, “enough is enough”. Maybe that is what the Swiss were actually saying.
December:17:2009 - 11:32
Since we are talking integration (or the lack thereof) and somebody has mentioned France, may I quote from a recent le Figero article:
If you cant read French, I will translate this in 12 words: Muslims demand special rights and accommodations at work, in hospitals and schools.
What these people are saying is “we don’t like you, we don’t like your ways.” This attitude is widespread and growing as radical Islam spreads among Muslim minorities in the West. The so-called moderates cannot stop it, they can’t even argue convincingly against it.
De nouvelles exigences religieuses en entreprise et dans les hôpitaux irritent ou inquiètent.
Au gré des auditions, les députés ont découvert de nouvelles exigences religieuses ou communautaristes. Consultant en ressources humaines, notamment pour des sociétés du CAC 40, Carl Pincemin a raconté comment des salariés ayant obtenu des menus confessionnels, refusent désormais que «la viande halal soit proposée à côté de plats contenant de la viande “normale” jugée impure». En clair, ils désirent des cantines séparées et ne veulent plus «s’asseoir à côté de personnes qui mangent du porc !», tempête Jacques Myard, député UMP de la mission. D’autres ont constitué l’équivalent d’un «syndicat confessionnel». Ils réclament la reconnaissance de jours fériés musulmans, demandent des lieux de culte dans l’entreprise et prétendent que les femmes de service chargées de servir les plats à la cantine doivent se présenter «les bras couverts».
«Des pratiques intolérables»
Ces revendications, de la plus simple aux plus extravagantes posées au nom de l’islam, embarrassent les responsables des entreprises. «Ils perdent leur bon sens», estime l’anthropologue Dounia Bouzar, auteur d’un livre intitulé Allah a-t-il sa place dans l’entreprise ? (Albin Michel, 2009). «Certains craignent d’être traités d’islamophobes s’ils refusent. Et cèdent à des pratiques intolérables.» Jusqu’à accepter que des salariés ne passent plus l’entretien d’évaluation avec leur chef de service si c’est une femme. Tandis que d’autres, à l’inverse, «répriment toute manifestation de foi, même si elle ne perturbe pas le bon fonctionnement du service». Pour Cathy Kopp, l’ex-DRH d’Accor chargée de mission au Medef, «l’entreprise est demandeuse de règles plus claires en matière de revendications religieuses».
L’hôpital aussi, si l’on en croit André Gerin (PCF), le président de la mission parlementaire sur le voile intégral. Les députés ont visité à Lyon la maternité Mère-Enfant. «Le personnel se sent abandonné.» On compte «quatre à cinq incidents par semaine» dans les services d’obstétrique, affirme André Gerin. «Un homme sage-femme appelé à la rescousse lors d’un accouchement difficile s’est fait casser la gueule en octobre par un mari», a raconté le responsable hospitalier. Les pompiers ont dû le réanimer pour qu’il achève l’accouchement. Un traumatisme pour tout le service, qui «n’en peut plus» de devoir slalomer entre les exigences religieuses et déminer l’agressivité de certains. «Les maris insistent pour que leurs femmes soient vues par des médecins femmes. Beaucoup refusent une anesthésie par crainte qu’un homme apparaisse», a relaté le personnel. Comme en 2004, lorsque pour la première fois, plusieurs chefs de service d’obstétrique avaient dénoncé ces pressions devant la commission Stasi. Depuis, une charte rappelle qu’on ne peut choisir son médecin dans le service public. «Mais les personnels restent seuls à gérer les conflits», regrette André Gérin.
Sur le terrain, les maires de banlieue réunis dans l’association Ville et Banlieue s’inquiètent d’une montée en puissance des exigences religieuses. Après les repas sans porc à l’école, les requêtes portent sur des menus sans viande ou halal. Tandis que la demande pour des créneaux horaires réservés aux femmes s’accroît dans les piscines et les gymnases.
and so on….
December:17:2009 - 11:42
Not only that Oby, can a Hindu man pray to a Hindu deity in a Hindu temple in any Islamic country? Forget that he is not from The People of The Book, If he was a Muslim, could he have dined with an Arab Muslim on the same table with dignity? If he wanted to leave Islam, could he have survived under the Shariah rule? Can you go out in the streets of Saudi Arabia without wearing the veil and escape getting whipped to about 50 lashes, perhaps in public? Can you visit the holy cities of Makka and Medina unless you convert to Islam, no matter how much respect for Islam you have in your heart? Never mind that Kaba was originally a pre-islamic shrine, violently captured by the early Muslims and its pre-Islamic features destroyed to the last degree, its worshippers forced to submit to Islam. Is it very democratic to not allow non-Muslims there? Forget the other religions, is it very democratic to treat their fellow-Muslims like dirt because they are not Arabs?
There is really no end to this list, but what I am amazed at is that they are getting away with all this and even get supported!
Why is the democratic world not equally vocal in opposing all this? Why shouldn’t the ways of the Islamic countries be opposed?
December:17:2009 - 11:44
J. Kactuz…
This is outrageous…to accommodate these things is to disrupt the entire order of society. That is what I mean that they either have to adapt or they should stay in their home countries. Sometimes I think some things are just too incompatible to coexist.
December:17:2009 - 11:50
@Daisy…
Yes you are right. For myself as a Non Muslim I would perhaps expected to be regarded as a kafir, but it is simply outrageous that a fellow Muslim though he isn’t Arab be treated or thought of as not Muslim. The irony is that I am pretty sure that the Qur’an has said very clearly that that is not OK. So perhaps the Arabs are not caught up in being better Muslims but they think that because they are Arab they are the superior race. I wonder if a non Muslim Arab would view an Indian Muslim as less Muslim?
December:17:2009 - 11:54
@Daisy…
I forgot to say you might very well be right…perhaps the quiet acceptance of this is due to oil…yet another reason to seek alternative energy sources.
December:17:2009 - 12:21
Thanks Oby. Non-Muslim Arabs don’t have any issue with Indian Muslims. It’s only the Muslim Arabs who think no end of themselves. They forget that India has contributed more to Islamic studies than the Arab world has done in the past. The Indian Muslims are really incensed at their behaviour.
That French text in translation appears awful in its ideas. It appears as if these immigrants are doing a big favour to the companies where they are working and I don’t see why the companies have to bend backwards to accommodate them to this extent.
But again, perhaps economy is involved here too – often immigrant populations work for less wages in private companies than what a native citizen will have to be paid. So perhaps these companies don’t want to lose their profit. Otherwise I don’t understand why the people’s illegitimate demands such as these should be met with consideration, just in the name of being sensitive to the Other groups.
December:17:2009 - 14:44
I would not accommodate these things even at the risk of being called islamophobic. There is a difference between being truly Islamophobic and just plain realistic. I am not saying that wanting these things is wrong…if Muslims want them and to live like that, that is their choice and right BUT they must live in societies where these things are normal. To force these issues in a country where it is not normal not only makes the population angry and resentful that one group of society is being singled out for special preference, it is simply not reasonable. Should French society change the way it does things to accommodate these minorities on such a huge scale? If that translation was accurate and I think it was a bit off but the fireman who was beat up by the husband because he had to see the man’s wife in childbirth to revive the baby??? So the father would rather the baby be dead or the mother dead? Would the father then have the right to sue if no one was able to help her due to their self imposed restrictions? This is not reasonable and the society can’t reorder itself to accommodate these sort of demands…it just can’t. The immigrants have to adapt. Someone, somewhere along the line has to say, enough is enough…we can go only so far and then that is it. If the line isn’t drawn somewhere the demands never end. If you cannot abide by the rules/customs of the country then I say you shouldn’t try to live there. What’s next? Outlawing Christmas and churches because it “offends” some people? And lest Muslims think I am singling them out I think it cuts both ways…though I think the Middle East has a long way to go in human rights they can’t reorder their entire society to accommodate the minority. It isn’t feasible.
Imagine me going to a Middle Eastern country and demanding that I be allowed to eat pork at work and if others are offended they should build me a new cafeteria. When I go to the beach I am going to wear my prettiest bikini. Oh and if that offends they should clear the beach during certain hours and days for me and others like me. And of course, when it is hot in summer I will wear my shorts and t shirt. I don’t like the fact that I can’t drive…after all, I am used to it so I think I will just ignore that rule (for KSA),on and on and on. First, if I am not arrested and thrown in jail or worse,they will laugh me out of the country. Do my demands seem reasonable? i don’t think so. The point is if you move to a country and things are not as they were at home…deal with it. If it is against your religion or you can’t manage then I guess it is a country you can’t live in. Being tolerant of others does not mean that you have to meet every desire of the immigrant. You give as much as possible and give them rights to participate fully in the society AS IT IS…it doesn’t mean that you recreate the conditions from the home country in the host country.
I am sure KSA is a lovely country in many ways. I am sure the people are hospitable…but I don’t think I could ever live there because I could not tolerate the restrictiveness. The “compounds” that expats live in are not KSA. Sure, they can live “like home” but it is a fantasy world. They could NOT do any of that in the real outside KSA world.They can live for months and years and never get to know the people. How is that any different than being in a “ghetto” in any other country? When I say ghetto I don’t mean it in the poor sense but in the sense of a homogeneous group of people living together isolated in a country.
December:17:2009 - 15:34
Regarding the discussion of French Muslims’ demands in the workplace, I read the Figaro article in the original and found it a little alarmist, and collecting incidences without documenting context or statistics, eg. a Muslim man punched a male midwife for trying to deliver his baby, the emergency services (they say firemen) had to resuscitate the male mid-wife before he could proceed to do the delivery. How often does this happen? How many male midwives can there be in France? How many times does such a ridiculousness (sending a male midwife to deliver a Muslim woman without her consent) happen? Where are all the female midwives, obstetrics nurses, obgyns? Finding a female dr in a non-emergency situation isn’t that difficult these days.
The link to the original Figaro article:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/16/01016-20091216ARTFIG00067-islam-de-nouvelles-revendications-en-entreprise-.php
A link to another Figaro article detailing how a right wing party (but not extreme right) wants the burka to be banned not only in government settings as Sarkozy proposed but everywhere:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/16/01016-20091216ARTFIG00064-les-deputes-ump-veulent-interdire-totalement-la-burqa-.php
Another article summarizing the work of Anthropologist Dounia Bouzar, who is specialized in work relations of Muslims.
http://eco.rue89.com/2009/12/03/de-la-cantine-au-foulard-cinq-casse-tete-pour-lislam-en-entreprise-128473
She identifies 5 workplace challenges in her published report on a study she conducted in France:
Allah a-t-il sa place dans l’entreprise ? de Dounia et Lylia Bouzar – éd. Albin Michel – 216 p. – 15€.
[Does Allah have a place in the business world]
1. The Cafeteria–officially everyone is happy, but one group must eat sandwiches or reheat food while the rest go to the cafeteria (freshly prepared hot food at midday is a French norm)
2. Holidays–no one questions that the official holidays follow the Catholic tradition, but Muslims most take time off paid or unpaid to celebrate Muslim holidays like the 2 Eids.
3. Fasting for Ramadan–Some see flexible work hours for Ramadan as a manipulation on the part of Muslims, to get more advantages than their non-Muslim colleagues. Bosses may wonder if their employees who are fasting are fully competent at their work during that time. However this is generally an accepted norm now.
4. Prayer times and space–this is seen by co-workers as an attempt to proselytize, and a failure of respect for non-Muslims. In order to be able to pray in peace, an employee is often encouraged to do so without formalizing the process, eg just slip a way and find an empty space, like someone making a personal phone call would
5. The headscarf–this is also seen as an affront to non-Muslims. Women who wear the headscarf are perceived as a homogenous group, and Other, to the point where often all communication among colleagues excludes them.
Dounia Boujar emphasizes 2 main points in dealing with these challenges:
1. Do not accept just anything and everything in the name of Islam, for fear of being called a racist.
2. Do not ask for or accept the employees interpretation of Islam.
ie don’t tolerate dysfunctionality, eg a man harassing a woman colleague about the length of her skirt, disguised as Islam.
Boujar seems to advocate establishing norms of religious accomodation in the company’s HR policy and then have all employees adhere to that; yet religion is not to run the workplace.
This is what happens in Canada, in regard to all religious practices, as defended by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Bill of Rights). eg. You don’t have to celebrate Canada Day if you are a Jehovah’s Witness, but you can’t stop the secretary from putting a flag on her desk (happened at work)
December:17:2009 - 16:18
“one group must eat sandwiches or reheat food while the rest go to the cafeteria (freshly prepared hot food at midday is a French norm)”
Muslims could try doing what the Chinese do: Motor Trend had an article a few years back about workers in a Chinese toy car factory. If the quality of the factory kitchen slipped the workers would quit en masse and switch to the factory across the street.
December:17:2009 - 16:44
The phrase here is ‘reasonable accommodation’. That means making changes that don’t interrupt work excessively, don’t call for major financial charges to the employer, don’t excessively inconvenience other employees, and are done in good faith and across the board, i.e., no favoritism.
It’s not the norm in the US to have policemen wearing turbans, but somehow various jurisdictions found that allowing their Sikh employees to do just that was not as disruptive as they’d first imagined. Wearing a kirpan, however, presents other issues–like public safety and confidence–that usually lead to other results, though not always. There’s currently a case in federal courts over whether a kirpan can be worn in federal offices. But wearing a knife while driving a school bus? That’s going to raise problems for many non-Sikhs.
If a restriction is truly job-related, then it need not be changed to accommodate a member of a religion who is inconvenienced. Most restrictions, though, aren’t actually job-related, but instead reflections of cultural preferences. In many, the preferences should take second place to religious sensibilities; in some, they should not. Again, as others have noted, when you come to a country, you’ve some aspect of the guest about you. Guests do not tell hosts how to cook dinner or clean the house.
December:17:2009 - 17:24
The phrase here is ‘reasonable accommodation’.
Yes, I agree. Everyone is entitled to that.
For example in Chiara’s example above about people having to take unpaid time to celebrate Eid. i think a person celebrating Eid should be able to take off time and not be penalized for it. I can’t imagine people(non muslims) would balk at making it official and they too have the day off as Muslims probably do for Christmas. I don’t understand her #3 above so I can’t comment.I think #4 slipping away quietly seems to be a reasonable solution. The non Muslims are not offended and the Muslims are not denied their prayer time. Am I missing something in that one? #5 I have a problem with that one…but not with the Muslims…with the non Muslims. I think it is wrong to disinclude someone because they wear a headscarf. If they are wanting to engage with their co workers and the non Muslims won’t talk to them due to that, that is simply wrong in my opinion. The things mentioned are all quite reasonable and seem on the face of it, fairly easy to implement. In a non emergency situation it should not be difficult to find a female to help with delivery…perhaps the translation left a lot to be desired…it was much more intense.
I still think however, no matter how hard one tries to accommodate others there will always be someone who is not satisfied. It is impossible to please everyone equally. In that case, I think the default should fall to the host country and their traditions. The immigrant (be it someone coming here or someone going there-say KSA for example) is coming to the host country and that countries citizens should not be put in upheaval for the immigrants. As John said they are going to someone else’s “house” and should blend in as much as they can which I think is part of being a good guest or citizen.
December:17:2009 - 19:44
John–Yes, reasonable accomodation is just that. For example, most university campuses in Canada provide a prayer space for Muslims, but they don’t build a mosque on campus. Halal choices are provided in cafeterias, and they are kept separate with separate utensils from the non-halal ones, some cafeterias (where there is a high enough Muslim student population) are halal only (everyone may eat there).
Oby–Regarding #3, in Muslim countries work hours during Ramadan may be shortened or started earlier and the normal breaks skipped to leave earlier, eg. normal hours in Morocco were 8-12, then 2-6. Ramadan hours were sometimes 8-2. In Western countries one could adjust hours on “flex time” which is often offered for other employees, eg one secretary I know works 7-3 instead of the usual 9-5; a friend whose wife was hospitalized started work in a pharmacy an hour earlier than usual, and skipped all his breaks to leave 2 hours ahead of normal. One could allow Muslims to alter there hours, or take lieu time, or work extra hours before or after Ramadan to make it easier for them to perform well at work while maintaining their fast. Elementary schools here provide and alternate room for Muslim students during the lunch period during Ramadan where children go and members of the community lead prayers, and give religious instruction, or organize activities. According to this report, in France while people are not happy about such accomodations, they are accepted.
#4–slipping away quietly is a good solution if there is a place that is guaranteed to be and remain free for the time of prayers, and is suitable for praying, ie not the hallway, not the dirty landing on the staircase, not within earshot of others if there is a group praying simultaneously (all of which were tried and failed at one university library. My experience with Muslim friends is that they just tell me or signal they are going to pray, go off and are back in a few minutes. It doesn’t seem that hard to make accomodation for this, that wouldn’t leave anyone feeling that there were any attempts at conversion going on.
#5 I agree that a headscarf should not impede normal communications no matter what it symbolizes, but a huge issue of it has been made in France.
My Google Translate won’t let me look at what it does with the Figaro article, but the language in the article is somewhat inflammatory, complaining of a number of incidences per week of Muslims refusing to have obstetric attention from men. It describes one incident with a male mid-wife who was called urgently, and was punched in the face by the husband. Having worked obstetrics, and worked in France, including visiting maternity clinics, I just find it hard to imagine that this is a major issue. The slippery slope of first you provide a halal meal choice and next you are building a whole separate company cafeteria I find similarly exaggerated. The UMP party mentioned is the centre-right party of Chirac and now Sarkozy, the latter of whom as Minister of the Interior called the rioting French youth of Arab origin in their suburban ghettos “la racaille” (trash) and refused to take appropriate measures to calm the situation. As a re-election ploy (both the R and L French newspapers say so) he proposed the ban on the burka (ie the face veil and full cover).
If one is a tourist or a guest worker, one is under more obligation to blend in; if one is a full immigrant, or the child of immigrants in a country that claims Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality for all, one should have a little more say.
December:17:2009 - 20:49
In some sorts of jobs, shifting hours for Ramadan observers can be done without too much fuss. It doesn’t work on production lines, though. When you’re in a plant that runs around the clock, it is not reasonable to let someone leave a shift early or arrive late, without discommoding every other worker. Sometimes, as in metal smelting, you simply cannot shut down the plant without huge expense and possible damage to the equipment.
A bus driver who has to take a short day for religious purposes isn’t terribly useful. Sure, sometimes a substitute can be found for a day or two, but for a month?
Note that places that provide halal meals also tend to provide Kosher meals. They’ll also make accommodations for vegetarians, not not always vegans. But some workplaces simply cannot reasonably accommodate all religious needs of the workforce, particularly if they’re small companies. They don’t need to be offensive about it, but sometimes desires can’t be met. There, the employee has to do the accommodating, by bringing his/her own meal.
People have so many dietary restrictions–gluten-free, lactose-free, lacto-ovo vegetarian, etc.–that you have to be a pretty huge organization to afford to meet everyone’s ‘needs’.
December:17:2009 - 21:19
Thanks Chiara and John…good explanations and ideas.
December:17:2009 - 22:12
Oby,
In the case of minorities in the Islamic countries – blending in is one thing, being coerced into following their laws is another. For example, you can wear clothes that cover most of your body, why do you have to wear a veil as a foreigner or get whipped for it in Saudi Arabia? Why can’t you talk to men in streets as a foreigner? OK pork can’t be sold there and you should be content with other kind of meat. Perhaps you shouldn’t insist on wearing bikinis on the beach, but what’s wrong in eating during fast time if you are not a Muslim? Why must you be whipped and jailed for all these “crimes” in Saudi Arabia? And then, why should you accommodate them in your country by bending backwards?
John,
Yes, work times can be changed durng Ramzan, but they SHOULD NOT be changed even if it appears insensitive. They have gone there to work and live, they know fully well the timings for work and they better work during normal time. Yes, Eid should be a holiday just as Christmas.
Whether it is work related or culture related, no community should be given extra pampering in an egalitarian democracy and no community should demand this kind of pampering from the State.
Perhaps you’ll like to know India has a democratic constitution but these kind of concessions are NOT made in India. Yes, festivals of all religions are granted as official holidays, thus making India perhaps the country with maximum number of holidays in the world, considering its numerous religions. But work times are not changed during Ramzan. Non-Muslims are not expected to refrain from eating in public during fast time – and they do keep on eating during fast time even in company of Muslims. Important things such as exams, official meetings, interviews, class lectures etc. are not rescheduled because of fast hours. Women wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable wearing and no one will listen to the Muslims’ demand of women covering their arms and head. Muslims don’t make such unacceptable demands here.
And Indian Muslims take great pride in the fact that they can carry on with their normal work activities despite being on fast and can refrain from having a desire to eat even if they see their non-Muslim friends eating. They don’t demand that the non-Muslim population should pamper them by doing everything their way – and they shouldn’t demand this either. This is unreasonable and they know it well.
In fact the more I read about the unreasonable attitudes of Arab Muslims in the West, the more I value the reasonable and understanding behaviour of Indian Muslims towards the non-Indian population. I must admit that all my life I had taken all this from Indian Muslims as normal, only now I have begum to really appreciate it in them, when I read about the absolutely unacceptable behaviour of Muslims elsewhere.
I do feel it’s time the democratic countries insert a clause in their constitution that the constition can be ammended only to such an extent so that it doesn’t change the nature of the basic democratic spirit of the constitution.
December:17:2009 - 22:29
John– of course any accommodation would have to be reasonable and safe in the given workplace conditions. Regarding Ramadan it happens in a predictable fashion and so provision could be made, eg. in a factory setting working straight “days” ie 7-3 shifts or 8-4 shifts in a trade off with another worker willing to work straight afternoons (3-11; 4-12) or straight nights (11-7; 12-8), as some people do prefer a specific shift and it is the change around from one week to the next which gives shift workers a statistically significant shorter life span.
Most plants that I am aware of cannot be shut down whether because of the collapse of equipment from cooling (eg a coke oven) or just economic hardship, but that is not being suggested.
Another alternative would be to put the person on light duties, rather than have them light-headed while stranding, or guide setting, and falling onto a bar of molten steel. Perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary but it might be an option, even for part of a shift. Most young shift workers in a unionized plant that I know of would be happy to do a little overtime and cover a couple of hours of someone else’s shift, however depending on the contract that might result in extra cost to the plant, but not always (eg double time, or time and a half doesn’t always kick in unless you are above a certain number of overtime hours).
Bus drivers could make similar type accomodations potentially, especially since again Ramadan is a predictable occurrence, no need to be scrambling to cover shifts at the last minute.
I agree that accommodation is harder in smaller places, or where there is a very small minority of persons with whatever preferences, but most Muslims I know, like most Jews I know are very good at picking out the vegetarian dishes or bringing what they need (unleavened bread, for example), or want with them. The Figaro article addresses major institutions.
Most of the time, accommodations are made fairly easily locally, but it is difficult when there is no policy backing it up so that if there is an unaccommodating boss or staff the person is still within their right.
I do think it is important to read these articles in their national political context: ie the platform of the right, with upcoming elections, and a leader, Sarkozy, who has already made a point of focusing on such Muslim concerns as a political strategy–and again it was le Figaro, among other papers that said so last June when he first launched his burka ban.
Oby–you are welcome.
December:17:2009 - 22:51
Daisy..
After knowing my husband I am convinced that India is a very different country than many of the other countries in the world. It might have to do with the religion of Hinduism…accepting fate etc. or what i think is more likely when you have a billion plus people jammed into a country the size of Texas you MUST get along with your neighbor because you are living in such close proximity. Also I think in many ways the nature of Indians is to be “workable” as in “everything is workable”. I must have heard this a million times from my husband before we got married. He told me Indians are not a heavily dogmatic people and really value the ability to “go with the flow” in many ways. He said “look at Hinduism…except for people who emmigrated and took it with them it exists no where else in the world like here. That is because Indians are not dogmatic and have no interest in converting anyone to their religion. If they want to join us great…if not that is fine too.” He also talks about how Muslim and non Muslim Indians get along daily. I think it is the innate nature of the people and their willingness to accept the “otherness” of people that allows them to get along, Muslim and non Muslim alike.
December:17:2009 - 23:34
Oby,
Thanks, I take it as a compliment. If only other countries could take a leaf from India, they wouldn’t have so many problems. I am not saying India doesn’t have problems, but we seem to have much less inter-religious problems than many other countries. Despite having so many religions here, we seem to be doing quite alright. Of course, sometimes we go off the track in a quite unpleasant way, but we can get back to the track fairly quickly.
The people who argue that accommodations should be made for Muslims or any other groups in the Western workplace don’t know what kind of problems they are getting their country into. There is really no end to these things and then why only for Muslims? Why not for other communities? Do you know how many holidays there are in a Hindu calendar? Almost half of the year is full of festivals. And you also have Jains and Sikhs and Buddhists with their own religious rules and regulations. You are not doing a service to your country by making such allowances.
You should thank the Hindu and other non-Muslim immigrants that they are not making such unreasonable demands. And it is better not to give them ideas by pampering the Arab Muslims. After all these other immigrants too are humans and their understanding attitudes can be tested only to a point.
December:18:2009 - 10:18
Daisy…
I agree with you and have very conflicted feelings about it. On the one hand America thinks of itself as a multicultural society whose identity was formed by many immigrants. We ARE a nation where almost everyone here is from somewhere else originally and I am not talking that far back…200 years or so. So in order to form as a nation we have had to in some ways adapt to many of the differences people bring with them. And I do think people who come to any country, not just America, should have equal rights…something that is sorely lacking in the Middle East and frankly it bugs me that people who will not grant others the most minor of civil rights are so outspoken when they even perceive that the smallest of their rights are not met. It seems very much like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
On the other hand, BECAUSE we have so many different nationalities that make up the USA it would not be possible to tailor the society to everyone and nor do I think we should. This is America. If a person wants to live here then they should accept/respect the way of life or at the very least do your best to adapt. No one says you can’t eat your foods at home or even in the restaurants outside, or celebrate your holidays, or speak your native language at home etc. I am sure I would if I moved elsewhere. But I have no right to go to a foreign country and demand “my rights” when it is so diametrically opposed to the way the society functions. I was being over the top silly in my example above about bikini wearing but I was trying to prove a point. There are some rights that are just not feasible when you are living in a country that has such different cultural norms than your own. I would NEVER even think about demanding the rights I mentioned above. I said them precisely because they are so incompatible with Saudi society.
I do think people should have the right to worship, and the right to work etc. and if you are a citizen the same rights as Americans or French such as voting. But I don’t think having rights extends to changing the culture to fit your desires. I have no problems with small adaptations…but the le Figaro article said that(and again I think the translation was off because Chiara gave a different view)the Muslims in France are demanding that swimming pools close at certain times to all others except Muslim women who want to swim alone…(hence my bikini, close the beaches example). That to me is not OK. That is adapting too much. If you can’t swim with men or non Muslims then don’t swim. I couldn’t go swimming in anything other than an abaya in KSA and I wouldn’t do that so the end result is I wouldn’t swim…period. That is disruption of the society. If they are unable to manage these things then I don’t think that they should live in a different country. They need to live where it is normal to segregate…And I don’t mean this only for Muslims…it just so happens we were talking about them. It goes for anyone else. There are far too many people to accommodate for the society to do it without becoming a mess. And as wrong as it might sound I don’t think there is anything wrong with any country saying that this is our country…this is our culture and our society and you have to adapt to us not the other way around.
I’d like you to read this article Daisy…I think it summarizes very nicely what I am trying to say. It is called “The key to rubbing along in perfect harmony” and talks about knowing how to adapt when you are the minority…any minority. I thought it was very well written and sums it up nicely. If you have trouble getting to it let me know.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6908785.ece
December:18:2009 - 10:20
Chiara, you miss the point – these disputes are not about accommodation, much to the contrary. They are about intimidation and politics. They are less about “off time” and food then about “we are here” and “in your face.” They are a message to non-Muslims that “we are different” and “you must be nice to us or else.” These disputes are a message to non-muslims.
Yes, the Figaro examples may be extreme but these things happen daily, hundreds of times, all over the Western world as Muslims demand special rights. It is foot washes, prayer rooms, special food, no food, dress codes, vocabulary, dogs, pictrures, and I could go on page after page. Until about 20-30 years ago, even when Muslims were already in the West, these demands were unheard of. Now it is different. Radical Islam is on the move and all MUslims are a part of it, like they it or not.
This is the true meaning of the minarets. As far as I am converned there is no “reasonable” accomodation because any change made will soon be followed by more demands. The vote was a message to Muslims.
Besides, this whole time-off for Ramadan thing is silly. Do you think that Muslims don’t fudge the times for fasting? In case you don’t know, Muslims in very high latitudes (north and South) dont follow the quranic injunction. It seems that Mohammud was unaware of the axial precession and inclination of the earth in its rotation. Add to this the regression of the primeval lunar Islamic calendar in relation to the solar calendar we use and the result will be, in a few years, 22 hours of Ramadan fasting. Or worse, above the Artic Circle, Muslims will have to fast several months. So what do they do? Out goes the Quran and in comes universal Mecca time. What I am saying is that Muslims have no problem bending rules when they want to.
Note also that the so-called moderate Muslims usually go along with these demands, adding to the negative impression of Muslims as a group. One thing I have noticed over the years is that a single Muslim, by himself/herself, is much more reasonable than in a group. In a one-to-one conversation, a Muslim will say things he/she will never say in a group. It seems that there is a strong self-policing element (fear?) in Islam. That is just an observation. It would make an interesting clinical study.
December:18:2009 - 10:42
Daisy–other non-Muslim groups do ask for and receive accommodation. In Canada the only official accepted change to the Mountie uniform (our iconic RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who serve both as a federal, and in some provinces as the provincial police, AKA state trooper, and our FBI) is a Sikh turban in the same colour as the beige Mountie hat. The same for municipal police forces, and the armed services. After a landmark case, Sikh children have the right to wear a kirpan to school. Adult men also wear their kirpan, some more discreetly than others; the one who spends a lot of time in the library and is well-known for his all white traditional dress, had an 8 inch kirpan clearly visible. Rather remarkable given that Sikh Canadians are also (in)famous for the Air India disaster. My sister teaches elementary school, and has accommodated many South Asian religions and cultures for their various holidays, and the penchant to take their children out of school for a month for a “visit back home”. Recently, enough children were excused from class to demonstrate in defense of the Tamil Tigers that new lessons were delayed. Again interesting, in that Canada is one of the few countries to list them officially as a terrorist group. My mother respected that her Jehovah’s Witness high school student was not allowed by his religion to stand for the daily national anthem over the school PA, but she couldn’t tolerate him sitting through it which was for her a sign of disrespect, so they agreed he would walk out of the class as soon as it was time for the anthem, wait in the hall, and return as soon as the anthem was over–an easy accommodation between 2 people which didn’t alter the functioning of the school or the class.
Oby–women’s only swims already exist, and are relatively easily accommodated, in Canada for one. They exist in places that already had them for ladies who don’t want to be swimming with men, because of body image issues, or preference; and have been accommodated specifically by certain YWCA’s where there is a high Muslim population (eg in Montreal) or at universities (eg Ryerson University in Toronto). Saudi accommodates Western swimming attire on private beaches, in compound pools, etc. Given that most Western expats are on a generous contract, and are aware, this would seem to me to be sufficient. Also most are on short term contracts, or are long term guest workers, so there is no illusion of immigration, and it is an absolute monarchy so no illusion of joining “the will of the people”. In other words, both places accommodate within the confines of their own ethos.
John–I think this discussion of multiculturalism is marked by the participants’ adherence to the Canadian mosaic model (more a patch-worked cohesion with higher tolerance of retaining features of the culture of origin) or the American melting pot model (a more homogeneous weave of cultures). What say you? And how many mixed metaphors are in that sentence even after I took one out! LOL
December:18:2009 - 11:06
Jay–we are so simpatico our comments even posted at the same time. Hmmm well, not exactly like-minded though. The articles cited do address accomodation more than organized demands by the French Muslim Congress, the Mufti of Paris or any other institutionalized Islamic group. The politics of it have far more to do with the UMP and Sarkozy trying to get the far right and the centre left onside than anything more Eurabic.
30 years ago the Muslim population of France was comprised of “travailleurs immigrés” uneducated, often illiterate in any language, peasants (in the best sense of the term) and workers from North Africa looking to make enough money to survive and support a family (eg Rachida Dati’s parents). Now it is comprised of their children, who, like Rachida Dati herself, are educated and comfortable in French society. They are skilled workers, professionals, and politicians, like Dati. They did then, and do now, acculturate, for fear of reprisal, or because they are already Gallicized.
I do know about fast fudging both for geographical location (which has been officially resolved for those who care to do a fast), and individual preference, eg. friends, relatives, the guys at the Middle Eastern take out, and the hub, of course. Some of these are highly observant, and all know how to fudge with the best of them should they so choose.
December:18:2009 - 11:12
I personally favor the ‘melting pot’ model, but that’s not what’s current in the US these days… ‘too dismissive’ of other cultures.
Rather, ‘stew pot’ (big chunks, each with its separate identity, floating around in the prevailing culture) or ‘salad bowl’ (discrete elements sort of sitting next to each other) are the popularly prevailing models. That, at least, is what our educators and politically sensitive folks prefer…
December:18:2009 - 12:10
Chiara,
That’s the point I’m making. If you begin granting these kinds of concessions, there is no end to them. They will simply trample over you if you bend too much backwards. So far you’ve counted Sikhs, Muslims and Tamil Srilankans. There are so many more groups there. How far can you take it?
There also conflicting ideologies amongst themselves. If you try to appease one, you may in fact be hurting the sentiments of another. That would be another complicated problem.
The truth is, when they applied for immigration, they knew very well that this host country is different from their own culture, but they still wanted to go. In that case they should better adapt to the host environment.
I think they also see these host countries as a “soft” target, whom they can bully into bending backwards. Your countries need to be strict in these matters. Otherwise you people are in for big time trouble in future.
Oby,
Thanks for the link. I’ll go through it. I of course agree with you.
John,
How about the bricks-and-plaster-model?
December:18:2009 - 13:26
Daisy…
‘I think they also see these host countries as a “soft” target, whom they can bully into bending backwards. Your countries need to be strict in these matters. Otherwise you people are in for big time trouble in future.’
Exactly! All anyone needs to do is scream “racism” and everyone goes running and scrambling so they aren’t thought of as racist and bending over backwards to prove it…well to me that is just completely nuts! We in this world MUST recognize that there are many different and often conflicting societal norms in this world. That doesn’t mean that “ours” is better than “theirs”. I think if it works for the people they are equally valid…but to think that you can combine them and make everyone happy and nice is fooling yourself and complete PC propaganda. The reason is that someone will invariably be left feeling cheated no matter what you do.And that does not only apply to the USA or the West. It applies equally to the Middle East. Do you really think that people in those countries are going to be happy and warmly embracing of the rights of Westerners or do you think it more likely that they will view them with resentment and suspicion? I think there is absolutely nothing wrong in protecting or keeping your society the way you want it. (and I DON”T mean no foreigners or racially pure) Let’s face it…KSA is the absolute master at this and in my opinion have gone waaay too far in the opposite direction to maintain purity to the exclusion of all others. No other religion except Islam as a law? PLEASE! and I wonder if you took a poll and asked the people if they would want that law overturned if they would say yes…I kinda doubt it. Yet they scream and yell when they don’t get some right in the West. That to me is THE definition of racist. Yes, KSA lets expats in and yes they let in immigrant workers but are they REALLY part of society? Are they allowed citizenship? Can they vote? Can they worship freely in the general society (not in secret or behind closed doors), can they wear the clothes they like? Are they integrated in any way as they are allowed to be in the West? No, not possible. Here, we try to make allowances for people because we consider ourselves democratic and open minded. But there has to be limits to the allowances. You have to draw the line somewhere and say this is who we are…this is what we believe and this is how our culture functions. These are our parameters and if you can live with that then come on down! You are welcome to participate in our society and we will welcome you to contribute to our societies and be a part of our societies as a full fledged member. BUT that doesn’t mean you get to transplant your culture here and make our society like yours. As unPC as it is that is how I feel. Yes we are tolerant. But being tolerant does NOT mean we should be accepting of intolerance from the very people that demand our tolerance toward them. Tolerance should not be synonymous with doormat.
Finally, if the people who live here and aspire to come here do not have the desire to become part of the country and embrace it rather than rape and abuse it’s resources while maintaining their own cultural identity in it’s entirety without seeing themselves as American then they are not invested in the country. It looses it’s cohesion and strength and identity. I think in some ways KSA understands that and might be why they keep some people(expats/immigrant workers) at arms length …yes you might be Italian or Mexican or Arab or Swedish or what have you but if you don’t think of yourself as an American then in fact you are not really part of the country and only another foreigner mentally, living physically in the USA. And IMO due to too much political correctness that is the situation that we have in America today. Too many foreigners don’t think of themselves as Americans and are not invested in the culture and country. Why try? They don’t have to. Everyone is bending over backward to accommodate them and meet them at their level. Not require them to become fully integrated in the country. And that to me is the beginning of the end of a country.
December:18:2009 - 14:01
I’m not familiar with that ‘bricks-and-plaster’. Could you expand?
December:18:2009 - 14:05
You know, I’m not ready to accept that one culture may not be better than another…
Of course, one has to describe the dimension being compared, but I’ll be happy to state that, in the dimension of human rights and liberties, the West is far, far better than Middle Eastern culture. On a different dimension, one might come to other conclusions, such as, well, I don’t know what, actually!
December:18:2009 - 14:10
John…
In terms of human rights I agree. What I am saying is that if aspects of a culture work for the people in that culture and they like it despite it’s being “wrong” for us then it is valid for them in the context of that culture.
December:18:2009 - 14:22
I’ll provisionally agree. But what if, just to pull an example out of the air, you have a culture that ‘worked’ for, say, 1,400 years? And that culture is now starting to fray at the edges, lead to results that are not favorable to the citizens. Is it still a ‘valid’ culture? Does everyone else have to stand aside and watch the wheels come off? Or can outsiders legitimately say, “Hey, look out! You’re heading toward the edge of a cliff!”?
December:18:2009 - 14:49
I completely agree. I think it would be wrong not to tell them that things are “not working”. Sometimes you are to close to the forst to see the trees. The trick is if the people like that aspect of the culture and they identify with it you can stand there with the world’s largest mirror it might not change anything. And unless the wheels coming off harms us in some way I am not sure we have a right to force a change on someone.
And I will provisionally agree that not every aspect of every culture would be valid. I am thinking for example, women who want to cover completely due to religious beliefs and be segregated. That might be valid in their culture and world. It might make them happy and feel respected. Who am I to tell them that I think they should change because I see it as a repressive practice?
December:18:2009 - 21:55
John and Oby,
That’s what I am trying to argue – the kind of laws KSA has were valid for pre-modern times, they are no longer valid in today’s context and certainly they can’t impose these laws in their country, on their citizens as well as on foreigners and expect to be treated with respect in the West. It’s high time the world tells them the wheels of KSA are coming apart and no point in thinking everything they do is right and superior to everything everyone else is doing.
It is also interesting to note that we don’t look at the West with the same kind of sensitivity – the world isn’t saying majority of the Swiss don’t want the minarets so let’s accept this fact, but somehow it’s expected of the democratic world to argue that majority of Saudis want the relligious police so let’s accept this fact. Theirs is a different culture and they have a claim to it, but the Swiss aren’t supposed to have a different culture vis-a-vis the Arabs.
Oby, as I said earlier, in India many women wear the veil even if there is no law about it and no one thinks it’s strange and no one tries to tell them to change their dress code. The point is it’s not imposed on them from the State – they think it’s right for them, so they wear it. And there is nothing wrong in that. This practice becomes wrong when it is imposed by an oppressive regime with consequences of inhuman punishments if they don’t comply. And it becomes even more wrong if this oppressive regime imposes it even on its non-Muslim foreign women visitors, with the same consequences of inhuman punishments. I am not against either the bikini or the veil – I feel comfortable around women who wear either of these or any other dress, what I am opposing is the repressive imposition of a lifestyle by the State on its people.
John, the popular consent for this kind of State oppression is also subtly built by the State through school textbooks, which tell the children why these laws are valid and relate them to their supposed cultural or religious superiority.
I was quite shocked that Saudi religious scholars were amongst the people who opposed the Swiss ban! There is a limit to even hypocrisy and it shows how much like a doormat they see the West. Personally, I am opposed to the ban because from an Indian perspective it appears strange – I don’t think India will ever have this debate about whether we should have the minarets or whether the Muslim women should refrain from wearing the Burqa. But Saudi scholars opposing the ban is too much for me to digest. I think it’s an insult to the democratic world and ideally, KSA should apologise to the world for this. But no one has the courage to demand this apology from the KSA.
And because I can’t accept this Saudi hypocrisy, I feel that any opposiion to the Swiss vote must coincide with a simultaneous critique of the policies of the Shariah-ruled countries, so that people can see things in perspective, and not simply think that it’s only the European countires that are close-minded. Ther is a reason why this anxiety has emerged in the West.
December:18:2009 - 22:05
John–thanks for wading in to the melting pot. I have not been aware of a stewpot or salad bowl conflicting model in the US. Could you give me an example. All I can think of is the movement to make some states or even the country officially bilingual English-Spanish, or Obama celebrating various holidays or wishing people a Happy Diwali. Since Canada has had 2 official languages since its inception, and we routinely celebrate anyone’s holidays these seem benign to me.
Daisy–I gave those examples because you were addressing South Asian culture, but in fact the point is that we are accepting of all. Long before we had significant South Asian populations we have been accepting and allowing and accommodating. Multi-culturalism was made an official federal government policy established in the 70′s by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and has never changed. Again under Trudeau it was made part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the early 80′s. We draw the line at Sharia Family Law–famously almost occurred in Ontario, until Muslim and particularly Iranian women immigrants destroyed the proposal– and female genital excision, which became an issue in the medical community with the influx of Somali refugees/immigrants. Those are the 2 most concrete lines I can think of. Anything else that is against normal zoning laws would apply to all, eg. where to raise animals, cook outdoors, discharge firearms, domestic violence (honor killings are investigated and then charged as either 1st or 2nd degree murder depending on proof of intent and planning), etc.
It really isn’t all that difficult. All major government materials or public health materials are issued in English, French and relevent other languages. eg. the clinic where I received my H1N1 shot had signs in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, and Sinhalese. All the security guards were South Asian (some with and some without turban). The nurse who injected me was Ethiopian (and knew my Etbiopian physician friend), and the coordinators were all WASPs (or could pass). There are more homogenous areas of Canada, of course, but this is rather typical for a city.
December:18:2009 - 22:17
The only differences in the models are the degrees of homogenization. Large, discrete pieces of a culture–large enough to start demanding unreasonable accommodation. Imagine a Cobb Salad. Or smaller pieces, like a stew, where you recognize the different elements, but they get along pretty well together. Or, for the mixing pot, all sort of blended together, with different elements adding to the whole while not really maintaining a clear identity. Imagine a cheese fondue, if you will, in which you can’t find anything visually reminiscent of the ingredients other than the underlying cheese.
December:18:2009 - 22:36
John,
Brick-and-plaster model is roughly what India is doing in context to its many religions and culture that have to be accommodated in its secular democratic structure. The State doesn’t interfere in the practices of any group and people are free to practice their cultural or religious norms. This keeps the bricks in their shape. But at the same time, these bricks are not supposed to make indents into the democratic structure of the State. So festivals from all religions are official holidays, Sikhs can wear their turbans to work. Women can roam in the streets in Burqa or in any other Western or Indian dress they like. State doesn’t interfere with all this. But, their religious practices are not supposed to interfere with the functioning of the State structure – they can’t demand rescheduling of work hours during Ramzan, or that women waiters in food joints should cover their arms and hair or that a swimming pool should be cleared out because some women want to swim there. There is a clear understanding that a line is drawn at a point and different groups aren’t supposed to overstep that line.
The plaster part comes in the form of the cementing process done by the State in the form of building an understanding of each other’s traditions. It is strongly inculcated in school education that all religons are equal and we must repect all religions. At the same time primary school text books present to the children different religious personalities – eg, some Hindu saints, Prophet Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Mahavir, Buddha etc. as “our great leaders.” Please note the stress on “our” – this conveys the message to the children that all these traditions are our common heritage and not belonging to one or the other group. There may be another presentation of festivals from different religions as “our festivals” or historical monuments from different religions as “our great monuments.” The way these are presented is aimed at building a feeling that all these traditions are common traditions for every Indian. Similarly, biographies of social and political thinkers are also presented together as part of a common tradition of India that has led to the making of the modern Indian nation as a democratic country. In the context of the Western countries, such presentations can be combined with the major Western thinkers of democracy, social justice and equality to show how these countries have achieved their democratic structure and how important it is to maintain it.
This kind of teaching at primary school level goes a long way in building a culture of mutual understanding. Indian State has made very conscious efforts to carry out this cementing process and I feel this brick-and-plaster model is a good choice for multicultural democracies.
December:18:2009 - 22:51
Chiara, you are probably right about us not thinking alike, even if thinking is not my forte, as you know.
I wonder about France – even after all these years I not sure I understand the gallic mind. I have had quite a bit of contact with France, with a kid living there for a while and a daughter in Geneva for many years. One of my sons was often mistaken for an Arab there because of his complexion (he has his mother’s color), and he has some strange stories. Another was mistaken for “one of the poor immigrant street children of Paris” by a stupid American tourist (who had no idea that he spoke English) because he was with sleeping on a sidewalk in that city. It was during the 1988 World Cup in the streets of Paris and he was with Brazilian friends, camping out. You known how Brazilians are about football (well, maybe not like Algeria and Egypt). I guess I am stuck on France because tonight is France night here at the house – we are even watching Indochine with Catherine Denevue. One thing is certain, France has changed – even their attitudes. My French friends (expatriates) just shake their head when we talk about France. I was also a great fan of De Gaulle. Like him or not you knew where he stood. He must be turning over in his grave. Did you know he had a daughter with Down’s syndrome? It is a sad, touching story. When she died, he said “Maintenant, elle est comme les autres.”
Anyway, in honor of France, I give you a scene from Casablanca, one of the best in movie history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KL76edqCKc
I also wonder when John sleeps since he posts every 4 hours of so. Anyway, let me say that French food is not all that great. Give me comida italiana any day over snails.
December:18:2009 - 22:56
Thanks for spelling it out. If it works, then it seems fine.
I question, though, whether it really is working. The Hindutva movement doesn’t seem to want to play by the same rules, for example, and while they’re no longer running the national government, they hold powerful sway in some areas, like Mubai. Given that Mumbai has a population nearly equal to the number of all Saudis, that’s not an insignificant number.
December:18:2009 - 23:00
John–who has both soppressata and escargot in his cupboard, right next to the Thai basil in oil, the nopalitas, and the smoked herring–splits his day as the mood takes him!
December:18:2009 - 23:24
Yes, it’s true the Hindutva forces have been rising and there is also a strong counter movement to contain them. In fact when they were in power they tried to change the text books – they understood the value of this primary level teaching. But there were wide oppositions to this. And when they went out of power, the older text book models were brought back in place. This shows how important the State sees this school level moulding of minds.
And the reason why they went out of power is that people realised they didn’t want their kind of ideology so they were voted out. I am not saying they are completely down and out, but their influence is certainly waning now – at least for ten years they are not coming back to power and 10 yrs mean a lot in democratic politics. If you look at the popular level, they don’t have as much support now as they did for some time.
December:18:2009 - 23:46
When I was in India, the BJP and Vajpay were in power. It wasn’t all that long after the disaster at the Babri Mosque. That sort of jaded my opinion of how smoothly Indian democracy works, I’m afraid. Too many dealing with Bal Thackery, too, I guess…
The attempt to re-write Indian history for the text books was in full cry, as you noted.
But the BJP is out; Congress is in.
December:19:2009 - 00:19
Yes and the inter-faith crimes they committed led to their downfall. Otherwise their economic policies weren’t all that bad. But people realised they couldn’t have these people in power. It’s really sad we can’t have the Babri Mosque back. if only they hadn’t mixed religion with politics, they might have challenged the Congress for a long time but they didn’t understand that this was not the way to govern a multi-cultural society.
It’s not as if people are enamoured by the Congress, but basically they want to keep the BJP out of power, so they’ve voted for Congress and will again vote for it in the next elections. It’s basically a vote for the lesser evil.
BJP managed to play on the insecurities of the majority community in India, the kind we are discussing here in context of the West. But that didn’t work for long.
Since we have had this experience I am arguing that there needs to be a cementing process carried out by the State in the multicultural countries in the West. If you keep on giving undue concessions to immigrants, the insecurities in the native population will grow and that can take very harmful turns in future. These concessions can certainly be made, but it’s not very wise to do this in the long run.
December:19:2009 - 00:45
John–thanks for the explanation. I prefer something lumpier than fondue, in this instance.
Jay–thank you for the story about DeGaulle. Did you also know he used the formal “vous” with his children and wife? It was customary at that time in that social circle. Ah, Casablanca, one of the best films of all time!
Daisy–I do think that in your love for your country and culture, you sometimes minimize the ethnic and religious difficulties within India. Also multiculturalism can function better than bricks and mortar, by conceptualizing “us” rather than ceding concessions to an insatiable “them”.
December:19:2009 - 03:04
Chiara,
I am aware that there are problems in India and am very critical of the people who are creating these problems – regardless of the community they come from, even if my own. But the Indian society has been also trying to correct these problems especially since we had the Hindutva uprising. Now it seems the country is getting back on track again. I of course don’t say that some problem won’t arise in future.
I feel it’s important to see why certain groups are able to capitalise on the insecurities in the society and what caused the insecurity in the first place.
An event such as the Swiss Vote is not the rightist uprising as has been argued, but it shows that there are insecurities running deep in the Swiss society and it’s important to understand what is causing this insecurity, rather than just condemning them as undemocratic.
I too have argued for the conceptualisation of “us” – that’s what the cementing process is all about. This feeling has to be inculcated in the society that everyone is part of a shared nation and the State has to play its role in this. Otherwise the native population isn’t going to automatically see the immigrants as “us” and if the State tries to meet every unreasonable demand of the immigrants in the name of democracy, the native population is going to feel insecure after a point.
And if everyone is sharing in this nation, then some groups can’t be appeased by asking the others to bend backwards – it’s a violation of their rights. I am all for an equal share in the opportunities by different groups, but I also feel it’s important to see whether a demand is legitimate. If they emigrated in the first place on the basis of employment or professional skilled ability to the host country, I don’t see why they should argue that they are going to work only on their terms and why the host country should concede their demands.
December:19:2009 - 06:42
John,
The contents of your cupboard show you are truly multi-cultural and a connoisseur of food!
December:19:2009 - 07:03
Indeed! And I speak ‘menu’ in at least 20 languages.
I didn’t mention that I just got a resupply of kala jeera and hing.
December:19:2009 - 07:08
There’s a contemporary joke about DeGaulle’s wife suddenly exclaiming, “Mon Dieu!” and he replying, “Oui, Madame?”
December:19:2009 - 07:20
Wow, I am impressed! Perhaps you should become the official food taster of luxury hotels!
Anyone who gets a supply of kala jeera and hing knows Indian food well! Don’t tell me now that you can cook as well.
December:19:2009 - 08:37
I love cooking! Sadly, my waistline provides proof…
About the only cuisines that don’t appeal to me are West African and Caribbean–pretty much the same thing. I’ve never had Native Australian food, so I don’t know about that.
December:19:2009 - 09:21
You leave me speechless! Well, everyone has to dislike some food, so you can get a concession on that
I think some day I have to pass by your house “just by accident” during lunch time! I love good food but I eat less so that I don’t gain weight!
I
December:19:2009 - 09:58
Daisy
You actually said it better than I. In a country like Switzerland that is known for their neutrality, I think at the very least it is important to sit back and think “why did the population vote the way they did?” Was it the right wing forces putting pressure on their insecurities? Perhaps. But if a country has a citizenry that has a history of and generally identifies themselves as neutral/democratic I don’t think it would be so easy to sway people with a campaign alone. I, too, believe that while the campaign may have played on their fears and insecurities there is more to it than meets the eye. And if you examine it on a deeper level, you might find an interesting answer.
December:19:2009 - 12:34
Thanks, Oby.
December:19:2009 - 12:35
That’s what I should be doing, but…
Happy accidents are always welcome!
December:19:2009 - 12:38
Daisy and Oby–it seems I didn’t explain sufficiently that Switzerland, while democratic and internationally neutral, is not open to foreigners. It is a police state, that has all foreigners, whether tourists or long stayers register with the local police. Guest workers are preferred to immigrants, and the road to citizenship is long even for the spouse of a Swiss national. The efforts made for language and cultural learning are for national cohesion only. The different regions share the beautiful alpine scenery, but are culturally distinct. Because of geography it is more difficult to get around within Switzerland than one would expect for the size of the country, and there is a high degree of internal cohesion within the linguistic regions. Their democracy emphasizes referenda so that the people have a direct vote on a number of issues, from the municipal, to the cantonal, to the federal level. The Swiss French, the Swiss German, and the Swiss Italians see themselves as distinct from each other, and from their respective same language bordering cultures and countries; and, they are seen that way by outsiders. Their languages are distinctive, eg Swiss French is identifiable by accent, vocabulary, and sentence structure from French in France, and you really don’t want to get into a Swiss German Hauf Deutsch debate. It is a relatively conservative country as a whole, and women got the vote there very late compared to other European nations. Lest we forget, the wealthy Jews hid their money there in WWII, but so did the Nazis.
So yes, the far right is tapping into beliefs, fears, and longlasting structures regarding outsiders. That is what political parties that want to get elected do. I still find it alarming that they have moved from the typical “the immigrants are taking our jobs” strategy which had been working well for them, to “there are Muslim terrorists with missiles in our midst”, and that it is working. They now have federally 20% of the Swiss vote, which means they are likely to be able to elect someone to the European Parliament, much as the French Front National did. The problem I have is not with a right wing party or vote so much as an extreme right party one. Both of these parties, French and Swiss have been described as fascist, and neither denies it. Banning minarets is the tip of the mosque so to speak, or the potential start of something far nastier.
Daisy–I am glad to see you confirm your insight into the struggles within India, although I believe the historical roots are deeper. Still one must work towards a better harmony amongst those present. Since in Canada we have a number of people fighting for their homeland or a homeland, including Sikhs and Tamils, these struggles are perhaps more in the forefront of our consciousness about India. Also the North/ South biases/divide are so pronounced that it comes up routinely in therapy with Indian students who are often in therapy because they are dating/in love across that divide.
John–no peanut butter stew for you? LOL
December:19:2009 - 13:24
Chiara…
“there are Muslim terrorists with missiles in our midst” You obviously read something that I didn’t. Are you saying this figuratively or are the people actually believing something along these lines? Not actual missiles but this sense of imminent danger?
My understanding is that Muslims are about 5% of the population in Switzerland how do they have 20% of the vote?
December:19:2009 - 13:33
Chiara,
Please let’s not get into the historical roots of communalism in India – they are not as deep as you think and I don’t want to get into a conflict about this, because I don’t want to say unpleasant things here. It’s bad enough that India has been dragged into this trap and made to bleed and suffer, to argue that it’s all India’s fault is being highly insensitive and ignorant of Indian history. So let’s not discuss this issue.
Please don’t confuse Indian Tamils with Srilankan Tamils – Indian Tamils aren’t fightning for homeland and at least in India the Sikhs are no longer fighting for it. The reason why immigrant Sikhs have this idea in fact goes beyond the ambit of religion. The reason for the Khalistan movement were also more complex political than religious.
As for the Indian men’s idea about love, the less said the better – with apologies to Oby – there are always exceptions to a rule. And no, it’s not only related to regional differences, although that’s how they may like to portray it. It’s a much more complex issue than that.
While I have acknowledged that like any country in the world, India too has its flaws and I most readily criticise them, I think we should not point fingers at each other’s countries – I can also say many things against Canada’s claim to social justice, but would rather not indulge in this kind of meaningless argument.
Your account of Swiss society is indeed impressive. Yes, Swiss have many kinds of different identities as you said and a divided society lends itself well to insecurities. Your account in fact indirectly goes along with what I have been arguing that a society with multiple identities would naturally have cracks within which lend the society to insecurities and the State should play a role in filling up the cracks. Giving more weightage to some identities than to others would only deepen the cracks further and can create more problems in future. It’s for each country to negotiate how to fill up these cracks as every country’s form is different. I agree with you that conceding to every religious demand of the immigrant community appears very democratic. However, things may not always be as simple as this, since every group has very different kind of complexities which may not be compatible with democratic norms in the long run.
December:19:2009 - 13:56
John,
Thanks for allowing me to impose myself on your fabled cooking! Please let me know for which country I should get the airtickets – I’ll fly to any country to taste good food except to Saudi Arabia.
I hope you are not living in Saudi Arabia!
December:19:2009 - 14:21
No, I’m living in The Sunshine State, Florida, on the Gulf Coast. Sort of a hyper-Jeddah, perhaps?
This part of Florida has a lot of Greek, Central American, and for some strange reason, Peruvian restaurants, in addition to the usual Italian, demi-French, Mexican, etc. There are some exceptionally good seafood restaurants, needless to say.
December:19:2009 - 17:14
Chiara,
Gen. MacArthur always referred to himself in the third person. I miss some of the old formalities in speech. As a child we would always address older people in the formal form by title. We would never think of using the familiar form (voce/you) for an older person, and strangely, neither would we use the formal form (tu) but instead use the title form (o senhor, a senhora) to refer to any adult (a senhora sua mae / the lady your mother). Of course Portuguese and Spanish are basically backwards on this (tu=usted, voce = tu). Spanish and Italian have similar usage but it probably wasnt/isnt as prevalent as it was/is in Portuguese. Only the gauchos still use the formal pronouns (tu/vos), kindof. Of course, most kids today use the informal ‘voce’ when talking to older folks. I digress.
I, for one, consider the decay of language to be symptomatic of a much larger issue. There used to be clear barriers as to what was acceptable and what wasn’t, even in language. The common use of slang and obscenities, even by children, and the constant exposure to sexual themes sends a message that everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, erasing the barriers between childhood and adults. It was any easy way to teach rules and respect, but that was then. In simple terms, we live in a course society. I will stop here before somebody brings out a pulpit for me to stand behind.
To the rest of you. Don’t blame the Swiss or French or Germans. They are doing what most normal people would do in their situation. What you despairingly refer to as “beliefs and fears” are nothing but legitimate concerns regarding the basic principles of Western Civilization and their own future. I said “principles” not “insecurities”. To dismiss the people that voted for the ban as bigots is saying that their lives and values are all wrong. It is a statement that you believe that freedom of speech, religion democracy and equality are stupid ideas that have added nothing to our lives. I think that there is ample evidence that many immigrants reject all these, as well as any coexistence with the people of the host country.
Why should people not be concerned about the effects of immigration and the retrograde values and unwanted consequences that many immigrants bring? Tell me, do you people think Brigitte Bardot deserved to be prosecuted for her opinion? Did Oriana Fallaci deserve to be vilified and prosecuted for her writings? In both cases the elites joined hands with immigrants and activists to prosecute these women. They sacrificed freedom of speech on the altar of multiculturalism, and they did this to the cheers of the immigrant community. I can assure you that there is a growing feeling that Europe’s leaders care little for the European people or even for basic fairness and decency. The common people will vote more and more for parties that share their concerns and principles. I blame the immigrants and leaders.
It is the Roman Empire all over again, as in the 4th and 5th century. The only issue is if this situation now, like that then, is cause or effect? History repeats itself, differently, in fast motion.
December:19:2009 - 17:28
Jay-nice digressions. To keep the answer simple re: Brigitte and Oriana, oui et oui. Brigitte has an inflated sense of self and a total misunderstanding of the Canadian seal hunt and so much more; Oriana Fallaci whom I consider a brilliant journalist and writer lost the plot at the end, contradicting her own politics and ethos, and breaking her writers block with an eloquent rant, but a rant nonetheless, and an incredibly racist one. She was so far off her own norm that I have to wonder if her lung cancer hadn’t metastasized to the brain. Fortunately she was never forced to appear in court in Italy, but she did deserve to be charged with propagating hate speech.
December:19:2009 - 17:56
That’s where we end up in different places. In my book, ‘hate speech’ that is prosecutable is that which calls for immediate violence toward specified individuals or at least those in the immediate area. ‘Immediacy’ is the principal component here.
Slagging off a group? That’s just life.
December:19:2009 - 18:04
Oby–sorry I must have been unclear. The political party that is against immigrants and minarets has 20% of the vote. You are right that the Muslims represent only 5% of the population. That same political party has gained prominence by campaigning on 2 ideas: 1) immigrants are stealing Swiss jobs; 2) minarets are an Islamic threat–in the campaign for this one they used pictures of the Swiss flag dotted with minarets in the form of missiles, and a woman with full cover:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2009/11/24/ff548370-d85e-11de-b298-73a087e740ff.jpg
http://photo.lejdd.fr/media/files/international/europe/minaret-suisse-mosquee-islam/943855-1-fre-FR/minaret-suisse-mosquee-islam_pics_809.jpg
Daisy–Again, it seems I was not clear. I was in no way blaming India for anything, or holding up Canada as a paragon of social justice virtue. I can cite examples past and present, and so can Amnesty International, of social injustices, and towards many ethnic/religious groups, since that is the current topic. I do know an Indian Tamil from a Sri Lankan one, and appreciate the timing of the Sikh demands. Unfortunately for all concerned the Air India crash was again the subject of a recent Royal Commission to establish culpability of some British Columbia based Sikhs, and to elucidate the failings of the Canadian Government and the RCMP in preventing it. I have seen many an Indian woman student in distress, because she and her boyfriend are in love and want to marry, but the relationship is a secret, and both parents “would kill us” (metaphorically) because one of them is from the South and the other from the North. Indian friends also speak of regionalisms, and looking at medical stats the regional differences are evident. None of this is to blame India in any way, just to say that it is highly diverse and while most get along there are tensions.
What I was describing about Switzerland is not a problem with internal cohesion, but rather a maintenance of internal cohesion by excluding outsiders, ie those outside the national borders, outside the canton, and certainly the “guest workers” (ie not invited to immigrate). This is what the right is tapping in to, by creating false fears of Islam being more dominant internally than it is (therefore no more minarets) and being an existential threat therefore the missiles).
John–oh to be in Florida now that it is -10C here. LOL
December:19:2009 - 18:49
‘I have seen many an Indian woman student in distress, because she and her boyfriend are in love and want to marry, but the relationship is a secret, and both parents “would kill us” (metaphorically) because one of them is from the South and the other from the North.’
Being married to an Indian I am quite sure my husband’s parents would have preferred that he married a southerner rather than an American. I will say that I love them like my own parents and I think that they feel the same way about me…now. It took an amazing amount of acceptance and courage on all sides to make it work. But before marriage my husband kept telling me it wasn’t anything personal about me that they didn’t like…it was that I didn’t come from the same group as him. He said they would have had problems with someone from the South. (India) However, to their credit, They threw a HUGE Indian wedding in Delhi. They didn’t try to hide me…they sucked it up and acted as proud as punch. I think that was commendable because, although my father in law is retired now at the time he was quite visible within the Indian government and there were many eyes on him AND me(which I can assure you made for a very stressful wedding for me…but that is another story). The tension for boyfriend/girlfriend can be enormous. It was for me and I had a bit of an “ignorance is bliss” thing going on not being that familiar with Indian culture so I am sure at the time the major understanding of the seriousness of it bypassed me completely.
Gotta say…as far as Oriana and Brigitte go…gotta agree with John on this one. While it might not be very nice to say, to prosecute it, fiddles with freedom of speech and that is a no no. Unless they were inciting violence against Muslims they are free to say it. We touched upon this in one of John’s other posts. To me that is the scary thing about the law coming from the UN about “hate speech against religion” It potentially puts a strangle hold on ANY criticism of Islam and other religions I suppose. When one cannot even say something unpalatable that is dangerous and potentially unconstitutional. However, were it to take place I would certainly demand that Islam follow the same rules about other religions and take the hate out of their books about other religions. And of course that would be impossible to enforce soooo…unless it is inciting immediate harm against another group I don’t think it is prosecutable…
December:19:2009 - 19:33
Just before I left India in Oct. 2001, all the newspaper were front-paging a story of two Indian lovers–same caste–who married without parental approval or permission. Both sets of parents thought they would solve the ‘problem’ by hanging the bride and groom. And that’s just what they did.
It’s not just criticism of ‘Islam’, it’s criticism of whatever anyone wants to call “Islam” that becomes a crime under these UN statutes. There are practices seen as perfectly normal by a majority of the world’s Muslims, but if another Muslim disagrees, he can claim a crime has been committed. It’s just a civil form of takfir that becomes international law. No thanks!
December:19:2009 - 21:20
You know John, even though I am very well traveled to many places around the world I realize I probably don’t have the level of political sophistication that a lot of people who blog here do, but I didn’t realize I had understood the potential UN rule that poorly. Am I to understand you to mean for example, if a woman wears a full covering and a moderate Muslim disagrees he can legally make a stink? Or if the more moderates don’t follow something that the orthodox ones deem Islamic they can bring a charge? Holy smokes! If I am to understand that to be the case that is even worse than I thought it was. Muslims could potentially use the law to bludgeon each other legally about Islam??? I was seeing it only as being applied to non Muslims(after all what Muslim would criticize Islam? They certainly don’t speak out en masse about human rights violations or other bugaboos now very much…why when there is a law in place)…Whoa…that’s scary. Could a journalist that might have some criticism or write an article about something needing to change in Islam be charged? I am having a really hard time wrapping my brain around that. Perhaps I am stunningly naive.
December:19:2009 - 21:55
Chiara,
Thanks for explaining. But the question remains, as Oby says, why only against Muslims? What is it that makes them apprehensive against Muslims?
You are very right, there are parents in India who don’t want their sons and daughters to marry anyone outside the social group they belong to – it’s not just a regional divide; they just don’t want a match outside their social group – even different religious communitites in India have thousands of social groups. And they don’t like to cross the boundaries of these social group even within their religion or even region or caste – yes, caste exists in India in ALL religions including the three Abrahamic religions, not only in Hinduism. So even if two people belong to the same city, religion and caste their parents may have objections to their marriage.
But again, this is a generalisation. You will also meet many couples nowadays who have married across caste, region and religious boundaries – sometimes with parental approval, sometimes against them. My own near and extended family is full of people who married from east, west, north, south, in different castes, religions, with native citizens of countries such as Singapore, Japan, US, England, Lebanon, Canada. Of course I happen to come from a very cosmopolitan and liberal family. I do admit that everyone in India is not like us.
One very strong reason behind this conflict is the arranged marriage system, which binds people within a social group. I honestly feel arranged marriage system should be abolished as a system of human rights violation.
One major problem I have seen is that couples whose parents don’t approve don’t have the courage to stand upto their parents and tell them that it’s their choice and parents shouldn’t interfere. And in many cases it’s the men who don’t have this courage. For them their mother comes before the woman they have chosen for themselves. And I think that’s the height of cowardliness and lowly behaviour. If they don’t have the courage to stand up for themselves, they shouldn’t try to find a match for themselves.
In many cases, these people also come from rich families and they don’t want to let go of their wealth for love – if they walk out of their family, they’ll have to sacrifice their money and they just can’t leave that temptation and blame their families instead. I’m not saying parents are right in opposing, but one should have the honesty and courage to stand up for one’s decision and not try to hide one’s cowardliness and greed under the cover of parental disapproval.
J Kactuz,
I think there is a misunderstanding somehwere – when I talked about insecurities I wasn’t exactly criticisn the Swiss, rather was making a case for the people to look at their vote in an understaning manner, rather than just call it undemocratic.
John,
Please give translation of your Arabic words in bracket, for illiterate people like me to understand!
December:19:2009 - 22:08
Sadly, the sense of being offended appears to work like a ratchet, in one direction only. That direction is toward the most conservative end. Moderates, almost by definition, don’t make stinks about things that bother them. It’s only those who are deeply offended who resort to violence.
Journalists, and others, certainly are prosecuted and threatened with death for writing anything critical of Islam. It happens in Pakistan, it happens in Saudi Arabia, it happens in Egypt. In the US, there’s no political prosecution, but there are social pressures from some quarters to declare those journalists non-Muslim and to make threats against them. Academics in Egypt have been forceably divorced by Shariah courts because they tried to do critical analysis of Islam. Western academics are somewhat luckier, if only because they’re farther away from the crazies and don’t have to worry about the state coming after them. That is, until asinine rules like the UN’s take force of law.
December:19:2009 - 22:11
Daisy, sorry…
Takfir is declaring someone a kufar, a pagan, a non-Muslim, an apostate. That’s about as low a blow as one can render against a Muslim. For the extremists, it’s also a license to kill the person who is now a non-Muslim.
Saudi religious authorities–among many other Muslim authorities–have said that this is a grave sin, to call someone else a non-Muslim. But for some, it serves a useful political and/or terroristic purpose, so the practice continues.
December:19:2009 - 22:16
John,
Wow – It’s not hyper Jeddah, it’s a refined version of Goa. All that mention of food is making my mouth water and I love the sea. I must say you are leading me into temptation now!
December:19:2009 - 22:31
John…
Has the law gone into effect and if not do you think it will?
I cannot imagine the consequences of that other than to shut down all Islamic moderates or hope of anything that even approaches moderation and leaves the orthodox ones in place which of course will only lead to further problems and conflicts with the rest of the world.
In effect they can “write their own ticket”. That being the case then I think it even more important that we guard our freedoms and write them in stone.
December:19:2009 - 22:33
Thanks John for explaining. I only hope this prosecution business doesn’t extend to blog or Internet-writings.
And what about freedom of expression? There is a difference between “hateful speech” and a genuine criticism based on well-supported arguments. The UN can’t take away the right of freedom of expression. Moreover, if Islam takes this view then all religions will follow course and this will only increase animosity betwen religions.
And what baout the atheists’ right to be non-religious? And what about the “pagans” right to be against monotheism?
December:19:2009 - 22:52
And what about Islam’s position that theirs is the only “true” religion, all other religions are false?
And what about all those hateful verses that exist in Quran against those who don’t accept Islam – including Christians and Jews?
What about Islam’s position that Indian religions are myths?
Will the UN prosecute Islam first of all then as a hateful religion?
I do feel those who have proposed this law don’t have any understanding of the inter-faith religiosities and non-religiosities of the world.
December:19:2009 - 22:59
Daisy…
From where I am standing that is a very good list of questions and all ones I have asked myself. I would assume that the law will cut in all directions in terms of hate speech…in other words ALL religions should be free from hate speech as per this law. (which is stupid in my opinion).The only problem is that as I understand it in the proposal the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. A possible loophole?
The problem is that as John pointed out above, it is the moderates that will let things roll off their backs and the orthodox that will be the ones to use it as a hammer.(my words, not John’s). If it goes into effect then I think the moderates of the world will need to use the law in a creative way to not allow the fundamentalists(and I would suppose that would in theory mean Christian as well) to steal the show or our freedoms.
December:19:2009 - 23:10
Oby,
But why give this special privilege to Islam? Doesn’t that go against all norms of equality and justice? Why aren’t the people opposing it?
The way I see it, this is a hypocrisy of orthodox Muslims, who think they have a right to criticise everything and evryone and no one should criticise them.
Unfortunately, moderate Muslims criticise the orthodox ones in private, but they don’t oppose them in public. That complicates the problem. Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have space for self-criticism and doesn’t allow criticism from others either. All other religions have this space.
December:19:2009 - 23:28
a journalist is asked about Geert Wilders and his right-wing Populist Party and is asked if there is a new anti-Muslim, anti-migration sentiment emerging in Europe?
I quote:
Absolutely! More and more Europeans have felt the impact of Islam and Muslim immigrations in their own lives. Danes are forced out of their neighbourhoods by Muslim dominance and criminals; more and more people have close friends or family who have been physically threatened or injured in connection with Muslims; more and more parents experience how Muslim children ruin their own children’s day in school, etc. Women have increasingly experienced that Muslim men are looking or treating them chauvinistically, and people are now seeing signs of civil war on TV and outside of their own kitchen windows.
The economic consequences are equally catastrophic. A Muslim coming to Denmark costs the Danish taxpayers 300,000 euros on average. Schools, hospitals, homes for the elderly, public salaries, etc. suffer tremendously due to this expenditure.
Almost everything that the critics of Islam and Muslim integration warned about last century has become reality today. The only thing that has not yet happened is the emergence of a strong Islamic party… On the other side, I am sure that it is not necessary to have a strong Islamic party in order for Muslims to wreak havoc in our cities and destroy our social societies. It is also not necessary to have an Islamic party to create Muslim parallel societies that are beyond the reach of non-Islamic authorities. Actually, it seems that Denmark and other countries in Europe will have their own Gaza Strips.
According to the cultural-psychological trait in Muslim culture – that different cultures and religions cannot be equal – these parallel societies will never be able to exist in harmony with their surroundings.
We also do not need an Islamic party to create periodic or permanent martial law in certain areas of Europe. The only thing we need for this is politically correct politicians, a fearful police force and normal, thinking individuals who don’t bother to write letters to the editors and talk openly about their views on Islam and criminal Muslims at their workplace, family dinners, etc.
http://www.germanbookreview.com/the-one-thing-muslim-immigrants-fear-is-being-deported/
This is the meaning of the vote on the minarets. Ignore this to your peril. I really don’t understand why the guy sees a possible formation of Islamic parties in Europe. Muslims don’t need their own party because they have the dominant parties acting in their behalf.
I can assure that all over Europe millions of people sit with friends and family every week and ask themselves ‘what are we going to do with our Muslims.’ That is the big question. They will look at their political options first. You can also be assured that Muslims will have no say in this because Muslims cannot change, they cannot live in peace, in numbers, with non-Muslims. Muslims can only make excuses and blame others. Muslims will also not return to Islamic societies, for sure. This is certain. The situation will deteriorate into civil war in 5 years, give or take 3 unless the Muslims do something very stupid before.
I am sure it is hard for good “moderate” Muslims to accept this. They dont see why they are responsible for the terrible things that others do. They look at their husbands, friends and family and do not see evil. I have no good answer for this. They do, however, allow this evil to exist and cannot come to terms with it.
There, I have said it. That is the meaning of the minaret vote. Basta!
December:19:2009 - 23:39
Oby–thank you for sharing your personal experience. You know best about your own family, but I have the sense that for some families the north-south divide would be potentially worse. On the other hand, one Indian-Canadian woman told me her family didn’t care as long as the man was a Muslim, hence her Turkish brother-in-law. I am glad for you that the love for you of your in-laws and vice versa became genuine, and not just the public face of the relationship. The Indian women I see are indeed extremely distressed about their relationships, wanting to preserve them, uncomfortable that they are secret relationships, and even more fearful they will become known to the family, and that the man will back out of it. It is always preferable when it works out.
At least in the case of Oriana Fallaci, her writing was clearly hate speech; the initial Corriere della Sera article can be read in English and Italian here:
http://italian.about.com/library/fallaci/blfallaci01.htm
The book version was more of the same but worse, and something of a call to arms from an ex-partisan (faught, aged 14 in WWII, with the partisans in the Italian woods against the Germans). Both describe Muslims in the xenophobic and racist terms characteristic of anti-Semitism at its worst, and make no distinction between terrorists and Muslims in Italy for whatever other reasons.
Brigitte should think before she decimates the livelihood of poor East coasters, based on out of date information (or just plain false information), however to stick to the subject at hand, she has been judged by the laws of her own land, and been found guilty 4 times of hate speech. She is married to a member of the extreme right Front National, and agrees with that party’s views, ie enough said.
Daisy–thanks for summarizing the different permutations of -isms in Indian marriage arrangements, and with which I have become familiar in various ways over time. I am also aware of the mixed marriages, and the high level of tolerance of some. The Indian men I see in therapy are the ones distressed because Momma has announced she is immigrating, or moving to their city ie to their place of abode, sometimes with little brother who needs supervision, sometimes to escape life in an unhappy marriage (given generational influences most often arranged), sometimes to keep an eye on sonny boy. What to do with the white livein girlfriend? So far the pattern has been: move her out and maintain the relationship; relationship strained by Momma’s control and demands, and white girl’s hurt, disappointment, and impatience; dump white girl, feel bad and justified, at the same time. This is accompanied or not by drug and alcohol problems as self-medication for stress, or recreational habits that got out of hand. Of course, the happy ones don’t come to see me, so I realize this represents a skewed view of the whole population, and of the cross-whatever dating population. Some come with other issues: devastated by the failure of a love match; hoping for an arranged marriage that isn’t happening; father who visits each year for 2 weeks for the last 15 of the 18 year old male’s life, leaving him chronically unhappy and worried about his identity as a man and capacity for positive romantic relationships; oh, and since they are all students, occasionally academic issues! Again this is a skewed view, but they are accurate about their own cultures of origin; and other happy friends confirm what they tell me.
As to why target Muslims, they are the current best target, the most “other” because of religion and recent immigration. They are not as well protected as Jews are by the lessons of WWII, and have arrived in (small) waves including recently Eastern European ones, who are annoyingly qualified for high end jobs, and careers. Western Europeans have generally felt imposed upon by Eastern Europeans who are able to compete for positions, as opposed to doing undesired work. Given the War on Terror and the actions of some extremists, they are a recognizable entity easy to demonize because so little is known of Islam generally, including, ironically. because there are so few of them in Switzerland. They are also easy to characaturize based on dress, see the photos linked above.
December:19:2009 - 23:55
Daisy…
I don’t think we should give this special privilege to Islam…that is the way it was written, I believe, and some stupid idiots…our President included didn’t say, “hey wait a minute. Before I sign this we need to make some clear modifications to leave nothing in doubt that it should apply for all religions.” Personally, I think it is a stupid,ridiculous piece of legislation that should never have been brought up, but I don’t get to make that decision.
Why are people not opposing it? Well my opinion (and it is only my opinion) is that a lot of normal everyday people probably don’t even know about it. And those in the UN especially Europe and now evidently the USA are too PC to say anything about it or at the very least rewrite it to include all religions. I want to say clearly that I could be very wrong…but I found some people who wrote about it and read what they said and they said in essence, that although it seems to indicate other religions should not have to suffer hate speech, Islam is the only one named by name. I believe the exact words I read were, “Islam and other religions”. To me that is WAY to weak and it should have been spelled out far more clearly to include ALL religions. That wishy washy wording in my opinion leaves far too much wiggle room for Islam to not take it’s responsibility to other religions to heart. If they are being hateful they should have to stand against the wall with everyone else accused of it.
I do agree that Islam does not have the ability, in general, to be introspective or allow others to do it for them. Of course, others probably wouldn’t feel the need if they did it themselves… I feel that if Islam is the “true” religion, (which I don’t agree with or I would be Muslim. I do, however, believe it is one of the world’s faiths) it certainly should be able to stand up to some criticism and self examination. If it is the true religion what is there to fear? Why not just put it all out there for everyone to see? why guard it from any sort of negative commentary or critique? It should be able to stand any test of fire, right? God or in this case Allah can stand anything anyone might say about Him so I am not sure why the need to protect it so fiercely. Unless there is another reason. And perhaps it is not just a religion, but a form of governance and a total identity and that is what is unable to stand any scrutiny. For example, part of my identity is Catholic. But it isn’t how I define myself completely and it isn’t my only identity. It is part of who I am. For Muslims it seems that is their first identity…they think of themselves as Muslim first and foremost. And that identity takes precedence over all others including nationality. If that were to be fiddled with perhaps it is going to the absolute core of identity and that is not tolerable for them to have that examined or look at it themselves.
I am not Muslim so I don’t know but I have listened to enough to get the feeling that this is true.
I’m signing off for the night. See you tomorrow.
December:19:2009 - 23:56
I was typing while Chiara and J Kactuz posted…so if mine sounds out of context that is why.
December:20:2009 - 00:31
JKactuz…
I was going to sign off and got distracted and I am back for a moment.
In terms of financial consequences I think you might be on target. As I posted earlier, Muslims are 5% of the population of Denmark yet consume more than 40% of the social services (welfare). It is not in any countries best interest be they Muslims or whatever, to bring in poor people who are going to drain the government. I think immigration should bring in a mix of people but certainly ones who can contribute to the society more than they take or at a minimum equally so the ledger balances. Why would anyone, on a regular basis, bring in people who are not able to contribute? I don’t think it is the West’s job to take care of and invite all the world’s disenfranchised to come over. Isn’t it far better to help them solve their own problems within their societies so that rather than have a shifting of the world’s poor from one side to the other they can experience prosperity in their own cultures? Eventually the shift will be too great and there will be too m,any poor for the non poor to care for. If we help them in their own societies everyone benefits.
December:20:2009 - 01:00
I’ll agree that Oriana’s rant was odious and equivalent to anti-Semitism. But I don’t think either should be illegal! They’re obnoxious, stupid, a-historic and tons of other negatives. But they are speech, not action. I don’t think speech should be criminalized outside of very, very narrow bounds and ‘hate speech’ just doesn’t come close, in my book.
December:20:2009 - 03:11
I go with John – either shouldn’t be illegal. Muslims don’t see that an abusive attitude towards other religions is ingrained in Islam and they endorse it vocally but are quick to take offence if someone criticises them. If they have the right to criticise others, they should also be open to criticisms from others. The point is Muslim leaders have openly criticised other religions as “myths,” false religions, their followers as defaulters. So they have no right to portray themselves as victims and say they are the most “Other” now – others have taken it from them and they better take it from others.
If Obama has signed this draft without looking into it carefully, I have serious doubts about Obama’s wisdom especially because he is the President of the US. Same goes for the people at the UN.
Oby – I agree with you completely.
Chiara – this is precisely the point I was making – Indian men don’t have the courage to stand up to their parents and tell them not to interfere in their lives. If they don’t have this courage, they should not be complaining about it – it’s their own fault if they don’t speak up. I have no sympathy for such men and they don’t deserve any sympathy for their depression. I have seen enough Indian men ruining their lives and ruining other women’s lives because of this. There is no point in being a spineless coward and blaming everything on parents.
December:20:2009 - 07:13
Chiara,
To continue from above, Indian society is structured to benefit men, not women and I have seen many such cases of “depressed” Indian men because of familial problems in love, where men ultimate gain everything and the only losers are the women who fall prey to these men.
The truth is that Indian men are the most selfish creatures on this earth. They want the best of all the worlds – they want to be the blue-eyed boys of their parents, they want to enjoy with a foreigner girlfriend abroad (or with an Indian girl in India) and then using the excuse of familial pressure etc they dump the girlfriend and get married to the daughter of a rich and perhaps influential man, who is willing to give them a hefty dowry and help them in career.
I still wouldn’t have any problem with them if they accepted all this honestly, but they also like to play the role of victim in front of the world very well, so that no one will blame them, only the parents will be blamed. I am not saying parents are not guilty, but the Indian men are no less guilty in all this stagemanaging the show.
And if you meet them after a couple of months of their arrangd marriage, you’ll be surprised to see that they have no remorse, there is no sign of depression and there are no strained relations with parents – rather they are happy their parents found such a “useful” girl for them. And to top it all, they also play the role of a “devoted husband” to this wife very well, who thinks she is the luckiest person in the world to have found such a husband!
The amount of hypocrisy and falsehood that Indian men possess is not funny. And perhaps you’d like to know that they also have this idea that they have done a girl a great favour by getting married to her and she should be grateful to him all her life for this.
I have seen this drama played out so often, that I have no respect or sympathy for Indian men. In any case Indian society takes care of their needs very well, so there is no need to have any sympathy for them. The only people who deserve sympathy are the girls who were dumped in this process and who went through depression. Honestly, Indian men don’t deserve any sympathy, they only deserve to be straightened out properly.
December:20:2009 - 10:28
Gee Dasiy…
That was quite a lashing you gave Indian men. Even despite what I wrote elsewhere (you know what I mean) I wouldn’t have recognized that as an Indian man. I’m feeling pretty lucky about mine right now! LOL! My husband did stand up to his parents. His father flew from India to meet me and also try to talk to his son about another choice of woman. Out of respect for his dad they went to lunch at the prospective brides house directly after our meeting(which was more like a friendly interview) and halfway through, while in the kitchen privately he told his father no way would he consider her, that he should not pursue it any more. So they politely tied it up and left. He told his dad and mom he was going to marry me and that was that. I will say this however…for a month or so before, he was back and forth about telling his parents about me. How could he disrespect his parents when they had given him so much etc. We would be having pizza or watching a movie and people from all over the USA would call to propose their daughters in marriage. He referred them to his parents. THAT was one of the most difficult experiences. I finally had enough and laid down the law and gave him an ultimatum. I told him he had two weeks to make his decision about me and marriage. In that time he was not to contact me, write me, drive by my house, bump into me or in any way have contact with me. At the end of two weeks he was to call me and give me his decision. IF he chose not to marry me, no hard feelings at all…I will think of him as a wonderful man, but our connection is permanently over…no long sad and dragged out goodbyes. It would have killed me any other way. Easier to bite the bullet and work through the pain alone. If he decided he wanted to marry me, fine, he would have to take the bull by the horns and do whatever he had to do to make that happen. In less than a week he called me and told me he had made his decision and he wanted to marry me. He told his parents, his dad came to meet me(the interview I spoke of) with permission from the family if I seemed OK to move forward with the plans. Once that ball got rolling it kept on until the day we did marry. I do know it was very very difficult for him to tell his parents but he did and at the same time stood in the divide between them and me working as hard as he could to reconcile both worlds to each other. I never really realized until your post just how brave that must have been for him to do or unusual too. To an American mind it was so easy… just tell your parents. what’s the big deal…but for him it must have been quite terrifying to stand up as he did. They are great people and after some crying and wailing(and hey, my parents weren’t thrilled either) they accepted it and have been fantastic ever since.
Sorry to get off post….I was compelled to respond to Daisy’s post.
December:20:2009 - 11:39
After reading the article of JKactuz I do have to agree it is a problem. These countries like Denmark are highly ordered societies. They respect their secular laws and attitudes and follow them and on the whole the country ticks along nicely. Perhaps more to the heart of the problem is not Muslims in the country… I would imagine educated Muslims who are contributing to society as engineers etc. probably blend fairly well and have a vested interest in making sure that the country continues to tick along nicely. It is poor, uneducated Muslims that might be the bigger problem. People who live their lives by the letter of the Qur’an and don’t have critical thinking skills, no job skills and have been raised in a rough and tumble environment like many poor of all stripes are. Are Muslim societies highly ordered as is the Danish one? I have never lived in one fulltime, but I would have to say no just from what we see and read. So they bring with them this disregard for anything other than the law of the Qur’an which also says that anyone other than a Muslim is unworthy and have no respect for secular rules and actions that enhance cohesion and inevitably it becomes a bit of a mess. This might work well in their home societies but not in one that is not ordered in that way. For any country to thrive, the immigrants if they are in large numbers have to have a vested interest and respect for the countries cultural norms…otherwise there is trouble. That isn’t racist…it is just fact.
Let’s suppose we were able to transplant a huge swath of Westerners to the Middle East. They brought their culture, their holidays, their immodest (by muslim standards)clothing, their love for pork, their beer, their non segregation, their secular laws, and on and on…They didn’t try to conform to the society and moved in the area with Muslims. Then let’s say one day one of these westerners decided that they wanted to sunbathe in a shorts and tank top. On their property but able to be seen by everyone. Completely acceptable in the West…now imagine the discomfort and scandal that will cause among Muslims. The sense of disrespect that they will feel that the Westerners have toward them and their culture. Can you imagine if you have lots of these people moving into these predominantly Muslim societies…the people from those societies are going to feel a huge level of stress and anger and resentment. Now add to that, that these Westerners are taking money from the government to live that the Muslims have paid in taxes. Is it racist that they feel angry and upset with the Westerners? Or is it that it is so far outside of their societal norms that they are having a difficult time tolerating it? Is it not disrupting their societies? Why shouldn’t they feel upset? What would make the folks from the Middle East NOT racist and yet Westerners will be seen as racist?
I see it as a marriage of sorts. In any bicultural marriage generally one culture will be the dominant one…usually the culture/country you live in. If both partners insist on living in their own culture within the marriage without acknowledging the other person’s culture that marriage is not going to last. They will ultimately live parallel lives within the marriage which is not really a marriage then. It loses it’s traction and cohesion. the same thing with adapting to a foreign culture.
I am sorry for my lengthy posts…this is really important to me but I will try to keep it simpler.
December:20:2009 - 11:48
Up until the late 1930s, Saudi Arabia and the West existed mostly in parallel worlds. Today, though, that’s impossible: we’re all interlinked. That puts Saudi culture at a disadvantage–actually, many disadvantages–because what was the culture of a homogeneous society is now just a minor member of a multifaceted global society. Oil certainly plays a role in cutting Saudis some slack in criticism. It also buys the Saudis some time to fix the disjunction problems. But those indulgences won’t last forever and pressures to change become greater by the day. Something’s got to give, and I’m betting that it won’t the the rest of the world.
The question then is, “How messy will the transition be?” It needn’t be terribly messy or terribly painful if measured step, with small doses of pain, are taken promptly. If people wait until things explode, well explosions are rarely good things.
December:20:2009 - 11:52
John–I think the basic point is that both Brigitte’s and Oriana’s rants were illegal in France and Italy, respectively, which is where they were charged and prosecuted. Hate speech, particularly theirs, which was just a publisher’s lawyer’s hairbreadth away from inciting to violence, has been shown by social scientists to be the preliminary action (speaking is a form of action) that precedes further violent hate crimes (though of course not all hate speech leads there).
Daisy–thanks for further elaborating your perspective. I am well aware of the damage that not standing up courageously, though respectfully, to parents does to individuals and relationships in both traditional and more liberal cultures. I see the aftermath, sometimes as it is unfolding, sometimes years later. Both men and women are “guilty” of this. I do think that at an individual level these Indian men deserve my concern and expertise, as they are struggling and it is part of my job to prevent a full blown depression or substance abuse problem. They are usually well aware that they don’t have the courage to stand up to their parents, and remorseful about it, but not able to alter their life course at that moment in time, whether for emotional or materialistic reasons. Helping them through it can make their handling of the girlfriend a lot easier on the girlfriend. As I stated, and Oby pointed out by example, not all men go down this road; and I would add, not all have the insight and emotional strength to seek therapy for it.
Oby–thank you for sharing that, which I am sure was a very painful time. I think you captured well the North American response “So tell your parents”, without realizing the difference culturally of the implications. While both cultures value family and familial approval, for Easterners this is closer to risking amputating a part of themselves ie their innermost concept of self, than it is for Westerners. This sense of self and behaviour is generally the norm, whereas a Westerner with the same attitude would be suspected of psychopathological attachments, and having an “enmeshed family”. Or, as a Greek Canadian child psychiatrist friend said about marrying a WASP: oh yeah, his family reacted normally, my family is ENMESHED. You also captured well the pain the period of indecision brings and the need for well-considered clarity.
I must admit I had to laugh when I read about your ultimatum, because I issued only one ever, and in an analogous situation. We were far down the road to marriage, including my making major career decisions in consideration of that fact, and handling my own family’s varied responses, when it became clear that he was not finding the courage to tell his family–the courage to marry me yes, but not the courage to tell his family, which went on for months. He finally told them that he was planning to immigrate to Canada, which was worse. They thought he was giving up an excellent job in Morocco, and excellent marriage prospects to move to Canada and start all over, or maybe just “be with” me. His mother wound up in hospital due to her somatizing response; father and brother were angry and blocking my calls. I was interning in a new city, when he finally was able to contact me, starting to hesitate, and saying “my mother is in hospital” (cue the scene from Moonstruck), all at 7 in the morning before I flew off to the hospital. I told him that either he told his family that day, or I would call his father at work the next morning. He just sputtered, and said, “You don’t have his phone no. at work”, and I said “As a matter of fact, I still have it from when he gave it to me; and besides, I will go through the whole national company being passed along, as his DIL, until I do get him”.
I got off the phone, and went into full mentally planning life without him mode. I was so fed up and angry by then I didn’t much care one way or the other. My psychiatry professor asked me what was wrong (basically after saying Good Morning), and I said “Nothing I’m fine” whereupon she said “No you’re not, what is it?” Wishing I were doing some nice oblivious rotation like emergency medicine, I said “A family member is in hospital”, and she was satisfied (and triumphant). Meanwhile, in Morocco, he told his family, got their blessing, and all was right with the world; they were in fact relieved, and ultimately pleased (not about the job loss though).
To bring this all back somewhat closer to Swiss minarets, a friend who was raised in a Ukrainian Catholic immigrant family in rural conservative France, did graduate work in Canada where she met a south Indian Muslim doing a PhD. They were together happily until her grant ran out, and then the marriage issue came up more pressingly. She also “fell pregnant”, as the French say, and he wasn’t about to marry her, so she returned to her village to have and keep the baby. She cut of all contact, refused phone calls, messages, mail, gifts. She had the baby boy there, and she claims he was well-received by the villagers. 6 months later he arrived in her village to beg her forgiveness. They have lived in Canada happily ever after (mostly), and also have a daughter.
Some people on both sides seem to forget that often the other side isn’t thrilled either.
December:20:2009 - 12:22
Sorry, ‘preliminary actions’ aren’t sufficient ground for me to call for bringing down the force of the state. It needs to be far more immediate than that. I mean, drinking milk is preliminary to 99% of mass murderers’ actions… they all drank it as babies. As you note, not all ‘hate speech’ leads to acts of violence. Shall we therefore punish those that don’t because some others might? Whatever happened to the democratic principle about ‘X guilty parties go free rather than one innocent be punished’? And what happens when, instead of one innocent, we’re talking about potentially millions?
There needs to be specificity and both temporal and geographic proximity for speech to become actionable, IMO. Laws against ‘hate speech’ are vile corruptions of justice in my book, and incredibly dangerous. They provide for the “heckler’s veto”, permitting any one to thwart the public will, at the least provocation.
December:20:2009 - 12:53
Oby and John,
Sorry for this off the topic discussion and if I sounded too cynical. I just couldn’t hold it back because I have seen too many women’s lives getting ruined because of this – men here go off the track for a while, but they always end up standing on their feet again – the society sees to it that they do. But a woman’s well-being and achievements are highly devalued in India.
Oby, I truly admire your husband for being honest and courageous with himself and with you. I don’t say they have to be disrespectful to their parents, but they can hold their ground in a polite and respectful manner as your husband did. If only all Indian men were like your husband, this country would be very different.
And yes, Indian men do need that firm approach that you adopted.
Yes, all of them are not so weak either. I have seen very upright and very sensitive men in India. My own father was one.
And as an Iranian woman once remarked to me, if a man here is being offered an attractive, educated and working girl, lots of money and property in dowry, a father-in-law willing to set his life right for him, all the household goods and all the luxury items he needs, he has to be crazy not to go for this marriage! So the entire social structure is responsible for this, not only the man.
Besides, let’s be fair, there are also women who dump their boyfriend and go for a rich and well-placed husband through arranged marriage, though such cases are less in number.
And all of these behaviour patterns cut across the boundaries of religion and social group.
Chiara, I greatly appreciate the fact that you tend to look at them with sensitive eyes – not only because it’s your profession, but also because perhaps you are capable of finding that sensitivity within yourself.
December:20:2009 - 13:12
John,
You are right about the laws against hateful speech. All religions – Islam being no exception, better learn to be self-critical and also accept criticism from others.
December:20:2009 - 17:42
Thank you so much Chiara for sharing your story…I completely understand how you must have felt.
“and went into full mentally planning life without him mode. I was so fed up and angry by then I didn’t much care one way or the other.”
That is exactly how I felt. I was so fed up with the “yes I will marry you, but I can’t tell my parents” dance back and forth I was going to explode. Just make a decision for heaven’s sake! Had I not been so frustrated that I was prepared to lose him I could not have taken that risk. But I was at my limit and NOT having him was preferable to the torture of the unknown.
I am so happy that your ultimatum worked for you as it did for me…your poor husband…all that agony over telling his parents and it worked out perhaps better than he expected.
I guess the moral of the story is, taking your friend’s into consideration, that women sometimes have to force the issue, but be willing to accept the consequences if it doesn’t work out the way we hope.
December:20:2009 - 18:01
As a differently gendered person, I have to say the same thing applies to women, too! There are many who, if not commitment-phobes, do need an occasional push (or boot) from time to time.
December:20:2009 - 18:02
Chiara/Daisy…
For me the Indian thing was on the job training for sure. I look back now and realize how in many ways, not understanding the inner workings of the culture that I probably did many things that came off as insensitive and rude to both my husband and Indian family. My American independence and Western attitude I am sure left a few bruised feelings in my wake. If there was one thing in my relationship I would wish for it would be to go back and do it all over again with the more sensitive and sensitized eyes that I now have. It took me years to figure some of it out…Indian culture functions on such a subtle/unspoken level…Not at all like American or Western culture.I had NO ONE Indian to talk to or learn from and tripped over my own ignorance many times I am sure…
Quick story…when we had known each other a month or so, I offered to make him an omlette( I think). I was making one for me as well. He said no once. I offered again. He said no twice. “are you sure?” Yes,said he. So I said OK and proceeded to make one for myself. when I finished he was quite insulted that I had not made one for him. I was baffled! He had just refused twice. “why didn’t you say yes when I asked?” “Because it is impolite to accept on the first or second offer.” OKAY…go figure. Says he, “why didn’t you offer again?” To which I responded “in America if you ask a couple of times and are told no, to continue to insist is seen as rude and pushy. I was respecting your wishes” And so goes the story of the beginning of our relationship. Like I said it took a LOT of understanding and making allowances to make it work.
Sorry John…not sure how to tie that to minarets…I’m done and back on subject.
December:20:2009 - 18:05
‘They provide for the “heckler’s veto”, permitting any one to thwart the public will, at the least provocation.’
Agreed. And unfortunately appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest.
December:20:2009 - 20:57
John–I guess we will have to disagree on “hate speech” and its imminence to violence, although I agree that not just any disagreeable speech should be considered hate speech with the potential to lead to harm.
Regarding commitment phobia: waving both hands, guilty as charged, happily delayed getting married, it was all his idea!
Daisy–thank you for your kind and thoughtful words.
Oby–Yes it did work out better than the hub expected, and his brother was stunned he hadn’t confided in him, and his grandfather had been wanting him to marry me all along. LOL
at the “omelette incident”. We had one where he kept sitting politely thinking I would stop eating to get up and get him seconds, which took me a long time to even figure out, and then I chose to be bemused and said “because you have a broken leg?”. Also when my SIL visited for 3 months, never having been outside Morocco, I told her that if someone offers you something accept it on the first offer if you want it, because they will be their version of polite and not push it on you. It was part of the “a few key ideas to survive culturally” that I gave her and which she found helpful. The indirect and unspoken is sooo important in non-Western cultures.
It seems to me that at broader social levels, similar efforts at explaining and understanding cross-culturally would mitigate the power of the fear-mongers and extremists on either side to bamboozle the unknowing.
December:20:2009 - 22:29
John,
You are right, in the West it works in the reverse direction. I have seen my cousins in US and England, who, born and brought up there, are like Western women and are married to White men. During my stay in London, I also mixed with Western families. I feel rather sorry for the Western man. In comparison, an Indian man appears even more like a pampered royal of some kind! In this case, all my sympathies are for my cousins’ Western husbands.
Oby, if you are on close terms with an Indian, you don’t even have to ask, just make the omelette and give it to him. Asking and refusing are symbolically related to a distance between two people in the Indian context.
December:20:2009 - 22:44
Yes I know that now. Or for example, when someone elder offers for you to go first in a line or through a door, you should automatically defer to them and signal for them to go first instead. Here, it is ladies before gentleman…so if someone offers even if they are older it is quite right to thank them and take their offer that you go first ahead of them. I don’t know how many elderly gentlemen I jumped in front of after they offered that I go first until someone explained to me my mistake. It is the little things that will get you!! Like a piece of glass tumbling in the ocean floor,most of the rough edges are worn down now. LOL!
December:21:2009 - 00:35
Hate speech is bad, but incitement to violence is worse. So, if you think that Bardot and Fallaci were prosecuted because their speech was illegal in France and Italy, why does it seem that certain immigrant groups are not subject to these laws? Do you really think that many imams and Muslim activists are not systematically engaged in hate speech against non-Muslims and their host countries? Furthermore, do you not think that many of the “average Muslims” accept this without protest? Do you believe in “good” hate speech vs “bad” hate speech? Or do you think that Muslims should be exempt from basic principles of human conduct because they are just Muslims and human rights is a western construct? bla bla bla. Worse than a bad law is a law that is selectively used.
Take the example of a British TV station that went undercover in British mosques and filmed Imams preaching hate against and violence against non-Muslims. After showing the tape they were charged by British courts for “stirring up racial hatred” against Muslims. The Imams, of course, were left undisturbed to propagate their message. I could go on and list dozens of incidents like this in Holland, Austria, Germany, France, England and Italy. It is obvious that “hate speech” is a one way street, just like tolerance.
It is obvious that governments, the media, academia and the liberal clergy have willingly and knowingly decided that Western freedoms and culture are not worth saving. Muslims march in the streets of Europe calling for the death of writers and cartoonists and nothing happens.
If Europeans do not act to change things, the freedoms painfully won in for the last 500 years will become vague memories, and the art and literature of the West will be obiterated from the face of the earth. That statement was a little drastic, but probably not too far off the mark. The fact is that Islamic immigration is a low level jihad, and slowly Europe is surrendering its soul to a cult that is exactly the opposite of everything Europe says it represents. The people of Europe are being betrayed by their leaders and intellectuals. These, the prophets of multiculturalism and political correctness, have preached a gospel of tolerance and diversity, while feeding the beasts of intolerance and hatred.
So, as unrest grows among the Europeans, what do their leaders and intellectuals say? Do they apologize? Do they admit that “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” have created a gigantic, ugly problem. Que nada! Their answer is to do more of the same: more tolerance, more special privileges for immigrants, more immigrants, and more money. According to these people, the problem – if there is a problem – is because Europe has not done enough to accommodate foreigners. Europeans have not been tolerant enough and/or respectful of their cultures, or have not spent enough money. Bla, bla, bla…
Here is how the New York Times responded to the horrific murder of Theo Van Gogh (5/dec/2004): Something sad and terrible is happening to the Netherlands, long one of Europe’s most tolerant, decent and multicultural societies… Urgent efforts are needed to better manage the cultural tensions perilously close to the surface of Dutch public life. The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants. The challenge for Dutch political leaders is to find ways to reverse this disturbing trend of politically motivated violence without making it harder to achieve cultural harmony (end of quote). Notice who gets blamed.
Now a quote from the classics: “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, They first make mad.” (Euripides). So it is… Europe has embraced a politically correct, multicultural madness that blinds it to the monster it is breeding in the guest room. They say: “Maybe if I feed it and be nice to it, and say kinds things about it, maybe it will not eat me… Please, oh please.” Europe has gone mad. The US, Canada and Australia are not far behind. Bad times are a coming.
December:21:2009 - 11:34
JKactuz…your comment about obliterating art and literature is one that I think needs to be at least considered. If for no other reason than in Islam showing any sort of depiction of anything alive (human or animal) is considered idolatry or at least that is what I have been told. That being the case, could there be a demand at some farther point in the future if there is a stronger Islamic voice that these things be removed from museums because they are offensive? Seems like a stretch,but in theory?
I do agree that it is insane what Europe has done in terms of calling undercover agents to task about inciting violence for filming what essentially was the truth (no coersion)and yet let the Imams continue on their merry way. I don’t see that happening here in the USA. I don’t understand why the laws are selectively applied unless of course, they are afraid of the Muslim reactions. which is of course in my opinion no different than a petulant child who is having a temper tantrum on the floor and the parent doesn’t know how to handle it or refuses to do something about it. I think that if they took swift actions and actions that are felt then perhaps the immigrants wouldn’t feel that they could muscle their way around so much. Peaceful demonstration is allowed…violence is out and if you do that you will feel swift and painful consequences. Part of the problem is the French, English, Dutch etc…why don’t they get out and make a counterstink as well and DEMAND that the government apply the laws more fairly. they are allowing themselves to be mowed down and in my experience the French demonstrate at the drop of a hat.
This goes back to what I was saying earlier…there must be rules to follow when you come to the country (Muslim or Non Muslim…applied equally to all) and if you chose not to do so you get booted out. You must adapt to the country not th other way around. It feels very much like the child is the tyrant and the parent is standing there begging the child not to hurt them.
December:21:2009 - 12:10
I personally feel very bad about what is happening. As a person who has traveled all over the world and met many interesting people of all stripes I had long held the fantasy that everyone could link arms and walk into the sunset singing “Kumbaya”. I used to be very liberal about accepting the disenfranchised into our countries. Howevr, the older I get and the more I learn about Islam the more I think it may not be possible. I have spoken with Muslims who have told me that Islam has been so distorted nowadays that the directive that was originally in the Qur’an about living in harmony with other religions and respecting the laws of the land you live in are practically obliterated. It is cultural directives that have taken over the religion and those cultural directives have made it very difficult to get along with them and conversely for them to live in our societies. I am not a Qur’anic scholar, but even I, as a lay person just simply observing can see how it is difficult for them to blend in many ways. It seems Canada and America have, to some degree, managed it better…
Perhaps the better solution is to realize that whatever Islam was in terms of peaceful coexistence is not applied on a large scale anymore and we would be better to help them achieve a level of prosperity in their own countries that they can be proud of. That way they are among the culture that works best for them and they don’t feel the need to leave and immigrate to the more prosperous countries that are not suitable to the way they prefer to live(shariah or Qur’anic law.)
December:21:2009 - 12:51
I think the vast majority of the world 1.6 billion Muslims do live peaceably with others, don’t try to shove their values down the throats of others. Those Muslims who are annoyed (well, pissed off) over any number of things, though, find a false refuge in their religion and use it as a weapon to achieve what they otherwise cannot. They don’t know or don’t care that they themselves are their religion’s worst enemies; they’re too busy trying to find a way to live that makes any sort of sense to them. Any sense does not imply good sense.
December:21:2009 - 15:15
John…
It is a shame because these vocal/violent ones are drowning out any other more mainstream voices and rather than being greeted with a feeling of sensitivity from others they are starting to feel like a problem and the good ones are getting dragged along with the rest. I think most people, if given the choice would like the multicultural thing to work out well. Perhaps some are xenophobic, but overall due to the democratic way the west thinks I think the preference would be for everyone to live peacefully and mix well. Even though I know I have seemed to be advocating something other than that on these posts the truth is I WOULD like to walk into the sunset with everyone singing Kumbaya (figuratively of course)if it is possible.
December:21:2009 - 17:35
I agree, that would be great. But I’d insist on some alternative to Kumbaya, too!
December:21:2009 - 22:01
I agree with John in that a lot of muslims do live peacefully with others. Just a small story – Only yesterday I was chatting with some Muslim friends and one of them said in a joke, “why don’t you convert to Islam?” At first I was taken aback, because in India we usually think it’s bad to say something like this to a person from another faith – converting someone to any faith is an offensive activity in India. Then I quickly realised he was joking. He continued, “if you convert, the government may give you a high position in the commission for minorities.” I said, “But I don’t think I can convince anyone I am a true Muslim – I study images.” (amongst the many things I do, one is to study religious images – Indian religions included, which use a lot of sculptures and paintings). He said, “No, images are not against Islam; those who think like that don’t understand Islam.”
The point here is not whether Islam accepts images or not, but rather that he was willing to give even that concession to the people of other faiths in India, who regularly worship images and he was willing to argue in support of a culture that uses images on a large scale.
Then, to maintain the equilibrium, I said to him, “why don’t YOU convert to Christianity? The Church gets lots of money from abroad and they’ll take good care of you.” He said, “Yes, if they give me some of their money and a good job, I’m willing to convert to any religion, not only Christianity.”
This shows how much space we can take from each other and Muslims don’t really mind if someone talks to them like this. They don’t go into a mould of “Our religion is the only true religion; all other religions are false etc.”
December:21:2009 - 22:13
Oby,
I agree with you that the democratic environment in the West can give everyone a reasonable breathing space without sifling their freedom. That’s why it’s necessary to preserve this democratic freedom there.
I also feel that till only a few decades ago, the Muslims were blending perfectly fine in other cultures. This rise in orthodoxy is a recent phenomenon. Perhas it’s influenced by Iranian revolution and picked up and accelerated by Saudi Arabia. Saudi society was conservative even earlier, but they were not exporting their ideology to the West, nor were the Islamic countries asserting their dominant presence in the West by bringing in UN resolutions such as against hateful speech etc. Now, somehow Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries have begun to export the orthodox version of Islam abroad. I wish Indian and South East Asian muslims got engaged in exporting their versions of Islam abroad – that would change the image of Islam greatly.
December:22:2009 - 00:40
‘I also feel that till only a few decades ago, the Muslims were blending perfectly fine in other cultures.’
Daisy from my perspective that is quite true. coming from right outside of NYC it seemed that I cannot remember any of this anger or animosity that we are experiencing now coming from the Muslim community. I mention NYC because I came up in a fairly multicultural area which I think formed my earlier liberal attitudes about immigration and blending, so to speak. I cannot remember all this “our rights” stuff and it seemed that the neighborhood was pretty consistent and quiet. I am 48 so we are going back 30 years or so. As I mentioned elsewhere it was ABSOLUTELY NORMAL to wish a non Christian Merry Christmas and they would usually reply with a smile and wish it back. THEY knew and WE knew that it was not an attempt at conversion or proselytizing …it was meant as a wish of goodwill and peace and joy of the season…everyone understood that and NO ONE was offended. And if Mr. Lefkowitz wished us a “Happy Hanukkah” it meant the same thing and we wished it right back to him. (In fact, just this evening in my email I got a Merry Christmas wish from someone Jewish.) Muslims, Jews, Christians and others all got along well and made space for each other. I think that Saudi Arabia has done the world a grave disservice and perhaps an even bigger one to Muslims by bringing this super strict Islam overseas. They have made a lot of Muslims feel that unless they follow this strict interpretation that there is something wrong with them Islamically speaking. What? They weren’t Muslim, God loving and good Muslims before when they were actually able to mix better? So crazy!
an example…A few weeks ago I was in a store shopping. The store is mostly women but a few men. I was leafing through the racks when I turned around and almost bumped into a woman covered head to foot in an abaya, niqab,gloves…the whole outfit. I said “oh I’m sorry. Excuse me”. She said nothing and didn’t acknowledge my presence or even look at me and I was practically close enough to whisper in her ear(narrow aisles)and I stayed somewhat close as I was going through the racks on the other side of the aisle now. The thing that freaked me out once I got over the immediate shock of almost walking into her and her obviously unusual(for here) outfit was she got on her cell phone and in PERFECTLY accented American English started talking about a party she was going to attend later that day. On closer inspection(I could see the skin around her eyes) I realized she must have been a new convert because she was African American and very obviously not foreign via the accent. The outfit isn’t what threw me so much off guard. What really threw me was knowing that most likely prior to her conversion this same woman would not only have made eye contact and said “excuse me” back to me, we might have even exchanged a few polite words. I became a NONPERSON to her once she put on the “uniform” and became the pious Muslim. THAT was very unsettling to me. Of course, I am assuming things here, but she was not a foreigner so eye contact would NOT have been unusual to her. Had she come from a country where she grew up like that…different story. And to be honest I wondered if I had on a headscarf if she would have acknowledged my presence. It was kind of creepy. so it made me start thinking why all of a sudden was I not even worthy of a polite “excuse me” or “no problem” from her. why ignore me as if I didn’t exist? (And there is NO WAY she didn’t hear me or notice me.) Due to my reading these blogs I started thinking that maybe she felt she was better than me because she was a Muslim. She voluntarily segregated herself by being under the abaya/naqib and even more so by not acknowledging me at all. It is attitudes like this that are creeping into the Muslim world and are causing trouble. I am truly worried where this can lead…and it has changed my once liberal attitude to immigration.
the National Geographic a few months back talked about the subtle changes going on in Indonesia due to Saudi influence. They said for 1000 years they have been very gentle, moderate, accepting of other religions, not dogmatic in anyway. The article was about,in part, how this Saudi version of Islam is creeping into their culture and having an influence. One part of their country, Aceh, has adopted Shariah law as the form of governance and there is a strong push for other parts of the country to accept it. Now in Aceh they have adopted stoning as a form of punishment. They were saying that they have been a happy republic for a long time and now are having to battle this influence. So far moderation is the name of the game throughout most of the country, thank goodness.
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/29270
Here is the Nat. Geo. article in it’s entirety I believe without photos.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/10/indonesia/finkel-text
December:22:2009 - 05:52
Oby,
In fact, you were not just a non-entity, as a non-Muslim, you were a follower of a false religion and therefore, to be avoided. It is this closed-mindset that irritates me. They may think they have redeemed themselves by following the only true religion, but I feel it is a height of arrogance to think that all others in this world are lowly creatures. Unfortunately, it is this orthodox version of Islam that is being promoted by Saudi Arabia and the neo-converts in the West are also following this version, under the mistaken belief that this is the only version of Islam possible. Because Saudi Arabia has been pampered so much, now this version of Islam is also penetrating the more tolerant parts of the Muslim world viz, South Asia and South East Asia, as you have shown in the National Geographic article.
There is a serious need for the world to rethink what Islamic practices really mean. Islam is not a monolithic religion – there are regions in this world where Muslims are highly tolerant, but they get marginalised because of the kind of international geo-politics that exists in the world and instead, the highly intolerant, violent form of Islam is the one that is being propagated. I think non-Muslim parts of the world have to understand that there are various shades of Islam existing in this world and the Arab Islam is not the only one – it should not be accepted as the “valid” form of Islam, especially because it is not applicable to the democratic world and also because majority of the world’s Muslims do not practise the Arab version of Islam. Unless the world accepts this, the situation in the world is going to only deteriorate.
December:22:2009 - 19:53
Daisy…
It would be wonderful if India could inject some of that into other countries. I think that fact that an Indian Muslim can say that goes to the heart of your society. Although they are Muslim, they also identify themselves as Indians and have a very practical attitude toward Islam. It seems to transcend the religion and go to the heart of the “everything is workable” attitude i find in many Indians. I was always charmed and equally amazed that they were able to figure out their way around obstacles that might stop others…more than that they did it cheerfully. I am sure not all are like that but I knew enough that did that to think that it must be a bit of a widespread ethos. In fact, I came to almost depend on it. If I had a question or objection that it can’t be done it was often met with a hand held up and a waggle of the head as if to stop me and say “don’t worry. I will get it done for you”.
He said, “No, images are not against Islam; those who think like that don’t understand Islam.” i don’t know enough to say one way or the other but I had been told it was against Islam…I am not surprised in a country where “everything is workable” that that is OK too. Feels like a breath of fresh air.
December:22:2009 - 21:39
Oby,
Thanks for that. I too was amazed at what he said and that really shows the kind of tolerance that each religion needs to show towards another.
Here is another beautiful example – there are some Hindi film songs which talk about “having the desire to worship a stone image as God,” symbolically meaning – loving the cold-hearted beloved, who doesn’t respond. These songs are sung by Muhammad Rafi, a famous Muslim playback singer of many Hindi films, who never had any problem singing such songs, which are very popular in all communities in India, including the Muslim.
John,
Show me only one Arab Muslim who can match the examples of these Indian Muslims above, then you can argue that Saudi Arabia should be treated as the leader of the Islamic world.
I do feel that the West’s perception that Arab version of Islam is the “true” one is adding to the problem, because it allows the Arabs an unfair advantage and they get the space to promote extremism around the world. If you look at it this way, unconsciously – without realising it – the American State may be indirectly promoting Islamic extremism in the world by having extra-friendly ties with Saudi Arabia and by treating them as the leaders of the Islamic world.
The truth is that majority of the Muslim population doesn’t live in the Arab world and doesn’t really bother about what Saudi Arabia says. For non-Arab Muslims, the non-Muslim population in their own countries and their own government’s policies are what matter. There is a serious need for the American State to understand this and to have diffrent policies for Muslims in different parts of the world, rather than treating Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islamic world – this is far from truth.
And perhaps the US can also spread awareness in the West about these other tolerant versions of Islam that exist in the non-Arab world, not with a view to convert but so that people can know that there are tolerant Muslims around and it’s just this one version of Islam that is problematic and it is followed only by the Arab Muslims.
December:22:2009 - 22:10
Thank you, Oby, for the observation about art and literature. I did hesitate as I wrote that (calling it drastic), but I think it is a valid observation. Let me explain:
I also see Islam as unfriendly to the arts, not just democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality. Needless to say, Islam is not known for its sculpture, paintings, theatre, dance, opera and music. Muslim societies seem to have little interest in museums and art galleries. Yes, I know that there are some museums in Islamic societies and the Louve will open a branch in Abu Dhabi. Even so, there seems to be a very relaxed attitude among Muslims regarding the arts that ranges from indifference at best to outright hostility. Treasures of antiquity from pre-Islamic cultures are often ignored or even destroyed. Of course, I need not mention that has happened even to ancient Islamic sites in Arabia. Archeology is not big in the Islamic world except for Egypt, and I could argue that even this is driven by tourist money. I could also add a few words about Islam’s prophet and his attitude towards the arts: “Mohammed’s dead poets society” is all that one need say. Muslim Q&A sites are full of this “art is bad” stuff, as well. Cat Stevens gave up music for 20 years because they told him is was “unislamic.” Who is ‘They’? Once again, I see no reason to believe that the so-called moderates would be able to prevent the radicals from implementing a repressive Islamization agenda that would suppress the arts.
This attitude towards the arts is a consequence of the dogmatic approach to Islam’s teachings and history, which itself is a consequence of the lack of tolerance and the inability for Muslims to self-reflect or self-criticize on any aspect of their faith, as well as the distorted relationship between the sexes in Islam (Note that ‘love’ and the eternal conflict between men and women have inspired much of art for the last 6,000 years). Because Islam is a complete way of life (so they say) art must then be a slave of religion, and, as you say, there are quranic and hadithic (???) injunctions that limit artistic expression (calligraphy and some elements of architecture are the exception). Anything pre-islamic or non-islamic is seen as having little value.
I don’t see a place for these in an Islamic world:
this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLl2C3ChYY&feature=related
This especially
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md-ws6knYkE&feature=related
this type of art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkTQwP2gFxU&feature=related
Oops, I meant this (wrong dance video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFLZReE0_0Y&feature=related
As well as these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_020.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/romeoandjuliet/romeoandjuliet.html
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
and so on…
You are right about the need for dialogue and rules. However, I see no desire from Western elites to tackle the hard issues, and the so-called moderate Muslims are equally silent (or afraid/unable to face their hardcore brethren). In a strange way, people like me and you are Muslims’ best friend. I know all of you are choking and that is hard to swallow, but nobody does Muslims a favor by patting them on the back and pretending all is well. Personally I don’t mind people telling me I am wrong, as long as they tell me why and give me information to consider. I don’t mind hearing the Muslim side of things, as long as I can express my opinions freely. I know that much of that I say is subjective and unsubstantiated – so far. It is an opinion, and not engraved in stone by anyone on the 7th floor up in the clouds.
This, too, is part of the meaning of the minaret. It is a rejection of those who reject Western Civilization, and includes many aspects, including the arts. It was a vote on what is acceptable in society and the rights and relationships of members in a society to each other.
K.
PS: I like art and I don’t consider much of the Arab rock/rap/music videos on Youtube to be art (anymore than the junk Western ‘civilization’ produces these days). Maybe that is just old age speaking.
December:22:2009 - 22:59
A confession: Actually I just wanted a chance to throw in a Mario Lanza video – my mom’s favorite singer. She has been gone over 40 years now, but everytime I hear Old Mario’s voice I think of her. Lanza was one of the original Hollywood self-destruct idols. We had a conversation with friends the other night as to the best ‘drinking songs’ and Drink drink drink won easily. Shelly West’s Jose Cuevo was second followed by Margaridaville and Beer Barrel Polka. There was one song that eveybody liked, Cachaca nao e’ agua, but it suffered because none of us had ever had ever heard it performed sober or by anybody that could carry a note. I kid you not. Sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRJhjtQPhQo
Not that Princess Lea does a bad job with Amidala at 1:20 in the other video. Maybe Darth Vader will destroy us all so we won’t have to worry about all this ‘clash of civilization’ stuff.
The point is drinking and dancing and islam, for the most part, don’t mix.
Kactuz
December:23:2009 - 01:33
J. Kactuz,
They mix very well in the non-Arab Muslim world. This is the point I have been making above. You don’t have any idea how many Muslim singers and dancers both India and Pakistan have had and how many songs they have sung about drinking. In fact, drinking is a common theme of Urdu poetry, much loved by Muslims and non-Muslims alike in South Asia.
In fact Urdu poetry has transcended all barriers of religious orthodoxy. Look at this Urdu couplet by Ghalib, regarded as perhaps the greatest Urdu poet ever born – “Do not lift the veil from the Kabah; who knows if even from here our Beloved will emerge in the form of a Kafir (ie, a transgressor from Islam).” This is a reference to the fact that a stone is venerated at Kabah. The poet is speaking in facvour of the Indian religions here, which regularly worship images.
Ghalib was an aristocratic Muslim poet who lived in Delhi in the 19th century.
It’s no longer possible to write this kind of poetry in today’s intolerant world supported by the Arab Islam.
This is precisely why I am arguing that the West needs to know about the other versions of Islam that exist in the world – and these versions are the practices of the majority of Muslims, not the Arab version, which happens to be the intolerant, violent, closed-minded version.
It’s only the Arab Muslims who have been creating these kinds of problems, and they are the minority amongst the world’s Muslin population, so I don’t see why the US should consider Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islamic world which is in fact giving impetus to all this problem about Islamic extremism, getting a kind of indirect approval from the US, without the Americans realising that they are in fact encouraging this extremism.
My question to John above relates to exactly this issue.
December:23:2009 - 03:58
J. Kactuz,
Ghalib’s poetry cited above goes on to say the following about drinking – “What’s the status of a wine-house and what’s the status of a religious scholar (ie, there is no comparison between them). However, one evening as I was coming out (from the wine-house), I saw him (the religious scholar) going in.”
Not only is this verse in support of a drinking culture, it criticises the hypocrisy of religious scholars who preach these restrictive values to the society, but do not follow them themselves.
Urdu poetry is full of descriptions of drinking sessions.
December:23:2009 - 07:01
sorry Daisy i do not totally agree with you. Non of islamic versions is in favour of drinking or debauchery which late Ghalib, who by the way happens to be my favourite poet
” may mercy of Allah include him” was so fond of and we are not judge him or anyone else, but as all human beings we have cravings and desires instincts ,the way we direct and give vent to them contributes to well being or destruction of any society.
Islam is not to be blamed for the severe rules and punishment rather than the societies which inforce them randomly nor it is responsible for not building churches and synagogue nor for prohibing women from driving etc.
in fact islam is as the prophet (pbuh) said religion is easy and flexible do not make it difficult and hard to repel people from following it.
and after all Allah shows us the way and says : who does good he is doing favour to himself and who does bad the result will be bad to him, but making it police state and chasing people in every nook and corner hunting mistakes and lapses is not the way people should live their lives.
to all nonmuslims i to appeal and call on their open democratic minds not judge islam through the images we the muslims of time reflect, investigate islam yourself and ask good poeople for informations preconceptions and propaganda are advisable means to judges things.
December:23:2009 - 09:35
Daisy,
India is one place (or better, another of the many places) I have never been. I would love to visit it. My daughter has been there many times and speaks very well of it (one of the suitcases in my garage has a ‘taj mahal – Mumbai’ sticker on it. One thing I noticed (when young) was that Indian women are very beautiful(and this from a person raised in a land of women known for their beauty).
I totally agree with you. Islam has changed in my lifetime. Of course, there is no one reason, but a wide variety of related and unrelated factors have combined to give us the joy that is radical Islamism. The problem is that “the other versions of islam” are more and more MIA. It seems that the moderates are losing ground to the radicals. I was doing research on Turkey the other day and even this country is slowly going down the road to a more fundamentalist version of Islam. As regards to Egypt, I give it 5 years before the brotherhood takes over, and you know what that means.
About poetry. In the West we have forgotten this art. Most people don’t realize how common it was for everybody to write poems up until the 1920s and 30s. My grandparents all left pages of poetry, to their children, to each other, about love and nature. It is a shame. Now we tweet!
As to drinking, it is part of mankind. All societies do it, it is only a matter of degrees and the choice of what vegitable they will use to make their poison. Take the case of soubiya…
To a certain extent, art has a duty to transcend normality and even shock. To do this it requires freedom of speech. Islam at its best and greatest always occurred far from the sands of Arabia (Bagdad, Delhi, Spain). Now, unfortunately, Arabia is now in control and its 7th century version is sweeping the world. Of course, the problem is that you can’t have Islam without Arabs. More than anything else, Islam defines Arabness. When the Swiss voted, they were thinking of the that islam, not that of Ghalib.
Take care, lady
December:23:2009 - 09:46
majed Said:
December:12:2009 – 09:18
Daisy,
i do not totally agree with you. Non of islamic versions is in favour of drinking or debauchery which late Ghalib, who by the way happens to be my favourite poet
” may mercy of Allah include him” was so fond of and we are not judge him or anyone else, he has as all human beings have cravings, desires and instincts ,the way we direct and give vent to them contributes either in well being or destruction of any society.
Islam is not to be blamed for the severe rules and punishment rather than the societies which inforce them randomly nor it is responsible for not building churches and synagogue nor for prohibing women from driving etc..of things many nonmuslims specially the European and Amercians attribute to Islam as a religion defects.
in fact islam is as the prophet (pbuh) said religion is easy and flexible do not make it difficult and hard to repel people from following it.
and after all Allah shows us the way and says : who does good he is doing favour to himself and who does bad the result will be bad to him,so if someone make it police state of any country and start chasing people in every nook and corner hunting mistakes and lapses is not the way people should live their lives, although there is only few examples for this yet most critics consider it as a general rule.
to all nonmuslims i would like to appeal and call on their open democratic minds not judge islam through the images we the muslims of this time reflect, investigate islam yourself and ask poeople with knowledge for informations, preconceptions and propaganda are not advisable means to judges things.
we should remember that nations are just like human being they are born and in the process of their growth they make mistakes and learn from their mistakes then they reach the stage of maturity just like you people did after all we have reborn after long period of colonialism and ignorance.
and forgive for my poor english but i did my best.
December:23:2009 - 10:39
J. Kactuz,
This is the great misconception that the West has – that Islam can’t be defined without Arabness – in most of the Muslim world, Islam HAS BEEN defined by non-Arabness – Arabness is a minor section of Muslimness. So there is absolutely no need to give them so much of importance – it is absolutely undemocratic and against the laws of social justice to define a system by what the small number in that system are doing and not by the majority of that system are doing.
I understood John’s argument about Saudi airspace, but I think except that, Saudi Arabia isn’t important for anything else – now Russia is there to supply oil and Saudi Arabia is useless for Islamic policy. As for airspace, I think the cost to the entire world is too much in terms of extremism, hatred and violence that is taking place everywhere just because the US wants to use the Saudi airspace. It’s high time the US develops another strategy for airspace in West Asia.
About religious definitions, look at it this way –
Has anyone tried to find a world spokesperson for Christianity? Isn’t it absurd to think of a single region as a world spokesperson for Christianity? And if at all one has to do it, should we nominate the area around Jerusalem as the sole spokesperson for the entire Christian world, simply because Christianity was born there? Isn’t it absolutely stupid to think like that?
Same with Buddhism – historical Buddhism no longer exists in India where it was born, but many versions of Buddhism exist in different parts of Asia. Isn’t it absolutely stupid to nominate any single one of these societies as the sole spokesperson for the entire Buddhist world? Isn’t it absolutely stupid to reinvent historical Buddhism from 6th century BCE and try to impose it on every Buddhist society in the world in 21st century?
Same goes for Jainism, which is as old as Buddhism and exists in India as well as in the West through the Indian diaspora. If after a few generations these diaspora Jains begin to change according to the environment in their host countries, won’t it be absolutely stupid to nominate India as the spokesperson for Jainism and try to control the diaspora Jains through this “spokesperson?”
OK Jews have decided to have Israel as their identifying place, but does it mean that Jews all over the world are exactly similar to the Jews in Israel? Can you measure the entire Jewish population by only Israel? Isn’t it a stupid idea?
OK, since Hinduism is a very different kind of a religion, with no single sacred Book, no single prophet and no single overarching principle, let’s leave out Hinduism.
But from the analogy of other religions, can’t you see how absurd and impractical this policy is – when the majority of the world’s Muslims DO NOT follow the Arab version of Islam and besides, it’s the Arab version of Islam that has created all the problems?
Is a world power like the US supposed to make this kind of stupid religious policy? Aren’t they supposed to be smarter than this?
What legitimate ground does the US have to marginalise the majority of the Muslim population of the world – to relegate them to almost nothingness and to glorify a small section of Islamic population? And if a layperson like me can see that this is giving impetus to the Arabs to spread extremism in the world, can’t the US experts see it? Isn’t a global power supposed to be much more insightful and responsible than this?
I am not arguing that the US has done this consciously, but this is the consequence of their Islamic policy and it’s high time they realise it, rather than going on creating conflict everywhere in the name of containing terrorism. If you don’t strike at the roots, how can the terrorism be contained just by plucking the leaves?
You have talked about increasing extremism in Turkey, Egypt etc – can’t you see that this is happening because the US is supporting Saudi Arabia?
It’s absolutely essential for the US to realise that this policy is wrong, they should have different Islamic policies for different parts of the Muslim world rather than relying on the culprit who is in the minority anyway.
This only shows how ignorant the US has been about the diverse nuances of different Asian societies and going by the kind of education that goes on in the American schools and colleges, I’m not surprised at the ignorance of the US policy-makers. With this kind of policy, Americans aren’t doing any service to their own country and they aren’t doing any service to the world.
So far I have the faith that perhaps even Americans don’t want to be the indirect supporters and cause of Islamic terrorism. I sincerely hope that I won’t have to revise my opinion of the Americans.
You are welcome to visit India. This is a country you can’t comprehend in a couple of weeks. It’s too diverse for that. And there are so many places to see. You should come here for longer periods and perhaps several times. You won’t get the sophisticated infrastructure that you are used to in the West – unless you want to spend a lot of money – but you’ll have a very interesting experience that you won’t get anywhere else in the world.
December:23:2009 - 10:44
My argument wasn’t whether the Kingdom deserved the reputation it has within Islam. Rather it was that it does have that reputation. As such, it is useful to the US (and others) to have the Saudis in even general agreement with foreign policy initiatives. Not critical, perhaps, but it helps.
December:23:2009 - 11:13
John,
It hasn’t helped – it has increased the incidents of terrorism. And it doesn’t have that reputation. The majority of Muslims do not think of Saudi Arabia as their leader – they are not going to rush to fall in line if Saudi Arabia gives a call. This is what the US has to understand and has to stop treating them with that greatness – the US is indirectly encouraging terrorism by doing this, without even realising it. Does the US have to have its foreign policy at this cost to the world? This is a faulty policy and it’s time the US develops different policies for different Muslim populations – it’s not logical to have one single Islamic policy for this diverse community. And how can you contain terrorism by helping the terrorists? Does it make sense? Please tell me where I am wrong.
December:23:2009 - 11:21
majed…
I think in fact Daisy was saying what you are saying. That in other parts of the Muslim (non Arab) world Islam is followed in a more “livable…less police state” way. for Example in India or Indonesia it is a much more moderate and accommodating to life in general and to other religions. It is the strict, “police state”( I love that phrase-describes it well)Islam coming out of ‘Saudi Arabia that they are spreading around the world that is problematic. and in fact, after following these blogs, it seems to me that so much of Arab Islam is more about culture than the religion anyway.
December:23:2009 - 11:23
PS….
majed, your English was fine…we understood. Thanks.
December:23:2009 - 11:25
Majed,
I am not talking about Quranic theology, which is not diverse but monolithic – and much of it Saudi Arabia tries to impose on its people, the argument of Western muslims that Saudi Islam is not what the Quran preaches not withstanding. In fact it is possible to find the basis of most of the Saudi laws in the Quran or in the Hadiths.
My argument is very different from the imposition of a monolithic theology everywhere. I am talking more about how different Muslim societies have interpreted and practised Islam in different environments, which has made the non-Arab Muslims tolerant and non-extremists, unlike the Arab Muslims who have never learnt to be tolerant of a viewpoint different from their own. This is what is creating the extremist problem in the world, especially when the global powers like the US begin to give too much of credit to this violent, intolerant version of Islam.
And if you think Arab Islam is the “True Islam” then please check the demographic profile of the Muslim world. You’ll know where the majority of the Muslims live and how miniscule is the Arab population. You can’t deny the right of these non-Arab Muslims to practise their faith in whichever way they find it convenient. Arabs have no business trying to disrupt peace in the world by trying to impose their version of religiosity on everyone.
December:23:2009 - 11:27
Oby,
Thanks for saying it so simply and so clearly. Yes, it is also about spreading the Arab culture everywhere because Arabs are so arrogant about their culture too.
Majed,
I’m not ignorant of Islamic injunctions. I know there are problems in Quranic injunctions. We have debated it at length on another blog, so not repeating it here, since we are the same commentators.
December:23:2009 - 11:48
Daisy…
‘You are welcome to visit India. This is a country you can’t comprehend in a couple of weeks. It’s too diverse for that. And there are so many places to see. You should come here for longer periods and perhaps several times. You won’t get the sophisticated infrastructure that you are used to in the West – unless you want to spend a lot of money – but you’ll have a very interesting experience that you won’t get anywhere else in the world.’
Amen to that!!! I have traveled around India and I am sure it helped that I was with a native but it is so diverse from region to region and yet in some ways I found it to be comfortingly similar. I will say however, there were a couple of things I could not get used to no matter how hard I tried.
Eating with your hands. My husband is from the North and from my experience they all use a spoon…(for those not familiar with Indian food a fork will not work because most Indian food is wet, and sitting in a gravy or sauce. Hence the need for a spoon or a piece of bread to use as a spoon…) Of course in the south rice is the starch staple and when you mix that with the saucy foods and eat with your hands…well…let’s just say it is hard to watch and even harder to master.
they need more public bathrooms suitable for tourists. I traveled when I was 5 months pregnant and could not find a bathroom when I needed it.
Don’t get me started about the crazy policies America has. Makes me want to scream at times.
The rest of the world may be moderate Islamically, but Wahabiism is spreading and THAT is the problem. Muslims themselves are starting to identify with the more extreme Islam. Bad, Bad News. And the USA has enough clout to lean on KSA to try to put a stop to it…question is why don’t they? Cause in my opinion if they don’t a big fight is coming and not necessarily among nations.
December:23:2009 - 16:25
oby: While you’re blaming Wahhabism, take a look at India’s Deobandism. Strains of it are as fierce as anything you’d find in the KSA. It’s my conclusion that when the two of them mixed, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, in Afghanistan, we have the modern terrorism of today.
December:23:2009 - 16:29
I’m going to have to re-read what you’ve written here and think about it. I’m not dodging the question; I just don’t have an answer in my pocket…
December:23:2009 - 18:40
Going for the big two oh oh, ho ho ho.
December:23:2009 - 18:41
Majed–I agree with you that people should make time to get to know more about Islam, and to get to know Muslims so they appreciate how to put the news images and the war propaganda into perspective, and to understand that by definition extremism represents a minority of any group, and that like the other 3 Abrahamic faiths Islam has many currents, from more liberal to conservative to extreme.
December:23:2009 - 20:19
Thank you John…I always love to learn so I will be looking up and reading about Deobandism. I appreciate the heads up.
December:23:2009 - 20:25
Daisy, I stand by my statement that Islam cannot be divorced from the Arab people. More so than ever, Arabness definess Islam. Not only that, Arab money (from the Saudis) is pushing Islam towards a more radical, intolerant position. The salafis (including the deobandis) control a majority of mosques around the word and they teach a very intolerant flavor of Islam. Note that Islam holds that the true Islam expressed in the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. Note that converts often take Arab names.
Here is a quote:
The linguistic superiority of Arabic, and the superiority of Arabs in achieving full knowledge of Arabic, is a reality which is derived from the necessity of knowing the Qur’an and the Sunna fully, and they are expressed in Arabic. In that superficial linguistic sense, as in the accidental historical sense, Arabs also have a natural superiority.
http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/status_of_arabs.htm
Of course, I can find opposite views from Islamic sources:
“There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab…. except in whoever fears Allah the most.” (Note that is doesn’t say that infidels are equal to Muslims. We obviously are not as good as Muslims).
And there is the problem of ambiguity: “You are the best of peoples” (3:100). Exactly who is “you”? The Arabs? The Muhajirun/Shahaba? The Ummah? (For certain we infidels are not ‘the best’ as quoted.). Not only that, Muslims believe the Rashidun era (all Arabs) to be the best example of Islam in practice, as crazy as that sounds. Of course this debate is as old as Islam, when the concept of Mawali (client Muslims) arose in the Abbasid dynasty. In my opinion, the concept “Islam” cannot be separated from the concept “Arab”.
Daisy, when it comes to “the hypocrisy” of religious scholars (and preachers, priests, bishops, Imams, rabbis, etc…) , you can sign me up. Well, for 99.9% of them.
As to vice and debauchery, I support them – to a certain extent. They are part of human society. It is my opinion they have their purpose but they should have a certain stigma attached to them.
Majed – So what if we have investigated Islam, and based upon that investigation, have concluded that it promotes hate and violence? What then? Why do we have to ask other people about Islam and why can’t we judge Islam by what Muslims do? Should we judge it by what Buddhists do? I would also like you to not assume that non-Muslims are ignorant of Islam, its writings and history. By the way, have you read the ahadith? Did you notice anything?
Kactuz
December:23:2009 - 20:54
John,
I have the special honour of writing the 200th comment on this page! So I think I deserve a special treat from the blog-owner!
I am going to catch my flight today and will access the internet only intermittently till 27th. So please keep this page open for comments – I’ll write the comments whenever I get Internet access.
December:23:2009 - 21:22
John,
Please read from comment No 173 onwards to understand the chain of argument running here. I would love to see your proper elaborate response once you have time and are no longer tired.
About Deoband, yes, they are an orthodox school in India but it’s not as if they control the behaviour pattern of all Muslim population. They issue their fatwas, often quite controversial – in the Indian context, “controversial” is orthodox, not the opposite. Yes, some illiterate, semi-literate and economically backward Muslim groups may fall in the trap of Deoband fatwas, but any educated Muslim who is even middle-class does not necessarily take these fatwas seriously. As a part of freedom of expression, Deoband has a right to issue orthodox fatwas if it likes. As a part of freedom of action, Muslims have a right to decide whether they want to follow or not – and there are many Muslims who don’t follow them.
Please Compare this with the Arab situation and you’ll see why the Arabs should not be defended.
J Kactuz,
I am aware of that link between Islam and Arab culture – in the Islamic Paradise Arabic is the only language that is spoken, so all of you better learn Arabic – so far only John will be able communicate with no one in the Islamic Paradise and may have to talk to himself! Seeing this argument going on here he may already be considering that option anyway!!
The point that I am trying to make is that this has to be changed – it has been changed in the non-Arab Muslim world and the West should emerge out of this trap too. Otherwise you’ll never be able to solve this terrorism problem.
Oby,
That’s right. There are many things in India you may never get used to – I haven’t got used to the heat and dust and the argumentative Indians – you have one specimen here throwing enough material for a WW III here.
The reason why Indians eat with hands is that Indian food follows the principle of blending the flavours and the Indian flavours can be blended best with hand. I eat with spoon or hand as the necessity arises, but the food doesn’t taste as good if the flavours are not blended properly. That’s why we wash the hands before eating and also afterwards.
But as a foreigner, you can use the spoon and fork all the time, I don’t think people will mind that.
December:23:2009 - 22:41
Daisy…
As it is Christmas time, the TV here is full of Christmas themed shows. Kid shows, fun shows, comedies, OLD movies with wonderful loving themes, but the ones I particularly like are the historical shows that talk about Jesus, his life, the archeology of the area where he lived and preached etc. For me that brings him to life and makes him real. Last night while watching a particular three part series I could not help but think of you very strongly…
One of the people speaking on the show was a professor of theology at a big, very well known college and for the life of me I can’t remember his full name…I wanted to look him up for you. Anyway, that’s not important. What he said about the gospels (they were comparing and contrasting the Gospels and how they were alike and how they also differed and what that meant). He said one statement which was “Were the people of antiquity so stupid as to write the Gospels to be taken literally and we are so brilliant that we take them symbolically? Or were the people of antiquity so brilliant to write these Gospels to be an allegory ie: a symbolical narrative meant to teach a lesson and we modern people are so stupid that we are taking the Gospels literally today? He said “I think it is that we are the stupid ones.” Meaning that the people back then wrote them to teach a lesson and it had it’s basis in truth but might not be able to be taken literally. I wanted to jump up and down and say “Yes…that is one of the problems as I see it.” Things written in Islam 1400 years ago are in some ways being followed literally today and it doesn’t fit in our society today. Literalism and religion don’t mix well.
The other thing that I was pleased about and some people might think that this is cracked…but I am glad that as a people and as a religion that we are able and not afraid to take a look at things and question, interpret and think critically even when it comes to our religion. I LOVE the fact that they find things that might enhance the view of our faith and that it is not a stagnant faith and it can change and adapt.
A simple example…they talked about the Garden of Gehtsemane which is where Jesus prior to being given up to the guards went to pray while his disciplines fell asleep waiting for his return. They now think that the translation of the word “Gethsemane” is incorrect.. it wasn’t a garden after all; it was a cave where olives were pressed. The Hebrew word for olive press is VERY close to the word Gethsemane. So when it was written down and translated somehow it got translated from cave for olive pressing to Garden. Although the geographic area named for the garden of Gethsemane was extremely close to the cave and they found the cave where the Garden was supposed to be.
Some people might find that very upsetting but I love that we are able to work with our interpretations and grow as needed. And since you have said that so strongly over and over I couldn’t help but think of you.
December:23:2009 - 22:52
Daisy, I’m too old to learn another language. So I guess I’ll pass on the Islamic paradise. Not only that, what the heck would I do with those women? (or technically, houris, or worse yet, hoor al-ayn/hurs)
One woman telling me what to do is enough, thank you very much. I donate my hoors to john.
December:23:2009 - 22:56
j. kactuz
LMAO!
December:23:2009 - 23:13
Oby,
You are absolutely right! I love to read the archaeology of the Bible and thre has been a lot of criticism and reinterpretations of the Indian religios too – that’s way to grow.
J. Kactuz,
On Carol’s blog we created a 21st Century heaven, where you can customise your own features in the heaven – perhaps you’ll like to join there. See “How many heavens are there” on Carol’s blog.
Mine comes with a beautiful sea-beach.
John,
You are going to have a nice time (or tough time, depending on the way you see it) in Paradise with everyone’s houris along with your own!
OK, see you all, have to rush to catch my flight.
December:24:2009 - 09:03
Daisy–”Please Compare this with the Arab situation and you’ll see why the Arabs should not be defended.” You mean that the vast majority of peaceable Arab Muslims ie the vast majority of 15-20% of 1.6 billion shouldn’t be defended against a shared reputation with the violent extreme minority, some of whom are not Arabs but South Asian, Filipino, Indonesian, African, European, and American?
Oby–#202–wonderful. If you haven’t read him already you might enjoy the work of academic John Dominic Crossan, an ex-priest, Catholic historian of Biblical times who has written a number of books for non-specialists on the historical Jesus. He is retired from Loyola, the famous Catholic University where he was a chair professor for decades. His website has some interesting texts online, including his wonderful biography, and his elaboration of Jesus identity as a peasant class Jew:
http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/
Wiki is also a good starting place on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
Jay–brilliantly funny! (who knew? LOL
)
December:24:2009 - 11:39
Chiara…
I could kiss you! Thank you! THAT IS THE MAN WHOSE NAME I COULDN’T FULLY REMEMBER! I am very impressed with him each time I see him on a show. I was entering John Grosse in Google and couldn’t find him…I even entered John Cross with no luck.I was so close. Of course I couldn’t remember his school either. You have made my day….I will definately read up on him…I don’t know much about him so I appreciate the links… thank you once again and Merry Christmas to you and the others on this website. For those of whom this is not your holiday…Season’s Greetings…enjoy the love and good feelings of this season. I wish you all the best!
December:24:2009 - 16:19
Everyone: Please read this…very heartwarming. We need more of this worldwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_re_us/us_a_muslim_mitzvah
enjoy!
December:24:2009 - 18:35
Oby–the kisses are returned! LOL
I LOVE JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN! Be sure to read as well, online, his critique of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Brilliant as usual. I often find wikipedia provides good references, and often a good overview as a starting point as well. Fortunately Crossan has his own website, which I shall have to return to since the St Paul stuff looks new, since the last time I was there. Crossan is great in a documentary or talk show. I must see if he can be found on google videos or youtube.
Thanks for the heartwarming link, and truly in the spirit of the season.
I will be addressing more interfaith issues shortly on my blog–may put Crossan in there somewhere as you have reminded me of his excellent work. Thanks.
December:25:2009 - 00:13
Chiara,
I have been arguing all along that the Islamic violence and extremism in South Asia and South East Asia (and now in North Africa as per J. Kactuz) has been perpetrated by the West Asian Arabs – primarily Saudi Arabia, becuase Saudis have got such an undue advantage under US support. This in black and white means that you can actually trace back the perpetuation of Islamic violence, intolerance and extremism that exists in South Asia and South East Asia to West Asia, especially to Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps you and the other visitors of this page, will like to know that Osama Bin Laden is NOT A SOUTH ASIAN – he belongs to a prominent SAUDI FAMILY. He was born in Riyadh, his father had close ties with SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY and he studied in Saudi Arabia. It’s not surprising that he has got this kind of violence in him that he thinks should be imposed on the world.
It’s bad enough that South Asia is being turned into a Saudi terrorist training zone and on top of it, South Asia also gets the blame for Saudi Arabia’s crimes!
That’s because it hurts the interests of the West to admit that the entire Islamic policy of placing the Arabs on a high platform has been wrong and has in fact given rise to the terrorism in the world. So, South Asia, an impoverished and helpless region gets blamed as the easy scapegoat of the West and of Saudi Arabia.
This kind of closing your eyes to the reality isn’t going to solve the terrorism problem. Rather than being closed-minded, it’s high time for the West and for the US in particular to think clearly about whom they are supporting for what reasons and what’s the price this world is paying for this.
It is a reality that Saudi Arabia is exporting Islamic violence across the world, making less powerful regions as South Asia and South-East Asia as its base and the US has not understood this strategy of Saudi Arabia – their support to the Saudi Arabia has only accelerated the rise of terrorism in the world. In this situation, there is no point in adopting the strategies that the US is adopting to control terrorism – they have to strike at the roots and distance themselves from Saudi Arabia and be strict with the Saudi policies.
And this can be done only if the Americans realise and accept these linkages between Saudi-Us partnership and terrorism in the first place. Blaming the victim that is South Asia isn’t going to solve any problems.
John,
This answers your point about Afghanistan as well. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
December:25:2009 - 03:31
Daisy–I think you would be safe in assuming that those commenting here are well aware of Osama bin Laden’s biography. On the other hand you seem to conflate bin Laden, the Saudi government, Saudis and Arabs.
I don’t know who here you think is blaming the victim South Asia. Or are you conflating the West, the US, Obama’s wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the commentators here?
I have read many, many of your comments here and elsewhere, and while you are obviously bright and knowledgeable, you seem to dismiss internal South Asian strife and to focus on problems of and with Saudi. I have no doubt there is proselytizing by Saudi, but I find it hard to believe they are exporting terrorism while combating it themselves. Rigid and conservative is not the same as radical and violent.
Many of us “Westerners” are underwhelmed (to say the least) with American foreign policy. To look at voting patterns, and exit polls one can only conclude that about 1/2 the Americans are too.
I’m not sure what the purpose of your above comment is, especially as you seem to think I am so obtuse that explanations are wasted. On the other hand, you seem not to have read my full sentence as written above:
“…a shared reputation with the violent extreme minority, some of whom are not Arabs but South Asian, Filipino, Indonesian, African, European, and American?”
Maybe when you are rested from your travels, and I am rested from waiting up for Santa, we will be able to comprehend each other better, without the need for ANGRY CAPS.
December:25:2009 - 19:24
I have serious reservations about the concept of a “peaceful Muslim majority”. I turn on the computer yesterday and it defaults to Yahoo. There are two news items on the page:
1.Threats, Ashoura bring blue Christmas in Iraq.
“Christmas is bumping into Shiite Islam’s most mournful ceremony this year, forcing Iraqi Christians to keep their celebrations under tighter wraps than usual.”
And
2. Pakistan Christians celebrate Christmas in fear
“No Christmas decorations brighten the tent camp sheltering Christians left homeless by the worst violence against minorities in Pakistan this year. Instead, there is a pervasive sense of fear. The Christians have received cell phone text messages warning them to expect a “special Christmas present,” they say, and are terrified of their tents being torched or their church services being bombed.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_christmas_of_fear
Today I open my browser and I get this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gulf_arabia_s_christians
“The Vatican’s top cleric in the heart of Muslim Arabia tends to a flock of 2 million Christians spread around six desert nations. But he has to do it quietly: Most of them must still pray in secret and are forbidden to display crosses and other symbols of their faith.”
The commonly expressed idea that most Muslims are peaceful and tolerant doesn’t hold water in my bucket. Neither does the theory that it is just Arab Muslims that do these things. If this were true there would be no apostasy laws and there would be no restrictions on other religions. Any survey of Islamic societies shows a generalized hostility to other religions and even to other sects of Islam. These same people are also the ones that deny others the right to criticize their religion. Rather than peaceful, the best one could say is that most Muslims are indifferent to the situation of non-Muslims. This indifference (or low level hostility) is what allows the radicals to thrive. This applies to all islamic societies. In those countries where Muslims are a minority, this rule does not apply, because Muslims don’t have then numbers to impose their mentality. I do not give any credit to Indian Muslims for their peacefulness because it is circumstantial. As mentioned, the deobandis are every bit as radical and intolerant as the Wahhabis, and they are not Arabs.
Add to that my personal experience with nice kind sweet Muslims… When asked about certain difficult issues these same people seem incapable of getting their answers right about texts in the Quran and hadith. It may just be me, but I don’t consider “You don’t understand” or “out of context” or “Everybody did it” to be a proper responses to questions about hate and violence.
Muslims seem to only care about themselves or any discrimination / hostility against them. What they do others does not concern them. Take for example the case of the Muslim woman killed in Germany a few months ago. It is pure outrage, all over the world:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/06/egyptian-woman-killed-in-german-court-for-being-veiled/
Yet if Christians are burned alive in Pakistan, by Muslims, no outrage…
If the Maldives strips citizenship from non-Muslims, so what…
If Turkey oppresses Orthodox Christians and seizes their monastery, so what
If Malaysia sends ex-Muslims to re-education camps and imposes sharia on all, so what…
If Algeria passes laws to penalize other religions and criticism of Islam, so what….
If Afghanistan decrees that apostates must die, so what…
If Morocco detains converts to Christianity and restricts “non-Islamic materials and proselytizing,” so what
And so on…
Where are those moderate Muslims? Where are the peaceful Muslims that respect others? I don’t believe that Muslims in the West are any different from those in Islamic societies, Arab or not..
Now an article by P. Chesler
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/12/24/could-jesus-live-safely-in-bethelehem-today/
In case you don’t know, this woman married a Muslim a few years ago, moved to his country, and from one day to the next, watched her polite sweet considerate Muslim husband change into a brutal “woman is object” domineering man.
I am not much into religion, but on this date it is relevant to think what some people are doing to the followers of jesus – and other religions. Worse yet, they pretend it has nothing to do with them.
December:26:2009 - 06:47
j. kactuz
you have demonstrated that you are very wise and erudite person, but i wonder why should you use your good bucket to hold what the tolerant and so peaceful americans (the followers of Jesus peace be upon him ) are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan and what their black water is doing in pakistan , they are i guess spreading the message of peace and the blessing of democracy and love, ironically you also hold in that same good bucket what the nice and civil french did in Algeria, they were so good that they only charged the poor Algerians a million soul to give them their own land and freedom back, and it is not a secret the harm they are still causing behind the scene in north africa in general, let us not forget the massacres committed by Serbs the God fearing christians in Bosnia, there is also Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
about indian muslims no one can hold a finger against indian muslim without having the remaing fingers altogether pointed to him, muslims conquered and ruled india for long prosperous centuries as indians they did not steal to send it back to their homelands as did other colonial powers, they were mostly good tolerant rulers let alone isolated cases no one is perfect, do you think there would have been any trace to hinduism in india if the muslims during those centuries of absolute power tried to force indians to convert. it would have been just like what the followers of Jesus PBUH the catholic Spaniards and the Portuguese did in the philippines and latin america and also what they did in Al-Ándalus (the light house of Europe) after the defeat of Muslims, they have literally eradicated muslims and jews, and less those who coverted to christianity might pray or read from their books in their basements or in darkness of the night they stablished the The infamous Spanish Inquisitions. try to exhume anything which is that shameful during seven hundered years of arab rule in spain.
and regarding your not getting convincing answer from those muslim u have spoken to them, it is simple you cant to anybody who simply knows how to pray do the basic mulsim duties and ask him to answer scholarly questions,so go and find someone your own size even a child knows that.
December:26:2009 - 12:07
Jkactuz …
I saw that article about the bishop who oversees two million Christians in the Gulf and I actually found a kernel of positiveness in it. Instead of negative I thought at least they are not persecuted anymore…what bothered me about it is that the churches are in a compound and not allowed any architecture that says “hey I am a Christain house of worship”. Yet, the Swiss Muslims are upset about two minarets. Tell me how this even remotely seems fair? Again Christians are not allowed to worship openly or freely within the Islamic society. What i don’t understand about this are several things:
1. why are the Muslims afraid of letting non Muslims worship freely and have to lock them away where they aren’t seen and in contact with others who are not of the faith? They(other faiths) are a minority and if Muslims are strong in their faith, which it seems to me many are, what is there to be afraid of? You can’t say on the one hand that Jesus is a Prophet and a part of Islam and on the other, lock any signs of him away as if it were something to be ashamed of. What are Muslims afraid of? why can’t Christians worship freely there as a minority as Muslims do in the west as a minority?
2. Why is the West expected to be tolerant of Muslims and afford them full rights within our societies and yet it almost seems to be a defacto unwritten rule that the Middle East should stay Muslim with little offer of any rights to those of ANY other faith.
3. It feels a little like “we want our section of the world to stay Islamic and we want your section of the world to become more and more Islamic.” all I am saying is if Muslims want rights in other parts of the world they should be open to giving them and not just a paltry “token” kind of rights. Non Muslims of all stripes should be allowed to practice freely, wear any sort of symbol or clothes that they want that reflects their religion as Muslims do here(Abayas, skullcaps, hajibs,etc.)they should be able to have a church look like a church and there should be some sort of written law to protect them and if they face persecution they should have a voice and recourse.
And as unpopular as it will be, I think that the West needs to hold the Islamic world’s feet to the fire in terms of offering full rights to each countries’ non Muslims. I am not sure Muslims themselves will advocate for that on non Muslims behalf as non Muslims here do on behalf of Muslims…(minarets notwithstanding) so it seems it will have to be up to the West to say something about it. I do think that people are slowly getting tired of the one way tolerance.
Majed…
I don’t know what country you are in but I feel that if a vote were taken in the USA most Americans would vote to get out of Afganistan and Iraq if they ever wanted to go there in the first place. It is not a popular war and many Americans are against it and feel terrible about the whole situation.
As for Christians eradicating any other religion or population…lets face it…most people including Muslims have done their fair share of eradicating and brutalizing other peoples. No matter who does it it is 100% wrong and I pray that we, as well as our fellow religions around the world, have grown up enough to realize to hold a sword to someone else’s throat and threaten them with conversion or death is not really bringing happy followers of that particular religion into the fold. There have been untold slaughter done to millions of innocents all over the world in the name of religion and INTOLERANCE. Whoever was doing the “converting” (aka convert or die…not of one’s free will) was intolerant of another’s religious beliefs. Christianity has had it’s day and I pray we will never see those days from Christians again, Jews did their won version of conversion and intolerance and also Muslims ahve done a pretty good job as well…wherever intolerance goes it brings misery and tyranny. And in reality, IMO it isn’t really all based in religion but in greed and power mongering.
I guess what I am saying is that none of the three Abrahamic faiths can point fingers at others and say you did this or that, because they have all done one form or another of it. Better, should we not live our lives as examples to our faith and let people choose for themselves?
December:27:2009 - 15:51
I just wanted to post an aside for those who might be interested…tonight on National Geographic on the Natgeo channel is a show called “Inside American Terror”. I thought it only fair that as we are talking about Islam and the difficulties that it can cause with terrorism that we also recognize it isn’t only Islam but right here in our own backyard. It is talking about white supremacists and the KKK. It is on at 9pm EST.
December:27:2009 - 18:15
Oby and Majed,
You both are right in your own ways, eventhough you dffer from each other!
Thanks John, for opening the commnts again.
December:27:2009 - 19:57
Chiara,
You said it right, radical and conservative are different from violent and intolerant. Yes, orthodox forms of Islam have existed even in Muslim populations outside West Asia – including India. Of course, we can’t brand an entire population of any country tolerant or intolerant. There are good and bad people everywhere. In fact I am not talking about the people; I am talking about the dominant strain of Islam that is being practised in any country. There are very nice Saudis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Moroccans and there are quite vicious and evil Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos etc.
But that’s not the point I’m making. I’m talking about the form of Islam that is practised by the majority of Muslims in each of these countries and if you study that, you’ll find that the West Asian countries are practising a version of Islam that is the most intolerant, violent, unaccepting of other cultures and religions, oppressive of human rights, which believes that this Islam is the only “True Religion” and their ways are the most superior in the world and this is the way the whole world should live. And that’s where the entire problem lies.
I don’t know why Iraq is being singled out here – Iraq too is an Arab country – and therefore follows the same intolerant Islam.
Now the question posed by J. Kactuz and you – what about the intolerance that the Muslims in these other countries have shown?
My contention is that the orthodox trends are not the dominant versions of Islam being practised in these regions outside West Asia, since having been been multi-cultural and multi-religious for millennia, these Muslims have always accepted non-Muslim religions as a natural way of life.
I have argued repeatedly above that this intolerant version of Arab Islam has been recognised as the “True Islam” by the US and therefore, Saudi Arabia is made the spokesperson of the entire Muslim world, which is a faulty policy because 1) Majority of the world’s population doesn’t follow this version of Islam, 2) Muslims outside the Arab world don’t look upto Saudi Arabia for everything – for them the non-Muslim population in their own countries and their own government’s policies are more important, 3) This US support has accelerated the export of this intolerant Islam to these more tolerant regions – without the US being a conscious accomplice in this Saudi plan and 4) This misleads the non-Muslims in the West to wrongly imagine that Arab Islam is the way Islam is and should be practised.
Hence, my contention is that the American Islamic policy needs to be changed, otherwise the infiltration of this violent ideology throughout the world and terrorism can’t be controlled.
Now, let’s leave aside South Asia for a while, since that’s a complicated region with a complicated history.
Western converts to Islam, under their false impression that Arab Islam is the true Islam, try to follow that version as much as possible and therefore show an intolerance towards other religions.
Look at the profile of past 100 years of countries like Indonesia, Philippines, Latin America etc.- Do they have a history of religious intolerance? Were they unaccepting of other reigions? Did they try to impose their worldview on non-Muslims? The answer is – no, this is a recent development and this is what I am talking about – this intolerant Islam is making inroads to these previously tolerant societies and making them intolerant because of this excessive US support to Arab Islam and the Saudis exporting their violent Islam to these parts of the world.
Proselytising is a soft word for what Saudi Arabia is doing – it’s exporting terrorism and it’s high time we understand this.
Now about South Asia – I have given insanstec above of Indian Islam accepting of Indian religions. Pakistanis were no different from Indian muslims till 1947 when partition happened. If you look at the history of the Indian sub-continent, you’ll find that during 5000 years of its history, there is not a single evidence of inter-religious conflict till the British came to power. And for about 1000 years before the British, India had a series of Muslim rulers. Majed is right above, if the Muslim rulers wanted to convert the Indians, what could have stopped them from eradicating Hinduism from here? How is it that 80% of Indian population remains Hindu despite 1000 years of Muslim rulers in Indian history?
It’s not a joke to have 5000 years of history with so many religions existing here and the entire communal conflict has a history of about 200 years in this region.
Please note that both Islam and Christianity came to India immediately after they were born. During Mughal period we also had a lot of Jews here, most of whom emigrated to Israel later. In a comment above I talked about a synagogue in Kerala, which is still under worship.
I won’t go into the growth of communalism in India during the British rule. But we all know that after partition, Pakistan has been gradually drifting away from its indigenous tolerant culture and moving towards the ideology of – yes, of Saudi Arabia.
About Afghanistan – during the period of Muslim rulers in India, Afghans formed a significant section of the nobility and army here. And they didn’t show any trace of intolerance towards non-Muslim population.
In fact, the growth of Taleban is directly linked to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Hence, it started off as a political movement which has become a religious malady now. And whose idea is the orthodox Shariah government that they wanted to impose? Of Saudi Arabia. Of Arab Islam.
Please note that even during the 1000 years of Muslim rulers in Indian sub-continent, this region was never under Islamic rule or under Shariah. The local customs and religions were allowed to prevail by those Muslim rulers.
The export of terrorism in the form of Al-Qaeda by Saudi Arabia to this region has only strengthened this malady. They also pressurised Pakistan into allowing them to function there and succeeded to a large extent. That’s how we have the tie-up of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan – under the influence of Al-Qaeda, a Saudi Arabian terrorist organisation.
So it’s obvious that even in South Asia, this intolerant ideology is not indigenous to this region, but an influence of Saudi Arabia and Arab islam.
You think I am not critical of South Asia – that’s not true. I have criticised even India on this very blog. Besides, I can also argue that you are blindly supportive of Arabs, not criticising them for any of their faults. But what will come out of this accusing of each other? Nothing.
It’s a fact that Al-Qaeda is a Saudi Arabian creation and it is the intention of Al-Qaeda to infiltrate everywhere. The Saudi royal family has not done anything to help the US to fight terror in Afghanistan. It’s a reality that Osama has links with this royal family. So why shouldn’t we suspect the intentions of Saudi Arabia and its royal family? The king may be a shade less orthodox than the others, but we all know there are staunch orthodox factions within the royal family. Why should we assume that they are innocent when everywhere in the world there are imprints of Saudi Arabia and Arab Islam in causing an intolerant world? Why should Saudi arabia be absolved of its crimes?
The US should not be supporting such a country. There is no other way to solve the problem of terrorism. They can wipe out Al-Qaeda, but dozens of Al-Qaedas will mushroom in different parts of the world, because of the infiltration of Arab Islam everywhere that is taking place now. The worst part is that it’s not the Saudi terrorists who are going everywhere – they are recruiting local people and influencing them into believing in this violence.
December:27:2009 - 20:26
John,
I’d really appreciate it if you give your comments on the above. And I think your linking of Afghanistan terrorism to Deoband is wrong. If that was so, Deoband would have generated terrorists within India first of all. With a non-Muslim majority, this country would have been an easy target for them. However, products of Deoband are conservative Muslims, but they are not terrorists. I do think you need to revise your analysis, but would like to get your response to this. Terrorism in Afghanistan is linked to the Arab world.
J. Kactuz,
I think I have replied to your point about violence in non-Arab Muslim world in my comment to Chiara above.
Chiara,
About Al-Qaeda coming back to attack in Saudi Arabia – you can train a person to murder and hand him weapons, but you can’t ensure that the person won’t turn around and kill you as well. That’s what has happened to Saudi Arabia. They have opened the floodgates of terrorism and can’t stop their own house from getting flooded now. If they export poison to the world, it serves them right to get a taste of their own medicine.
December:27:2009 - 20:49
“I have argued repeatedly above that this intolerant version of Arab Islam has been recognised as the “True Islam” by the US”.
I am not sure that I can agree with that Daisy…not that the US is guilt free but rather that it is perpetuating that this is the one true Islam. Maybe because I am American I see it as slightly different. I am old enough to remember a mild, nonviolent and peaceful strain of Islam…we NEVER thought of Islam equals violence ever… until perhaps the last 15 or so years when it became so in your face. Until that point it was a non issue here. Again, I am not the most politically savvy person but I know it wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Now the USA is so concerned with making sure that they say repeatedly that this violent Islam is not the TRUE Islam that I feel fairly confident if you walked on the street and asked the average person if violent Islam is the norm they would say no…it is a group of people that have taken it and twisted it. In fact, the average person probably does not even know that the Strict Islam comes from KSA. They probably do equate Islam with the Middle East primarily, but I think that is more a function of the fact that our eyes have been turned there battling terror for 8 years. I do agree with you that the USA has a good amount of responsibility but I also think it is a function of being in hostile territory and these guys( KSA ) are the ones who will deal so you are left with a situation where you might not want to join hands with the bully but if he is the one who is going to help you gain ground in the area to help defeat the other bullies then you don’t have much choice. Part of the problem as per the book I read “Inside the Kingdom” is that the royal family gave a lot of control to the religious elite of the country when the petrodollars started rolling in and didn’t really have anyone guarding the hen house so to speak. The foxes (Imams, Sheiks etc.)started to spread their version of this strict Islam. No one was really watching what they wee doing and even if they did the Royal family was loathe to upbraid them…(John if I have got it wrong make sure you set me right)…As per the book there are efforts underway to counteract this strict Islam but it is only starting and who knows if it will be successful…
Meanwhile we are left dealing with the effects of this cancer that has spread. Yes I agree that Pakistan has become pretty scary place…but I wonder if that is a function that the Muslims there don’t have another indigenous population(Hindus and Christians for example) to modulate their expression of Islam. Logic would dictate that if it is spreading India would not be immune and you should see the effects there. Perhaps it is the fact that Islam is the minority in India and America and have other sensibilities to help modulate their attitudes…rather than coming from an all Muslim country where perhaps a bit of a “crowd mentality” can flourish.
Off subject…did you have a nice Christmas and are planning for a good New Year?
December:27:2009 - 21:52
Oby
Yes I went to Goa for Christmas and am back. John was supposed to reimburse me the money for that trip!
Will have New Year with my family, so travelling again till 4th of Jan, but most likely will have the Internet access there. John, please keep the comments section open.
You have an insight about the non-Muslim population not existing in Pakistan which modulates the Muslim sensibilities in other multi-cultural places. Perhaps that’s also a reason why Pakistan has gravitated towards Saudi Arabia. And perhaps that’s also the reason why the Arab Islam is so intolerant.
You are right about the Americans. I know they don’t accept violent Islam as true Islam and I have said that they haven’t consciously promoted terrorism in the world. Americans, like others, are also normal people – some are good and some not so good and they don’t want to accept or promote violence. It’s just that when a global power like the US gives too much of prominence to Saudi Arabia, going soft on its version of Islam and its policies, people in other countries begin to give importance to the Arab version of Islam, which I’m arguing is the intolerant version.
For example, when a European or North American person converts to Islam, which version s/he follows? Which country does s/he begin to feel sympathetic towards? It’s the Arab Islam s/he follows and becomes sympathetic towards Saudi Arabia and to West Asia in general.
But it was not always like that. On Carol’s blog when we were discussing early English translations of Quran, I had given examples of Europeans who came to India, converted to Islam and translated the Quran. So, how has this changed?
In those days, the British were the global power and they were in India. So, these European Muslims also came to India. Today, the US is the global power. Obviously, the US support to Saudi Arabia lies at the back of this kind of thinking.
The American experts haven’t been able to recognise that the Arab version is the intolerant version of Islam and that if they support Saudi Arabia too much, that country will get the leverage to spread terrorism across the world. Of course, merely distancing from the KSA isn’t going to solve terrorism, but the effort at controlloing terrorism has to begin from there. Next, it has to be taken to the level of curbing the efforts of the Saudis to spread their ideology across the world. Simply bombing different parts of the world isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s a tremendous waste of American resources if the source of this ideology is not hit at.
December:27:2009 - 23:58
Daisy–rest assured that I read your comments and reply to them carefully, and in no way have I pointed fingers at you or any group or any country. I have only remarked on the content and style of your comments as is part of a normal discussion.
I am sufficiently aware of the history of the Al-Saud and the 3 Saudi States, the most recent being KSA, for having written on them in a number of posts starting with:
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/royal-saudinon-saudi-marriages-and.html
and reprised here
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/royal-saudinon-saudi-marriages-and_4643.html
to know that the Al-Saud/Al-Wahhab tribal alliance began at the very beginning of the Al-Saud rise to power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as a mutually serving military-ideological pact–one which continued through the 19th and 20th centuries to today. The narrowly defined Salafism, which is an extreme within a broader Salafi interpretation of Islam, grew to dominance within this same context. The overthrow of the Shah by religious extremists in Iran in 1979, and the fear it engendered in the House of Saud did most to cement the current configuration of power, and the swing to an extremely conservative version of Salafism not seen in Saudi prior to that time, and which persists today, with signs of a very gradual evolution toward more liberalism under the guidance of King Abdullah, always mindful of a backlash.
Similarly I have previously looked at the relationships among the Al Saud, the bin Ladens, the Salafists, and Al-Qaeda and know that while various states have tolerated Al-Qaeda’s presence, and various individuals funded it, no state has actually sponsored it per se, including Saudi Arabia, which did indeed get its own wake up all in 2003. Osama bin Laden who is at odds with the rest of his family, the Al-Sauds, and Salafism in Saudi currently operates or symbolically heads a network rather than a fixed satellite force of any particular state. While the arguments you give about the Saudi propagation of extremism and violence are reflected in those of conservative Western writings, I find the BBC’s summary more compelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/791936.stm
The BBC contends that Saudi has its own struggles with an extremist group that is attacking it, and which it never sponsored as an entity, although Muslim charities in Saudi, and individual Saudis did. Given that Osama bin Laden is Saudi I don’t find the fact that he draws the support of cetain Saudis as individuals odd, nor that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. After all he funded a Saudi mujahadeen unit in Afghanistan, from which he drew recruits for Al-Qaeda.
I certainly have studied the type of Islam dominant in other MENA countries, as part of formal research endeavours, and personal interest in what currents are affecting family and friends based in those countries. In all of them the rise of conservatism is a highly visible minority but a minority nonetheless. In Canada I am surrounded by the hijab and the niqab, and Muslims from MENA countries and far more from Central and South Asian ones. However, I still don’t see where exporting the hijab (as a metonymy) is exporting violence to such far flung regions and cultures as Al-Qaeda is operating in. On the other hand it is well documented that the alienated and disenfranchised are more likely to find an ideology, a sense of purpose, and financial incentive in joining Al-Qaeda. The alienated of course include the materially and socially well off who lack a clear sense of meaningfulness in their lives.
I am not sure where you get your information on the attitudes of reverts/converts, and the version of Islam which they adopt. Perhaps you could provide references, thanks.
December:28:2009 - 03:04
Chiara,
Thanks for showing the linkage between religious orthodoxy and polity in Saudi Arabia. This also confirms Oby’s quotation from the book she refers to.
Yes, that’s what I’m also talking about, though from a different angle – rise of intolerance in Muslim populations outside West Asia (what you call MENA) and I’m arguing that it’s coming there from the Arab world – it’s not an indigenous feature of these societies, which have never had a history of intolerance because of their inherently multi-religious nature.
It’s not really about the women wearing the veil or the minarets. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women in India have traditionally worn the veil and all the Indian mosques – and also the Indian tombs (see the image of Taj Mahal, which is a tomb) – have four regular minarets – this hasn’t led to the Indian Muslim population turning intolerant of other religions.
The bottomline in this is – what kind of attitude does a particular group of Muslims have towards other religions? My contention is – Muslims outside West Asia have historically endorsed other religions they have lived with as perfectly valid ways of life. They believe in their Islam as a perfectly good religion, but at the same time, they are willing to accept the fact that there are people in this world who follow other religions and their faiths are equally valid too.
In case of Indian Muslims, this attitude endorses the Indian religions as well, which have the practices of image worship and multiple forms of divinities ingrained in them. Above, I have given examples of how image worship is not a problem for Indian Muslims – it was not a problem for other South Asian Muslims before the British rule.
In fact, sometimes they also borrow from other religions around them – especially in India, you can see not one, but many versions of Islam, depending upon the part of the country you go to. That’s because Muslim groups here have borrowed from the immense diversity of the country. And these myriad versions have not much to do with Arab Islam.
The point that I am trying to make is, that Muslims outside the Arab world have been used to seeing people following these practices, which may even be against Islam, but they accept them as valid forms of religiosity for the groups of people who follow them. This is why a violent ideology such as “accept my religion or die” was not a part of these countries in history – not even when they were ruled by Muslim monarchs.
On the other hand, Oby and I have argued before and I’m sure you know it too, that Arab Islam considers its own version of religiosity as the only “true religion,” all other religions being false ones, its own God as the only true God, all other gods being “false gods.” Even that would be fine, but Arab Islam believes in imposing itself on the whole world, whether the world likes it or not. There is no space for an alternative viewpoint in Arab Islam. The element of intolerance and violence is ingrained in this kind of thinking.
When this ideology gets transported to other parts of the world, it taints the erstwhile tolerant local Muslims with intolerance and since non-Muslims are also there, it gives rise to violence. Of course, you can add to this the socio-economic and political dimensions which complicate the problem.
Precisely because of this, Arab Islam should not be supported. If they want to follow it, that’s alright for them, but this ideology ahould not be allowed to be transported abroad.
This is something the US policy experts have not understood and I feel news analysis such as those of the BBC are also not completely comprehensive of this – I happen to be an admirer of the BBC, but am not a blind follower of anyone or anything.
About Saudi state’s role in the growth of terrorism – what evidence has the Saudi royal family given so far that they do not support the Al-Qaeda? In what ways have they expressively helped the US to counter terrorism across the world? If they have not done this, why shouldn’t we believe they are supporters of Al-Qaeda?
Add to this the fact that it is the intolerant version of Islam that the Saudis are preaching abroad – the version that does not give space to alternative religiosities. Of course, the Saudis are involved in spreading terrorist ideologies across the world.
Add to this also the fact that the private Saudi individuals and institutions you have referred to are funding the terrorist cause abroad with money amassed from the American purchase of oil. Of course, Americans are not consciously funding terrorism, but it’s the US dollar that is being used to fund terrorism.
If the Al-Qaeda comes back and hits the Saudis, that serves them right for exporting intolerance and violence across the world.
December:28:2009 - 03:07
John,
Without the interjection of a US foreign policy expert, we seem to be going around in a circle. I can raise the price to 2 and a half cents if you like! Does anyone want to bid any higher?
December:28:2009 - 10:22
Majed,
I will answer you in a few words. I will not even give links as I usually do.
The issue is this. Christians, too, do terrible things. Yes, I am against the US Government and its policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on. We, the US, are wasting our time, money and the lives of our people in those places. We ought to get the heck out of all those places, the faster the better. The are throwing gasoline on the fire. It is my opinion that we can do nothing to help those people. As soon as American troops are gone, the radicals will take control. I know this sounds callous, but let them simmer in the cold soup of odium.
The difference is that we can be honest about our mistakes. We can criticize the Pope and Billy Grahm. We can criticize our leaders, clergy, Bible and anything. We can read the Book of Josua and say “I don’t agree with that.” We can condemn Abraham, Jacob, David, Peter, Paul and Mary. We don’t say “praise be upon him” after the name of American soldiers that kill innocents. Hopefully we will court marshall them and convict them. We don’t say “praise be upon him” after the name of Hitler, Bush, the Pope, or any crusader. On the other hand, anything the Quran says, any deed in the hadeeth, is done or said by the will of Allah and you cannot criticize it, no matter how abhorrent.
Muslims cannot, will not do this. I would hope that a fine, intelligent person such as you would admit that there are terrible things in both the Quran and hadith. These are the same texts that the radicals use to promote their hate and violence. But you cannot question these in logical terms, so moderates such as you are forced to use weak and/or silly arguments to support your version of islam – arguments which are easily knocked over by the fundamentalists. Moderate Muslims take the easy way out, they ignore anything and everything that doesn’t conform to their ideal of what Islam is. They ignore the Quran, the ahadeeth, the actions of other Muslims, and the hate and violence that Muslims do in the name of their religion.
To be honest, the hate and violence in your sacred texts bother me less than the attitude of Muslims. The fact that Muslims will not reflect on these issues and will try to silence any voice that asks inconvinient questions is problematic. This denial, indifference and desire to silence criticism that I see in so-called moderates is as bad as the hate and violence done by the radicals.
I hope you understand my position. Now, having said that, let me wish a very good new year to you and yours.
K.
PS: Of course, admiting that there are terrible things in Islam’s texts is to say they are not perfect is to say they are not divine is to say islam is spurious. Something of a dilemma there, hummm? Are you familiar with the term (or novel) “catch-22″? I can almost empathize with the moral implications of this reasoning. What I cant sympathize with is the silence and indifference.
December:28:2009 - 10:25
@Daisy…
“The bottomline in this is – what kind of attitude does a particular group of Muslims have towards other religions? My contention is – Muslims outside West Asia have historically endorsed other religions they have lived with as perfectly valid ways of life. They believe in their Islam as a perfectly good religion, but at the same time, they are willing to accept the fact that there are people in this world who follow other religions and their faiths are equally valid too.”
And if I am not mistaken is this not commanded by God in the Qur’an? (My Koran for Dummies book said so too!) So what has happened? In one word-CULTURE! The Arab Cutlure has infiltrated Islam and become almost one in the same…robbing it of the clear Qur’anic directive to live in peace and respect the laws of the country one is in.
“On the other hand, Oby and I have argued before and I’m sure you know it too, that Arab Islam considers its own version of religiosity as the only “true religion,” all other religions being false ones, its own God as the only true God, all other gods being “false gods.” Even that would be fine, but Arab Islam believes in imposing itself on the whole world, whether the world likes it or not. There is no space for an alternative viewpoint in Arab Islam. The element of intolerance and violence is ingrained in this kind of thinking.
When this ideology gets transported to other parts of the world, it taints the erstwhile tolerant local Muslims with intolerance and since non-Muslims are also there, it gives rise to violence. Of course, you can add to this the socio-economic and political dimensions which complicate the problem.”
I do agree with that, and for me personally and I think a lot of other non Muslims that is the main problem or “fear”. It is fine if others don’t think your God is the true one…happens all the time or we would all be one religion. As long as we can agree to disagree with tolerance and respect things are fine. When one religion wants to impose it’s form of religiosity on the world then it becomes a problem. I don’t want to live the type of life that this very strict Islam prescribes too and I don’t want my country to have to have it imposed on them. If the other countries want that then that is fine…but don’t try to make over my country and religion into yours. I think intolerance is ingrained in this kind of thinking but I think the violence is carried out by the more extreme radical followers of the ideology.
December:28:2009 - 10:51
Daisy…
“About Saudi state’s role in the growth of terrorism – what evidence has the Saudi royal family given so far that they do not support the Al-Qaeda? In what ways have they expressively helped the US to counter terrorism across the world? If they have not done this, why shouldn’t we believe they are supporters of Al-Qaeda?”
Actually, the book “Inside the Kingdom” does a very good job of explaining what is going on and how the Saudis are trying(admittedly in a less than all out aggressive way) to help curb extremism.The book has only been out a few months so it is very up to date.
~they are monitoring the clergy more and have taken much of the power out of their hands.
~they are trying to reframe the education to take out the violent books and replace them with more tolerant versions.
~they have made a ruling that some charities are not allowed to accept zagat anymore as they found that some of them were a front for terrorism.
~ immediately post 9/11 it was the Saudis that were very proactive more than the Americans in forming a task force to try to combat terrorism. I felt sort of ashamed of that one. Evidently it was the Saudis who badgered the Americans a bit to get on the stick.
I recommend reading the book…it is an honest and open look at KSA written by a British journalist who lived there full time for 4 years and was given unprecedented access to the country and it’s inner echelon. It would not be allowed in KSA because it does talk about things that are not always flattering to KSA.ie: the common homosexuality/lesbianism that is found in KSA. But it feels honest and balanced. I found it to be a real page turner!
December:28:2009 - 14:56
I was going to drop off the reimbursement, but my Christmas stocking did not contain that Maserati Quattroporte!
The US government is well aware of the dangers of certain strains of Islam promulgated out of Saudi Arabia. Rather than ignoring it, the danger is to make too much of it, alienating the more moderate strains by lumping all Saudis with the most extreme forms of Salafism/Wahhabism/whatever-ism. The difficulty is that there are extremist Saudis who complicate issues and their analysis, not only for Americans but for Saudis, too.
The US certainly does not accept that Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is the ‘one, true Islam’. Those in government and those with any familiarity of the Islamic world know that to be not the case.
More complications arise though, when non-Muslims (and Muslims, come to think of it) are told that there actually is ‘one, true Islam’ when the reality is that there are myriad manifestations of it. The core issue is and has been, who speaks for Islam? Who gets to define it?
The Saudis have been able to convince many (certainly not most) that their interpretation is closest to authentic or orthodox. Whether that was done through the Saudis’ own efforts in proselytizing; through funding mosques, schools, and book publishing; through generous invitations to visit the Kingdom and partake in Haj or Umrah; through generosity in foreign assistance… it’s effective PR if nothing else.
December:28:2009 - 15:06
I’ll be reviewing Inside the Kingdom in the near future. Yes, it’s an excellent book. I certainly don’t agree, however, that the Saudis were more proactive than the US immediately following 9/11. I was sent to Riyadh immediately following 9/11 and know very well that most of the country–including senior Ministers–was in complete denial that Saudi Islam might have played the least role in the 9/11 tragedy. Two years later, the Minister of Interior–responsible for anti-terrorism efforts–was still looking for the Zionist hand behind the attacks.
December:28:2009 - 15:10
Without going in to enormous detail, I’d point out that India’s indigenous Deobandi Islam brought its own potency to Islamic extremism. It, more than any other reformist (in the sense of returning to fundamentals) Islam brought a sense of the political and activist. Its origins, of course, were focused on the British colonialist Raj. But more than anywhere else I can find, up to the Iranian revolution in 1978/79, India was the source of political Islam.
December:28:2009 - 15:18
Deobandism has split into two branches. That in Deoband itself has tried to toe a moderate path; the other branch–now mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan–resorts to violence far more easily. The Taleban publicly consider themselves to be Deobandi, so it’s not just me casting aspersions.
December:28:2009 - 16:21
Hmmmm…could swear I read it the opposite way about the post 9/11 task force. Maybe I am remembering it wrong or misunderstood. If you have read the book John, what was your take on what the writer said. Thanks!
December:28:2009 - 16:57
I think one of the best analysis of the Saudi / Islam / Arab dilemma can be found in Trofimov’s “The Seige of Mecca, ” about the assault and takeover of the Grand Mosque by a group of semi-Radicals in ’79. Towards the end of the book, it makes the point that much of the radicalization we see today was the result of that incident.
http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Forgotten-Uprising-al-Qaeda/dp/0385519257
Understand that the House of Saud has a problem, or rather several problems.
On one hand they need to keep their radicals happy so they don’t attack the Royals (again). To do this they fund Wahhabi mosques and Imams around the world. These preach a very intolerant form of Islam. Some of the money finds its way to al Queda and other jihadi groups. Note that this also enhances their power, as the protectors of the two holy sites. By virtue of geography and decent (race) they claim this temporal authority is legitimate.
On the other hand, they need the US and Europe for many things, including support and weapons (and resorts). They have to pretend that they have nothing to do with the radicals (yeah, right) that attack all things infidel. The Saudis continually tell us that “we are in the same boat” and that they, too, are a target of radicals. This is true, but this doesn’t mean that the radicals that hate the royals hate us any less than they hate others. In a way, this is a case of the animal biting the hand that feeds it.
The existence of the House of Saud depends on this delicate balance of appeasing both sides. Forget Islam. This is about keeping a royal heads on royal shoulders. It is about billions of dollars that make life very nice for about 50,000 of the House of Saud, so-so for 1-2,000,00 other Saudis and miserable for much the rest. Of course, Islam means power because it is a political system with economic aspirations (rather vague but true, nevertheless).
The Saudi (leaders de facto of the Arabs) continue to fund radicalism because if they don’t, the dogs will turn on them. They do this but they know the radicals don’t love them. To complicate things, they are stuck with Sunni theology that doesn’t give them a case for spiritual leadership. Bummer.
Let’s not forget the crazies across the gulf. The Iranians would give their right arm to be able to cut off a few Saudi heads. They have not forgotten Karbala. When/if they get the bomb, the whole Sunni/Shia debate changes.
Like it or not, the Saudis are responsible for much of the radicalization of Islam (but not all) and subsequent violence (Note that the Islamic texts make this very easy). They have for years been teaching a very vituperative form of Islam in the schools, mosques and media. They lie to us about this and we let them get away with it because we need their oil – and because we believe there are worse people out there than the Saud family.
All this would have been a minor issue except for: 1. the importance of oil. 2. Western governments accepting massive Muslim immigration after the oil crisis in the 70s; 3. The doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness in the West; and 4. The advances in telecommunication technology All this has combined to make Islam’s problems our problems.
I hate to say it but it looks more and more like my Dad is right.
The Muslim issue in Europe and the reaction to it in the Swiss vote are all part of something that will become a major issue in the next decade. Be prepared!
December:28:2009 - 20:01
JKactuz…
Went on a small hunt for info of the siege.
You have probably read this but I wanted to post it here for those not as familiar with the siege. It is an abbreviated version of what happened out of the Brookings Institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/1202_siege_of_mecca.aspx
This, from the Wall Street Journal in 2007:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119007965327330717.html
December:29:2009 - 00:55
Oby
I found Trofimov’s book to be very informative, particularly because of the background information about the consequences of the seige, including the attempt on the Pope. Many years ago I had heard the story of the siege of Mecca from French friends. Their version was somewhat different (a company from French Foreign legion, 1 million Francs each, flooding and electrocution) but in many other ways it was similar to the book above. What is incredible was the amount of raw carnage in the fighting, with armored personnel carriers grinding up mounds of putrefied dead bodies with entrails and body parts everywhere – and this in Islam’s holiest sanctuary. The Saudis used artillery and RPGs around the Kaaba. can you imagine? They shot TOW missiles at snipers in the minarets (oh no, minarets again). For two and a half weeks this battle raged with no quarter asked or given. I find this scenario hard to imagine, but it must have made a deep and lasting impression on the house of Saud. I never gave much credence to the versions about Pakistani or Jordanian troops being used.
K.
December:29:2009 - 02:21
John–thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience,I agree with what you have said about Saudi, and trust you on the post-9/11 reactions as it coincides with other events/denials I am aware of in that period.
Daisy–MENA is Middle East (all of it, not just Saudi) and North Africa (all of it including Sudan, Mauritania). Having lived in Asia as well as studying post-colonialism I am familiar with the term West Asia, and others for the region.
I agree that the hijab and minarets are but manifestations of a broader issue, a part for a whole, hence my use of the word metonymy in reference to hijab.
I have every confidence that any given group can both repel outside extremist forces, and develop their own if they wish. Specifically regarding India it does seem that Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs have managed to have their own extremisms and fights amongst each other without the help of Saudi. To say so is merely to point out well-known historical troubles in India, not to point fingers anywhere. It only becomes necessary to reference it because you seem to insist that Saudi is behind so much of the religious violence elsewhere.
The Arab Islam you refer to is not one that I see in most of Islam in Arab countries–extremists are extreme, and so might hold this view, meaning that by definition the majority do not. There are some South Asians who are particularly preoccupied with this issue, like Canadian Tarek Fatah.
Back to Saudi, it is different to say that there is racism within Saudi, regarding South Asians, and to say that Saudi is promoting violence elsewhere. I certainly don’t consider the BBC to be a unique source of wisdom to which I turn systematically but for the purposes of my comment above that article by them was an appropriate summary.
Aside from your own conviction I really don’t see you backing up your claims with references, and sources. Please feel free to do so, including those in uni library sources as I normally have excellent access. Otherwise you seem to simply re-explain to me your beliefs which I understand the first time and with which I disagree.
December:29:2009 - 02:24
Oby–thanks for the references, I will check them out more thoroughly at my leisure.
December:29:2009 - 10:59
My review of Siege of Mecca can be found here.
December:29:2009 - 11:05
There was a lot of friction in trying to get the Saudis to take part in various task forces, largely because it would require foreign experts in money laundering, terrorism writ large, and basic police work to directly interact with Saudi officials. The frictions came, sometimes, from the top; other times, they came from the Saudi officers who didn’t like the implication that they didn’t know what they were doing.
December:29:2009 - 11:08
Jkactuz…
I must get the book but just listening to your description is horrible enough! I cannot imagine how people felt about it…they must have been completely destroyed that their holiest place was treated in such a disrespectful manner. On the other hand what to do about the militants? Perhaps it could have been handled in a more sensitive way…even with the terrorists.
December:29:2009 - 11:23
oby
You are one fair person, i salute you, if all of us have as big as your heart and as open mind as yours, we would have spared the humanity a lot of miseries.
The examples i listed in my previous post about intolerance among christians, were only to a respond to the prejudice that our dear brother j. kactuz has been showing again again against muslims, he rather should have followed what simply Jesus peace of allah be upon him said (if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her).
he also contradict himself when he says he is muslims ` friend (In a strange way, people like me and you are Muslims’ best friend) and that he does not want to pat on their backs and say everything is all right. But is it like a good friend and who means well to ridicule and mock his friend `s beliefs whenever the situation allows? for example he says (not engraved in stone by anyone on the 7th floor up in the clouds) that would only instigate your friend to say at least i dont worship a god that was tortured to death, and at least non of the physical laws and therories we know of apply my God, so it is better for the sake of argument to be polite and civilized ( which you are, yes often all of us get drifted ) it is already a productive dialogue and that will make it even much better and cosntructive.
And regarding the vote against minarets in Switzerland, in any country was it a muslim country or any other country a minority should be considered as a heart or any other vital organ that is implanted into our body we must give it protection and care necessary to keep it healthy and make it feel it is surrounded by a friendly tissue, because anything that will hurt it the whole body is going to pay the bill.
i would also like to thank my big brother j. kactuz for thinking that i am fine and intelligent person, but unfortunatly i am not like that , i have to admit i was alhamdulillah so lucky that i passed the secondary school with flying colours and could not do more, and the reservoir of data and little of open-mindedness is only the result of gratefully licking the minds of great people like your good selves through reading their comments columns and books, though rather like to listen, read and watch but only rarely i speak out my mind when i feel someone is going to be patient and will tolerate me.
and wish you all happy prosperous new.
December:29:2009 - 14:07
J Kactuz,
Sometimes, we do have Muslims criticising the actions of other Muslims – I know many of them. Please read this post on the Swiss vote on minarets – http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/muslims-should-learn-to-build-bridges-before-they-demand-any-more-minarets/
Those who are concerned, please note that the writer is a Muslim and that he is a South Asian Muslim.
I have been arguing that this kind of insight comes only from the Muslims outside the Arab world. I am yet to see this understanding from the Arab Muslims.
December:29:2009 - 14:24
J. Kactuz,
In fact there is a school of thought that Al-Qaeda itself is a direct result of the US attack on Iraq using Saudi territory – hence, the Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the US and its European allies as well as on Saudi Arabia. However, I am personally not convinced by this argument. I feel this is just an excuse they are using to spread terrorism across the world.
December:29:2009 - 14:52
Chiara,
I have acknowledged earlier that there have been inter-religious clashes in India. I don’t deny it. But, these conflicts have been intermittent and they have a complex history in the colonial period – before the colonial period, such conflicts didn’t exist in India and it’s not as if India is torn asunder by everyday conflicts between religions. Besides, these conflicts haven’t contributed to the global terrorism that we are discussing here, so I don’t see how they are relevant.
While you say to me that Arab Islam is not the way I describe it, at the same time you have accepted John’s analysis above – but John has acknowledged that there are problematic strands in Saudi Arabia that lead to conflicts and violence.
For a moment, I accept your argument that as far as you know, Arab Islam is not the way as I describe it. So show me one Arab Muslim or one Arab Muslim writing in any genre that endorses the image worshipping religions as valid forms of religions. I have shown examples of this from India and personally know many Muslims who accept image worship of Indian religions as valid for these Indians.
December:29:2009 - 15:01
I mean West Asia, am not including North Africa in this.
December:29:2009 - 15:30
John,
Thanks for your very insightful and knowledgeable comments. You deserve your dream car only because of these comments!
But I am not sure how you describe India as the source of political Islam in postcolonial period upto the Iranian Revolution. Can you please elaborate on this, as I am really not aware of this kind of development?
As for the products of Madarsas – the orthodox Islamic religious schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan calling themselves Deobandis and being violent and extremists, I think it needs to be explored why these Madarsa products are extremists while the parent school in India, with which they identify themselves, remains orthodox but non-violent. Deoband products in India have not been terrorists, though all of them are orthodox.
This obviously means that the Pakistanis and the Afghans are definitely getting their violent influences from somewhere else, not from India and it needs to be ascertained from where they are getting these influences. Can you throw any light on this?
December:29:2009 - 15:38
Oby,
I haven’t read the book. But my guess is that the British writer got his information by talking to people who told him what they believed – or what they wanted this British writer to believe, by presenting a positive face of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, John certainly has seen many varied kind of reliable sources because of his term in that country. Hence, his explanation is different and more reliable.
December:29:2009 - 16:39
Daisy…
I agree that I will trust John’s version of events over the book and i am glad that he corrected my version… He lived it, dealt with it and was on the inside as it was going on so I totally defer to him. I am actually now wondering if in fact, I misunderstood what the writer was getting at. But I remember when reading it feeling a lot of shock that, as per the author, the Americans were a bit behind the Saudis. In fact, I wish we could have an even bigger discussion on that whole “what went on right after 9/11 from an insider’s view” because I am sure it would be utterly fascinating!!
December:29:2009 - 17:11
majed…
Thank you for your kind words. I am glad that I sound somewhat balanced in my views. I try to be open minded and fair to both sides depending on how I see things. Sometimes I am successful and perhaps at other times not so much, but I continue to try.
“in any country was it a muslim country or any other country a minority should be considered as a heart or any other vital organ that is implanted into our body we must give it protection and care necessary to keep it healthy and make it feel it is surrounded by a friendly tissue, because anything that will hurt it the whole body is going to pay the bill.”
I think your point is well taken and that was a very good analogy. I would agree with you. However, one of the things I have been arguing for here is that while the West as a whole does work very hard to accommodate other people and nationalities be they Muslims or non Muslims, I think the West is starting to feel that it is time to have the Islamic countries show some good faith and goodwill towards non Muslims and grant them the same civil rights that the Muslims in the West want for themselves and by and large receive. Obviously it isn’t perfect, but in the USA Muslims are not restricted in any way to my knowledge and if they are it is minimally. It sounds from Chiara that Canada has been even more accommodating. My contention is that the West wants to see more equality and fairness towards non Muslims in Muslim lands. I don’t think your previous analogy about being “cared for and surrounded by friendly tissue” would apply to non Muslims in Islamic lands, more specifically the Middle East.
Another concern of mine is that people (and I mean anyone not just Muslims) who come to a country to live (any country-not just the West) need to be mindful and respectful of that country’s culture and can’t demand that the culture change in a large way to suit the immigrant. When people go to Saudi Arabia for instance, the women must abide by certain rules that are considered respectful of that culture. Ie: covering fully, not driving, not talking to anyone male outside of their immediate male family. I argue the same should be true when someone comes to the West from the East…they need to adapt themselves to the culture and abide by the cultures rules even if they don’t like them. they knew what the rules were before coming to the new country and they still chose to come.
I am just trying to argue for a more fair and equitable acknowledgement of rights not only for Muslims in the West but for non Muslims in Muslim majority countries. It has to be a give and take…not take and take and take and little give. People will get fed up with that eventually. They don’t mind opening their doors to people from other cultures but they then expect those people, who come to the new country of their own free will, to contribute to that society and in some way become part of that society rather than trying to change it to be like the immigrant wants it to be…especially if they are not contributing financially to the bottom line and tax base of the country. And No, my opinion doesn’t apply only to Muslims but to all people. And it is only my opinion. Others may not agree with me.
December:29:2009 - 23:35
Oby,
While I agree with you in spirit, there are some points on which my vision is different from yours about foreigners’ conduct in Islamic countries – they can enforce whatever rules they like on their people as long as it is not violation of human rights, but they shouldn’t enforce all of these rules on foreigners. For example, as a foreigner woman in Saudi Arabia, I am willing to wear covering clothes such as an Indian “Punjabi dress” – which actually came to India with the Muslims and has got modified and crystallised as an “Indian dress,” but why should I wear the veil or cover my head and face? Further, why shouldn’t I talk to men in public? Why shouldn’t I drive if I want to? Why should I have a legal guardian? Why should I have to seek permission of a legal guardian for all my activities including my wish to leave the country? I have never sought permission from my own parents for anything in India. I think Saudi Arabia has no business imposing these kinds of rules on me as a foreigner.
In fact, there are Islamic countries surrounding Saudi Arabia such as the UAE or Kuwait where rules are not so strict for foreigners at least.
But then, as Majed says, perhaps you are more adaptable than I am in giving concession to others’ orthodoxy.
December:30:2009 - 02:27
Daisy…
While I agree with you in spirit(sorry for borrowing the thought from you) and think it would be wonderful if women entering the country of KSA didn’t have to abide by these rules as they are against my Western ideals, at the moment, unless they live on a compound they do (although I don’t think that they must cover all the way like a Saudi would.)It goes to the heart of my discussion…if I know what KSA is like and I am still willing to enter the country say, as the wife of a Saudi and live within the society (not on a compound)then I have to accept the rules as they are at the moment. Do I think that they are right? No. Do I think that they are fair to women? No. Do I think they should be changed for the betterment of Saudi women? Yes. That is why I most likely will never live in Saudi Arabia or even visit because I don’t want those rules imposed on me and they are too draconian for my taste. Obviously, a man’s experience would be far different from mine. I am not neccessarily talking about someone there for a vacation or a visit to a family member. I am referring to someone who is taking up long term residence there. (even if it is temporary )I can’t argue that someone coming to my country should have to live by my country’s rules and yet not apply that same logic in the opposite direction. I suppose I could argue that the rules shouldn’t apply to me because I am not Saudi, but again that feels not right to me.
When I was first married and was traveling in India, I generally wore only Indian clothes…salwar Kameez partially at my husband’s behest and partially because I found it to be phenomenally comfortable rather than the closer fitting western clothing. (This was in 1995 and in Delhi which I understand is more conservative than other parts of the country.) We were traveling by private car to Agra one day and I absolutely insisted on wearing my western clothes. Afterall we were going to a world renowned tourist attraction that would be filled with foreigners. If ever there was a moment to wear my western clothes this was it…they were shorts of a fairly modest length and a short sleeved knit shirt. Absolutely unremarkable by Western standards and probably downright dowdy even.
As luck would have it the car broke down on a desolate stretch of road where there were no petrol stations or anyone to help. While the driver fiddled with the car we were forced to wait by the side of the road as the inside of the car was getting to be like an oven and at least outside there was a touch of air. Let me tell you, I never in my whole life gathered as much attention as that day when every darn truck driver that drove by hung out the window, honked his horn and according to my husband(who was VERY unhappy with me that I had not heeded his advice)said some pretty nasty and suggestive things about me. From that day forward I wore only Indian clothing not becasue he insisted upon it but because the experience was so uncomfortable to me that I didn’t want to go through it again. So you can break the rules but it isn’t always advisable as the culture has certain expectations whether we like them or not.
December:30:2009 - 05:12
Oby
As usual your arguments are very objective and fair, i agree with you that immigrants in Europe and America are getting of rights,advantages and opportunities, that some of them would not have in his best dreams thought they would get even in their own countries, and some of those immigrants are getting it unduely (often on the basis of to some hidden goverment agendas) generally immigrants in western countries are happier, more tolerated and feel more at home than their counterparts in some arab countries.
with regards to that, foreigners, should be mindful and respectful of laws and dressing codes in host countries, i am rather in the mind of Daisy, that foreigner should not be obliged to abide by rules that are not reasonable like the way they should dress, or the rule that tells them not to talk or walk or even dine with anyone they like and anywhere they wish, or the rule that necessitate an adult to take permission from some guardian in many rediculous incidents this guardian might be a woman `s own son that she used to teach what was right and what was wrong and many other restriction that should not be applied on foreigners, that is why i can say that most foreigners here are helpless and are slaves of their needs had they gotten any viable alternatives they would not have come here in the first place, but luckily, nowadays i notice a lot of changes that might be the herald of even deeper changes in near future.
December:30:2009 - 11:32
Majed…
I think perhaps you are even more open minded than me! LOL!
If I were able to wave a magic wand and change things in Saudi Arabia and make it so that there were more rights for foreigners and women I would love to do that. I don’t agree with the rules in place for women such as the no driving or having to get permission from a Mahrem etc. I think it puts women in a position of being far to dependent on men and in turn I don’t think Saudi Arabia is getting the full benefit of half of their citizens’ abilities. It also puts an unnecessary burden on men to have to manage these things when women are quite capable of managing themselves. All the other Gulf countries have looser restrictions and women manage to handle things fine. I think women should have more choices available to them because, by and large, women will make good choices and not just ones that will benefit them. If they have the opportunity, women tend to make choices that will benefit the whole family/community. She will make sure everyone is taken care of and happy and in my opinion that can only have a very positive effect on Saudi in terms of family, in terms of economy, in terms of skills brought to the table by women. So in that sense I do agree with you and Daisy…
Daisy said I was more adaptable to others’ orthodoxy. I am not sure it is adaptable because that to me says that I am OK with the way things would be if I were there. I wouldn’t be that is why I wouldn’t be able to live there…I am, however, somewhat pragmatic. I definitely think that Saudi should lighten up it’s rules, but I know that for now it is the way it is and if I were there I would have to work within that framework.
It sounds as if you might be from Saudi Arabia and Yes, it does seem that KSA is taking steps to change and I am delighted about that. I think it can only benefit Saudi in the long run as the world becomes more globalized and intermingled.
December:30:2009 - 12:39
Oby,
You are absolutely right about India – there are no laws here about dress etc but the society – mostly the men’s behaviour even in a metropolis like Delhi places restrictions on women – if they don’t conform, they are vulnerable. I find this deplorable and it really makes me angry. Well, I don’t conform, live my life on my terms and keep on fighting my way through life. I do feel Indian men need to learn a lot from the Western men. In fact, I love Goa not only because of its beaches but because it’s one place in India where I feel free – I go there alone, live and travel alone, go to the beaches alone, wear whatever I like and no one thinks there is anything wrong with that.
Yes, I too can never go to Saudi Arabia no matter how luxurious a life it can offer, because my temperament is to question the wrongs in a system and such women are not meant for a traditional society, least of all for Saudi Arabia. As for the foreigners’ space vs the host population, I feel any country shouldn’t impose unduly restrictive rules on its foreigners and the immigrants should also not expect the host country to change itself for their convenience.
I don’t mind wearing full clothes, not eating pork and taking wine, eating their food, learning their language if possible, perhaps won’t mind not driving if I manage to get a good driver, but imposing the conditions of a face-covering veil, not going out alone and the requirements of legal guardian are taking things too far. As Majed says, many people go there to work because they really have no other option and it’s really unfair to such people, who are offering their labour to the host country but have to live with restrictions. I guess a woman who marries a Saudi man has probably made up her mind to change herself, though she may not realise how hard it is, so it’s different for her, but a foreign worker shouldn’t be treated like this.
December:30:2009 - 16:37
Chiara, I believe you are sadly mistaken about non-Saudi Arabs and non-Arab Islam. While not as malicious as the Wahabbi version, these too show a generalized intolerance that leaves much to de desired. I would site the Malaysian and Indonesian examples as typical of the latter and any North African and almost any non-Saudi Arab country as examples of the former. All Muslims countries have a clear predilection for discrimination against non-Muslims – both legally and socially – and North African nations and Southeast Asian nations are no exception, and it is getting worse. The simple rule is that where Islam dominates, other religions are subject to varying degrees of unpleasantness – and there are no exceptions. Perhaps you are too close to the trunk to see the tree, and you cannot be objective.
Daisy, I read your Sinhale link. It was good. Of course it was a Sri Lankan site. A few more, a lot more Muslims like RR would be welcome and maybe I could go back to my study of Mexican history. Your stories are very interesting.
On the other hand, the deobandis are not a bunch of boy scouts. They believe that Islam should rule Indian again and consider all non-Muslims their enemy. This sect practically controls UK mosques and is a huge factor in the radicalization of European Muslims.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece
John – Good review of the Mecca siege. I agree with you that the author is on very shaky ground when commenting on many aspects of Saudi life not directly linked to the assault. Can you imagine if something like that had happened in the last 10 years with cell phones and Internet? The Saudis lucked out (that sounds silly but true). Too bad you missed those exciting events. I took the foreign office exam in the 70s – but didn’t go that way – I would have made a lousy diplomat. Oby, the assault was simply horrible. The Saudi grunts seem to have fought bravely but they had no idea of what they were facing and even their leaders in three different forces did not coordinate or share information, not that the police, National Guard or Army were given much information either on what was really happening. It was a military disaster.
Oby, Your response to M. (#248) is a masterpiece of moderation and consideration. I commend you. M. is right about you.
Mr Majed. I would say that you are probaby “open minded” – for a Muslim – if for no other reason than associateing online with the likes of me. As to “fair” – well I wouldn’t go that far. To me the issues are simple: 1. do or do not Muslims practice generalized discrimnation against non-Muslims where they dominate? 2. Does islamic theology contribute to this oppression? The answers to each question are a big unequivocal ‘yes’. But what you you do? You ask me not to throw stones. If you were fair, you would ask your brothern not to throw stones, also. You would work to change things and not pretend there are no problems. What you call “prejudice” I call “being informed” and “caring about others”. I do what I do, I say what I say, because the answers are ‘yes’ and I believe it needs to be done.
Let me quote a few words from the TimesOnLine article linked to above: “Revered by many young Muslims, he draws on his extensive knowledge of the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed to justify his hostility to the kuffar, or non-Muslims. “ So this Imam uses his knowledge of islam to justify hate and violence against non-Muslims. How is that any different from what I have been saying? You may argue that those verses don’t exist. Nope! Well, maybe you can argue that they are irrelevant or misunderstood, or maybe those verses have nothing to do with the oppression of non-Muslims. Naaaah. Too many, too clear and contrary to the “Quran is perfect” belief. In fact, that reasoning is just a roundabout way of saying that “Allah doesn’t know how to write.” I was going to go to town on your analogy of ‘muslims as a vital organ transplanted into a body’ but I have to go. You are saved! Praise the lord!
Majed, I do wish the best of luck to you. Life is often not fair and luck usually is a wasted word. I have known so many good people that have suffered so much for reasons I will never understand. I hope that some words and ideas here will leave a few scars on your soul. I say that kindly. Sorrow and suffering are good for the soul – in limited quantities, of course, we hope. Take care.
Kactuz
And for you, Chiara, Carlos Gardel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHCyRUtCN4
Kind of funny that Argentina’s greatest singer was born in Uruguay and died in Columbia while Brazil’s greatest was born in Portugal and died in the US.
December:30:2009 - 23:16
Thanks Daisy about the Western men comment. You know, I never asked him, but I now wonder what my husband (who wouldn’t be the type to hang out the truck window and cat call)thought when he first came to the USA and saw the different ways of dressing. He is even WAY more pragmatic than I…while I can get really fired up with moral indignation, he goes through life not allowing much to ruffle his feathers. THAT in and of itself can make me nuts! It is a total bucket of cold water on the fire to get a really good indignation going complete with fiery speech and he just kind of yawns at me!! But he has a real “when in Rome” attitude about life so, though I am sure it raised an eyebrow or two, he got used to it and took it in his stride. He is a true chameleon in that way with a touch of politician too.
Yes, sexist attitudes do exist everywhere but certainly more so in India than in the USA and more than I had ever been exposed to. I never really thought about it in context to KSA, but that social pressure really made me conform faster than I had ever done before in recent memory, so this male pressure does indeed have the effect of keeping women in their place. I will say however, had I not been with my husband, newly married and trying hard not to embarrass my in laws I might have just had a somewhat different attitude to it. Because I was in a place where saving face is important and I was not only there for me I was indirectly reflecting on the family, I fell in line much easier than if I didn’t have others to consider(and a really hacked off husband to deal with!)Yes it is deplorable that some men have not learned how to behave in a civilized manner and once again who gets the brunt of it? women, of course! I am glad that you are strong enough to live your life on your terms…so many women don’t have that chance. There is nothing so great in life as freedom. I wish more people, particularly women especially in the restrictive Muslim countries could experience the joy of freedom…and I wish perhaps even more, that men were not so afraid of women having that freedom that they continue to deny it to their women. Given the chance, women would be mature enough to use it in a wise and judicious manner. They are the stabilizers of the world and would not do anything to put their children in harm’s way. That, by the way, is why microloans are given mostly to women…from trial and error they have found out that when they gave it to men they had a tendency to show off to their peers and often misuse the funds and not pay them back. Women, however, tended to use the funds to raise the lifestyle of themselves AND their family by starting business and then making sure that their children got an education. In some cases their community also benefited from their efforts and they found that by lending the money to women the level of ALL boats was raised and they pulled themselves out of poverty (relatively speaking of course.) AND they have a 97% payback rate because they want the funds and programs to be available to other women who need it.
No offense to the wonderful men with whom we share this blog!
JKactuz…I have ordered the book from the library and I am waiting…I wanted to ask who took the major beating? I am surmising from your words it was the Saudi military rather than the terrorists. Not to mention all the innocents stuck in the crossfire. It must have been devastating for the Saudis. And I find it amazing that with that experience Islam became more restrictive rather than less so considering it was the strict vision of Islam these militants embraced that started the siege in the first place.
December:31:2009 - 13:25
J. Kactuz,
Thanks for appreciating my stories. But please don’t make me think that all the Muslim friends I have here are conspiring against me because they secretly think of me as an enemy (I am born in the tradition of Indian religions, though am not very religious by temperament)! It’s next to impossible for me to think of them in that light. Only tonight, the first friend to call me to wish me on the New Year was a Muslim woman.
Please believe me, there are many Muslims like RR in India – there are also other more orthodox types, but this type is also numerous. I gave you some examples of the tolerant variety above.
Please also consider this about Majed – he said somewhere he is just a high school graduate and has gathered his understanding only by reading on his own. Considering the kind of struggle he has gone through and the little opportunities he may have got in his life – as opposed to many of us who got good education and opportunities – I think it is indeed commendable that he shows this kind of open-mindedness and understanding. We should judge a person according to his/her background.
About your observations regarding Deobandis – first, I would like to clarify my own stand regarding them – being opposed to all kinds of religious orthodoxy in all religions, I am not really a fan of Deoband – in India or abroad. Given a choice, I would rather not have them preaching orthodox ideas. But I don’t have that choice – they are here in India to stay and even contributed to the freedom struggle of India against the colonial rule, so I am willing to let them issue their orthodox fatwas as a part of their freedom of expression as long as they are not violent. Indeed, in India, they are not violent and haven’t produced terrorists. John mentioned that too, though I wouldn’t call them moderate. Besides, India can trust its Muslims not to get swayed by their mad fatwas.
The important question is – why can’t the other countries trust their Muslims not to get swayed by their mad fatwas? What makes those Muslims different?
John mentioned that they have a more violent branch in Pakistan and Afghanistan and I asked him from where they are getting their violent strain if the parent Indian branch is not violent. The link you gave suggests a possible link with Pakistan, not with India. But I do feel it’s important to explore from where this violent strain is coming into Pakistan in the first place.
And I think I know the answer. No prizes for guessing.
In any case I strongly feel this violent variety should be banned everywhere.
As for Deobandis feeling Islam should rule India again, if they really feel like that – I want to clear this misconception which many non-Indians have and being an originally Indian school I don’t see why Deobandis should feel this way. The fact is that the Indian sub-continent did have Muslim rulers for about 1000 years before the British, but this region was never under the Islamic rule or Shariah – please note the distinction between Muslim rulers and Islamic rule.
During this entire period, the indigenous religions and customs of India were allowed to flourish by the rulers, who only engaged in political and economic administration. In fact, the Mughal dynasty actually implemented a carefully elaborated plan to patronise the Hindu art forms and cultural practices. The Mughal emperors themselves were involved in promoting Hindu culture and many Hindu nobles were given place in the Mughal court alongside the Central Asians, Mongols, Turks, Afghans, Persians and other Muslims. India is greatly indebted to the Mughals for contributing to this composite inter-faith culture here.
All this is a well-known part of Indian history, taught in high school level, so it’s truly surprising that the Deobandis should hope to establish an Islamic rule in India now in the 21st century, when it was never established while the Muslims ruled here. Doesn’t it appear foolhardy? I would certainly like to get your responses to all this.
December:31:2009 - 13:40
Daisy–I respectfully decline at this point in time to take up the gauntlet you have thrown down, not for fear of not finding a reference but for the following reasons: 1) I am not convinced that you would accept any reference I did find–this is meant as a compliment to your rigour of thought, your belief in your findings, and your abilities at intellectual debate; 2) I don’t restrict Arab Islam to any one Arab majority country; but you seem to conflate Saudi and the rest, or at best the GCC and the rest–thus a philosophical difference on what constitutes Islam, or if you wish, the political rather than theological term, Arab Islam; 3) I do believe that Islam has the right to decide it doesn’t want to give the same social weight eg in marriageable terms to “image worshipping religions” (what most would call Dharmic religions and Buddhism, or restrict, given numbers, to Hinduism)–I don’t have to agree with it and certainly never condone racism over it, but I can agree that it is the right of a religion to define itself, in the same way as I regretfully agree that Catholicism has the right to elect its Pope and he can make all manner of foolish decisions (in my opinion, and that of science) regarding reproduction and human sexuality; 4) I disagree with your fundamental premise repeated in many ways, that South Asians are incapable of repelling whatever noxious foreign influences are coming their way, or of concocting from within their own cultural and religious extremist conflicting strains of whatever religion they choose to; 5) I don’t know how you are salami slicing history, religion, the Raj, postcolonialism in India, etc to exclude the fights which I am hard pressed to find any Saudi, or if you prefer West Asian, influence as major etiological factors–not because Indian history is so uniquely complex that I cannot manage to understand any part of it, but because it seems so obvious to me that Indians are fully capable of their own extremisms and all wasn’t sweetness and light before or after colonialism even though all colonialisms prey on internal divisions of the oppressed; you seem to be the one raising Indian and South Asian contexts contrapunctually to the most extreme forms of violent salafism–or maybe I am too aware of the Air India disaster, the reason there are so many Indian Sikhs in Canada, Indian Tamils in Canada, Indian Muslims in Canada, etc. 6) My father has been very ill the last week which means I am currently a combination GP, ER doc, ER shrink (for family support), first responder, first aid provider, nurse’s aid, chief cook (for some reason only my spaghetti preparation will do) and bottle washer (alas dishwasher died Dec 21 may it RIP), and night nurse, meaning I sleep where ever and on what ever surface near enough by to where he is to help him throughout the night–in other words, my willingness to discuss the Islamic version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is at an ebb. This of course has nothing to do with you, and is hopefully resolving so I may get back into top interest on this in future. I will let you know when I do.
Jay–what can I say. I am “sleeping with the enemy” so to speak, and continue general fraternizing–real, blogospheric, intellectual, and academic. I suspect I am a hopeless case (and a sucker for black curly hair and an accent). Thanks for the Carlos Gardel link. Your knowledge of Hispanic music is impressive!
Re: foreigners adhering to social norms in other countries, I find it normal and proper, prudent and legal that they should do so. In most countries including Saudi the norms are less onerous on foreigners, both legally and culturally. In Saudi the headscarf is not required for foreign, non-Muslim women, and the niqab certainly not. There are self-appointed religious police (note the self-appointed) everywhere. I was once dressed down (pun intended) by an indignant padre de familia in Spain because I was wearing knee-length shorts on a Sunday-he didn’t care that I was foreign (although he probably thought I was Spanish) or that I was walking a short distance to the beach–he didn’t want to subject his wife and children, not to mention the rest of the town, to the sight of shorts on Sunday; he couldn’t look the other way, leave it alone, fail to address it, as it was simply too appalling. Think what would have happened if I had worn my short shorts, or bathing suit and long T shirt–Salvanos Dios!
Oby–regarding becoming more restrictive in Saudi after the Siege of Mecca, it was seen as a preventive strategy to prevent a similar overthrow of the monarchy as of the Shah by Khomeini style and influenced extremists. Something of a better the salafists we have been historically allied with than the outsiders; better to make concessions to appease the extremely conservative than to lose the country to others.
Re: Western Women and Eastern Men- I have a post coming up on my blog, Chez Chiara http://www.chezchiara.com on that topic in the next few days, and I hope all will share their views and experiences. Meanwhile, enjoy the newly posted last part of the 3-part Cross-Cultural Christmases: Saudi, Arab, Muslim, and Non
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/cross-cultural-christmases-saudi-muslim.html
Happy New Year to All!
December:31:2009 - 13:53
Oby,
Thanks for sharing all this. Yes, in a country like India, if you don’t acquire the unruffled attitude, you can lose your sanity very fast. Most Indians acquire it in social and official settings.
But the traditional society also has a privilege for women which the modern society doesn’t give – it’s the privilege of the woman to not worry about fighting her own battles – the men in her family are supposed to fight for her. I know you are a modern woman, not a traditional one. But in a traditional setting, your husband is under obligation to defend you against others. And he is not supposed to acquire the unruffled attitude. But obviously, you have already crossed those stages after so many years of marriage.
You are right about women being more responsible in matters of loan payment. Only today I was talking to a cousin of mine, whose husband is a retired engineer from the steel plant in India that is the largest in Asia. She was telling us how, when the government established this plant, the villagers whose land was taken for this plant, were compensated by a government job, money and houses. But the government made the mistake of compensating through the men in the families. These men wasted all the money on alcohol and gambling, didn’t show up for the job 90% of the time so lost their jobs and ultimately the entire families fell below the poverty line, surviving only on their women’s earnings based on their work as housemaids. If only the women had been compensated in these families, perhaps this wouldn’t have happened.
With due apologies to all the men here who are responsible and mature.
December:31:2009 - 13:59
Chiara,
I hope your father gets well soon. We’ll continue this discussion after that as the strain really shows in your response.
December:31:2009 - 16:56
Chiara…
Please accept my deepest regrets for your father’s illness and be assured I will keep him in my prayers. Let’s hope for a speedy recovery. You do sound a little tired and crispy around the edges…and no dishwasher? That might just send me over the edge!! Your spaghetti sauce must be amazing. I always enjoy your input and will enjoy seeing you back in top form. Please get some rest as you are able and we will see you soon. I will also visit your blog…I do read it often and did contribute a LONG Christmas story which talked about all the things that could go wrong (trying to be funny!) but for some reason it didn’t post and I just didn’t have the energy to rewrite it. Besides, the spontaneity and humor within the story is lost second time around. god bless.
December:31:2009 - 17:04
Daisy–“I hope your father gets well soon.” Thank you.
“We’ll continue this discussion after that” Maybe
“as the strain really shows in your response.” No, the response was carefully thought out and deliberate. I am trained to, and practised at, performing complex intellectual and emotional tasks under stressful conditions.
Thanks again for your kind thoughts for my father. He seems to be on the mend.
December:31:2009 - 17:32
Daisy…
Your comment about Majed is well taken. And I also try to remember that he and non native English speakers like him are commenting on an English language blog. I could not reciprocate him in his language so my hats off to people who are willing to jump in and do their best and try to go out of their comfort zone. I think for his level of education he is remarkably open minded. Some Muslims with far more education would not be so open minded or even tempered in their response.
Your story about the factory workers is so darn annoying and sad. It happens all the time I am sure. And frankly that is one of the things that annoys me about the male dominated world and society we live in.
(OK gentlemen I am NOT talking about all men so please don’t get offended.)
If these men were good stewards of the family’s future and thought with a “we” mentality rather than a “me” mentality things would be so much better. In this case as in many others it is about education. That enables you (hopefully) to anticipate the consequences of your actions. “they were compensated by a government job, money and houses.” good heavens! They were so far ahead of the game that had the good fortune been managed properly it could have provided for several generations.
My dad told me something once when I was younger that I didn’t really understand until I had a family and responsibilities of my own. He told me men will respond to a challenge while women respond to a need. So the family needs to be cared for and provided for; if the man does not do his job the woman will do it. I think that is very true as seen through the microlending. She doesn’t think about how much better SHE will be. She thinks how much better WE will be. Her vision is much longer term. She might like a new dress or something for herself but she makes sure that her family has it’s needs met first and not just immediate but long term like housing and education. Once everyone is OK then she might start to think about herself. Of course, good men should and do think the same way.
“But the traditional society also has a privilege for women which the modern society doesn’t give – it’s the privilege of the woman to not worry about fighting her own battles – the men in her family are supposed to fight for her.”
So THAT explains some of those chivalrous attitudes when we first met…hmmmm…wished I had been wise enough to cultivate them more. Oh to be young and wiser… But he was never really a “defender”. He would take the more passive role of just ignoring it and leading me away. I can’t picture him getting into a big scene. Unless of course I was accosted, then I imagine he would take action. But that has never had to be tested yet. And I will admit that he has gotten completely used to my “modern” attitudes. I never really looked to him to fight my battles for me and I think he got used to me taking care of things myself. Now to try to get him to change boats midstream would be pretty impossible I think. I think deep down he likes the fact that, unlike his mom and female relatives, I am completely competent on my own and he has to do very little to help me. Although I wouldn’t mind giving the chivalrous thing another try! LOL!
December:31:2009 - 18:25
Oby–thank you for your kind words and prayers. He is on the mend but frightened and, well you know, has a Y chromosome LOL
Fortunately he has a wife and 2 daughters brow beating him into health care services. LOL 
I am actually a little tired of the direction of some of the comments on aspects of this topic, so at some point I think some of us, or maybe just I, need to agree to disagree.
On the spaghetti front, the irony is that in this case I am just reheating my mother’s homemade sauce, and making the spaghetti al dente–must be something about the way I boil water LOL
The dishwasher has been unfortunate timing ie multiple festive dinners to prepare, and no delivery on a new one before January. On the other hand, it is like being little again and drying and chatting while mother washes.
I am so sorry about the problems with the comments on my blog, and I do look forward to readers sharing their stories. The trick I have learned in commenting elsewhere is to highlight and click copy before trying to submit and then just paste it back in if it goes poof! I shall look further into other remedies, but I thought changing the commenting format had it licked this time. Anyway, try again on the new post, or if you get the courage to do so, try on the older one again! Thanks for the effort! and I look forward to future comments.
January:01:2010 - 12:36
Oby,
Thanks for explaining the difference between the way men respond to challenge and women respond to need. I mix with men all the time, but never quite understood this. I’ll be more observant now.
In fact, I too like the chivalrous attitude in men quite a lot and don’t mind if a man fights for me – though I never ask any man to do so and am quite capable of fighting for myself. But if someone is willing to fight my battles for me, he is most welcome!
About the workers in the steel plant, in fact the government couldn’t remove them for 5 years despite the fact that they were usually absent from work. The labour laws of this country prohibit the government from removing its workers so easily. For 5 years they were given their salary without them working and then they were removed. Then, they opposed this and their sons had to be given jobs – never worked and again had to be removed after 5 years. Now their grandsons are demanding jobs in the steel plant as a birthright – in a country like India where government jobs are scarce and population explosion keeps many qualified people without job. They basically want a regular salary with all the facilities of a government job without having to work for it. Cases such as this make me a supporter of industrial economy. I really feel India should become a fully industrialised economy.
January:01:2010 - 22:29
Chiara…Yes copy and paste…why do I always think of it AFTER my post winds up in cyber heaven somewhere?
I am so glad that your dad is on the mend…funny how that Y chromosome always takes very strong and competent men and somehow they become like little boys again when they are sick. Probably a world wide phenomenon.
Your story about you and your mom doing dishes together made me smile…those simple moments where family just enjoy each others’ company over mundane tasks are the ones that will be remembered for a lifetime. And if your Italian family is like the ones I remember from growing up near New York, well, I am sure it is a special time indeed.
January:01:2010 - 22:36
Dasiy…
Wow! That factory story is amazing. Feels so much like blackmail on the part of the employees. Getting paid for doing little and then having the gall of demanding it for their relatives…Seems like government work is the same the world over! LOL! But you are right…those jobs should be given to industrious people who want to work and make things better not only for themselves but the country. It is a waste to give them to people who collect a check and are able to do nothing for receiving money…seems a lot like Welfare. to bad the government can’t kick the bums out on their behinds. If they were afraid of losing their jobs they might actually do a better job.
By the way, you might check out American Bedu’s blog. Her latest subject “photoshopped hajib” is very thought provoking. I want to write but have been trying to formulate a cohesive thought that will not be misunderstood. You might enjoy it.
January:02:2010 - 01:24
Oby, the Saudi soldiers that took part in the recapture of the Mecca sanctuary were victims, too – victims of the official version broadcast by the Saudi authorities. They were told it was just a small group of crazy fanatics. Well, the rebels were fanatics but weren’t crazy, they were well armed and there were hundreds of them. The soldiers also were at a disadvantage because they didn’t want to damage the Kaaba. I think Juhayman believed that once he took the Grand Mosque Muslims would rally to his cause. What saved the house of Saud was that they were able to cut off all communications, so much that even the people in Mecca never really knew what was happening. If word had gotten out… The irony is that, in many ways, the rebels won and Islam turned to a more radical outlook.
This issue is not going away. How many bombs this week? How many killed? They are killing people in Volleyball games! I said volleyball! How many cars burned in Paris last night? Who attacked the cartoonist in Denmark today? Who kills people in Finland? Why does a Nigerian try to kill a bunch of people he doesn’t know on a plane… Who is doing this? This is what the minaret thing is about. People in Europe and around the world watch the news, read the papers and the Internet – and associate the concept “Islam” to the concept “violence.”
Daisy, your Muslims friends are OK. I will be the first to say that there are many good Muslims and they sincerely believe their religion teaches peace and love and tolerance. Note, however, that India is not a Muslims country. I can say with the same certainty that in a Muslim–dominated society these same Muslims will probably, direct or indirectly, active or passively, accept restrictions on the rights and status of non-Muslims. Now you tell me why?
1. is it fear? Of what other Muslims might think or do – or of just thinking about islam
2. Is it because they think Muslims are better?
3. Is it because they don’t what to think…
4. is it mindless indoctrination? Is it because their world would fall apart if they were to question their faith?
5. Is it because they (and their tolerance) have never been tested? (See item1)
I really don’t know why this is, but it is a fact. I also know that Muslims have a very small comfort zone. As long as you do and say what they want, they are just fine. If you push them on certain issues, or insist on basic moral principles, Muslims usually get: a. confused, b. insipid (wishy-washy) or c. belligerent. My opinion. These nice Muslims are the same ones that say they accept criticism of islam, but want it to be “constructive criticism” – that is, criticism that is not critical of Islam (the old “it is only a few” and “they misinterpret Islam” narrative).
This is the same question you ask: Can we trust Muslims. You, being the kind sweet person you are, see it one way. Me, (the I me not the me me) being old and cynical, view it very differently. I think your whole perspective on the 800+ years of Muslim domination of India is wrong. Note that this period has been called the “bloodiest era in human history,” based upon the sheer numbers killed by the Islamic rulers of India. While there were some periods of peaceful coexistence, on the whole it was not a good time for Hindus, but at least they did better than the Buddhists (exterminated!). Of course, you know where my biases are. Oh by the way, I understand it is official Indian government policy to portray Indian history in much the same manner that you present it. There is even a directive for schools. I can understand the reasoning for this, but it is not accurate and causes other problems.
One think is certain, as Chiara says, Indian history is complex, about as complex as it can get.
Chiara, I have to go. Take care of your dad. I hope he is OK. I will comment later. Got to go. Happy new year to all.
January:02:2010 - 06:44
Chiara,
sorry to know your father is sick, wish him fast recovery. half the cure is to have people who love you around during sickness. inshallah he will get well soon.
about your analysis about makkah siege i think that is exactly what happened they have choosen the policy of lesser of two evils.
Daisy & Oby
thank you people for being so considerate, but, i beg you both not allow my academic level, make you condone and overlook my mistakes, specially Oby you are too kind, people often tend to misuse kindness so watch it.
J. Kactuz,
As far as associating with people is concerned , personally or online, was it with you or with others, though it might be true with people as you said: like you over internet, I hope at least you don`t think muslims should be denied this simple human right, because the way you demonstrate your abhorrence and unveiled hatred toward muslims and islam in the first place, it only gives me the idea that if it was upto you to decide, you would have banished every single muslim to some peripheral point around the galaxy.
as for associating with you, i think we are still in the process of establishing smoke signal communication, which i think either i am pretty lousy at sending them or may be its you, who needs a decoder, since it seems though we are both gliding around the same point (tolerance and coexistance) but through different orbits, so a common ground to associate with each other is out of question, since you do not miss and never allow anything scape you, without capitalizing on it to incriminate islam, even though i have access to many verses from the Bibles and can use them in the same way you use some verses from Quran, but it is not like me to do so, you know others might read me too, so, the same way i dont like people to hurt me in my beliefs in return i don`t like to press their sensetive nurves, that is why i give up, you won, congratulation.
January:02:2010 - 12:28
Majed…
“thank you people for being so considerate, but, i beg you both not allow my academic level, make you condone and overlook my mistakes, specially Oby you are too kind, people often tend to misuse kindness so watch it.”
Of course, that is 100% true. People do tend to misuse and take advantage of kindness sometimes. That is one of the tricky things about trying to be fair, I think. When a person is trying to accommodate something other than their known experience, it leaves them open to someone misusing that attitude. And I thank you for your concern for me. I very much appreciate it.
I know that JKactuz can be pretty brutal and uncompromising in his view of Muslims and no doubt that is off putting to someone like yourself who doesn’t consider himself to be radicalized. You are without doubt one of the most open minded Muslims I have ever read on these blogs and I personally commend you for that. I wish more were open minded like that and we might actually get a conversation going between the Muslims and the Non Muslims.
There does seem to be a voluntary isolation among Muslims in the world. They don’t seem to want to mix with non Muslims, or give non Muslims rights in Muslim majority lands. The Qur’an like the Bible had violent and racist comments in it that seem to be perpetuated even today in Mosques. Why do people have to hear such unkind things about non Muslims? I can tell you quite definitively that in Christian churches the violent and negative parts of the bible are not followed or taken seriously or given weight or value. (I can’t speak for Jews so I won’t say ) Yes there were violent passages and all sorts of stonings etc. But ON ONE other than the MOST rabidly Fundamental Strain of Christianity even thinks they should take the bible literally. If they did we would be at war with everyone around us. That is what I think the Non Muslim world doesn’t understand…why can’t Muslims mix better and even when they are the majority why can’t they seem to give the same rights to non Muslims that they give to Muslims? When they are the majority, it feels as if they oppress the non Muslims…why is that? Do they feel that they are better than Non Muslims? why is there this violent thing going on with Muslims? Why in God’s name are Muslims constantly killing other Muslims and Non Muslims alike? All these questions I think are fair ones. I am not sure of the answer…but they need to be asked because even if it is only a few who are perpetuating the problem it FEELS like it is the many and that, in my opinion, is starting to cause push back in the non Islamic wold.
So JKacuz might ask the questions a bit directly in many ways I think that they are fair questions.
January:02:2010 - 12:39
Oby,
You are right. India is going down the drain because of the kind of self-destructive policies that have been created in government jobs. There are many such rules, which I haven’t talked about. The problem is not the Indian laws or the lack of resources, but the way government employees are pampered unduly. To complicate matters further, everyone in the government is misusing the resources of the country to fill his/her own house. The end result shows on the country’s condition.
I have seen Carol’s post on photoshopped hijab. I am with my family now. When I get back on Monday, I’ll write a response. You are right – that post requires some thinking and I’m not getting the time to think.
January:02:2010 - 14:44
J Kactuz,
I appreciate your sympathies for the non-Muslims of India. It was I who said Indian history is complex and yes, it is. However, I feel you have got an incorrect reading of Indian history from somewhere.
I think it will make an interesting study to see how Indian Muslims behave when they go to work in West Asia. Do they change their attitude towards Hindus and other non-Muslim Indians? Do they become closed minded and hateful? Do they stop believing in democracy and believe in the Shariah-ruled state instead? If you come across Indian Muslims living in Islamic countries on the Internet, perhaps you can find this out and write about it.
I have met some Indian Muslims who went to work in West Asia, didn’t like the degrading way in which they were treated by the Arab Muslims, the ways in which they were exploited and the lack of freedom they had there and they came back, leaving their job options there. Their attitude towards non-Muslim Indians certainly hasn’t changed.
In fact, it was my interaction with these people that drew my attention towards the fact that the Muslim community around the world is not a monolithic community and there are differences even across the various Muslim groups. They don’t behave in the same manner towards non-Muslims, don’t even treat each other as fellow-brothers and sisters and this is conditioned by the environment they live in. Arab Muslims harbour a hatred against non-Arabs most of all. I do feel this study of Muslims in different environments and of Indian Muslims in West Asia should be done.
I am quite surprised to get your version of Indian history. Yes, as I told John above, it is true there is a government policy to teach Indian history the way I presented it to you. I don’t belong to the government sector and hence, don’t have any motivation to present it this way if I don’t believe it to be true. This history is based on historical records – there are various kinds of historical records available on the basis of which this history has been constructed.
Please tell me where you read the 800+ yrs of Muslim domination in India was the bloodiest period in human history – honestly, I have never come across this statement in my life. Did you read it in any book on Indian history, an encyclopaedia or in the popular writings on the Internet? I am quite shocked to read this statement.
Yes, there were bloody battles in India during this period, as there have been everywhere in the world. These were always political battles, sometimes between a Muslim ruler and a local Indian ruler, who was most likely to be a Hindu since that was the religion people followed till then. But sometimes these battles also took place between two Muslim rulers contesting for power. Their armies almost always included both Hindu and Muslim soldiers fighting side by side.
These were never religious battles, of Muslim armies overrunning Hindu population – that kind of representation is not correct.
Buddhism was not exterminated by Islam. Being a monastic religion, it depended for its survival on political and social patronage. Without this the community of monks couldn’t have survived. With the passage of centuries, the political and social patronage to Buddhist monasteries died down. Moreover, many sects of Buddhism were absorbed by Hinduism. That was the primary cause of disappearance of Buddhism from India. I don’t think Islam had much to do with this. If you have read somewhere Islam was responsible, please let me know about it.
I don’t see what problems this kind of history presents – rather, it attempts at levelling the inter-faith conflicts in India. The way you present Indian history is likely to cause more inter-faith conflicts here, given the composition of Indian population.
January:02:2010 - 16:17
Daisy…
Perhaps corruption would be a good place to start an end to the bleeding of the country. I think when higher officials do it the “little guy” figures he can too. And who will it hurt? He is only one person,after all. But when you add hundreds of thousands together nationwide it is a BIG bite out of the bottom line.
When my husband came here he was absolutely amazed that he didn’t have to bribe anyone to get the phone installed or get cable TV or have his daily little things done. He couldn’t believe it. In fact, I met him when he had been here less than a year and he used to marvel at how not only did he NOT have to bribe anyone, it got done fast and right the first time. For him it was a revelation and for me it was amazing that he thought he might have to bribe anyone in the first place. At least on a lower level(not goverment) it doesn’t work like that.
My father in law, who is retired now but used to be very high up in the Indian government as well as having some affiliation with the U.N., used to be ABSOLUTELY scrupulous about being squeaky clean when it came to bribery. I remember at Diwali, my husband told me that people would come by the house to deliver presents and he put out word that he would only accept dry fruits…ABSOLUTELY no gold or anything of major value. He MIGHT take an INEXPENSIVE pen. If something of value was given and he was not there he would dispatch someone to return the item. He refused to take bribes of gold or cash or anything. According to my husband my father in law was a rarity rather than the norm. The way my father in law explained it was that he NEVER wanted anyone to accuse him of making a ruling in favor of someone/something/some government due to the bribes or favors he got. His rulings and findings were to stand on their own…in honesty and integrity. I always told him I thought he should run for president or prime minister to help put a stop to the bribery in India. I thought he was the man to do it…but he wanted to retire in peace and quiet. He is quite a man! I have enormous respect for him.
Sorry…I couldn’t resist a plug for my father in law.
January:03:2010 - 01:09
Jay–thank you for your thoughts about my Dad. He is improving, and we are all grateful for the excellent care he has been getting from the ER drs and nurses (3 visits–2 of which were follow-ups)and the outpatient service that operated over the holidays. Hopefully his GP will get on top of his issues on her return from holidays.
I hope you had a good New Years, and…later!
Majed–thank you for your kind words and prayer for my father. He is improving, and hopefully will continue to do so. I always enjoy your comments which are insightful, knowledgeable and well stated. You use a number of excellent metaphors. I certainly agree that the Old Testament can match whatever brutality others read in the Quran. Both holy books need to be read in their politico-historical context to best understand what their meaning is.
Oby–your FIL sounds wonderful, and you are deservedly blessed to have him in your life.
January:03:2010 - 01:49
Daisy,
Note that the history of the Muslim conquest of India is a very controversial topic. Historians Will Durant and K.S.Lal are probably the most cited authorities arguing the “Muslim rulers were violent” point of view. On the other hand, Alain Danielou’s statement said that after the Muslims arrived in India “the history of India becomes a long monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions” is certainly overboard. There are also many other experts that take a “Islam was mostly just” view of events in India.
But then again, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists as follows: “When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession… temples were wantonly demolished [or] converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives.” For a thousand years the gentle Buddhists had a significant presence in all the Indian Subcontinent. By the end of the 12th century, following the Moslem conquest of their stronghold in Bihar, they were no longer a significant presence in India. The survivors retreated into Nepal and Tibet, or escaped West to Burma and Indochina.
One cannot talk of the Monguls and India without mentioning the greatest Mughol (well, restorer!), Timur (known as Timberlaine in the West). In his memoirs (Tuzk-i-Timuri) he describes the massacre at Delhi as follows: “In a short space of time all the people in the New Delhi fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. …They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground….All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer.” When this order became known to the ghazis [soldiers] of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. It seems that this atrocity was done by Timur because he believed that the Sultanate of Delhi was being excessively tolerant to their Hindu subjects.
Remember that Hindus and Buddhists were kafirs (heathens) and unlike Christians and Jews, not “of the book” and so they were on the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction for pagans and polytheists to “convert or die.” It must be said that the history of Islam in India is marked by periods of relative tolerance of non-Muslims (after all, what king wants to kill all his subjects?), as well as periods of violent oppression and persecution of Hindus, Buddhists and other infidels. The problem of “Hindus as polytheists” was solved by the sultans by making Hindus honorary dhimmi under the Hanafi interpretation of Islamic law. This was also good because it gave them a motive to increase taxes.
The problem is that Muslims, as always, do not want to talk about the evil they have done. India is unique in that it is probably the one area in which Muslim armies killed more non-Muslims than Muslims. Let it be said that the spread of Islam to Malaysia and Indonesia is also a special case because it is the sole region where the gospel of Islam was not spread by the sword of Islam (mostly). Sufi preachers and trade are responsible for taking Islam to the Far East – but beware that not all sufis were peaceful.
The era most sited by the “Islam was good for India” historians are the times of Babur , Abu Abu Akbar up until Jahan, known for building the Taj Mahal. Note that Jahan is generally considered “tolerant” but even so he led 48 military campaigns against non-Moslems. During his reign in the city of Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire. Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.”
This is a period of about 150 years. After jahan died his son Aurangzeb ruled for 50 years. According to the BBC, He no longer allowed the Hindu community to live under their own laws and customs, but imposed Sharia (Islamic law) over the whole empire. Thousands of Hindu temples and shrines were torn down and a punitive tax on Hindu subjects was re-imposed. In the last decades of the seventeenth century Aurangzeb invaded the Hindu kingdoms in central and southern India, conquering much territory and taking many slaves.
To say that Muslim-Hindu-Buddhist relations were peaceful and that Islam was tolerant in conquered India is a bit of an exaggeration. 150 years of relative tolerance in almost 1000 is not a good grade. Here is a Wiki page about this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_Indian_sub-continent
Daisy, I tried to tract down that official policy statement I mentioned. I found many references to a directive written by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (India) as found here:
http://hss.hssumn.org/?p=85
According to that site, the directive is supposed to have said: “Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden.” Note that most of these references were on Hindu-related sites. I went to the NCERT website but did not find any old archives.
This whole issue is complicated for sure. One question: Do you know if India subsidizes the Hajj to Mecca for Muslims?
One last thing, let me say that I am aware that a person looking for facts, often merely looks for those that supports his/her predetermined position. This is true for all of us, at all levels. I try to be objective, but objectivity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
January:03:2010 - 01:55
Chiara,
Glad to hear your father is better – and I hope you are getting some rest. Sleep with the ‘enemy’ (not really) but sleep! I am sure your care and love has been the best medicine.
January:03:2010 - 02:45
Oby–yes copy and paste is a necessity, as I learned after having so many comments disappear. I hope you will comment on the post that just went up on Saudi husbands of Western wives in Saudi
http://www.chezchiara.com/2010/01/saudi-husband-of-western-wife-in-saudi.html
Jay–thank you very much. And yes, sleep has many meanings LOL
January:03:2010 - 02:47
All concerned,
I have read everyone’s comment, but am going to travel again. Will definitely get back to everyone’s comments addressed to me when I reach on Monday. Thick fog is enveloping North India causing train accidents and am travelling by train this time, so may get delayed a bit. Please wait till then.
January:03:2010 - 10:48
Daisy and JKactuz…
I am LOVING this history lesson I am getting here. Both of you are very interesting. Keep going!
January:03:2010 - 14:08
Oby at 265–thank you again for your kind words about my father. Yes, we do have our “Moonstruck” family moments, mostly in my grandmother’s home. Definitely “little boys” and sometimes “terrible two’s” or “I can do it myself, oops not!” LOL
Fortunately he is well on the mend. Thanks again.
January:03:2010 - 14:43
Daisy give all the SRI SRI PEOPLE my love and peace. That is what is awesome about Inda!
I was once told that there was a huge Golden Light protecting me! I believe that
I will send the golden light to you for a safe train trip 
Not light really but a HUGE BEING
January:03:2010 - 23:27
Chiara, to be honest, I never really understood the use of “sleep with” as a synonym for sexual intercourse. I guess it is just a euphemism. Nope it doesn’t qualify as that, maybe a circumlocution. Of course it aint so circular. Ha! Sleep has gotten an undeserved bad rap. It is about the most innocent thing we can do. It is what we do when awake that gets us into trouble.
Daisy, be careful. Fog makes driving drunk seem safe (not that I do that!). Fog is very dangerous. I used to ride trains and I love them – pullmans, sleepers, coaches, lounge-cars, dinning cars. Probably the best rides were on the steps at the end of the old passenger cars, sitting outside on the rear platform on a nice day. I have even ridden on open box cars with my feet hanging over the edge. Done everything but roofs. Speaking of roofs, I have seen some really wild pictures of Indian trains. I didn’t realize that you could get 10,000 people on, in, above, around and even under a RR car until I saw pictures of Indian trains.
I am still thinking about what to say to M. Maybe I’ll just go outside and start collecting rocks! Maybe noy.
January:04:2010 - 07:27
Oby,
You are most welcome. you are right some people could be very provocative even when they are rasing rightful questions or criticizing what they think is wrong, which at times makes no matter how open minded person, to instinctively take a defensive attitude and react accordingly , a reaction that he might later repent and think how stupid and rediculous he was.
let us take you for example you have put forth the same doubts, but in your unique nice way that really made me look around for answers to your questions, not that i am questioning my beliefs, because its basics to me are beyond question. but i can willingly put myself and my people to test and examination, since all these people are questioning, hence , there must be something wrong with us, when you see smoke so there must fire somewhere. and while searching about answers i came across an article that sort of relieved me. you can reach it using this link it is very interesting short article about the tolerance and the history of terrorism in islam (http://bostonreview.net/BR26.6/elfadl.html).
January:04:2010 - 08:13
Jay–the euphemism is good in French too, just be sure to make the distinction with the reflexive form of the verb, because once I didn’t and well…incriminated myself falsely, and some poor gentleman as well of course!
January:04:2010 - 09:10
Just got back all safe. Just a day before I started there were three pairs of train collisions because of thick fog on the route I was going to travel – 6 trains in all collided and many people died. My family was very worried and suggested I should postpone my journey. But I decided to take the chance.
Thanks to Oby’s golden light or golden being and J Kactuz’s well wishes, today fog was lot less thicker and there were no mishaps on the route – and strangely, I see the fog growing thicker when I have reached! Thanks to both of you.
Oby, see Carol’s post. Perhaps you can become one of the Sri-Sris, distributing golden light to your devotees. You’ll have the rich and the mighty lining up outside your doorsteps!
January:04:2010 - 10:49
Daisy…That is my Golden LIGHT BEING LOL…
Maybe Oby has one too!
January:04:2010 - 11:08
Sparky…
Too funny! I was going to bounce that Golden Light back to you,not to worry. Maybe I can bask in Daisy’s share of the Light with her if she will let me! LOL!
January:04:2010 - 12:57
J Kactuz,
In which country do you live? Your trains seem to have more variety than the Indian trains! Someday I should come there and ride in all those kinds of trains.
Yes, that’s the result of population explosion and the labourers trying to save money by travelling on top or hanging out of the coaches. But the government is trying to curb this now because it is dangerous. In most big cities and long-distance trains you can’t see people travelling like that anymore. But in rural areas and in short-distance trains they do this.
About the references you have given about Islam in India –
Yes, your account of Muhammad bin Qasim is historically correct – all those massacres really did happen. Do you know about his origins? He was from Taif in today’s Saudi Arabia.
Remember my linking of intolerance and violence with Arab Islam.
Your account of Tamerlane is also correct. he did engage in destruction and massacre. In fact he was the ancestor of the Mughal emperors. But Tamerlane never really ruled in India. He was a Mongol nomadic warrior, who used to lead these destructive campaigns from time to time in different parts of Asia – against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Once he came to Delhi, created havoc and went back. I won’t say all that violence doesn’t matter – certainly it does. But first, he didn’t come to rule, and second his campaign was not religious – it was a usual course of loot and plunder carried out by the nomads – they did this even against settled Muslim communities. So, this does not reflect on the tolerance or the intolerance of Indian muslim rulers.
The BBC report of the imposition of Shariah by Aurangzeb is wrong. Yes, Aurangzeb was an orthodox ruler and he reversed the tolerance policy of his predecessor Mughals, which favoured the Hindus. In fact, this also led to the downfall of the Mughal empire – Aurangzeb was the last powerful Mughal emperor. Because of his reversal of the religious policy, local rulers began to rise in revolt and challenge his authority and Aurangzeb spent most of his time fighting wars in different parts of his empire. After him, the empire began to disintegrate. His ancestors had crafted this pro-Hindu policy also as a strategy to consolidate and expand their empire and Aurangzeb didn’t understand this. The moment he began to show Islamic orthodoxy, his empire suffered. The message is very clear – India was not going to be ruled by Islamic orthodoxy.
However, even Aurangzeb didn’t implement the Shariah-rule here. The non-Muslims didn’t get a favourable treatment from him at the court, he banned practices such as celebration of Hindu festivals at the Mughal court, in which his predecessor emperors had participated, he reimposed the Jazia tax for non-Muslims, which Akbar had abolished, he didn’t give grants to Hindu nobles, he stopped patronising Hindu art forms etc. But he never imposed the Shariah rule. That is wrong.
Shah Jahan (the builder of Taj Mahal) did lead campaigns against Indian local rulers. As I said earlier, these were political campaigns, not religious ones. His intention was to extend the Mughal empire and he succeeded.
You are right that the pre-Mughal Muslim rulers were not as tolerant as the Mughals. This was also the reason they were not as successful in India as were the Mughals, who understood that if they wanted to establish a powerful empire in India, they had to follow a conciliatory policy towards their Hindu subjects. The pre-Mughal rulers were more orthodox in their approach, but in general even that period was not a period of large-scale bloodshed – there were some exceptions, but there were also some good administrators even before the Mughal period. Allauddin Khilji and Shershah Suri were promnent among them.
There was another significant difference between the two periods. The pre-Mughal Muslm rulers used to include the name of the Arab Caliphs in the Khutba in the Friday prayer. This was a symbolic acknowledgement that all the Muslim dynasties that ruled before the Mughals, were ruling in the Arab Caliph’s name, eventhough their kingdom was not an extension of the Caliphate – it was a symbolic allegiance to the Arab Caliphate.
On the other hand, the Mughal emperors stopped invoking the Caliph’s name in the Khutba in the Friday prayers. Rather, the Imam in the mosque was supposed to invoke the name of the current Mughal emperor in the Khutba. This was a clear statement on the part of the Mughals that Mughal empire didn’t have any allegiance to the Caliphate and that the Mughals were the independent sovereigns in their own right.
In terms of religion, you can see the parallel I have been drawing – as long as the Muslim rulers associated themselves with the Arab Caliphate, they were more orthodox and less tolerant in their administrative approach – and also less successful in India. The Mughals dissociated themselves from the Arab Islam and they were more flexible and also more successful in India.
You can see from where the intolerant strain came – from the Arab world. It was not indigenous to South Asia.
The different version of South Asian islam I have been talking about began in the Mughal period itself – it’s not my invention.
About conversion of Indians to Islam –
In fact there are four diferent models that various scholars have used to study this phenomenon. The model that you’ve presented – conversion by sword, was the oldest that was developed in Indian historiography. Nowadays it is used most conveniently by the likes of the BJP. KS Lal is a BJP ideologue. There are three more models of how conversion happened in India and none of these four versions are adequate. In the conversion by sword model, if you look at where the maximum concentration of the Muslim population was, you’ll find that rather than being located around the centres of power – where the sword was likely to be the mightiest – maximum Muslims existed at the periphery of the regions ruled by the Muslim rulers. In the sub-continent, today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh, where maximum Muslims lived, existed on the periphery of the Muslim states. The centre of the Muslim states – northern half of India – where the centre of the Muslim power lay – has remained largely Hindu.
There is a scholar called Richard Eaton, who is a professor of Indian history in the University of Arizona and specialises in the interaction between Islam and Hinduism in India. There is a book by him – The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier (University of California Press, 1996). The book is about Bengal, but he discusses the condition of Islam in India before talking about Bengal. He has discussed all the 4 models of conversion to Islam in India in Chapter 5 of this book. He has also talked about other aspects of interaction between islam and Hinduism in India during the mediaeval period. If you get a chance, do read this book. At least, read the pages available on Google Books Preview if you can’t read the whole book.
Yes, I know the Indian government subsidises the Hajj trip of Indian Muslims. I think you should commend India for this. India is not an Islamic country, it does not have Muslims in majority and it’s a Third World country. Even then it finds it possible to send Indian Muslims on a subsidised Hajj trip.
How many Islamic countries in the world can match this?
January:04:2010 - 13:03
Sparky,
I am really sorry. Please read that comment for yourself. It shows you do have a golden light, meaning you are a nice person. I send some of my share from it to Oby!
Let’s hope you become a famous Sri-Sri with all kinds of rich, mighty politicians, businessmen and handsome filmstars and models lining up in front of your house!
January:04:2010 - 17:52
Daisy…
My husband’s version of Hindus vs Muslims pretty much matches your account. Your explanation is phenomenal compared to his (he’s all about just the facts and brevity) but in essence he also stated that though there were numerous skirmishes between the Hindus and Muslims many of them were not religious in nature and were instead one king trying to take power from another, or even more troubling, a son killing the male family members(king and princes) to claim his “rightful” place in the lineage…very similar to what we see in European history. He also stated that often the armies would be made up of both Hindus and Muslims fighting the opposing group also made up of Hindus and Muslims.
About conversion…he said that it was the lower, more disenfranchised castes that converted either willingly or not. Is that perhaps Bangladesh and Pakistan today?
January:04:2010 - 18:57
Majed –nice reference, thanks. I will read it more carefully shortly.
January:04:2010 - 22:58
Oby,
About the lower castes converting – yes, that’s another one of the four models discussed by Richard Eaton. It is true that many lower caste people and poor tribals converted to Islam and Christianity, not for religious reasons but because of the discourse of equality that was preached by these religions.
Only it didn’t work in India. Because these people carried their caste and tribal identities into the new religion they converted to. Thus, there is caste system even amongst Indian Muslims and Christians and they follow this system as strongly as the Hindus. For example, an upper caste Muslim or Christian would rather associate with an upper caste Hindu than a lower caste Muslim or Christian. They don’t usually marry across caste or tribal lineage lines either – a marriage between an upper caste Hindu and an upper caste Muslim or Christian will perhaps face less opposition than a marriage between an upper caste Muslim or Christian with a person from the lower caste but from the same religion.
Richard Eaton takes this further to argue that to imagine these communities as seeking social justice through conversion would be to transpose our current perceptions of equality on a pre-modern society, whose indices of well-being were different from our own. This is to imagine that these pre-modern grous of people believed in democracy and equal rights as we modern people do, which is not true. Living in a monarchy and a system based on royal patronage to elite class, that society was used to the idea of social hierarchy and had not been exposed to the ideas of social equality as yet. Everyone’s ambition was to get as close to power as possible in order to get favours from the elite class. Ideas of equality didn’t exist in the society at this time.
About the concentration of Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Richard Eaton has a very interesting model. It’s best to read his book to understand it. But in short, he talks about fluid boundaries of religiosity in India as compared to a cosolidated core in the centre, so that the communities on the periphery of the subcontinent were most likely to open up to the new religion that was coming in.
Richard Eaton has edited another book called Rise of Islam in India, which deals with the entire period of Muslim rulers here – from the 8th to the 18th centuries. It’s mostly about cultural history of India during this period to show how Hindu and Muslim cultural elements borrowed from each other. You can have a look at that book if you like.
January:05:2010 - 00:23
It was in Brazil in the early 60s. Great place, great times.
Speaking of Brasil and sex, the word most commonly used for intercourse is “comer” (to eat). As in “Eu comi a Mariazinha / I ate little Mary”. None of that sissy “dormir com / sleep with” stuff for machos in Brazil. This whole comer = sex goes back 500 years to the first French / Portuguese / Indian interaction. It is a long story. I still remember sitting in literature class as a small boy listening to the Anthropophagous radical manifest theory from the 1920s that equated cannibalism with authentic Brazilian culture (much influenced by the French, I might add). That and the epic Macunaíma (“the hero with no character”) just about fried my brains before I even got to high school. Of course there were welcome distractions like wondering if I could somehow manage to dip Claudia’s pigtails (the girl in front of me) in my inkwell without her noticing it. In those days we used fountain pens and each desk had an ink jar in the desk. The Italians, Spanish and French had it easy, they had Dante, Don Quixote and La Chanson de Roland. We had Macunaima and Lusiadas, neither of which had a story line you could run with. The English had it best with monster stories like Beowulf and better yet, perverts like Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales. I don’t know what they study in India, but I have seen some well-known Indian books not to even mention some rather, hum, artistic carvings on Hindu temples…
Daisy, I think you are wrong on Aurangzeb. I think he was much more brutal and intolerant than you indicate. Of course, to be objective (moi?), it is often hard to separate religious brutality from political power and brutality. Many of his wars against Hindu kingdoms were as much motivated by expansionism as anything else. Note also that regard to forced conversions it much be noted that many Indians converted to islam of their own will, often to escape the Hindu caste system (and gain other benefits). Why am I always defending Muslims? M, you should be proud of me.
Anyway, not that conversion always helped because both the Christians and Muslims also adopted forms of the caste system. Ha! Anyway, back to India. Timur was not really Indian, he was just passing through. Akbar was an interesting character. To kind of solve the religious conflict he invented his own religion (Godism) mixing Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. I can’t imagine. I would have loved to have seen the faces of the court nobles as he explained Godism to them.
Power politics have always been complicated. As Oby says, Muslim Indians fought each other almost as much as they fought Hindu rulers (and Muslims helped Hindus fight Muslims, Hindus fought for Muslims, EL Cid fought for Muslims before fighting against them, the Turks helped the protestants during the reformation, David fought against the Israelites, etc…. Messy!). I often don’t agree with Ann Coulter, but one thing she said is true (kind of) and always gets on the nerves of some people: Pakistanis are just Indians that still serve their Arab masters. I could say the same about Indian Muslims.
I will look up Richard Eaton.
Got to go….
jay
January:05:2010 - 00:52
What happened to john?
Word is that he got caught in the extreme cold weather. At least we have a photo:
http://www.heroturko.org/photostock/52611-frozen-man-high-res-300-dpi.html
He will probably be back in April, with the Spring thaw…
J.
PS: Actually, without him, the inmates have taken over (a al ‘le Roi de Coeur’).
January:05:2010 - 03:14
J Kactuz,
Not only have the inmates taken over, some of them are talking about cutting John off from the discussion board of his own blog on a topic he specialises in!
You really frightened me with that news and John’s photograph in that link, till I remembered you had a great sense of humour – that’s the photograph of John’s son! You are right, he may have to stay back till April.
January:05:2010 - 03:55
Yes, I should have guessed it was in Brazil – the country of beautiful women. No wonder you have that parallel of eating with sex!
India reads everything – Dante, Chaucer, Servantes, Shakespear, all the European thinkers, name it and we have them. Plus also the huge corpus of Indian literature that has grown over thousands of years. Not to mention today’s generation’s fascination with the digital media. I think it’s a good idea to add to this the native American literature as well – at least some of it.
It was I who talked about Hindu and Muslim soldiers fighting in the same army. Oby asked her Hindu husband and he seconded me. About conversion and caste, I just gave a response to Oby – please read that. Most people hold the view that you have presented. Richard Eaton is different, because he is proposing a new model for conversion.
OK, Aurangzeb was not Akbar. In fact he killed his brothers to capture the throne and imprisoned his own ailing father (Shah Jahan – who built Taj Mahal) while he became emperor. So I can accept his brutality theory of yours. But he has never been forgiven. He is the only Mughal emperor who is hated by the Indians. All his predecessor Mughals are loved and admired by Hindus and Muslims alike, especially Akbar.
Talking of Akbar, his religion was really the way a religion should be – taking all the positive aspects of all religions, leaving out the negative and keeping it as simple as possible. But a religion works and spreads only if it has complex manipulations to ride on and without those manipulating mechanisms, Akbar’s religion fell flat – even though he was the most powerful, wealthies and influential monarch in the world in his own times. Very few courtiers followed Akbar’s religion and after his death, no one followed it. Says something about the mindset of deeply religious people.
Well, the way Indians feel about Aurangzeb etc., why take revenge for the past from our today’s Muslims? What is their fault in all this? That’s why BJP couldn’t last long on the politics of hatred.
Coming back to Ghalib’s poetry, see this verse – ” When the body itself is burnt, the heart also must have got burnt. Why do you rake up the ashes now (when everything is over)? What is your desire in this (can any desire get fulfilled by raking up the ashes when the fire has died out)?”
January:05:2010 - 11:04
Majed…
Yes, it is true that sometimes people can be inflammatory when they say things. I guess they feel strongly and don’t know how to express it in a milder way. It is normal for the recipient to feel “on guard” or feel defensive even when they might not normally feel that way. My parents used to tell me that I could express any idea I wanted or ask any question I wanted (well, almost any question) as long as I did it with a respectful attitude and a good tone. They said people will be more willing to listen if you remember to keep their feelings in mind. I found that it works pretty well. I am very happy that you were able to hear my questions without feeling defensive and didn’t just assume that we are all against Islam because I don’t think we are. I know Daisy is definitely not and certainly Chiara isn’t. And neither am I. You were very astute to understand that we had issues with some things we see in the Muslim community that are problematic and concerning for us without us feeling that we needed to ban the entire religion. Thank you for that. I truly wish more Muslims were able to make that discernment.
I thank you very much for the article you linked me to. I read it closely and will read it again, but this gentleman has said exactly what we here on this blog were saying. He said it slightly differently because he is an Islamic jurist, but I was amazed at how much he saw things like us. (OK…let me just speak for Daisy and I because we seem to be close in our views of the issue…hope you aren’t offended Daisy.) It made me feel justified that we can say these concerns without being against Islam just as he, a Muslim, has said. I, like you, was relieved to read this article. Part of the reason I started to ask questions is because it seemed so illogical that a major faith followed by one fifth of the world’s population could advocate violence, racism and hate. What sort of people would follow such a religion, right? It made no sense…I felt something must be wrong or have changed. This article explains a lot.
A few of the things that struck me were:
~”The supremacist thinking of Muslim puritans has a powerful nationalist component, which is strongly oriented towards cultural and political dominance. These groups are not satisfied with living according to their own dictates, but are actively dissatisfied with all alternative ways of life. They do not merely seek self-empowerment, but aggressively seek to disempower, dominate, or destroy others. The crux of the matter is that all lives lived outside the law are considered an offense against God that must be actively resisted and fought.”
~ “Fanatic groups derive their theological premises from the intolerant puritanism of the Wahhabi and Salafi creeds.”
~Importantly, Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law historically or contextually, with attendant possibilities of reinterpretation under changed circumstances.
I recommend that everyone read it in its entire context:
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.6/elfadl.html
I also recommend this article by the same gentleman:
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-575/_nr-7/_p-1/i.html?PHPSESSID=5869
The thing is that now that we have the cause…what is the answer or solution to the problem? It is not only non Muslims that should be concerned. Perhaps more than anyone Muslims should be concerned because they have suffered an injustice by losing the “heart” of their faith to all this cultural interpretation. The faith has become overburdened with such heavy strict rules and regulations that are cultural in origin rather than coming from the Qur’an itself as to make the practice of the religion more difficult and racist than it should be. It has given Muslims the false idea that they should not mix with non Muslims, and that in turn has made non Muslims react differently than they might if Islam were practiced the way Khaled Abou el Fadl describes it. In short, the Salafi interpretation doesn’t seem to have done any favors for Islam. Perhaps Muslims need to speak out for their religion and claim it back for themselves. In doing so they would not only be helping themselves they would be helping non Muslims as well.
Again, Majed, it was a great article…thank you for sharing it.
January:05:2010 - 11:26
Thanks Oby, you said it well.
I did write on Carol’s post on photoshopped Hijab. You may see it.
January:05:2010 - 14:12
Jay–you have a way with a cultural allusion. Extremely a propos re: “le Roi de Coeur” right down to the anti-war message following on the Franco-Algerian war.
I prefer to believe that John has sensibly decided to stay on longer with family and friends.
January:05:2010 - 16:14
Oby, I still think you are much too kind (#296) regarding radical Islam. Yes there are nationalist, religious and social components in the attitude of the radicals – but I think there is a very strong ego issue also. Islam gives these people a sense of pride that they cannot find elsewhere (in art, in industry, politics, family life, etc.). The fact that it is respected and feared makes their hearts swell. Islam is the one thing that gives them meaning. Of course, Western leaders and intellectuals feed this beast by their ‘respect” and appeasement.
I also see no reason for Muslims to consider history or context in the Quran. They believe it is eternal and perfect. If you consider those factors then it is temporary and badly written. You cannot have both; they are contradictory.
I read the Khaled Abou El Fadl article. It is the same stuff we see by moderate Muslims everywhere. He blames all Islam’s ills – current and past – on a small group of radicals that don’t understand islam. That is too easy. He says the puritans construct their exclusionary and intolerant theology by reading Quranic verses in isolation, then proceeds to take other isolated verses to make his case for moderation. So it is his isolated verses against the radicals’ isolated verses. Not very convincing.
He admits that the Quran doesn’t define such things as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness, yet wants us to believe they are the substance of Islam. He talks about
Islamic civilization being “pluralistic and unusually tolerant of various social and religious denominations” as if the injunction to kill pagans was not written or as if his prophet had not expelled jews and Christians from Arabia. Khaled ignores any element of islam that is contrary to his idea of what islam is or should be. He tells us that jihad is just a struggle in pursuit of a just cause as if my Quran doesn’t say that a Muslim has to leave home or could get killed in that struggle. Rather than wasting time on us infidels, perhaps he should tell Muslims that jihad isn’t really “holy War” because that is the standard use on 99% of Muslim websites. In fact, jihad as a stop smoking, fixing the faucet or a diet plan is only used when explaining it to stupid infidels.
Another huge issue, to me anyway, is that he ignores the role and life of Muhammad in his explanation of “moderate” Islam. Given Islamic texts, I find the veneration of this man to be offensive. While the Quran is wishy-washsy, the sunnah is clear about what Muslims should do to non-Muslims. At the end of the article, the guy actually says that the Quran says what a person wants it to say. Now that is really comforting! My bottomline is that islam is what is practiced in Islam-dominated countries. Cute words from a Muslim professor in California are meaningless to me.
January:05:2010 - 18:46
I’m back in chilly Florida now. Just arrived this afternoon and still a bit rocky from the drive. I certainly felt like the guy in the photo in DC, where temperatures were in the 20°F range (-6°C), not including wind chill. Now, Florida is going to be at near-freezing temperatures for the rest of the week! There were very good reasons for my moving to Florida. One of them was most certainly not freezing temperatures!
January:05:2010 - 19:09
John–ugh all that drive for freezing temperatures! Any relief in the Keys? Islamorada? Key West? Feeling Hemingway-ish enough to drive more? No, probably not. Glad to read you are back safe and sound, if chilled.
January:05:2010 - 20:50
John,
Welcome back! We are glad to see you back again. Take rest and take care in that freezing temperature.
This time, you were the 300th commentator! Congrats!
January:05:2010 - 20:59
J Kactuz,
This is where we began our discussion – Islam is what is practised everywhere in the world – even in Muslim-minority countries. They should not be marginalised like this. That’s why I talked about myriad versions of Islam.
January:05:2010 - 22:52
300+ posts! is that a record?
January:06:2010 - 00:21
JKactuz…
Too kind…hmmm…maybe. I will freely admit that I don’t have the obvious extensive background in Islamic history that you and Daisy have. In fact, I have been on these blogs only since late August and I am kind of learning on the fly. Prior to that, though I was not blind to the issues going on with Islam for years, I took it for granted that Islam had been “hijacked” for nefarious purposes and thought it would straighten itself out or run its course. When it became obvious to me that wasn’t the case, I started looking around more and participating on these blogs.
I am sure you have arrived at your opinion through reading, and perhaps experience in your life, so I won’t even try to get into a debate with you on all the whys and wherefores about the intricacies of Islamic jurisprudence and history. I’ll leave that to you and Daisy. Which by the way, I find fascinating. I can only give you my opinion. We are also at different points in our “Islam journey”. You have obviously made up your mind while I am still exploring and debating and willing to consider all points of view. I don’t see it as distinctly black and white as you do.
I actually have a completely different take on the article than you. Although I understand it is the moderates’ general stance and he is saying what they all say, I ask myself, is he lying to us “infidels” or does he truly see Islam the way he describes it? I believe that he does see and believe it the way he describes it. Is it not possible to have a moderate view? Why not? I don’t think every Muslim in the world has a hostile view of us “infidels”. I don’t believe all Muslims are swelling with pride because as you say they are “feared”. To say that is to say that Muslims are innately self aggrandizing which is a leap I am not willing to make at this point. To feel pride in your religion and feel it is the “right “ religion is a no brainer…everyone who follows a religion does do presumably because they think it is the right one. I see it as no different than being proud of your country. Of course the trick is to love your own religion while accommodating the rights of the others to love theirs and I do think that in terms of getting a grasp on that some Muslims have a way to go in understanding that and not only understanding that but in internalizing that attitude.
While what you say is certainly part of the problem that Westerners are concerned about…the rigid theology that is incapable of accommodating anyone else including other Muslims that might not be of this virulently strict strain, I think Khaled Abou El Fadl brings forth a very good point: Because Islam is going through such a distinct change vis a vis the Salafi orthodoxy and the razing of traditional institutions that more or less guided the people and maintained stability it has become a bit of a free for all. Who really speaks for Islam? Because Islam is not only a religion but a form of governance in these countries (which in many cases are ruled by despots only interested in their own pockets and power) I think it has given some ground to the likes of Al Qaida to take advantage of the confusion. Combine this with all the advanced technology out there to tout your particular brand of hate to any number of disenfranchised and restless people just itching for a fight and looking for a “cause” and you have a pretty strong brew simmering.
“I also see no reason for Muslims to consider history or context in the Quran” I am assuming that you are being facetious.
Of course, if the Qur’an were considered in its history or context then a lot of the arguments people have about Islam being “backward”, intolerant,etc. would no longer exist and we most likely would not be having this discussion. People who believe it should be taken in it’s most literal form would have no argument to stand on and would be marginalized. Of course it is capable of being adaptive… Even today the Muslims around the world, by virtue of how they interpret Islam~Full cover or not, women drive or not, women segregated or not, as in the case of India …get along with Non Muslims or not…or in the case of Western societies living and adapting(to one degree or another) to the culture…all of this is adaptive. All these things are not “eternal”. They are interpretations driven by culture.The principals and core of the Qur’an, the good message it brings is eternal. As the writer said it is with your own heart that one will interpret these writings.
You said“He admits that the Quran doesn’t define such things as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness, yet wants us to believe they are the substance of Islam.”. To quote Mr Khaled Abou El Fadl “The Qur’an itself refers to general moral imperatives such as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness. The Qur’an does not clearly define any of these categories, but presumes a certain amount of moral probity on part of the reader.” He clearly states that the Qur’an gives people free will of interpretation and EXPECTS them to interpret it with goodness. But humans being the imperfect and sometimes awful creatures they are will surely interpret the Qur’an or indeed the Bible for that matter, to suit their own gain. That is not the fault of the Qur’an…it is the fault of the people doing the interpretation.
I don’t think he ignores the ugly facts about Islam at all…in fact I think he says clearly over and over the problem with Islam without hashing words and defines how it can coexist in a democratic world by addressing these issues.
As far as Mohammed being venerated…I can’t speak to that. I don’t know the history that you do. One of my best friends is a Mormon who swears that a Prophet named Joseph Smith was given a message by God and that Christ visited him on his farm before He ascended into Heaven. Do I believe that? Heck No! Does she? With every bit of her heart. Who am I to say that her Prophet is wrong? It works for her.
Most importantly in my view, it is we in the West that have the freedom to speak out and be advocates for a more tolerant Islam. Even if they wanted to, Muslims in these countries cannot or will not speak out due to fear or pressure or perhaps they just plain don’t believe we are as worthy as they. Pressure is a powerful force…combine that with the chance of being called an apostate and it is not surprising that a lot of people might be afraid of speaking out. Someone has to have the moral courage to say “hey something is amiss here and we might want to relook at this situation.” I think it might fall to the West as our countries allow us the freedoms to have these sort of discussions. We might not feel it is our place to have to lead, but where else IS there the freedom to at least talk about it? Or should we just throw it in the “never gonna change” pile and leave it at that?
January:06:2010 - 05:39
I would like to thank all those have gone through my link, and also for giving mouth to your minds to say its say, some were balanced in their views as far as their knowledge goes and that is fair enough, and others who are seeking total prostration, and saying it is the same old stuff that moderate say, Yes , that is true most moderates try to appease the non Muslims on account of their beliefs , some of these moderates are only specialized in pinning all the blame on Muslims and Islam and consider the problem of intolerance violence as autogenously in nature and Mr. Khaled Abou El Fadl is among those, though he is very high class scholar but his opinion is marred by the fact that is on US government payroll.
Muslim moderates should persistently mention in underlined and bolded words that there are external causes also to this problem I can mention here some of these reasons.
in fact Wahabism created by (if not) it was made strong by the British to stab the last Islamic Caliphate the Othman Caliphate in the back and that is what really happened while the Othman empire was already fighting on many fronts and they were in their weakest periods ever. ( in this sense we the Arabs are traitors and we deserve what is happening to us we are not even worthy of a bullet in our heads they should give us all rat poison.
I quote :
( That a British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir’at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century.) for more u can check this link
( http://www.serendipity.li/wot/livingstone.htm )
And in present days is the much heard of the Al Qaeda group or whatever, they are mostly the remnants of the brave young men who were mislead and were brain washed to fight The Communist Russians in Afghanistan for the Capitalist West, surprisingly they had their objective achieved and well done their job, but what was their prize, they were neglected and were left to stray aimlessly without job or any sort of social life after spending a decade amongst blood ,fire and nightmares above all they have got their forehead branded with the word terrorist, shame on you.
And now it is the turn of Yemen, poor people but as patient as a camel, I spent few years there trying to make a living, but got out from there with only malaria and jaundice I have never seen so hospitable and kind people like them in my life, don’t let the spectacles of people carrying Kalashnikovs and pistols and knifes, to deceive you to think otherwise this their traditions.
Does anybody know that more than half of the population there if not more hardly manage to get a meal a day I personally knew families who have forgotten how does meat taste, and does anybody know that hunger, ignorance , sickness, counterfeit medicines, and the bribery that is spread from the roof down to the basement is the only abundant goods available, as if the only thing they were missing is this banker `s son or rather CIA agent to come in from Nigeria and stay only for three months during which he was taught Arabic and was brain washed by the Yemeni Al Qaeda members with their very convincing ideas or may be with the kind of the sophisticated brain washing injections they use that no one has ever seen or heard of before, after all they have very good scientist who hardly know the grammar of their own language let alone chemistry and biology.
It is easy for people whose stomach are full with all kind Italian French Indian etc foods ,sweets and fruits until a doctor comes in and tells them it was enough , and who has done LLb , BA , MMBS or any other course or even courses , also have read some history books a lot of news papers and watch breaking news and have developed a good command over there tongues and fingers with a lot of time spare , isn’t really easy and even tempting to sit in front of some pc or laptop to issue charges and accusations and some go as far as giving sentences. This kind of judgments really hurt, you don’t how it is to sleep hungry or to watch your children sleeping hungry, and even worst to watch your children dying simply with diarrhea (may God keep your children safe and healthy) believe me hunger can turn a saint into a pimp and a nun into a prostitute.
I would like to say that others are equally responsible for our intolerance and violence there are number of factors that should be addressed, ignorance is the first problem that should be dealt with by the introduction of modern education system the result of which we might not see in our life time but surly will happen.
I think I have already pushed my tiny brain to the edge so now I am going to quote the other factors from someone else.
1- The present world order is unjust. It is a continuation of 700-year old colonial fascism.
2- The former colonialism has combined with new systems for exploiting the natural resources of the weak and maintaining full control of their political systems through puppets.
3- The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are illegitimate and illegal.
4- 9/11 was an inside jobunless we see evidence to the contrary or find answers to the long lists of unanswered questions.
5- Bush and Blair are neck deep in the blood of innocent Muslims and non-Muslims.
6- Aggression and oppression should be resisted.
7- Muslims deserve the right to self-determination and self-rule and should struggle to live by Islam, free from colonial interference.
8- The dying British Empire illegally imposed Israel on the local Arab population and took its land. Regardless of any solution to the Muslim-Israel problem, it is an illegitimate, racist state created and sustained with the help of terrorism and racism
January:06:2010 - 06:07
i can`t believe i have writen all that, but thanks to Uncle Google traslator it really helped God bless him,i didn`t mean to offend any one if it sounds like that in any way i beg you all to forgive me.
January:06:2010 - 06:49
Majed–thank you for writing all that, and for explaining that Uncle Google translator was involved (he seemed a little harsher than you at times). I certainly agree with number of the external factors you describe, and you have given me inspiration to research the others that were new to me. I only disagree directly with the one about 9/11 being an inside job. I have read quite a few books on this and it seems clear the Bush administration was most concerned about securing Middle East oil for themselves and their friends in the Carlysle Group and Halliburton. Hence a pre-election plan to target 7 countries in the ME in order, and the focus away from Al Qaeda that the Clinton administration warned about, so that even the August warnings were ignored, and 9/11 proved to be a blessing to starting a war in Iraq–for the oil. Even Janet Napolitano head of the Department of Homeland Security appointed by Obama was in 2009 repeating the Bush admin propaganda that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis coming to the US across the Canadian border–after someone pointed out that there was a border that wasn’t with Mexico.
Also, your comment made me think that moderates are stuck in a hard place–by definition they would support Islam and not the violent radicalization of it; but who wants to believe them?
Thanks again for your inspiring comment.
January:06:2010 - 07:37
Oby #305–nice analysis of freewill and interpretation of the Quran, and the issue of veneration. The Prophet Mohamed is held in very high esteem but not workshipped, and not seen as divine. In fact it is his human qualities which are held in highest esteem, and which make him role models. Orientalists previously called Islam Mohamedanism, and its adherents Mohamedans, but confusion deliberate or unconscious with Christianity. Thanks for sharing your ideas and ways of approaching the topic.
January:06:2010 - 09:28
Yes, actually!
January:06:2010 - 12:30
John…
If it would not be putting you in a delicate position what is your take on the invasion of Iraq? Chaira’s explanation reminds me of when it happened and they were claiming weapons of mass destruction. I was furious that the administration had no proof to show the people before the invasion. As a citizen it felt like it was getting shoved down our throats and I remember saying to people “I pray that I am wrong, but I bet they will not find anything.” I felt distinctly that it was wrong from day 1. Where was the proof? You don’t commit all those lives, mony not to mention your reputation in world standing without being darn sure of your facts. In retrospect and with what Chiara has said it does seem manufactured. If you can’t answer becauase of confidentiality or don’t want to open that can of worms I understand.
Chiara…
I am not sure I am reading your answer correctly…are you saying(or more correctly are the books you have read saying) that the Bush Administration ignored the warnings on purpose in the hope that something like 9/11 might happen in order to facilitate the Iraq invasion? Or was it coincidental to Bush’s plans and he saw an opening and took it? Why were the warnings ignored? Were they too preoccupied with Iraq?
Thanks for the explanation of Mohammed…something is amiss to me however. The way you explain Mohammed makes sense…they revere his human qualities…JKactuz on the other hand, seems to be of the opposite opinion. He seems to feel that it is offensive to think so highly of him, which tells me that there is something being unspoken in this whole thing, a gap in perception of sorts…another history lesson I guess.
JKactuz…
Not to worry I will start looking into the history, but frankly learning about an entire civilization/religion in a few months is a daunting task.
January:06:2010 - 13:02
It’s not a delicate position. I opposed the invasion before it happened because I thought that winning the war part of it would be easily accomplished but the ‘after the shooting stops’ part would not be conducted well. My opposition was expressed through official channels–it was a view shared by nearly all at the US Embassy in Riyadh. Most US Embassies in the Middle East were not happy about it.
My contention was that while Iraq was a serious problem for the US and for the region as a whole, just getting rid of Saddam and the Ba’ath Party would not solve the real problems. If the US military was to go into Iraq, I argued, then the US Army Corps of Engineers, hundreds of thousands of them, should have been right behind the fighters, repairing and upgrading Iraqi infrastructure. Had that been done, many of the situations that rapidly degenerated would have been avoided.
Iraq was a problem that needed to be addressed, but it didn’t need to be addressed right then nor not necessarily in that way.
January:06:2010 - 13:35
John,
What about the notion that the US wanted to capture the oil reserves of Iraq? Was it important or not?
January:06:2010 - 15:39
“If the US military was to go into Iraq, I argued, then the US Army Corps of Engineers, hundreds of thousands of them, should have been right behind the fighters, repairing and upgrading Iraqi infrastructure. Had that been done, many of the situations that rapidly degenerated would have been avoided.”
thanks John…That is a revelation to me. I had been under the impression that the US did try rebuild that infrastructure but was thwarted not only by corruption (money not getting where it was supposed to go)but by the extremists the war left behind damaging and destroying infrastructure as soon as it was built.
I can’t tell you who said it, but on NPR Public Radio someone (a Middle East “expert”) a few months ago said that part of the problem was just what I said above. In light of what you have said I feel even more upset about the whole situation. I do remember hearing on the news about the looting of the museums and such and feeling(as an art and history lover) just devastated and angry that more was not done to prepare for the war and protect the priceless history of Iraq. It felt to me even then, that it was a rushed job and that little thought was given to the entire campaign: entry,conflict(limiting to only what was necessary)and most importantly in my opinion, an exit strategy that got our military out safely but also left the country in as good a shape as possible. (as per what you said about the Army Corps of Engineers). What was the Administration thinking? They had the knowledge that the Soviets had fought for, what, ten years in Afghanistan without really making any headway. Why did they not use that lesson and prepare better for a more rounded and less devastating outcome for all concerned? It feels very much to me that the US got into a situation that was not well thought out and though they would like to leave, because of the lack of preparation it is not able to walk away without leaving a big mess behind. Maybe that is a harsh assesment…but it feels that way to me.
January:06:2010 - 15:45
Majed…
I read your comments several times and read them thoughtfully…What happened? It almost seems as if it was a different person writing them. Chiara is right…thanks for explaining that Google was involved as I am sure that accounts for the big difference in tone.
If you don’t mind I would like to think about the points you made as I definitely think they are worth considering and I don’t want to give you a rushed response.
John please keep the blog open for a bit more if possible, as I want a bit more time to respond to Majed. Thanks so much.
January:06:2010 - 16:05
I always felt- first going into Iraq was not warrented. But, since they insisted it was crimially irresponsible to do it in the manner in which they did. Glib remarks about how it would take 6 months. Did they consult with anyone who knew anything about this? You cannot pop the lid on a pressure cooker and assume you can control what will happen- or think you won’t make a big mess or that everyone won’t get burned.
I think The Project for the New American Century was behind it. They had wanted Iraq taken care of- Clinton wouldn’t do it and they saw their chance after 9-11. Fortunately, it is no longer up and running. Unfortunately their website is gone though you can still google and read all the controvery about the “Clinton Letter” and its signatories (including Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz) and its prominant membership including one of it’s founders-Cheney.
January:06:2010 - 16:18
Sandy–Wesley Clark in his biography, and interviewed on Democracy Now is good on the longterm project to go into 7 Middle East countries in order, and taking the opportunity 9/11 offered to start with Iraq by blaming them for/connecting them to, the attacks. Also good is Karen Kwiatkowski (and wiki is decent on her, link below)
Karen Kwiatkowski , Lt Colonel (ret) US Air Force, MA (Government, Harvard) MS (Management Science, University of Alaska), PhD (World Politics, Catholic University of America), lifetime Republican, formerly of the Defense Department wrote an excellent summary of her experience here:
The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2764&paper=2782
Huffington Post did a nice “selection of her thoughts” here:
Karen Kwiatkowski: The Soldier Who Spoke Out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/karen-kwiatkowski-the-sol_n_92237.html
The Anonymous postings she did at a military friend’s blog site while still employed at the Department of Defense are collected here:
Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon
http://www.hackworth.com/dt_archive.html
Her Wiki entry with additional references including to later Anonymous postings is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski
General(ret’d) Wesley Clark’s 2007 memoir A Time to Lead
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Lead-Duty-Honor-Country/dp/1403984743/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252966229&sr=1-1
Relevent(short and humorous) clip from his interview on Democracy Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dZQy4zBQo
The Democracy Now site with the full interview and the transcript:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid
NB from the transcript:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs”—meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office—“today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Salon article on the biography and the theory
“Seven countries in five years”: Wesley Clark’s new memoir casts more light on the Bush administration’s secret strategies for regime change in Iran and elsewhere. By Joe Conason
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/
January:06:2010 - 17:04
I’ve left comments open indefinitely. That will have to change when spammers figure it out to an excessive degree. Then comments will again have to go into a ‘window of opportunity’ mode for a while. Until then, comment away!
January:06:2010 - 17:13
I don’t consider Clark particularly well informed on much outside what benefits Wesley Clark. He seems to have a habit of remembering (or forgetting) those things which might darken his self-image. Kwiatkowski, while not self-serving, strikes me as being rather out there on the fringe of right-wing analysis, awfully close to those who use ‘neo-con’ to mean ‘Jew’.
I’m just not big on conspiracy theories. Having worked in the gov’t for a quarter century–and having contacts with spooky government people for twice that–I know that keeping secrets, especially juicy secrets is something that cannot be done. There are too many people with too many motives to keep really big things in the closet for long. On the other hand, there is great motivation (and compensation) for being the one who spills the beans, whether or not there are actual beans to be spilled.
January:06:2010 - 17:21
The idea that the invasion was about oil is only half true. What USA wanted was that the big oil reserves in Iraq wasn’t in the hand of an dictator. But the idea that USA wanted to take oil, is just old left wing rhetoric.To ‘steal’ oil in the old imperialistic way isn’t possible today.As the contracts made so far in Iraq shows, they have been awarded in complex bid auctions and has ended at a lot of different oil companies.
There was many problems in the Iraq after war scene; but the main problem was that neither the sunni nor the shia groups was ready be part of a democratic society ( the kurds had some years edge(?), but the two main groups pf kurds has been killing each other in years, before they chose to split power) . Surprising ? just look at Yugoslavia.
But it looks like that things are getting better in Iraq.
January:06:2010 - 17:33
John,
Wesley Clarke and Karen Kwiatkowski aside, The Project for the New American Century website was pretty open about what it wanted for Iraq. They had a copy of the Clinton letter up there for people to look at. And many of the signatories were members of the Bush administration.
January:06:2010 - 18:55
John–Hmmm. I haven’t found Clark that way, or else he is inept at it, but Joe Lieberman, oh yes. Kwiatkowski first drew my interest not because of the topic but because of the stress of a workplace scenario, and she showed classic features of both the stressor and her response. I do find both of them compelling in light of what actually did happen. They are not describing conspiracy theories in my view but a political agenda that was rather open, as Sandy says, and also part of the mainstream dialogue, eg about how Rumsfeld was running things.
NeilsC–hmmm as well. I don’t think I said that taking oil was the objective, since I see the objective more as preserving access through governments and contracts. I was probably insufficiently clear. You seem to share the Joe Biden view of a solution, that is when Obama lets him speak.
January:06:2010 - 19:06
We sure have a variety of opinions here, from right to left, religious to secular, with different nationalities, ages and even gender.
My opinion, as to #306 above:
1. The world is unjust. Injustice didn’t start 700 years ago with Europeans. It will be unjust tomorrow, next year and in 100000AD (assuming people are still around).
2. See above. Colonial system and exploitation of others is hardly new.
3. I have a problem with the words “illegal and illegitimate” regarding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would even disagree to the use of “immoral”. Now I could support the terms “stupid” and “counter-productive.” It seems that for some people attacking others is terrible, but it depends on who is doing it, right?
4. 9/11 was done by a bunch of young Muslims, mostly Saudis, planned by a bunch of old radicals that weren’t in a hurry to get their own virgins. You can argue the “why” but not the “who.”
5. Bush and Blair have their fair share of blame for innocent deaths, but why don’t you mention other people that attacked, killed, tortured, enslaved and raped? Is it that killing some innocents is fine for some people (quote: “they are of them”) but evil for others?
6. I agrees that oppression should be resisted.
7. Non-Muslims deserve to be free from oppression and discrimination, to enjoy life, liberty, freedom of speech and equality.
8. As if there were no Jews in Palestine prior to 1947, 1935, 1918, 1885, 680, 120 or 70AD. As if Arabs did not reject the two-state solution and attack Israel in 47-48. As if the Muslims have not made it clear that want every Jew in Israel dead or gone. They give the Jews no choice.
In #145 I made my feelings clear of to the “Muslim problem”. I don’t give much credence to the concept of “peaceful Muslims” (also #212 above).
Majed, according to you (#268 above) I want to banish every Muslim to some distant galaxy because of my “abhorrence and unveiled hatred” for Islam and Muslims. Not a bad idea but space travel is so expensive. I will settle for an open, frank and often brutal dialogue. Words, not bullets. I want Muslims to think and consider what they do. I want to expose them to skepticism, textual analysis, comparative logic, debate and even a little ridicule. In fact, since you have given me super powers, I would end all Muslims immigration to the West and then call Muslims of every position and status to a great debate on Islam, on TV, for week after week. I would ask them about the hate and violence in the Quran. I would ask them about they way they treat non-Muslims. I would ask them if they really believe that the sun sets in a muddy field or that mankind was created from a blood clot. I would ask them about why a so-called perfect book has better verses than others. I would certainly pull out a copy of the hadith and early histories of Islam and ask them about the raids, plunders, attack, torture, rape, wife-abuse and enslavement of men women and children. I would ask why they say “praise be upon him” after the name of the man that did those things. I would ask why they don’t have a problem when he makes himself a partner to Allah. I would ask about all those silly mistakes made in the Quran with regard to Jewish and Christian doctrines, and so on. I would be brutal.
Of course, on the other hand, I could just melt all of you with my x-ray eyes, or get a job working with Janet in homeland security checking baggage, but I prefer the debate idea.
Oby, (#305). I think understanding Muhammad and his relationship to Muslims, moderate or radical, is the key to Islam. I find the hadith very alarming / troubling, because Muslims will tell you their prophet was a good guy, and the texts says otherwise. When it comes to Muhammad, Muslims abandon all objectivity – their eyes glaze over and their voice becomes almost mechanical. It is almost as if their prophet is listening to them in the next room. Until I see an open debate about they evil things Muhammad did, I see no reason to trust a Muslims, any Muslim. That is the vice of experience speaking.
This is about the “Meaning of Minarets”. Well, the Minarets represent Islam and Muslim immigration and the consequences of the changes we see in the West. People look at these things and they don’t like what they see. They look at Muslims and they see a people that doesn’t respect them or their freedoms. They see a people that brings hate and intolerance with them, they same things they left behind in Islamic societies. Well, people in the West can vote. They will vote according to their feelings and understanding of the issues. It will get worse.
January:06:2010 - 19:26
Oby #311–sorry just saw this. I am saying that the Bush administration’s focus was elsewhere and they simply didn’t follow up on the Al Qaeda threat and the work done in that dossier during the Clinton administration. They were caught looking elsewhere. I don’t believe the conspiracy theories (I’m not fond of conspiracy theories in general) that say anyone in the US wanted 9/11 to happen. I just think it was a major blunder on the Bush Admin’s part combined with normal conditions that Al Qaeda took advantage of. I do believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission as well. It is hard to put such an event in such boring terms, but it really does read like new management coming in and disregarding the history of the company and the suggestions of the longterm employees.
RE: the perceptions of Muslim’s relations to Mohamed, I have given you the standard view. There are some that argue that certain groups follow the life of Mohamed as a guide to such an extent as to worship him or give him divine qualities. That is however directly against the first part of the 1st pillar of the Muslim faith: there is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is his messenger. ie there is one monotheistic God in Islam, and unlike in Christianity that God is not trinitarian/tripartite, God in 3 persons; the Prophet is a messenger not a Son of God, as Jesus is for Christians.
January:06:2010 - 19:39
A serious miscalculation on the part of the US Administration–and I shared it to a large extent
— was that Iraq would be better prepared to act democratically. The country had had decades of experience in some form of democratic politics. What was rudely discovered was that the semblance of democratic practice was utterly false, not just partially false as anticipated.
If for nothing else, Saddam deserves enormous credit for having bluffed so many people in so many countries on so many different issues.
January:06:2010 - 19:57
There certainly were groups and individuals who were active in promoting and supporting rather broad-ranging policy objectives in the Middle East. I don’t deny that at all. But as with my comment about being specific in comments about just which Saudis are being discussed, I think it important to not cast all conservatives, Republics, or Jews into a hat called ‘neo-con’. What didn’t get reported much was the infighting among those conservatives, those members of the Bush Administration. Those on the losing sides of arguments had a tendency to frame stories in ways in which they were the heroes trying against the odds to convince the benighted of their wrong choices. Once he was out of government service, Clark seemed to instantly gain about 100 IQ points, the wings of at least a seraphim, and the moral probity of God. I might be able to refrain from sneering at that, but I’m not so sure about my ability to constrain the gag reflex.
Personally, I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were both unsuited for their positions. Both were so tightly affixed to their positions that nothing short of death would have separated them. I didn’t have to retire to figure that out.
January:06:2010 - 21:03
John #326–are you referring to Richard Clarke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
I was referring to General Wesley Clark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
I did read Richard Clarke’s book AKA they should have listened to me AKA I apologize to the 9/11 families; and there was a lot of himself in it. However, some of what he said was corroborated by others and the 9/11 commission. The general assessment seems to me to have been that insufficient attention was paid by the new administration to the dangling al-Qaeda file, left by Clinton’s administration.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are both autocratic ideologues it seems to me, and ill suited for much except the narrowest of corporate tasks.
“Both were so tightly affixed to their positions that nothing short of death would have separated them.” Separated them from each other, or each one from their positions? Sorry if I am being obtuse.
January:06:2010 - 21:12
No, I meant Gen. Clark. Richard Clarke was mostly okay in what he wrote, IMO.
For Cheney and Rumsfeld, I meant married to their positions and philosophies. Those overlapped a bit, between the two men, but weren’t entirely congruent.
January:06:2010 - 23:16
Kactuz,
What happened? You seem to be in a bad mood. Cheer up, this world is not an ideal place to be in, but it’s not falling apart. Of course, you know there will always be people whose ideas you find disagreeable and they find you disagreeable, but we have to rise above all this.
Oby,
The issue is not whether Muhammad was worshipped or just followed as a model, but rather what kind of attitude people have about the life he led. Just as most aspects of all religions, Muhammad’s life is also open to multile perspectives. Devout Muslims genuinely think he was an ideal person and a repository of virtue. On the other hand, there are enough critics of Muhammad who have problems with his life and decisions.
It’s important to note here that same actions of his can be interpreted positively or negatively, depending upon the line of argument you want to take. It’s also important to know that many times decision about Islamic regulations are taken citing Muhammad’s actions as example and they influence thes positively or negatively depending upon whether the people concerned are orthodox or liberal.
This is a normal process of validating one’s own actions and plans by citing Muhammad’s example, regardless of what his actions may have implied in his own times and this is not something specific to Islam. It is true for all religions, including Indian religions as well.
January:06:2010 - 23:27
John,
This miscalculation on the part of the US is something that needs to be understood properly. The democratic world thinks of democracy as the best, if not the ideal form of government. On the other hand, Islamic societies don’t necessarily think of democracy as a valid form of government because they feel it is unislamic and an ideology of the West. The point is not whether it is unislamic or whether it’s an ideological design of the West, but that’s how it is perceived in Islamic societies where there is Muslim majority. Of course there are exceptions and they concede ground to democratic reforms when it suits them, but in general they are not very welcoming towards this concept. I feel even without corruption and mismanagement etc., there would have been problems in bringing democracy to Iraq.
January:06:2010 - 23:59
There definitely are Muslims who believe that democracy is heretical under Islam. These do not represent the majority of Muslims, thankfully.
And yes, there are those who are happy to apply certain aspects of democracy as long as it suits their own goals but are unwilling to extend those aspects to others. Hypocrisy? Venality? Exploitation? All of the above?
Iraq turned out to be more tribal than imagined. Tribal politics have little to do with democratic governance or with the value of civil societies. Rather, they depend on a strong leader telling others what to do. It was a very serious miscalculation on the part of the US government.
January:07:2010 - 05:30
yes, tribal governance has to do with following the powerful leader and not with notions of equal voices in the government. It also has to do with allegiance to the leader by the tribal groups. Since Islam emerged in a society of tribal groups, many aspects of tribal politics are ingrained in Islamic concept of governance, which makes it difficult for them to accept the concept of democracy unless they buy the idea of the need for reform.
I do feel the US foreign policy experts need to have an indepth knowledge about non-Western societies so that these mishaps don’t take place. There is a serious need to have much greater focus on non-western world in the US education system and especially in the training programme of US foreign policy experts.
January:07:2010 - 07:48
@ Daisy…
I think you have a really good point: many aspects of tribal politics are ingrained in Islamic concept of governance, which makes it difficult for them to accept the concept of democracy unless they buy the idea of the need for reform.
As far as US foreign policy experts having more training in Non Western societies…you may be right, but considering the Middle East seems to be a place the entire world’s eyes are on, it would be extremely foolhardy NOT to have knowledge of that. Let’s hope the US learned from it’s mistakes in Iraq.
January:07:2010 - 07:54
John…
“Iraq turned out to be more tribal than imagined. Tribal politics have little to do with democratic governance or with the value of civil societies. Rather, they depend on a strong leader telling others what to do. It was a very serious miscalculation on the part of the US government.”
Taking the above to be true..is there not ANYONE out there in Iraq that could act in that capacity that the US deems somewhat reasonable so that the people’s need for this type of governance is met? Iraq can be stabilized (albeit not in the way the US envisioned) and the troops can leave without fear that they are leaving a huge power vacuum behind?
January:07:2010 - 08:49
I’ll largely agree. The problem isn’t a shortage of experts in regional politics, though. It’s more a problem of top level officials who take the time to understand the ramifications of what their experts tell them. And then there’s the balancing of foreign interests against domestic interests. Harry Truman made that pretty clear when he (apocryphally) noted that there were more Jews in the US than Muslims and thus chose to recognize the state of Israel over objections from the experts. (It is noted that the experts of the time were pretty anti-semitic.)
January:07:2010 - 08:51
Frankly, no one I can think of. The deeper issue is that the society is at war with itself, whether or not their actually shooting bullets. There’s a developing sense of civil society, but it’s not there yet. The various groups are all busy trying to protect (and extend) what is theirs.
January:07:2010 - 15:58
John #328 thanks for clarifying on both accounts–I liked Richard Clarke’s main points, but found the tone a little difficult at times. Mostly I wish he had been listened to.
I obviously hold Wesley Clark in higher esteem than you do, but we can agree to disagree on that.
The style of a tribal leaders rule has more to do with how autocratic or participatory his governance is. There is certainly in Islam a tradition of consultation with wise elders, experts, the socially prominent, the people, and then the leader taking the final decision in collaboration with his advisers. Tribal doesn’t have to mean autocratic, although it might or does in some instances.
January:08:2010 - 12:14
My understanding of the place of Muhammad in Islam is correct. Guess what the most important thing in life is for a Muslim? Love Allah? Being good? Treating others with respect? Helping the poor? Being honest and pious? Doing the five pillars? Praying? Reading the Quran? No, no, no and no. Nope! According to the Grand Mulfi of Saudi Arabia (probably the highest spiritual authority in Islam, kind of like the Pope but different), it is to defend Muhammad from attacks by the “enemies of islam” on his character and actions. The fact is that Muslims only really care about Mohammad. The care more about their prophet then Allah, even. They say they love and respect Allah and ALL the prophets, but if you study their actions, only one person really matters.
Of course the fact that the “enemies of Islam” just point out what Mohammad did according to their own sources, or what is written in the Quran, or even what Muslims do in the name of Islam becomes a matter of slander. Lets not be honest, and like Alice in Wonderland, we must understand that words do not really mean what we think they mean, as least when applied to Islam. It is strange but a person can be accused of slander and be punished or even killed for simply reading the exact words of what is written in Islamic scriptures.
The Canadian scholar, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who visited the subcontinent and closely observed the Muslim society of India and Pakistan wrote is his book, Islam in Modern India (1947): “Muslims will allow attacks on Allah: there are atheists and atheistic publications and rationalistic societies, but to disparage Muhammad will provoke from even the most liberal sections of the community a fanaticism of blazing vehemence.”
Take the case of the “Muhammad cat” joke. A wise and hunky old man left left this comment about another cartoon: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/18/bangladesh-yet-another-muhammed-cartoon-controversy/
Quote: I wont say it was an innocent cartoon. Cartoonist is well aware of the current world, where islam is the victims. In the western world, ppl are deliberately hurting the Prophet (PUB) in the name of freedom of expression. They are intentionally doing this to prove muslim are intolerant.
Perhaps this reader needs to watch TV or read the newspapers again. Perhaps he should take note of the censorship and repression in Muslim societies reported here at Global Voices. Perhaps he can explain why he thinks “Western World ppl” are making Muslims do what they do.
Muslims are intolerant. Period. It is Muslims that do these things. They are the ones that are attacking and killing. When will Muslims stop blaming others for their problems? In Islam it is always somebody elses fault, never Islam.
About “what prophet, (PUB) means to a true muslim” is also a good topic for debate. I suggest that Muslims read their own traditions and see what their dear prophet really did. The traditions are very clear and it is not a nice story. Mohammad did not treat non-Muslims with “dignity and respect” except when it was convenient for him. The life of Islam’s prophet explains much of what we see in Islamic societies today.
Oh yes, about the cartoon. It is something called satire, aimed at the superficial religious attitudes among many Muslims. I doubt that Muslims can understand this simple message.
Also, Islamophobia is a stupid word. It is a term that Muslims love because it places the blame on others (again). It makes it easy for Muslims not to take a hard look at the hate and violence in their religion and the way Muslims treat others. Maybe, just maybe, who knows, quien sabe, what is called islamophhobia is a natual reaction to the hate and violence continually manisfest in Islam. This is the cycle: Muslims preach hate and do bombings. People in West condemn Islam and are suspicious of Muslims. Muslims cry ‘islamophobia’. Repeat cycle.
Jay kactuz
PS: The future will not be nice and I blame Islam. When Muslims start treating others with dignity and respecting the rights of non-Muslims then things will improve. Probably never
End of cartoon quote. Wait that wasn’t a wise old man, it was me!
Chiara. Don’t put much faith in the “one monotheistic god” in islam. 1. Allah and Muhammud make decisions together (“When Allah and the messenger decide a matter”). 2. They even share an identifty (“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision”). Note that Muhammad is acting with god, as god). 3. Muhammud is above sin (“Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: ‘You (Muhammud) may defer any (women/wives) one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside no sin is chargeable to you’. And of course 4. And there is the constant use of the plural pronoun ‘We’ by Allah in the Quran. So Allah is plural? Is this just the ancient mesopotanean ‘royal we’ (I + the state) used by kings since time immortal (“L’État c’est moi”) . Is it the influence of the Hebrew? (In the beginning, Elohim (god, plural form) created the heavens and the earth) or is it Allah and his junior partner. Of course, I could argue that Muhammad outranks Allah because when there are contradictory commands from Allah and his messenger, Muslims will always follow their prophet. Yeah I think I could score a few points in a debate.
What I am saying, again, is that Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. This is also the meaning of the vote on minarets. Muslims will take any criticism of their religion or their actions as criticism of Islam and use it to silence opposition and gain political advantage. Muslims have no concern about issues of morality and honesty. Those concepts are for others.
Look at the news this week. How many riots by Muslims? How many cars burnt? Unrest? Threats? Bombs? Murders?
The writing is on the wall and it is written in 10-foot blood-red letters. The future will not be nice.
Daisy, I am not in a %$#@& bad mood. It just that this world is a mess and not getting better. I see us (all of us) doing stupid evil things that will only cause pain, suffering and death. Some kind of collective madness has taken hold on all of us, male and female, Muslims and infidel, black and white, jew, arab and other, young and old. I have this terrible feeling that something will happen that will spark a global conflict in a few years (no I am not a 2012er).I see the common people being used. I see the good life I have lived ebbing away, being replaced by intolerance, violence and the iron heel of elite rule.
Daisy, This is for you:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/07/baba-guru-nanak-a-mercy-for-all/
January:08:2010 - 12:46
J Kactuz,
Those legends are not historical, they have been created to show the equality of all religions and the stress on good deeds rather than superiority of faith over actions etc. Guru Nanak, the first Guru of the Sikhs, lived in the 15th century. Babur, the first Mughal emperor defeated the Lodi ruler of Delhi in 1525 and laid down the foundations of the Mughal empire in India in 1526. Hence, Guru Nanak never met Babur.
Guru Nanak never travelled to Arabia or Iraq. But those legends about him are very famous because they teach the essence of spirituality. Guru Nanak never said he was starting a new religion ie, Sikhism. Rather, he was refoming the rigid practices of Hinduism. Thus, Sikhism evolved from within Hinduism, borrowing the essential spiritual aspects of Hinduism and leaving out the other practices. Later, it became a separate religion.
Concepts such as equality of all religions, existence of God in all places – in every grain in cosmos etc are essential parts of Hinduism which Sikhism borrowed. These legends should be read with an idea of learning their spiritual lessons and not as historical facts.
About “We” in Quran – I think it’s a problem of translation. In many Asian languages – including Indian ones – a person in an exalted position (such as a king or the head of a feudal family) refers to himself as “We”, not as “I.” This indicates the exalted position of the person. I think 7th century Arabic also followed the same practice. Indians are quite used to hearing this form of address.
However, I have a very different notion of the Quranic revelations through Muhammad, which I’d rather keep to myself.
But don’t get upset, we’ll manage this mess somehow.
January:08:2010 - 17:32
Daisy and JKactuz…
Time Out… I have a question now.
Daisy…is your explanation about the “we” vs “I” more about the pluralism of asian culture. ie: the group mentality vs. the individual mentality of western cultures? If not please explain.
Also, I wanted to ask you something off this blog…do you have a blog or address where I can contact you? If not that’s fine. It isn’t pressing and is not a big deal.
JKactuz…
I share some of your concerns…I am not sure I feel that they are so apocalyptic but never the less I do see our culture as well as others kind of slipping in a weird direction. For me at least I am not sure I can lay the whole thing at Islam’s feet. Might just be the way the world is trending. Be that as it may…
You are saying that the Prophet is held in higher esteem than Allah, correct? How, if you are a Muslim, is that possible without self incrimination and blaspheming yourself and therefore being open to all sorts of punishments?
Also, if that is the case, how can Muslims claim that Jesus can’t be the son of God because he was here in human form. What you have explained sounds awfully close to the Islamic version of the same story.
Anyone can answer if they feel like it. Thanks!
January:08:2010 - 18:11
Jay–you misread the quotes you give. The most obvious example is the one where you say Mohamed is godlike. He may have the backing of Allah, and Allah may say that he was chosen and is protected because of his probity but he does not decide “as god”. The quote itself states His Messenger, ie delegate ie communicator, ie not Allah. The other quotes and explanations you give suffer from similar slippage.
Oby–Jay is not a Muslim, and therefore impunes Islam with impunity, at least from apostasy. While knowledgeable he openly admits his biases and suffers from the kind of intellectual sliding to make his points that I gave one example of above.
In many languages to show honour and respect the “We” or plural form, and sometimes the 3rd person is used. This is true for the royal “we” in English, the vosotros of hispano america, the Usted of Iberian Spanish, and the Italian use of increasing degrees of formality. What is important in Islamic faith in this regard is the 1st pillar of faith, which is also the Islamic creed, or shahada, and it makes a point of emphasizing that Allah is one, indivisible, and that Mohamed is his prophet, not his son.
The post I did on Christmas that quoted the Surah on Maryam and Isa (Mary and Jesus) addressed some of this:
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/cross-cultural-christmases-saudi-arab_26.html
BTW let me know if you are able to get your comments through now. You can contact me at chiaraazlinquestion AT yahoo.com and some have sent me their comment for me to post under their name when they have had a problem in the past.
January:08:2010 - 18:45
#338
JKactuz I do think you generalize a little to much, when you write
‘Muslims have no concern about issues of morality and honesty’
But one of the problems is that a lot of muslims simply think ( and are learned to think) that their religion is the one and only.
- And as secular protestant I know it is not true. One thing that bothers me is the characterization of us as ‘infidels’.
We used to call muslims infidels in our school books 70 years ago, but we got beyond that.
January:08:2010 - 19:39
Chaira…Thanks for your explanation…once you put it into spanish I understood the meaning. We don’t really have the different forms of “you” in English depending on if you are speaking to a child, boss, parent, peer etc. Got it.Thank you
I am sorry for the confusion about my comment. I know Jay is not a Muslim. My statement should have read:
You are saying that the Prophet is held in higher esteem than Allah, correct? How, if one is a Muslim, is that possible without self incrimination and blaspheming themselves and therefore being open to all sorts of punishments?
It was poor choice of words on my part-sorry. I was trying to ask if Mohammed was at level with Allah or higher how is that possible and not be blasphemous… but I think you answered that. Thank you again.
The third part was linked in supposition to the previous statement. That being, if Mohammed is equivalent to God in importance, yet he was here on Earth as flesh, how would that be any different than Jesus being here on Earth in flesh and being considered God or His equivalent? I was saying it sounded like the same scenario with Islamic characters. But you explained that as well. Once more, thank you.
January:08:2010 - 19:54
Oby–you are welcome. I’m glad the Spanish examples helped. They are probably closest to Arabic anyway as the Iberian custom was formulated from the Arab/Muslim influence during 7 centuries of Islamic Spain or Al-Andalus. Usted in Arabic is master or teacher, and a sign of respect, as well.
You seem to understand Islam better than you understand Jay, which is perhaps a reflection on Jay’s understanding (as opposed to knowledge) of Islam. LOL
January:08:2010 - 20:25
@NielsC…
The infidel thing does bother me as well as the thought process that their religion is the only religion. It doesn’t bother me so much because I feel insulted or “wronged” somehow. I figure everyone has their own religion and they will follow theirs and think that theirs is the “right” one (at least for them). Everyone has different opinions and that is fine…as long as we agree to disagree with respect and make room for others to believe in their religion.
What bothers me about the infidel thought process is that it automatically places us in the “other” category which puts up a mental barrier to openness and communication on the part of Muslims. I had an experience today that left me mulling something over in my head. My daughter was unexpectedly off from school due to a “snow day”. We decided to go to a movie “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs”. We entered the movie after it had started so it was dark and I picked a seat about halfway down. As we settled in and our eyes adjusted I realized purely by chance I had sat behind a Muslim woman and her two young kids. As the movie progressed it was obvious that they were all enjoying it. During one scene they talked about bacon and a character stuffed himself with bacon. I admit I watched her reaction wondering if she would find it offensive. On the contrary, she and the kids laughed. I smiled at that. It was great that they could roll with it. At the end of the movie, the lights came on and everyone was leaving. I smiled at her and said looking at the kids, “they’re so cute.” She made eye contact and then looked away without a response. OK maybe she didn’t speak English…no biggie. In the lobby, I sat waiting for my daughter who was in the ladies room. The woman and kids walked right by me and she was speaking to them in English with an American accent. What the heck? So she wasn’t foreign and certainly understood what I had said. I didn’t feel insulted as much as bewildered. Here is a woman with kids who enjoyed the same movie that I did with my child. I sat there pondering the whole thing. And the Infidel thought came into my head and I actually felt a little sad. Here we had an enjoyable experience in common, certainly laughed at the same spots in the movie so shared a sense of humor and yet she couldn’t say hello or even return my smile as a simple act of courtesy even when I gave her a compliment about her kids(who were genuinely cute).
And then sitting there on that bench I had another thought. If Muslims would lighten up about the infidel thing and stop worrying so much about being “tainted” by us non Muslims, we might actually get to know them well enough that they might be able to share something of their world with us. As it is they are so busy holding us at arms length we can’t get to know them.
January:08:2010 - 22:32
Oby,
Islam reached Spain later – in 8th century, Quran came earlier and the usage of “We” was already there in Quran. Structurally, Spanish is not close to Arabic, which is a Semitic language and has very different rules. Spanish is a Romance language in the Indo-European family and has Latin as its base. Since the usage of exalted “We” is there in other European languages as well e.g. in English and Italian, I think this is a shared tradition of the people who spoke languages in the Indo-European family – in South and Central Asia, Persian Peninsula and Europe. The Arab Peninsula did have trade (and therefore cultural) contacts with South and Central Asia as well as with Europe even before the emergence of Islam, so this tradition may have penetrated into the Arab Peninsula through this cultural contact, since Arabic is not a part of the Indo-European family of languages.
Since Latin, Persian and Sanskrit are old Indo-European languages, knowing any of these three helps in learning a lot of Indo-European languages. Because of this, Indians find it quite easy to learn languages like Spanish and German. Yes, structurally, Persian is close to Sanskrit, not to Arabic. I was learning Persian for a while and discovered how easy it was for me to pick up Persian once I understood the script, because I know Sanskrit and have an Urdu vocabulary, which helps too.
Jay will of course respond to you, but I think what he meant was that if there is a controversy about any issue, Muslims tend to go by what the tradition says about the life of Muhammad. They tend to consider how Muhammad resolved a similar issue or what he said about a particular aspect and use that as a guidance for themselves. I have seen this happening myself – more often than not, rather than opening the Quran, they mention what Muhammad’s life illustrates regarding a particular issue. But I wouldn’t go as far as Jay to say this means they keep Muhammad alongside Allah. But of course he will say what exactly he meant. At least this is the way I understood his comment.
I do have a blog, though I don’t think it’s quite “intelligent” and I write here more often than on my own blog. But it would be my pleasure to invite you to my blog and give you my email address as well. No problems about that, only I don’t want either of us to leave our contacts in this public space. So I’ll request John to send you my email address as well as my blog address to your email, since he has everyone’s email addresses.
January:08:2010 - 23:12
Done.
It’s pure serendipity, but a Christmas gift I received this year was Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English.
One of the arguments in the book was about the lack in English grammar of a different second person plural. Of all Germanic languages–and of nearly all other languages–English simply uses ‘you’ for both singular and plural. The only other language family that does this is Celtic and the Celts were the population of the British Isles before the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded. According to the author, the Celts left other traces in English grammar, including the “meaningless ‘do’”, a word that appears in various forms in almost every sentence of English.
The book also discusses how the Vikings were responsible for the massive simplification of grammatical constructs like the suffixes used for case endings, something which is also marked in English. Finally, he suggests that a proto-Semitic language massively affected proto-German languages, much earlier in history.
All in all, the book is amazingly germane to this topic. It’s also a lot of fun to read, though the arguments get a touch repetitive.
January:08:2010 - 23:35
John,
Thanks for this help. Please check your mail.
That’s a very infomative history of English language.
Talking of exalted “We,” in Maithili, an Eastern Indian language, there is only “We” and no “I”! Maithili speakers ARE quite narcissistic of their culture. Maithili does have a wide range of “you” in both 2nd and 3rd persons, depending upon the equations that exist between the person being addressed and the person speaking – for an extremely respected person, “you” is in 3rd person, not in 2nd person.
January:09:2010 - 01:02
It is natural that we have different opinions. I, for one, would not want everybody to think like me. I wouldn’t get mad if more were to share my views, but such is life. I am probably the most “extreme” among the X-roaders (or maybe Crossers, or what ever John calls the people that like his work and blog), at least with regard to certain subjects, but even so I am just moderate-extreme, not extreme-extreme (that sounds so silly!). It is no consolation to me but I think more and more people in the West are moving my way.
Daisy – Point taken, but I still think that a god and religion that boasts of “uncompromising monotheism” would avoid using the plural form for the deity.
Also, I just pulled Nanak from HP because I thought it was right up your line. No research done. I didn’t know you would disown the poor guy or put him in the same category as the Easter Bunny. Poor Nanak.
Oby. Yes, I would say that Mohammed is held in higher esteem than Allah by most Muslims. Maybe because Allah, as revealed in the Quran, is so impersonal. He, too, seems only to care about his prophet: ie, all those little exceptions included in the Quran just for Mohammud. It is kind of suspicious. Don’t take my word for it. I quote Aisha: “It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.” I can almost hear a sneer in that sentence, said to Mohammud by his child bride after he announced another special privilege for the messenger of Allah, whispered in his ear the night before by Gabriel himself.
Of course Muslims don’t see it that way. They well tell you that Allah is god and Mohammud was just a man, a very special one. My observation is based upon Muslim reaction to criticism of Allah, Islam and Mohammud. As in the quote above about “Islam in India”, nothing makes a Muslim mad like a few unkind words about their prophet. Note that the stir caused by the Danish cartoons was a reaction to the depiction of Mohammad as a terrorist, not of Allah or Islam.
Chiara, I don’t see the slippage. There may be a little ice on the ground along the path but for the most part it is firm, stable ground. Prose like Quran 33:36 (It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Apostle to have any option about their decision) clearly points to a more-than-mere-man Mohammud. This whole idea that Allah has no partner, as in Quran 17:111 (Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in His dominion”) is refuted easily by 8:41 (…if you gain any spoils in war, one-fifth shall go to God and the messenger). If they split the loot, they are partners in my book. Perhaps it is that you see nuances (1 million shades of all colors) while I am a black and white kind of guy. The trouble with fine distinction is that sometimes you have to overlook the obvious to see them.
Your “cross-cultural Christmas” post is well done and very much Chiara: smooth, sweet, accommodating, factual – you can almost see people singing kumbayah and holding hands in the background – that attitude that is good sometimes but not proper when human rights and freedoms are an issue. You write as if the Quran is the final word on all things Christian. And of course, anybody that takes one section of the Quran as divine truth must take it all. I think that is logical. Anyway, that is my understanding (as opposed to knowledge).
I really don’t care much about quranic theology. I often will argue it just because being the devils advocate gives me a certain evil delight. I do care about what Muslims do today and what will happen in a few years if things don’t change.
Neil, yes I generalize too much. Much too much and I stereotype, too. I have committed every political correct sin in the book. I also have a tendency to look for facts and incidents that support my position, but, thank goodness, I am the only one in the world that does this.
What bothers me is the fact that Muslims will ignore anything they do or any aspect of Islam that doesn’t meet their criteria of what they think Islam should be. To me, that is dishonesty. Here is an example:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/3489
It is a story about Prophet Muhammad’s promise to Christians, or how Muslims should protect and respect Christians in their lands. It is a timely story, certainly with good intentions, but there is one small problem. It is incomplete and distorted. Never once does he mention the vile things said about Christians in the Quran and hadith. He also forgets to mention, as every school boy in Arabia knows, that Muhammad expelled all Christians and Jews from their lands before his death. Muhammad broke his own promise. Duhhhh. It doesn’t fit his narrative so out it goes.
Being an infidel bothers me not at all. I love it. It frees me to point out the follies of others.
Got to go.
And to you all, Bryn Terfel singing Danny Boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-4V3OMVKaI
January:09:2010 - 01:27
Oh no! I forgot!
Elvis would have been 75 years old today!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ben0Hev4TzM&feature=related
January:09:2010 - 03:22
J Kactuz,
I do revere Guru Nanak very much – I have not disowned him. Was just placing that material in proper context. A lot of internet material is not located in proper context and hence, leads to misunderstanding. So, it is necessary to do this exercise.
You are right that all Muslims will become angry if words are spoken against Muhammad. But please consider that Islam is the youngest of the three Abrahamic religions, hence it is in a different stage of evolution as compared to other religions. It has not yet attained the serenity of more ancient religions.
If you come to think of it, Judaism started off as being offended by the then pagan polytheism it encountered and opposed. But Judaism also became in history the most cruelly persecuted religion as no religion should ever be persecuted and today, does not oppose different kinds of religiosities in the world. Christianity used to get offended by other religiosities a few hundred years ago, but it has passed through that stage and has become accepting of other religiosities now. Islam is now going through the stage that Christianity has already gone through. It will take another few centuries before this changes comes, but we will not be around then to see this change.
I know that in principle, Islam does not endorse other religions as valid and wants to impose itself on the entire world, whether the world likes it or not. But if we do come across Muslims who want to project islam as a peaceful religion and who genuinely want to live in a harmonious existence with others, I think we should treat such Muslims as our best resource – by accepting them honestly as the way we – ie, the non-Muslim world – would like to have Islam amongst us, we have a better chance of sending the message to the less tolerant and extremist Muslims that their ways are not acceptable to us; these Muslims, who want to accept other religions as valid, are the type the world wants to engage with. Such Muslims may be in a minority, but they are the best hope of Islam.
And by other religions, I mean ALL other religions, not only the other two Abrahamic monotheisms. Whether someone practices image-worship or polytheism or witchcraft or aboriginal dance in Africa, or includes a son or daughter with god it should not be the business of Islam to tell them how they should worship or what kind of god or goddess they should have or whether they are going to heaven or hell because of their beliefs.
Such Muslims exist in this world who accept other religiosities to this extent, I know them and I have cited examples above. I do feel that there is a need to emphatically stress that this is the kind of Islam that is acceptable to the world that endorses all other forms of religions as valid.
I understand your sentiments and outrage. But criticising Muhammad or their other practices are going to be counter-productive in my opinion. You are right that these are troubled times. And it has to be handled delicately.
PS – How about road-crossers?
January:09:2010 - 04:32
This means that practice of all beliefs – including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, different sects of Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Aboriginal religions of the world, Wiccan, and even atheism should be allowed in Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia. It means that dress code and behaviour codes of Islam should not be imposed on people from other countries. It means that festivals of all religions – whether monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic or whatever, should be allowed to be celebrated openly in the Islamic countries in the public space and not in the enclosed “free prisons.” It means all religious books, whether preaching monotheism, polytheism, animistic or whatever and all books preaching atheism should be allowed in Islamic countries. It means that music, song and dance related to any group of people should not be banned. This means that outdated inhuman punishments like lashings, stoning and amputating limbs should not be delivered in Islamic countries.
It means that schools in Islamic countries should not teach that Islam is the only true religion and it’s the duty of every Muslim to spread Islam to the world. It means these schools should teach that all religions are equally respectable and valid.
All this is regardless of what the Quran or Hadith says or does not say.
There are Muslims in my country who honestly accept all this. Whatever may or may not have happened in history, but today we have Muslims in India who accept all this. And this is the only kind of Islam that can be accepted by the non-Muslim world. Not the version that is practised in the Islamic countries. There can be no concession on all this.
The question is – are the Islamic countries willing to change along these lines?
If not, then there is going to be terrorism in the world and there are going to be Swiss bans on minarets.
With all its resources, the US doesn’t have the power to eradicate terrorism if all this is not acceptable to the Islamic countries.
And Obama is not helping matters by signing on religious hatred speech resolutions of the Islamic countries. A US President is supposed to act more responsibly than this.
And the US is not helping matters by refraining to critique Saudi Arabia where a criticism is justified. If every country in the world can be criticised and brought to book, why not Saudi Arabia? That’s not fair to the world.
January:09:2010 - 05:45
Daisy–you seem to have missed the linguistic point. Arabic arrived in Spain primarily after the Islamic conquest but the Usted, and the we form in Arabic were brought with them to impact on the Vulgar Latin ie local Latin then in use, and which became Spanish. Modern Spanish is a combination of early Castilian and Arabic. The main influence of Arabic is in vocabulary, and it is extensive. The other most obvious ones are in pronunciation of a hard “h” and in the Andalusian dialects. 7 centuries gave a lot of time to impact the language, as anyone fluent in Spanish and one other Romance language rapidly realizes. The Moors didn’t all disappear, the Mozarabe (converted Arabs) continued to have a major impact culturally including on literary forms.
Interesting set of propositions you have for Islamic countries. I found the following article very interesting. Apparently, according to well conducted research by a US think tank, on religious tolerance in a number of countries, in India legal tolerance of religious diversity is good, but social tolerance very poor, which is perhaps why Indian Muslims tell you what they do:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/On-religious-discrimination-India-next-only-to-Iraq-US-thinktank/articleshow/5363193.cms
Strikingly Saudi has the opposite pattern.
John–interesting book. The PBS series on The Story of English is also good. As someone who was formerly fluent in Anglo-Saxon (the language of the original of Beowulf) I regret the passing of the 2nd form of the 1st person plural “wit” ie “we two” which is so poorly represented by “we” originally “we 3 and more”.
Jay–you don’t see the slippage because you were able to repeat the same example and do it again. The Mohamed is a man above men, and follows Allah’s message the best, doesn’t make him a God.
I did not make the Quran the last word on all things Christian but did cite Maryam knowing that most Muslims have more knowledge of Christianity than Christians do of Islam. Read Part III it has all the Christianity (Western more than Eastern) one might crave:
Regarding my post, thank you–I think! LOL
Cross Cultural Christmases: Saudi, Muslim, Arab, and Non–Part III The Christianity in Christmas
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/cross-cultural-christmases-saudi-muslim.html
January:09:2010 - 06:30
Chiara,
Thanks for the linguistic information.
About your link about religious intolerance –
1) It says India is placed above Saudi Arabia and China in intolerance, but it does not explain how.
2) I can understand very well why a US think tank will place India above China and Saudi Arabia in religious intolerance. It goes in line with what I have been arguing about the US policy in different parts of the world. It is a job of the US think tanks to produce such reports.
3)Even if this report is correct, please note that I didn’t argue all Muslims or all Hindus in India are of a particular category. I know they aren’t. Please read my first comment to J Kactuz again – I said “even if these Muslims are in a minority…”
I am not arguing in these two comments that everything is rosy in India. What I am arguing is that there are at least some Muslims in the world – in different countries (I have just given the example from India) who accept this kind of diverse religiosity as valid. And in order to have a tolerant atmosphere, it is these Muslims who are valuable to the non-Muslim world.
4) It is true that it is possible for the non-Muslim population of India to live with the Muslims only because a number of these Muslims accept the non-Islamic religiosities as valid. If they didn’t accept this, it would have been impossible for India to function.
5) I’m not arguing the Muslims in the Islamic societies should begin to follow these practices. All I’m saying they should not impose their view on others. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
January:09:2010 - 09:17
I’m a practising Indian Muslim and have received Islamic religious education from Deoband school in India.
The attempt to portray Indian Muslims as intolerant is wrong. There have been Indian Muslim scholars who have written a lot about the the way people of Indian religions in India should be treated by the Indian Muslims.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who had received Islamic religious education and went on to become the Minister of Education in Independent India from 1947 to 1958, wrote a commentary on the Sura Fateha of the Quran in which he elaborated the idea that all religions of the world are equally valid (including Indian religions) and the faithful of all religions are entitled to a life in heaven. This concept has been followed by the majority of Indian Muslims, who respect the religious practices of Indian religions including image worship in temples.
Despite having received got an orthodox religious education, I myself have often frequented Hindu temples with my Hindu friends. I don’t pray to the idol there but I have no problem in standing with my friends during Hindu worship rituals.
We also celebrate the Hindu festivals with our Hindu friends, which is a common practice in India. It is very wrong to think that we are intolerant of Indian religions.
January:09:2010 - 09:18
J. Kactuz: Consider the use of the plural in Biblical phrases such as ‘Let us make man in our image’ (Gen. 1:26) or ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us’ (Gen. 3:22) or ‘Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language’ (Gen. 11:7). (See here). I also recall seeing version of the 1st Commandment translated as ‘Thou shalt not have strange gods before Us’ though I can’t find a cite. These are all Old Testament, i.e. pre-trinitarian, but I suppose there’s a possibility that later (i.e., Christian) belief may have informed later translations.
Restrict your complaints to ‘some’ Muslims and I can generally agree with your arguments. By casting your net to include all Muslims purporting to share these beliefs, though, and you catch too much. The attitudes you find disturbing are certainly to be found within various Islamic movements, mostly the heavily politicized ones, IMO, but they don’t accord with the way most Muslims just want to get on with the business of daily life.
I do agree that many Muslims seem to approach the idea of deep textual analysis of the Quran and ahadith with great trepidation, even fear. That’s not a helpful attitude, nor a healthy one, IMO again.
January:09:2010 - 09:21
Again, my comment is not to denigrate the Deobandi school, but to point out that there are Muslims who came from that school and split with it to form intolerant and often violent groups (the Taleban, for instance) while insisting that they were among the Deobandi movement.
Like terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam, the ‘Deobandi’ groups may well be misappropriating a term for credibility purposes…
January:09:2010 - 09:36
You’re welcome to your opinions, of course, but I’ll have to be the heretic here… Elvis and his music never moved me, not in the least.
January:09:2010 - 09:41
MS,
Thanks for that comment.
From a person who has receivd an orthodox religious education, I don’t see what more evidence of tolerance is required.
I would like to add another example –
Bismillah Khan was a highly respected classical musician of India, who was honoured with prestigious State awards. His family has traditionally played the morning ritual music in the famous Shiva temple in Varanasi. This music is played in the morning in the temple to “wake up the god.” Generations of people in Bismillah Khan’s family have performed this service in this major temple in one of the most sacred Hindu cities of India.
I am not saying that there is no variation in the Indian Muslim community or that every Muslim in the world should become like this. What I am trying to argue is that these kinds of Muslims are extremely vauable for the non-Muslim world. They must be acknowledged and respected and if the Islamic countries can’t reach this level, they can at least allow the practices of other religions as valid.
I have defined the term “all religions” above, which in my dictionary goes far beyond the scope of only Abrahamic religions.
January:09:2010 - 09:50
John,
Earlier, I had conceded to your argument about Deoband and I stand by you. So far I had only thought of Indian Deoband as an orthodox school but it appears even Indian Deoband’s orthodoxy has variations! It’s interesting to see examples that don’t conform to the conclusions generally drawn, isn’t it?
I do feel the US think-tank’s link that was posted for me above is greatly flawed. I hope the US is not taking it seriously.
I have sent contacts for Oby in your mail. Please check your email.
January:09:2010 - 09:59
I’ve passed Oby your e-mail address.
January:09:2010 - 10:02
Thanks
January:09:2010 - 16:22
Daisy–The Pew Research Center is an independent think tank or “fact tank” (because of the type of research it does) funded by a private endowment, and highly transparent about whom its researchers are, its methods, and its results. It is independent of the advocacy arm of the Pew endowments which is the Pew Trust. It is well respected by both sides of the political spectrum in the US, and its methodology in this study included only fact-based reports from a variety of sources all of which are listed in the methodology of the full report and the summary reports online.
The Executive Summary is here and contains links to the methodology, the summary of results, and the full report
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1443/global-restrictions-on-religion
The Times of India article is a good popular summary of the results, and is very clear that India scores high on governmental restriction of religion, but particularly high on social hostility, ie among the people, intolerance for one another, which was measured in the study by incident reports from a variety of respected sources.
MENA (including Saudi) fairs badly in the report, as does China. China scores better though on the social hostility index and loses points on government restriction.
Since the Pew Research Center is not a government or party sponsored think tank they have no reason to make India look bad. Indeed even the government wants India, home of cheap manufacturing and IT support, to look good as the “world’s largest democracy”, and alternate source to China. Other think tanks are obvious by their funding, staff, and affiliations as to their party affiliation, and don’t make any secret of it. Politicians (temporarily) out of office ally with the appropriate one,and the appropriate one has the correct political and economic as well as ideological associations. That is not the case here.
You doth protest too much, it seems, about the singularity of Indian Muslims or at least some of them. In fact the non-Muslim AND the Muslim world benefit from the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are neither extremely conservative nor violent extremists. Some of us have had a lot of exposure to those types of Muslims no matter where they are from, and when they are free of government restrictions. Alas some, including Indian Muslims, are wedded to cultural practices which are just plain lamentable. However these seem to be influenced by pre-Islamic cultural practices as is the case of female genital cutting, and by other religions, as is the Indian Muslim fluidity re: the bride providing a dowry, etc.
It does seem as if this mega-thread has moved far southeast of the concerns about the Swiss vote, and what it says about the fate of Muslims in Europe, notions like Eurabia, the concept of a European Islam a la Tareq Ramadan, the composition of the Muslim population of Switzerland (Albanian, Turkish, Bosnian, a few others) and the political implications of European Muslims in our midst (I hold an EU passport), let alone the attempt by the rising Right to keep Turkey out of the EU.
For all that I favour lateral thinking, arguments by analogy (as long as the analogy fits and is accurate), and comparative everything, it would be nice to have more of a dialogue here on this thread about European Islam or Islamophobia, and where it fits in the theme of this blog, without spending inordinate amounts of time on Indo-centric perspectives, perhaps best saved for further exploration on a post John might do on “Saudi-India Relations”; or, if you wish to make your own blog more public to those with whom you wish to have a dialogue, you might continue the discussion there. If you prefer, I promise not to read or comment should you make your blog known here.
John–perhaps the topic of European Islam and Saudi bears separate posts as they come to your attention; and perhaps Saudi-India themed ones do as well. Not sure how you will get the American content in those, but then you are an American Diplomat/diplomat, and it’s your blog! LOL
January:09:2010 - 17:20
To my fellow bloggers, I am sorry for the length of this. I debated about even putting it up but I had said I was going to leave a reply to Majed and I felt since I said I would I should honor that. It is slightly old as the conversation has changed rapidly so please just by pass it if you are over it. Just a head’s up.
Majed…
Thank you for making such a big effort to highlight some of the problems from the other side of the fence so to speak. It is obvious that you have thought the situation through and done a very good job of bringing your points to the forefront. I think that you are right that the violence did not arise in a vacuum and certainly outside influences have played a part.
I am a bit confused about something, however. You brought Mr. Khaled Abou El Fadl to our attention and said that you were relieved to read what he said. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that meant by inference that you felt what he said might be at least part of the problem (certainly not all). Now you seem to be discrediting the source that you gave us to read saying that his opinion is suspect due to the fact that he is on the US government payroll. To my mind just because he is on the US payroll does NOT nullify any of his expertise or his knowledge of Islam. Do you think it not possible to have a moderate voice? I am wondering why he was a good source to quote and now you feel he is not. I do understand the idea of people needing to understand that there are two sides (at least!) to every story. Personally, when reading his summary, I did NOT get the idea that he was blaming all of it on Muslims. I understood it to mean that since Islamic theology and jurisprudence was his area of expertise, he had decided to carve out this piece of the problem and examine it in detail. I did not take it to mean it was the ONLY cause. If I failed to make that clear in my comments I do apologize. And I also apologize for making a premature conclusion that “we know what the problem is” in my previous statement. I knew better and I should have been clearer in my conclusion.
The link you provided about Hempher was not the only opinion on the subject. I went looking to actually find supporting information and, in fact, I could find a lot of people in the opposite camp that feel it is a myth. I might add that these opinions came from Islamic websites…Muslims pointing out the discrepancies in the text. Besides that, I was surprised that you linked to a website that purported to talk about the complete destruction of Islam. That is a little too “conspiracy theory” for me. I have yet to hear of a convincing argument why on earth we would want to completely wipe out Islam and I was pretty clear that is not what I thought.
As for Al Qaeda, I tend to agree with you. They were helped by the US who then walked away when the campaign was over. I don’t know all the details of that, but in theory I understand your point and it was wrong. They should have helped them in some way I think…perhaps John can shed more light on that.
You are very, very right when you say hunger can turn a saint into a pimp and a nun into a prostitute. No question when people are in desperate situations they do things that they never thought they would.
I am in agreement about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq…stupid wars that should not have happened in the first place and have killed far too many people on both sides.
9/11 was not an inside job, rather done by Muslim men mostly of Saudi nationality. There have been copious studies on that done and even the Saudis themselves know it was Saudis.
“Bush and Blair are neck deep in the blood of innocent Muslims and non-Muslims”. Absolutely agreed!
“Aggression and oppression should be resisted”. Absolutely agreed…but it cuts both ways which is why we are now in the middle of this messy situation we all find ourselves in. Terrorists struck on 9/11 and they got back the aggression they gave. Having said that, I believe this long protracted campaign on the part of the US has gone on too long and I would be the first to vote to get them out of there. BUT, the flip side of that is I don’t want to leave Iraq until it is stabilized and we are able to help them rebuild some of their infrastructure. I worry that lots of innocent Iraqis will suffer even worse if the situation is not stabilized. I think that is the very least we can do for them. However, that would require the terrorists not blow things up as soon as they are built. In this situation I think the Americans are in a tough spot.(albeit of their own making) If they leave Iraq and don’t help clean it up they are horrible people who did nothing to try to help the Iraqis rebuild…if they stay and try to help the Iraqis rebuild and stabilize the country they are considered invaders and attacked and what they do accomplish is quickly demolished by terrorists in retaliation. Kind of a no win situation. Chiara has cited a few websites that I am still going through and has opened my eyes to another facet of the issue.
“Muslims deserve the right to self-determination and self-rule and should struggle to live by Islam, free from colonial interference”. Agreed! I need to add the proviso I am assuming that you mean in Muslim countries, correct? Obviously, if you opt to move to the West, you must live by whatever laws the country you adopt enforces.
“Regardless of any solution to the Muslim-Israel problem, it is an illegitimate, racist state created and sustained with the help of terrorism and racism”. This final statement is the one that I had to think on the most. Firstly, I think your comment points out that depending which side of the fence you are on, aggression can be labeled freedom fighting or terrorism. To me that statement alone says that no matter who you are, Muslim or non Muslim if people behave aggressively toward you one will likely feel it as terrorism and it’s inherently a win/lose situation either one way or the other. Certainly not the stuff of which mutual tolerance and understanding is made.
I realize that the entire Muslim world feels this way about Israel. I had a Palestinian friend whom I’ve lost touch with over the years. He and I used to talk about this situation. He told me the story about the Israelis/Palestinians from his family’s perspective. According to him, the Palestinians were approached by the British and it was explained to them that the Jews needed a place to go. They were given assurances that it would be a peaceful transition and I think he told me that the Palestinians were to be compensated for whatever land they gave up to the Jews. He told me his uncle was OK with the idea because after all, Jews had lived in that area for a millennia and they were always neighbors, so why not. The problem arose, according to my friend, when the Israeli’s took not just the portion of land his uncle had offered but all of it including his house and tossed him out. That is when things got ugly. Is this true? I have no idea. I can only tell you the way he told it to me.
The point is that the way the story is told nowadays the British dumped the Israelis on the Palestinians and they had absolutely no say so. But that is not what a Palestinian told me. If his story is true then at one point the Jews and Palestinians had seen some common ground for coexistence or at a minimum the Palestinians did. If it was possible at one point it should be possible again. The Palestinians deserve a homeland and I think it should be right where it is. The thing is, Israel is not going anywhere and I think Muslims have to come to understand that. I am not a big fan of Israel necessarily and I have always been rooting for the Palestinians to get a fair shake, but Israel is a well established country and I think the Palestinians could do the same thing if they put their energies into creating a beautiful country the way they want it to be instead of focusing on destroying Israel. In fact, it seems to me that at least one time, from what I have read, the Palestinians were offered a particularly sweet deal which I thought was fairer to the Palestinians than the Israelis and because it wasn’t 100% what the Palestinian leadership wanted they rejected it outright. Another thing that has always made me wonder is… if the Arab countries are so worried about the Palestinian plight why have none of them except Jordan and perhaps Lebanon (not sure about that) taken any of the refugees in? Why do they let them languish there? Makes me wonder if it isn’t a way of keeping everyone’s eyes in the Muslim world focused on the unjustness of the Palestinians and gives them something to be united against while the corrupt leaders of these countries continue to hold onto their power and rob people of basic human rights vis a vis the very strict brand of Islam that they enforce. With this form of Islam people can’t/won’t speak out because of the draconian laws and when they feel frustrated at least they have Palestine to gripe about instead of focusing their attention back on their own governments and asking questions. I find it hard to believe that Israel is TOTALLY at fault.
Recently I saw a program about Christian Palestinians in Palestine (which by the way are completely lost in the fray and have NO ONE to speak for them). They are getting squeezed out of their homeland by the Muslim terrorists (and no, MOST Muslims there are not terrorists, I know) on one side and the Israelis who are building huge walls to protect themselves on the other. Their businesses are failing due to the walls and checkpoints and yet they are trying to carry on. Within this show they showed two men. One was a Jew living in Israel and one a Muslim Palestinian living there. The Jew had a daughter killed by a Muslim Palestinian terrorist…the Muslim had a son killed by a Jewish Israeli soldier. Both were in deep grief. Both met at a grief counseling center run by Israel. The men met there, exchanged stories and embraced and each broke down in their respective sorrow. They continued to go to the center and became friends. The show interviewed each man separately asking them what they think about the situation and what should be done. BOTH men in essence said that the fighting should be stopped, Israel and Palestine should have countries side by side and they should live as brothers. They also said that most of the people on their respective sides feel that way too and most would be willing to make concessions to make it happen.
My question is: has anyone actually asked the people in either country what THEY want? Has anyone asked the Palestinians if they are OK with not having every little demand met and yet getting a country off the ground? Has anyone asked the Israeli people if they are OK with offering more than the government is offering? Why is it always the government making the decisions and the people having to live with the consequences?
January:09:2010 - 17:29
#349 J.Kactuz
‘What bothers me is the fact that Muslims will ignore anything they do or any aspect of Islam that doesn’t meet their criteria of what they think Islam should be. To me, that is dishonesty’
Could be you are right, but sometimes it’s also about paranoia; it’s a well known fact, that conspiracy theories are an important part of the arab world. Just on my way to bed, I looked through tomorrow papers in Denmark, and there was a quote from a somali iman, from the city where the young man who tried to attack the danish cartoonist originated from in Denmark.
The iman Mustafa Abdullah Aden said that
‘I’ve no doubt that the danish secret service took him to the cartoonists house, and then called the police.The danish secret service is evil and it hunts young people’.
Sometimes it’s just to much, and you have to ask yourself, are we living in the same world.
January:09:2010 - 19:25
NielsC:
Physically yes, mentally and emotionally in many ways we are not. I think the conspiracy theories might be a by product of the censorship and lack of transparency in news and reporting. Not that America is innocent of stuff like that but we have so much openness that if one were to lie or make things up one would be found out quickly by ones competitors who would be more than happy to discredit them.(news sources and journalists I am talking about)
Also, everything is wrapped in the Qur’an…so if we were to complain about some issue with a country it is automatically looked upon as an attack on Islam precisely because there is little in the Muslim majority countries that isn’t in some way affected by or interpreted through Islam.
January:09:2010 - 19:36
Daisy, I’m not worried about the ban on minarets. That is a small matter. I am worried about the increasing intolerance and radicalization we see among Muslims – in the West and Islamic societies. I think citizens in the West will vote for those parties that take a stand against this… I don’t blame them. It is hard to imagine that rightwing parties could be worse than radical Muslims – and I may regret those words, if I live long enough.
The issue is that the so-called moderate Muslims cannot stop or control the radicals. I believe there is ample evidence to support this. As I have stated many times, I see no difference between the “average” Muslim in the West or India – and the average Muslim in an Islamic country. The much declared “moderation” is only a matter of circumstances.
One can hardly look at the news without more evidence of Islamic intolerance – note the shootings of Copts in Egypt this week and the attacks on churches in Malaysia over the use of “Allah”. By the way, aren’t Muslims always telling us it is the same god as the Christian god?
John, Genesis is a very interesting book. It is the book of beginnings. As my father (a preacher) says: everything begins in Genesis: life, humanity, men, women, sex, sin, murder, jealousy, betrayal, envy, hate, redemption, promises, rejection, government, worship, death and taxes, and so on. Of course, there is no specific historical or archeological evidence for Genesis. The “let us make man in our image” phrase is enough to write a book about. The idea of having other gods, but not before God, is interesting. It is a very polytheistic concept and it applies to Muslims, too.
Elvis was ok – good voice – but kind of weird. Did you know he once got a late night phone call from a friend who had discovered a 20,000 calorie meal – a pound of meat rolled in a pound of bacon and deep fried in butter – and immediately drove 50 miles to try it. Now that is nuts! Actually, John Cash was the better artist.
The Israel – Palestinian dispute is hopeless. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Neil, you are right. Paranoia, it certainly there, right next to the latest conspiracy theory. But this is all surrounded by a wall of denial that makes it impossible for Muslims to reflect objectively on Islam and their own actions. That is another reason there is no hope for moderation and change.
By the way, the Somali that attacked the cartoonist was in Demark was a refugee. He went to Denmark to flee violence and he took his hate and violence with him. Pick any article about the attempt and you see words like this: “The Somalis in Denmark are shocked at what happened and strongly condemn it”. Of course you can substitute one location for another and you have the standard press-release used hundreds of times by Muslims in the West.
This mega-thread is about all that – from Islam in Europe to the interaction of Muslims and non-Muslims. I see no hope for compromise or mutual moderation. You know what that means. The only question is what is going to happen.
I don’t see “moderate Muslims” hiding behind every tree. In fact, I only see the trees and I have walked around to check the other side of it. I refuse to belive that a Muslim who cannot explain or justify simple texts from his own sacred writings to be moderates. Maybe I am just picky.
I see riots, or better, or worse, mega-riots in the future. Maybe Muslims will declare part of a European city to be Dar al-Islam and expel the wicked infidels (UK, probably but maybe Malvo). Maybe some radicals will attack a school.
What I don’t see is a moderate European Islam that integrates into Western culture. I am generalizing. I don’t see anything that can be done to change things. Call it the clash of civilizations, call it hell-to-be, call it what you want. I call it a bloody mess. I don’t see any moderation in Tareq Ramadan. He has ties to the Brotherhood and just says what European intellectuals want to hear. I don’t even see a “European Islam”, just an “Islamic Islam”. If anything, the average mosque in the West is more radical than those in Islamic nations.
“This is a war,” the mainstream French weekly L’Express editorialised in the wake of the attempt on Mr Westergaard’s life. “To flee this conflict would be to buy tranquility today at an exorbitant price in blood tomorrow.”
January:09:2010 - 19:54
Good point, Neil. Any criticism of Muslims is viewed as a criticism of Islam. How then can one expect to have an open, serious debate? You tell me.
Oh yes, now one of the most interesting scenes ever filmed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34&feature=related
It is an impressive study of people listening to the song and being co-opted by an abstract ideal. What you have here is the best cinemagraphic analysis of extremism ever, in 3 minutes, packaged in a rousing tune and idyllic scenery. I would like to think I am like the old man. By the way, how did Minelli get the dog to way its tail like that?
January:09:2010 - 22:15
I’d have to say you’re being too picky. I haven’t met many people who know all that much about their religions beyond what they’re taught about basic rites and rituals. Most Catholics, for instance, don’t go beyond the Baltimore Catechism, if that. Knowing even that much implies primary education in a Catholic school or serious Sunday school attendance. By the time I was in 6th Grade, I could ask questions that would stump the nuns who would push me off to the parish priest. Didn’t always get satisfactory answers there, either.
When it comes to church canon, forget it! I know a bit more because I studied in a seminary and have the equivalent-in-credits of a major in comparative theology from a Jesuit school, though that was not one of my actual majors.
January:09:2010 - 22:46
Chiara,
By concentrating on that report you are taking the discussion away from the point I made. My point was not that India is a paradise. I know it isn’t.
You protest too much too.
January:09:2010 - 22:50
Oby,
You have taken great pains to reply to Majed. Please see the link below to know how they get such ideas. I have heard the argument in this link many times and I can tell you it’s very difficult to convince them that this is flawed logic. And the scary part is that this idea is widely prevalent in the Muslim population.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-worlds-worst-terrorists-based-in-washington/
PS – For others as well.
January:09:2010 - 23:01
John the blog owner hasn’t said anything about the themes being discussed here and people are interested in discussing these issues. I don’t see why a commentator should decide for everyone in which direction we should move, if the blog owner doesn’t have any problems with the discussions and he is in fact joining in all these discussions taking place. I am sure John is capable of telling us when he wants us to stop. It’s not appropriate for commentators to take over the role of the blog owner.
January:09:2010 - 23:02
Daisy-give it a rest, please, sincerely, truly, indeed. I had to correct the false information you gave about the report, which was directly relevent to the claims you were making repetitively about India being more religiously tolerant than Saudi and that directly related to the higher tolerance of Indian Muslims.
I would be totally happy if this blog were to return to its well stated purpose and major countries of concern rather than constantly turning to discussions of India. I am happy to learn more about India, which I do from friends and colleagues, as well as the fact that I do keep track of research going on there in my own fields of interest, but I come to John’s blog for Crossroads ARABIA.
Few in the blogosphere have taken on this topic of the Swiss minarets, and it is a shame to have had the discussion here be taken so far from the implications in Switzerland, and for Europe, even for Saudi proselytizing in Europe if you will. This level of detail and insistence on your thesis about Saudi contaminating the rest of Asia was and is misplaced. We all got the point long ago. Some of us disagree. None of us is cognitively impaired. No need to keep repeating for the learning disabled.
Address it on your blog and give the link here. I promise not to read or comment there.
Daisy again– I speak merely for myself and only as a regular commentator. I could just as easily have sent an email to John about this. I do realize he has participated in the discussions here, and is free as the blog owner to take them in any direction he wishes, which I pointed out above. I chose to make the comment here because I really would have liked to see the thread return to addressing the post for the reasons I gave. Some have done so, and I thank them for it.
With the level of directing, and asking for threads to be reopened, and distracting you have done, it is truly rich to have you purport that anyone else is attempting to be too directive.
Again, publish your references, or link your blog posts which address this, both of which would be more constructive than perseverating.
January:09:2010 - 23:35
Well, as I said you are not the owner of this blog and don’t tell me on what topic I should write here. Leave that for John to decide.
A very good way to make people discuss on something is to raise an issue related to that topic, so people will automatically respond to you. You are free to just raise an issue which you find of interest, rather than bossing people around about what they should do or should not do.
January:09:2010 - 23:44
John @ #369…exactly what I was going to say. How many people in the world for that matter know in depth detail about their religion beyond the rites and rituals and a general idea of what the religion says.
January:10:2010 - 00:06
John and Oby,
There is another way of looking at that aspect – a religion is what people practise. Many people actually do not really worry about what the religious canons say. They just practice it the way they understand it. And everyone’s practice is valid.
Tis is true of all religions of the world.
January:10:2010 - 00:51
This issue is not going away!
It makes little difference what we do and say. To my knowledge I have made no difference at all, even after all that I have said. People will do what they want to do and believe what they want to believe. I do feel that it is important to say what I have said.
Boa noite para todos!
January:10:2010 - 01:18
Oh yes, to a certain extent we are beating a dead horse here. It died about 150 comments ago. The subject is important but it may be time to move on.
Of course, maybe if John were to post about a topic far more interesting than architectural restrictions in the Alps, we might leave old Bessy (the horse’s name) alone. I look forward to a posting about drinking problems of gay dwarf camels in Arabia, or something else really relevant.
Now I really have to go….
January:10:2010 - 02:08
Daisy # 374–Thank you,I am well aware I am not the blog owner here; I have one of my own which is linked in my name. My request was a sincere plea from a regular commentator who values the posts and comments here.
John 360 and Oby 375–I do agree fully, most people are quite unaware beyond very simple basics of the beliefs of their own faith and the intricacies of its doctrine. In a way they don’t find it necessary, and when they do (eg medical ethics even for their own religious perspective)they are taught by others, whether of their own faith or not. One of my epiphanies about Catholicism was reading an article in bioethics by an American Jewess who is a PhD in Jewish medical ethics. She mentioned the Catholic perspective in passing but was spot on.
About those minarets:
Interesting article contextualizing the issue in the broader Swiss political landscape, including a nasty feud with Libya which is suggested as part of the reason the vote went the way it did:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aZQAKUyjomX0&pos=15
Switzerland is forced to reconsidered its place in the world and in Europe given these events.
The Government, which opposed voting on the ban, let alone the ban, is making a special effort to discuss it with Muslims
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/index/Government_engages_Muslims_in_dialogue.html?cid=7949050
Interesting op ed piece by a Turk on the relation to the EU acceptance or not of Turkey:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3251/turkey-39-s-eu-membership-eu-39-s-identity-crisis.html
January:10:2010 - 09:03
And that’s exactly what Abdul Wahhab railed against: folk religion taking over from orthodox religion.
January:10:2010 - 09:23
John,
I thought it has been the general complaint of the religious history of the world that orthodox religions have been encroaching upon the folk religions!
January:10:2010 - 11:02
Chiara…
“One of my epiphanies about Catholicism was reading an article in bioethics by an American Jewess who is a PhD in Jewish medical ethics. She mentioned the Catholic perspective in passing but was spot on.”
do you have access to that article that you can link here? I would be curious to see what she said. Thanks either way!I’ll go through your links and get back. Today is the Hub’s B’day so we are going out for now!
Jkactuz…the subject may be dead but all of us keep coming back to this spot because at least for me I am finding it interesting. With all of the debate there have been a lot of links and info put forward.
January:10:2010 - 11:33
JKactuz @377…
Your input is quite important, at least for me, as I think people arrive at conclusions for a reason…it is interesting to me that you and Chiara are diametrically opposed. You seem to see nothing positive and she seems to see nothing negative. How do two people knowing Muslims come to such a different conclusion? I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t due to your respective jobs. She has been trained to have compassion for those others might not even be able to understand and as per your earlier post you work with people who are in the social services realm and therefore probably see a lot of less than desirable behavior from people trying to beat the system. Daisy seems to be very OK with Muslims except for the extreme types, John has lived and worked in Saudi and I seem to have the least experience of all with us. Maybe that is why I like everyone’s input. Just my two cents worth.
January:10:2010 - 12:26
I think historically there’s been great tension between orthodox and heterodox aspects of religion… see ‘Protestant Reformation’ for an example. See, for that matter, Plato getting mad about deviant practices within Greek orthodoxy!
Islam itself developed during a period in which various Christian heresies were rampant throughout the Middle East. Orthodoxy–however and by whomever described–thinks there’s only one, right way of doing things and thinking about things. When practices or belief stray from this ‘norm’, there are problems. Sometimes the problems get ‘fixed’ when orthodoxy lowers the hammer; sometimes the heterodoxies win out. Right now, Salafists are working to rid the Islamic world of heterodoxies. Those who follow those heterodox beliefs aren’t happy about it. But then, the heterodoxies bring the Salafis no joy, either.
January:10:2010 - 12:45
Daisy I agree with you that Chiara likes to boss people around. I think John is the owner of the blog. John would you like to reaffirm that here for the people who may be having doubts.
It seems like part of Chiara’s passion and motivation is surounded by minarets. I personally believe that people who want to pounce upon this topic are very fanatical to an extent. I think I am learning impaired because I have gotten everyone’s viewpoint here on minarets except Chiara’s. While I know you owe me nothing Chiara just what you do think of the banning of the minarets? Please sum it up for the mentally insane and impaired people like myself. Even geniuses have to form their own opinion at some point other than drawing on other people’s opinions and other sources.
As a last resort, John can I count on your brilliance to summarize Chiara’s viewpoint? I am puzzled. LMFAO
January:10:2010 - 12:49
John…
Thank you for defining your statement. It makes sense. The problem is and what I am concerned about and JKactuz seems convinced of is the orthodox version will win out and make life miserable for literally the world. We will lose art, music, technology and all the advances that the world has made thus far and slowly we will start looking more and more like the societies where this orthodoxy reigns supreme. It has happened before what is to say it won’t happen again? The Islamic heterodoxists, by definition are not as “strong” as the Salafists. That is why they are heterodoxists…they have a moderate view. How can they overcome the stronger view? Sometimes it is easier to join them than fight them especially if they threaten you with pain and death!
If you look at the countries with the most advances in tech, science, medicine, genetics etc. They are generally the countries that have a moderate, live and live attitude. I don’t mean only non Muslim. Moderate Muslim countries are able to incorporate these advances into their societies as well. The other countries can’t make a move without consulting the Qur’an or Hadeeth or some clergy issuing a fatwa about what is allowed in Islam. They tend to be in poverty. And while the west is not innocent, I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t the religion that helps to hold the advancement of the society back. When every thought you have or move you make is filtered through religion-any religion- and a really strict one at that, how can a people grow and advance and be free?
January:10:2010 - 14:16
Oby # 382– the prof is Dr Laurie Zoloth RN, PhD
http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/zoloth.html
The article was at least partly on reproduction and women’s health and she analyzed the injunction from God to Abraham to “Go forth and multiply”, which has been interpreted by some Orthodox and Conservative Jews to mean to make babies non-stop, whereas Zoloth argues that at some point it is religiously okay to stop, and even not to have children (one may serve Jewish children in roles other than mother). In doing the background around this argument she reviewed the other Judeo-Christian positions, and what struck me by what she said and the way she said it, was that the Catholics, or at least the Vatican position, was unique in believing as rigidly as it does that personhood occurs when the sperm hits the egg (ie conception, before implantation) and is the major force holding the rest back. I knew all the elements she was addressing but it really struck me how unique the Vatican position is, and the impact of the 1.3 (give or take) billion Catholics.
Now to find the article. I will do so when I get back to civilization from my family visit. I shall send myself a reminder, and don’t be shy to remind me.
Oby #383–I agree that a certain diversity of debate, and certainly of perspectives is valuable, and the dialogue here has been enriching with the exception of certain perseverations. I do see negatives in Islam, or at least am not blind to them, but often what is claimed as a negative has less to do with Islam per se than folk beliefs that predated it and are retained post-Islamization. Things like female genital cutting of the type most practiced (III–mega-excision) predates Islam and is unIslamic, bride dowries, burnings, and female feticide, ditto, etc. In this context of the Swiss minarets even the Swiss government, and the major institutions in Switzerland are dismayed by the success of the referendum. However, voting is not legally obligatory as it is in Belgium so maybe there was a self selection among the voting public. Also the vote seems linked to the sponsoring party’s general propaganda about immigrants taking jobs in an economic downturn, and the kerfuffle with Libya and Mouamar Gaddafi’s son, along with a general loss of Swiss face in the international sphere. In short, I have more problems with the vote here, how it was obtained, and what it means, in a country where most Muslims are integrated, European, have few mosques with even fewer minarets, and are not “radicalized”. They are convenient and easy targets for an extreme right wing party which has 20% of the Swiss national vote, which concerns me greatly, as the equivalent French party with the same strategy and % got a seat in the European Parliament and almost won a Presidential election. That party is routinely described as fascist and they don’t object.
Thanks for asking and sharing your own views.
January:10:2010 - 14:57
Sparky–as I said above: “We all got the point long ago. Some of us disagree. None of us is cognitively impaired. No need to keep repeating for the learning disabled.” That includes you.
John–nice distinctions folk religion vs orthodoxy, and heterodoxy vs orthodoxy. The problem broadly would seem to be in the clash, then within that, conflict over particular issues.
Oby–countries which don’t use 1/2 their brain power do poorly. To the extent that partriarchal orthodoxies fit into that they are a big part of the problem in development, so I agree with you in part.
January:10:2010 - 15:16
Yes, Sparky, it’s my blog. I choose to leave comments open and to let others have their say. Doing that does not mean that I support–or even understand–all the comments. I only get rid of ones that stoop to name-calling and nothing more. So far, commenters have been able to argue their points more-or-less clearly, though perhaps not always exactly on target or using words and logic I might choose. That’s okay by me: I like things a bit raucous!
I prefer that people behave politely and if they start getting out of bounds I’ll let them know, usually through an e-mailed message. Public scolding is what the mutawwaeen do, not me, please!
January:10:2010 - 15:25
I wouldn’t say the Salafist cultures are stronger, though they may be richer. Richer means being able to better afford to spread your own message, whether directly or through the funding of mosques, schools, and madrassas, as well as through books and other media. And please don’t forget those who think they can make a quick buck by ‘supporting’ the orthodoxy just to cash in! Often, they’re more retrograde than the orthodoxy.
I find heterodoxies can be pretty powerful, though, and as resistant to change as the traditionalists. After all, they’ve been doing things a certain way for an awfully long time and don’t cotton to people coming in and telling them they’ve been doing it all wrong!
Absent force–as prevailed in the earlier history of Saudi Arabia, for example–I think heterodoxies will survive quite well. Because there are so many of them–each with its own red lines beyond which differences become difficulties–they’re unlikely to form a unified body able to address most issues with one voice. So, perhaps they won’t be a ‘force’ to push back against orthodoxies. Instead, they’ll be a bunch of little forces, each rejecting various aspects of orthodoxy.
I think the orthodoxies have just as much right as the heterodoxies to promote their views. I do agree that getting stuck in the minutia of doctrines and canon laws can lead to stultification and an untoward rejection of change. That’s a cost for toeing a particular line. But every thing in life has a cost. If you’re willing to bear the cost and consequences, then go right ahead. As long as your problems don’t become other peoples’ problem, there’s no issue. If they do, however, then something has got to change.
January:10:2010 - 17:35
It’s worth pointing out that in the last general elections in 3 big muslim countries Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia, the population has voted no to more traditional islamist parties.
And as far as I know one of the reasons is that the population doesn’t want the rules and the regulations and the control mechanisms that will be the consequence of a islamist rule.
I don’t know if anyone of you has seen ‘Lives of Others’ the academy award winning german film.
Of course as a dane ( and as historian) I have knowledge of Eastern Germany ( and the communist countries), but this film simply nails it. You get the paranoia and claustrophobia of a totalitarian regime under your skin.
And then there is the waste, the waste when a big group of talented people are using their time solely to control others.
January:10:2010 - 18:16
I thought ‘Lives of Others’ was excellent! It certainly shows the human and personal cost of a repressive society.
January:10:2010 - 18:18
I see Bessie is not dead.
Oby, Admit it, the real reason you keep coming back is to see the video links I post! I kind of consider it comic relief in an otherwise weary, dangerous topic. Sometimes I think that I should buy all of you knives, lock you in a room and see who comes out alive. And they say that I am radical…
So anyway, here is a great link, very appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk
Rather than the “meaning of Minarets” it is “The Meaning of Life, or death”. Now is it just me, or is their a perfect analogy between death as immigration and the dinner group as the cultured European elites?
And there is this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6978389.ece
Of course when the former Archbishop of Canterbury says things like: “We cannot ignore the fact that such far-right groups exploit genuine concerns about both overpopulation and the ability of this nation to integrate new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own” then maybe somebody will pay attention. Maybe. Never mind the obvious question of why should any country accept immigrants whose values are antithetical to those of their people…(duhhh!)
As to the “why” of my position on Islam, I would hope it is seen as an enlightened, rational position based upon comprehensive thoughtful research and careful analysis of facts. If that doesn’t work, I can always present myself as a petulant, cantankerous old man. Either works for me.
Oby, there is another minor thing. I used to have a real name and even a web site. Then a few years ago a person of the Mohammedan persuasion decided that Allah wanted him to kill me (yawn). Then later another person decided that Allah was disturbed with my “insults” and for his god to sleep at night he would have to find me and my family and slaughter us like the infidel pigs we are. At that point, I made some changes and looked for cover, avoiding the radical radicals and becoming the mild mannered person I am today. That may explain some aspects of my position.
As to my diametrically opposed acquaintance, all I can say is she, too, is a product of her experience and understanding of the issues. Certainly she is a nice, sweet, compassionate and very intellectual lady – married to a fine man but up to her eyeballs in the PC-culture that is higher education in Canada. That is her cup of tea, even if she overdoes it on the sugar.
I am by nature cynical and pessimistic – and working with a bunch of %^$%#$ welfare cheats probably hasn’t helped. Even so, I don’t take it home and I don’t kick Muslims. I know several and we get along. We mutually agree to avoid religion and certain issues. On the other hand, I enjoy a good debate and I see nothing wrong with hurting their feelings, if the issue is human rights and our freedoms. It always helps when I don’t know them.
John, I like your orthodox vs heterodox understanding of religion and culture. It applies to every aspect of human life. It is essentially the ethos of the loner, the unconventional and the rebellious against the establishment. We need both, we need voices of divergence. On the other hand, it is hard to stand against orthhodoxy, it is hard for an individual to be honest because the system is against him/her. I know.
I have no doubt that radical islam is gaining at the expense of the so-called moderates. I am sure there will be trouble, big time. I am pretty sure it will happen first in Europe.
Job, I mean John, you are very patient. You are an eclectic kind of guy and the attention given to this one topic is probably straining your sense of equanimity. On the other hand, just wait util the next big vote in Europe and this issue will be back.
January:10:2010 - 18:46
Chaira…
Have you read the book “Half the Sky”? I have not read it yet but I think that it speaks directly to your comment about women not being allowed to use half their brains. The person who recommended it says that it is centered mostly in Islamic countries. I do agree that when half the population is not allowed to contribute to to the bottom line in terms of brain power then you have less advanced societies. In some ways, this is perpetrated by the Catholic church having such a tough stance against birth control which keeps women constantly distracted in the poorer countries by childrearing. The difference between that and Islam as it is practiced in some of the more restrictive countries is that I don’t think the Catholic church has it in it’s doctrine or general practice nowadays that women must be isolated, completely covered and shut away from the world, need mahrems, and in general has culturally supported second class citizenship for it’s women. I KNOW the Qur’an says otherwise and advocates for women to be treated equally, but it isn’t practiced that way in the poverty stricken countries. That, by the way, annoys the living hell out of me because what could be a more equal society is held back by cultural practices that the people themselves believe are a part of Islam and therefore are really difficult to change without thinking that they are attacking Islam from within. and it annoys me that the women get cheated and by extension the society.
January:10:2010 - 19:00
I don’t think the moderates are losing. In fact, I see signs that they’re actually gaining confidence. After the latest atrocities–Ft. Hood, Christmas pantbombs–denunciations were out immediately and from a wider range of people than I’d noted before. There wasn’t a couple of weeks’ worth of hemming-and-hawing as used to be the case.
I’m patient, until I’m not! I can always put up with people working to come to new understandings but have little tolerance for those who really ought to know better constantly repeating the same mistakes.
January:10:2010 - 19:03
The Catholic Church has lost the battle on birth control. It may still consider it a sin, but Catholics have largely decided that they’ll take the sin over the extra child. Even in the most conservative of Catholic countries, abortion is now legal (there are a few exceptions). After all, a confession takes but part of an afternoon… a child takes at least 15 years’ efforts, day in and day out.
January:10:2010 - 21:30
thanks john good point about confession vs child. I guess I should have said when I wrote that I was thinking about countries in Africa that are Christian majority and had just recently read (rightly or wrongly) that there is still a big problem getting birth control devices and education to the women. Is this accurate?
January:10:2010 - 22:21
Chiara I will reread through the posts. Perhaps I missed something like Your Major Premise! John thank you for your explanation and clarity as always.
If anyone else would be so kind as to summarize Chiara’s point for me especially those who have been very active here, I would greatly appreciate it and be forever indebted. For those who are heavily involved in this conversation could someone please summarize Chiara’s major premise. It wouldn’t take but five minutes. Oh oh thank you thank you my friends for supporting those with learning disabilities.
January:10:2010 - 23:04
Also, what can a minaret do for you or your psychic pain?
January:10:2010 - 23:14
I’m not aware of any state policies against it, but I’m truly not an Africa expert. There might be, but none come to mind. I’m more familiar with strange beliefs (and policies) about HIV and vaccinations.
January:10:2010 - 23:15
I always take pleasure in seeing a well-designed mosque with its minaret(s)! Pleasure is good for psychic pain.
I also get that feeling in certain churches, temples, or in observing natural vistas.
January:10:2010 - 23:19
JKactuz…
I am really sorry about the death threats you got for your website. I’d be curious to know if they came from people on the other side of the world and were idle threats or if someone could follow through. Obviously, you don’t want to take a chance for you or your family.
In America it is very galling to have to shut down your freedom of speech(your website) due to fears for your life. It seems rather unfortunate that, while I don’t fully agree with your B/W outlook that you are not able to have YOUR freedom of speech yet the nut case that threatened you is allowed his. And in my opinion his is worse than yours…you were speaking your mind and though people might not agree, we in America have that right as long as we are not advocating violence against others. He, on the other hand, was advocating violence which is illegal and yet he was able to get his way. I wish we could have some way to affect these people that threaten and intimidate and actually call for violence because their very illegal tactics work. Lovely… Intimidation in the name of Allah!
January:10:2010 - 23:48
Sparky,
Chiara is opposed to the ban because she thinks it’s against the democratic right of the practice of religion of the Muslim minority in Switzerland. She feels Muslims should have the right to practice their religion and if necessary the democratic governments not only in Switzerland, but elsewhere too, should give concessions in their rules and functioning to accommodate the practices of minority Muslims which may not be in accord with the societies where they are living (please see some of the earliest comments).
While all of us agree with her first proposition, many of us didn’t agree with her second proposition and thereby we got into this long debate discussing a lot of other aspects of interactions between Muslim and non-Muslim societies and Islamic extremism, because we decided to flip the coin to the other side and look at the other side of the coin – only this turned out to be a coin with multiple sides! Well, to be honest, I think it was I (helped by Oby if I remember – Oby, please excuse me if I’m wrong), who wanted to flip the coin to the other side.
January:11:2010 - 01:03
John,
I disagree with your orthodoxy vs heterodoxy argument.
First, there is an inherent contradiction in believing in democracy (which I believe you strongly do) and saying orthodoxy has a right to spread its message. One, orthodoxy’s message is the anti-democratic message and two, it never “spreads” its message – it always “imposes” itself on others, sometimes destroying others. “Spread” is a soft word to describe the ways of orthodoxy.
The question is not whether the moderates are gaining confidence, the question is whether they are able to hold on to their ground – I don’t think they are able to hold on, rather are being destroed by orthodoxy. You should not make this statement while churches are being bombed and burnt in Malaysia.
You are also wrong about heterodoxy not being open to change – heterodoxy works on the concept of change and if a heterodox ideology is not willing to change, that means it is transforming into an orthodox ideology.
Your reading of heterodox people as unable to come togeter as a unified force as in early Arabia is also wrong. They were not able to come together to form a unified polity because they didn’t have the resourcs to do so. Islam brought them together, but in the post-Islamic phase they were also able to exploit the resources of the neighbouring regions. In fact, they needn’t a monotheistic religion to come together – they needed a strong political leader who could convince them to come together – and that’s what Muhammad did – religion was a rider he used to convince them. Another strong person may have achieved the same end using a differet kind of ideology.
India has always been a heterogenous society and even in history there were some moments when an Indian empire could encompass almost the whole of South Asia – leaving out only small portions of it. USA has a heterogenous society if you come to think of it, but the US is a powerful state.
January:11:2010 - 03:41
JKactuz in #323
first of all, I would like to thank you for considering me worthy of your response,but unfortunately you sounded rather foaming and fuming, I admit that I am to blame for that. Being an emotional man, may be I got drifted while writing that comment (306) ,I think that was because I started recalling the miserable conditions of people that I had seen while in yemen,but I guess I should not have resorted to shooting words randomly in every direction and hurting innocent people myself, for that I am sorry.
now, since I got used to your sarcastic and harsh writing style and and also know your religious background as a preacher `s son ( I swear I had a doubt that you yourself might a preacher ) from the way you talk about islam, I think considering that fact everything you say is fair, after all we are on war for monopoly and every thing is fair in love and war but not according to me at least, it is relieving to know that even in the peak of your discontent you kept holding firmly to (your) objectivity and have agreed in (your) style, either in one way or the other to some of the points that we can attribute muslims intolerance to it.
but i dont know from where you concluded that arabs say that there were no jews and christians living like brothers in Palistine prior to the Brithish occupation they do not deny that, but you know millions of jews arrived to palistine some scaping persicution in Euorpe and Rusia and others under the temptions that they were offered to gather them in palistine, yes very few purchased land (from british agents) to live but i believe that a legitimate authority to authenticate and endorse the sale of land or any other agreement was absent the only authority was the british mandatory so all that should be considered as nul and invalid but ethically i think we have have to accept that sale of land as (gentlemen `s agreement) but all jews other than the citizens of Plalistine are occupiers and illegal settlers. i keep my opinion to myself regarding what they should do. but that land is great land and its people are people of great might it had gone through worse than this and 60 or 100 or 200 years of occupation for them will be just like a blight of locusts passing through, yes it will eat up every single green leaf but the trees so deeply rooted soonest it will start leafing once again.
you keep telling that you will stop muslim immigration to europe, and what solution have you thought of regarding your aging society and barren stock, they needs us as much, if not more, so it is a mutual interest don`t mistakenly think that you are doing favor, do you know that only spain should bring in least 500000 immigrants every year to keep its normal growth rate.
by the way my father is Imam and (reads the whole Quran by heart )he studied the Shafie way of Islam he used to be a goverment reconized imam in Kuwait where i was born and brought up, his best friends where two christian people from Goa (indians)who used to teach him tailering his hobby, Uncle John Pall and Uncle Thomas Disosa both gents tailors, our whole family used to eat with them on the same sitting they didnt have a car we often used to take them to church on sundays (yes there was a church in kuwait back then and it was on the main road in a busy market not hidden in some embassy that was when i was only 8 years old that is where i first entered a chuch, and after prayer they used to buy me sweets and iused to call them uncles it is a matter of how parents raise their children more than only trying to decode the script. it was my first year in medicine when Saddam Hussein (may Allah have mercy upon him) tried to retrieve Kuwait in the latest battle in a series of battles along 200 years of kuwiti history for that purpose, and we had to evacutate just few days before amercians started bombing, life should go on whatever happens we are lving in real life and real life sucks take it or leave it. it is not a story written by Jkactuz with happy begining and even happier ending.
you said( I think citizens in the West will vote for those parties that take a stand against this… I don’t blame them. It is hard to imagine that rightwing parties could be worse than radical Muslims – and I may regret those words, if I live long enough.)
well, you will live long enough to burry as much of us as might please your eyes, just to make you happy.
January:11:2010 - 06:38
Sparky and Daisy–Chiara is opposed to THIS ban because she sees it as the encroachment of a fascist party onto the whole of Switzerland, with implications for Europe and other countries. She bases that on what has been written about the ban in Switzerland by the Swiss, and about the party in question by itself; also by experience with living in France with the rise of the analogous party there the Front National. See comment 387 to Oby among others above.
This European context for a vote within a European country which is considering joining the EU, and which has Swiss and Europeans rightfully concerned is why she has so much trouble with the excessive amount of Indo-centric, and Hindu-centric discourse about the evils of Saudi Salafists in Asia on this thread, and in such away as it fails to even bother to relate back to the European context.
I trust that is clear enough, even for the self-designated learning disabled/ bayers at the moon, and those who like flipping all coins in the same direction.
A better rebuttal of Chiara’s concern would be to demonstrate somehow that fascist parties, or at least extremely far right wing ones, are not a threat in Europe, that Europeans don’t care, and that creating an issue over a handful (literally) of minarets in a country where there is no radicalization of Muslims by representing them as missiles is a non-issue, and least of all for Turkey, the Islamic country with the best chance of joining the EU. AKA a modicum of discussion on Switzerland and Europe, even if Saudi proselytizing in Europe (these are European Muslims and their minarets in a European country) is deemed relevent to the topic and the blog focus.
John #400–Congratulations! So fitting that you should make comment #400 on this thread. While it is true that the vast majority of Catholics in the developped world have long been going their merry way and ignoring Papal decrees, in the developing world where Catholic influence is more direct through charities ie schools, hospitals, donations, the Vatican’s attitude has been directly implicated in the spread of AIDS, as condoms are banned, or certainly not condoned and not distributed. Abstinence and the rhythm method are the only permissible forms of protection against AIDs and pregnancy respectively, leading to AIDS and pregnancy of course, ie AIDS in men, women, and newborn babies whose parents die and whose infirm grandparents become their parents. For this, among other AIDS stupidities of folk religion, folk medicine, folk machismo and the former government of South Africa, the Catholic church should be made to use its wealth to provide condoms and give support to the already afflicted.
John #401–such a lovely tribute to minarets, and excellent understanding of psychic pain.
Daisy #404 to John–”You should not make this statement while churches are being bombed and burnt in Malaysia. …
You are also wrong about heterodoxy not being open to change…
Your reading of heterodox people as unable to come togeter as a unified force as in early Arabia is also wrong.” Interesting tone.
“India has always been a heterogenous society and even in history there were some moments when an Indian empire could encompass almost the whole of South Asia – leaving out only small portions of it.” Ah yes, since we must always go here, when the Empire Strikes Back ie the former British Empire striking back in literary discourse to the Brits in their own language, including the inaptly named Anglo-Indian writers, are they themselves being hypocritical given former Indian imperial tendencies, or was the Indian Empire spread by loving Hinduism to all? The question is not facetious, since I am curious about your view on this aspect of Indian history; and I have flipped my coin to hoping for 500 comments on this thread with the least number possible addressing Europe, except for mine of course, as my European passport makes me rather concerned.
January:11:2010 - 07:10
Oby #394–No I haven’t read the book but I am familiar with the Chinese expression that “Women hold up half the sky” which served Hilary Clinton so well during her address to the International Women’s Conference held in Beijing. The reasons for retrenchment into conservatism globally and in all faiths are complex, but your comment reminded me of the longer term impact of colonialism, which is to force an us/them mentality and push the envelop of traditionalism as a rebuttal strategy. This happened in Quebec or New France under the Brits as well, whereas their French cousins went forward with the French Revolution. It took the Quebeckers until the 1960′s and 70′s to throw off their agrarian peasant, Jansenist (like Calvinism) version of their culture and religion. Thanks for helping me think of the Ummah in a new way.
January:11:2010 - 07:17
Chiara,
Thanks for explaining your stand on Swiss vote.
You have completely misunderstood my point about empires in India. You have no understanding of Indian history – it shows in your responses, regardless of whatever academic titles you hold or whatever research projects you may have done.
I was not talking about Hindu benevolence at all. In fact these empires were not based on any religious ideology of any kind – that was also one of the points I was making.
But I’ll certainly appreciate John’s response to my comment to him.
January:11:2010 - 07:28
J Kactuz,
I am truly sorry to know about your experiences with extremist Muslims. It should not happen anywhere in the world, with a person of any religion from the followers of any religions. I understand your sentiments regarding Muslims, even though I have differed from you, since my experiences have been different – I have been more fortunate in this matter than you.
January:11:2010 - 07:54
Majed…
“it was my first year in medicine when Saddam Hussein (may Allah have mercy upon him) tried to retrieve Kuwait in the latest battle in a series of battles along 200 years of kuwiti history for that purpose, and we had to evacutate just few days before amercians started bombing, life should go on whatever happens we are lving in real life and real life sucks take it or leave it. it is not a story written by Jkactuz with happy begining and even happier ending.”
I am not sure that I understood you correctly, but it sounds as if you were working to become a medical doctor and due to circumstances related to war had to leave which ended your studies. It also sounds as if you have not been able to take up your studies again. For that I am very truly sorry that you were unable to realize your dream. You sound like you would have been a very compassionate doctor.
January:11:2010 - 08:06
Daisy,
First off, my support for the right of orthodoxy to promote itself is not confined to Islamic orthodoxies: I carry the same belief in the rights of political, religious, scientific, philosophical, cultural, and social orthodoxies as well. If there’s to be freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., then no group can be excluded. I think that orthodoxies, simply through their ability to survive for long periods of time, likely have some value. But permitting orthodoxies freedom also means permitting heterodoxies equal freedom. The borderline of acceptability, for me, is drawn at violent suppression of conflicting ideas.
I do believe in the marketplace of ideas, that when ideas compete, the better ones tend to win out over time. But yes, Gresham’s Law, about bad money driving out good, also applies. People, even large numbers of people can go for the bad idea because of things that it offers: comfort, expedient solutions to problems, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. Bad ideas can sometimes win for a time. (See: Communism).
You are right about the playing field’s being uneven: some ideas have the resources (money, arms, charisma) to promote themselves further than the value of the ideas themselves would warrant. That’s where I count on people’s being, if not brilliant, then smart enough to eventually clue into the reality. That is not tidy, it’s not quick, and sometimes it extorts enormous costs on others. I cannot think of another way to make it otherwise, though.
I suppose, that if I were elected King of the World, there were things I’d do differently. But I’d be very annoyed and be working hard for the overthrow, if anyone else were elected King of the World… His/her ideas would necessarily be dangerous and unsound!
January:11:2010 - 08:15
May I suggest the book Arabs and Zionism Before World War I, by Neville J. Mandel?
Using the archives of the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, Americans, British, and Israelis, as well as Arab media of the period, Mandel does an excellent job of describing both the demography and the politics of Palestine before the first World War. In many regards, it’s an eye-opener for both sides of the arguments.
January:11:2010 - 08:37
Chiara, Sparky gives you full marks on a well formulated thesis.
Daisy, thank you for supporting the learning disabled.
John, how come minarets never eased my psychic pain. I think a nice movie theatre would
January:11:2010 - 08:42
Hey why is my smile crooked? Testing Sparky she is testing her smile
January:11:2010 - 08:43
I will get the book, and may I suggest
A brief history of the late Ottoman empire / M. Sükrü Hanioglu
. – Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 2008. – 241 sider : ill.
It’ a very well written account ( also theoretically) of the last 100 years of the ottoman empire, the problems in the arab world is just as rooted here than in in the developments the last century.
And it provides the context to more detailed country studies.
And then I had spent part of christmas reading ‘The Enemy at The Gate’ by Andrew Wheatcroft, a beautifully written account of the siege of Vienna in1683, it’s also a cultural history of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires.
January:11:2010 - 08:49
:~) I really don’t know how I got that crooked smile!
January:11:2010 - 09:16
Maybe WordPress–the software behind this blog–uses a super-double-secret algorithm to interpret wry or ironic comments and changes ‘smilies’ accordingly?
[I had nothing to do with it, actually, so I can't even guess what keys you pressed to get that result.]
January:11:2010 - 10:05
Well I have taken many computer programming courses, but I don’t remember learning how to make crooked smiles, so your hypothesis about the WordPRess software could be correct! Wouldn’t that be super cool?
It could be just a coincidentic Socratic irony.
January:11:2010 - 11:21
Sparky,
Minarets can be very beautiful – you have to look in the right country. All religions have produced beautiful monuments and we must appreciate all of them regardless of religion.
Oby,
Please have a look at Carol’s blog.
January:11:2010 - 11:40
Daisy…
thanks I will. I have to admit with the attention I have given this blog it has eaten up some of the time I used to spend on others that I have not found as intriguing as this one of late. I need to get through my regular blog roll.
Chiara…
I know I am being obtuse and I do apologize for that, but could you please flesh out your comment you made above about the Ummah in comment 407. I am not sure if you are being serious or making a joke and I think I would be interested in your perspective on that. Thanks.
January:11:2010 - 11:41
John,
You are right about the freedom of expression of orthodxy. I had talked about Deoband being allowed to issue their fatwas in India because of the freedom of expression argument. But the line is drawn at them going out and converting people to their version of Islam. Same with Catholic schools – called Convent schools in India. I studied in quite a few of them. As students we read the Bible, attended Church services, listened to sermons by visiting Bishops, attended non-chapel service and attended Bible classes, wrote Bible exams, but these schools never tried to convert anyone to their religion – they are not supposed to do so. There is a line drawn between expressiong one’s belief – orthodox or otherwise and trying to impose it on others. You are right about a violent suppression of others’ ideas.
You are right that in a heterodox environment, there would be competing forces trying to take over power. But do you think it’s really a good thing that in autocratic orthodoxies there are no voices of difference trying to bring a change in the power structure?
Thanks for those references to NielsC and you. I’ll look for them.
January:11:2010 - 11:58
I never said I don’t like minarets. I just said they aren’t relieving MY psychic pain although it may relieve others’ psychic pain and if it does that build the darn things.
I see so many minarets and it is visually stimulating.
January:11:2010 - 13:21
NielsC and John–thank you for the book references.
Daisy–people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, or ignorant of all knowledge on a given topic. You have repeatedly stated that Indian Muslims have superior tolerance than Arab Muslims by virtue of their contact with Hinduism. You repeatedly refer to the Mughal Empire as being of greater tolerance than others, and that India generally has superior interfaith relations because of its diversity, except when British Colonialism, Saudi Salafism, and American neo-Colonialism in support of the Saudis interferes. Others, including historians of all persuasions would beg to differ. Like all lengthy dynasties the Mughals had their more liberal and more conservative rulers who treated their subjects accordingly, and yes, based on their, the specific ruler’s version of, and the subjects adherence to religion.
Your comment here about autocratic orthodoxies allowing for difference is much less specific about all the differences you expect Saudi to allow before you will consider it sufficiently religiously democratic, as you elaborated elsewhere. I do believe you left off having government tax exemptions for anyone who claims to be a religious leader, and declares his home a place of worship, which has been so fruitful in the US in spawning various sects of various religions traditional and non, some more Waco than others, and my personal favourite being the Moorish Temple, on one that: unilaterally claims Moroccan citizenship, and uses its flag as their personal emblem, which exempts them from appearing before the courts of any country, even when they defy child welfare laws in Canada, where 30 of them live and are attempting to expand their faith. A truly religiously tolerant society would allow all to proselytize, and support their endeavours, don’t you think?
Oby–I wasn’t joking in the least, and I never think you are obtuse. I appreciate that you always ask good questions, and maintain an open mind. I meant that I hadn’t as clearly thought before of the whole of the Islamic Ummah, or family, world wide being pushed to greater extremes by the extreme stances of some against Islam, and in reaction to other extremism and post-colonial forces. I had tended to think of different contexts more individually, until your comment prompted my thinking in a different direction. This pushing to extremes is common when a group is constantly told it is “Other”, excluded, different, threatened in its existence, and will be bombed back to the stone age if it doesn’t conform to economic imperial wishes of military powers. Some of this is addressed from a different perspective in my penultimate post, on the representation of Arabs, and Islam, in Western (mainly American) cinema. I hope you find it on your blog roll, but here it is:
Reel Arabs and Saudis, How Real are They? Part I Western Cinema
http://www.chezchiara.com/2010/01/reel-arabs-and-saudis-how-real-are-they.html
The same happened to the French Canadians for a long while under the British: their identity became a more exaggerated version of what they were after the Conquest by the English: more agrarian, more unilingually Francophone with very distinct regional dialects within the province, or Lower Canada, as it was then (Lower because lower down the St Lawrence), more puritanically Catholic, embracing Jansenism and Jansenists expelled from France (like a Calvinist version of Catholicism), and keeping the Index (the list of books banned by the Vatican) more thoroughly and longer than any other Francophone Catholic community, including France, and bigger baby making factories to survive the Brits stated intent of drowning them out by immigration (much like the Israeli/Palestinian situation)–average family sizes were in double digits, and 18-21 children in a family was not uncommon.
Just an example to show what I mean by existential threats and possible responses.
Let me know if you wish and further clarification.
January:11:2010 - 15:37
“May I suggest the book Arabs and Zionism Before World War I, by Neville J. Mandel?”
Did you go to school at Georgetown? Their copy appears to be missing…
January:11:2010 - 17:56
I did, but I first encountered the book at my local library here, in Florida. Next, I bought it in paper from Amazon!
January:11:2010 - 23:32
Chiara,
I don’t think I can give a more detailed outline of what the Saudi Arabia or other Shariah-ruled countries should do in order to be considered tolerant and open to all religions than I did in one of my comments above. I think you read it too. So I don’t know why you are asking this question from me.
The way non-prosylitising societies look at the situation, letting others know about their religious beliefs is in line with freedom of expression, but prosyliting is not only undemocratic, it is a highly intolerant activity – it works on the principle that theirs is the only true religion and the whole world should follow their view, no matter what the world thinks. If you are a Muslim and I am a Hindu or a Sikh or a Native American or a Canadian First Nation person for that matter, and if you tell me my religion is wrong, your religion is the only true one in the world and I should follow your religion not mine, then you are encroaching upon my right to practise my religion and you are being intolerant to my religious ideas – however crazy or sinful they may appear to you.
Hence, in a truly tolerant society, no one should prosylitise. You can tell others what your religion is all about. If I want to follow your religion, I’ll come to you and if I want to convert on my own, I have the right to do so and that’s perfectly justified. But you should not tell me what kind of a religion I should follow. That’s an encroachment upon and non-recognition of my freedom.
When I had met you on another blog for the first time, you used to be more open and tolerant of others. I am quite surprised to see how much you seem to have changed in just a few months’ time, how intolerant and closed-minded you have become. It’s not I, it’s you who is not able to accept a different viewpoint here. I have been differing with others including John the blog owner and they can carry a perfctly reasonable discussion with me. But for some reason you seem to have a problem with me – and I am not even that much against Islam or any other religion for that matter.
There are others here who have criticised Islam and Muslims much more than I have done, but you don’t seem to have a problem with them.
Perhaps the reason is that I am the only one here who is not from the tradition of an Abrahamic monotheistic religion?
Well, if that is so, you have to live with this fact, because I am happy with whatever religiosity I have and am not going to change my religiosity. As I said earlier, conversion is a bad word in India.
January:11:2010 - 23:54
John,
How about writing a review of that book for this blog?
January:12:2010 - 00:01
Daisy–I was referring to your far more detailed comment on another blog, which you directed Oby to. It was a rhetorical question.
I have written many times about my own attitude towards proselytizing, which is that it is inappropriate in any circumstance.
I am as open and accepting of other perspectives as I have always been, but I do expect that those who insist on being taken seriously at some point provide some evidence rather than elliptical suspicions, if only to add to the discussion as many others have done on this thread. I have no problem with you as a commentator other than that, and the fact that this thread has, imo, been hijacked to India and in a false dichotomy for far longer than was relevant.
Please do not pull the religion card on me; it is as offensive and as false as the race card. Our relationship is simply one in this instance of agreeing to disagree, which I suggest we both do. Agreed?
January:12:2010 - 00:36
I am here to make a confession today – John, perhaps you can officiate
I want to take back some of the assertions I made earlier on this page – some, not all.
I conceded the point about Afghanistan and Pakistan to John earlier. Now I want to remove Malaysia from my list of tolerant Muslim populations.
In the wake of the attacks on churches that has been happening there (9th one attacked yesterday), they don’t have any right to be called sane people – all over the use of a term for God.
I also looked at the religious demography of Malaysia, which is not very positive – religion is clearly linked to ethnicity there, three-fourth of the population being Malay and under obligation to follow only Islam and no other religion and the remaining non-Malay population, if non-Muslim, can convert to Islam, but Muslims there can’t adopt any other religion. I feel this is a highly intolerant system, which is ingrained in their social structure. Considering this kind of intolerance, it was only to be expected that some day the Malay Muslims were going to turn violent against other religions.
My concern for this issue goes beyond denouncing Malay Muslims.
There are some questions that need to be considered.
How is it that there is a worldwide furore over the Swiss ban of Islamic minarets but we don’t have an equal uproar over these clearly violent attacks? What are the reasons for this kind of unequal treatment of religious freedom?
I am talking about the democratic world here, which does not seem to be as worried about Malay Churches as it is about Swiss minarets.
Is it considered to be politically corrct to speak against an attack on Islam but to not be bothered by the attacks on other religions?
Is it regarded as a strategic blunder to offend the Islamic countries in the Arab world, which are important for business, oil and strategy?
Is it an intellectual arrogance of the West, which treats Europe as more “Enlightened” and therefore, more responsible and Malaysia as more backward and therefore, its intolerance and violence forgiveable?
Why is it acceptable to the democratic world that a violent attack on any religion other than Islam should be tolerated while only attacks against Islam should be protested?
January:12:2010 - 11:43
Daisy…
“How is it that there is a worldwide furore over the Swiss ban of Islamic minarets but we don’t have an equal uproar over these clearly violent attacks? What are the reasons for this kind of unequal treatment of religious freedom? Why is it acceptable to the democratic world that a violent attack on any religion other than Islam should be tolerated while only attacks against Islam should be protested?”
John actually answered this for me somewhere in this string…can’t find it but in essence what he said was that it is the stricter(ie: more orthodox) sects of a religion that tend to grab the headlines. It is the more moderate ones that tend to fade into the background precisely because they are moderate…sorry John you said it way better…and it works like a ratchet with the orthodox always being the ones to ratchet it in an upward direction toward strictness/noise/protest etc. IMO, it is the Christians themselves in other countries who are at fault. Let’s face it if there is one thing Muslims are good at is making a lot of noise about real or perceived slights. (This one, IMO, being perhaps the Granddady perceived slight of all!) Other religions are not so verbose and loud, hence, they fade into the background. We have been saying all along that Muslims must speak up for their own religion, I think other religions have to do that as well. I am not sure that it isn’t politically correct to speak for other religions, it is just that they are not used to making noise and jumping up and down about injustices. The irony is, if Christians gave as good as they got, in other words bombed or damaged mosques the Muslims would be upset about that. The bums that have instigated this problem would not even be able to draw the incredibly direct line of thought that they damaged someones place of worship not once or twice but 7, 8, 9 times and the people got fed up and fought back! The level of intelligence is astoundingly low.
Another thing I want to say as unpopular as it will be…I think other religions, but I will speak for mine,Christianity have deeply imbedded in them to turn the other cheek and to be moderate as a way of expression even if offended by another. Perhaps non Muslims are lazy at speaking up about their religion or perhaps because in our world since religion is in the realm of something private to each person, they don’t get involved. Think about it, for Muslims NOTHING is as important as being a Muslim…so much so that there is an Ummah that all consider themselves a part of no matter where in the world one goes…like a big, huge club. This Ummah is to be defended at all costs. BUT if you look and I could be totally wrong, even in the Muslim Ummah it is the moderate ones who are fairly quiet and don’t burn, pillage and destroy even when there is some perceived offense. Perhaps other religions don’t have such a “crusading” subsect that will be verbal about things they perceive unfair. Maybe they need one. and the problem is that if Muslims speak out for the Christians in Malaysia in their defense they will be turned against by their own Ummah. Whereas when the Christian Swiss turned out to protest the banning of Minarets, I doubt that there were very few in the Christian community that called their fellow Christians traitors to their religion. It is just an insane situation.
Somewhere along the way Muslims (not all but enough to cause a ruckus) have learned that threats,violence and intimidation works. It even works on other Muslims. But I think at some point people are going to get their fill of it and give back what they get. Bullies can be intimidating, but so can those that decide to gather together and give the bullies an ass kicking!
PS…anyone who says this has to do with the destruction of Islam or the wars in Afghanistan or any such nonsense is full of it. It is ridiculous that any other religion can’t use the word Allah when they are speaking in Arabic. It is the Arabic word for God and I am pretty sure Islam did not put a trademark on the word. If it was Germany they would use the German world for God, France the French word. This is another way of restricting the non Muslim practice of another religion in a Muslim majority country. I have heard the argument it might “confuse” Muslims to convert to Christianity…please…if Muslims would be swayed that easily maybe someone should ask the question “why”? It is a ridiculous argument. No one is swayed that easily over the use of a word.
BTW…I found this in one of the news reports about the churches…These trouble making Muslims( I mean the ones who caused this problem) want respect but give none!
The good thing is that according to this report alot of Muslims in the country are speaking out against the violence on behalf of the church.
“Kuala Lumpur is also bracing for rising Malay protest in advance of the trial of 12 so-called “cow’s head” protesters who are expected to go to court on April 12 for sedition for an incident that happened last August when they were arrested for carrying a cow’s head to the Selangor state government headquarters in protest of a plan to relocate a 150-year-old Hindu temple in what was regarded as an ethnic Malay area. Cows are sacred to ethnic Hindus.”
Here’s the link:
http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29476:kuala-lumpur-church-firebombed-over-allah-issue&catid=19:newscommentaries&Itemid=100131
January:12:2010 - 11:47
The uproar about Malaysia.
I don`t know how come some people say there is not much fuss with regard to the recent attacks on churches there, i think there is hardly anyone left that has not heard of it, it is the talk of every town and village everywhere, all that, due to the immense media coverage of those incidents, let alone the extent of defamation and the magnitude of the stain on the bright face of that country, even though it has not resulted thank God in any casualities other than minor damages to the external walls.
And on the contrary we do not see this much propaganda when Islamic places of worship and burial are the subject of this kind of vandalism in the France, Canada, Britain or in the occupied Palestinian territories.
But to say the truth Allah (as Almighty God `s name ) is used only by Muslims, many Arab Christians also use it without any objection from the Arab Muslims, though actually it is used to indicate One God ((not three) only one because it is a name that has no plural and in case of christian they use it to refer to (Jesus peace be upon him ) which is wrong from the muslims ` perspective as they consider him a human beign just like Mohammad (PBUH), anyway I think we as muslims do not have exclusive right to use the name (Allah) as we believe him to be the God of everyone and everything, I think if we heard that a Monkey has learned to say Allah we will be happy, may be the only reason why they are angry and upset about it is the tricky and deceitful way in which the Church is trying to use it as a bait to attract the week muslims (they thought it was clever idea) they didn`t know it would backfire. I personally do not mind and all muslim who think they are good muslims should not object to conversion, because keeping someone who is not confident and faithful within our faith under duress, is just useless and Islam or any religion is better off without such extra figure in calculation, besides What is Allah `s got to benefit or lose from one or two or millions or billions of human beigns whether they believe and worship him or disbelieve and commit all kind of sins,nothing, if the churchs like to fish in shallow and disturbed waters let them take the all fish they can catcj .but i wonder what those people want to do from the (democratic)world to do, may be to take take a UN license to impose some kind of imbargo and then when they so week and can not feel pain any more finally give them a coup de grace.
January:12:2010 - 12:24
Majed,
Please, for God’s sake, everyone has heard of it but not many are potesting it or doing much to stop it – compare this to the aftermath of the Swiss ban on minarets. And if they have an issue with Jesus as God, there can be other modes of protesting, not in the absolutely violent and insane manner in whih they are going about it. This is inhuman, crazy and atrocious. No religious argument justifies it. You don’t mind this usage, but why are you saying things like they are using it for Jesus rather than for God – isn’t that an indirect way of justifying this violence? Can there be no way of opposing this usage than this violent, uncivilised and inhuman one?
January:12:2010 - 12:35
Oby,
There is a time to turn the other cheek and be politically correct and there isn’t. I think it’s high time the world begins to understand the difference between the two moments.
John has a post on this issue. Please see the politicisation of religion.
January:12:2010 - 12:39
Majed…
Thanks for your viewpoint…I really appreciate it.
Could you please link the articles you are referring to here for us to read. (perferably in English)Everything i have found on it so far says that the Church was using it in their own newspaper to be distributed to to their own people. The link I provided is from a Malaysian newspaper…I did that specifically to see what the Malaysians themselves are saying.
I think GOD or ALLAH is a generic term…When anyone says God or in Arabic Allah they know it means to refer to a higher power and in general to one God. However, other religions use it too, and might mean something else but use the term God to refer to their God. I think it becomes clearer what one means when you know the religion one is talking about.
I do agree with you about conversion…but i don’t limit that to only Muslims converting to something else. I think it applies for all religions…if a Christian is going to convert to Islam because s/he thinks Islam is the right religion for him/her then I think he should be able to do so in peace and love from the Christian community. You are right. Who wants unhappy followers of the faith~any faith. Your faith should fill you with joy and contentment~whatever faith that may be.
January:12:2010 - 13:11
I really don’t know where you get these ideas that I want to “bury” Muslims or send them to Pluto. I said I wanted a great debate. I said I wanted to put Muslims on TV and ask them about certain aspects of their religion and behavior. It that so bad? Granted, it would not be cordial. Hey there are Protestant TV preachers that would love that. They probably think there are a few poor widows out there that still have $10 they could rip off so they would givbe their left hand to be on TV and preach.
I also said I would end all Muslim immigration to the West, if it were up to me. It aint, but considering that Muslims are collectively by far the most violent and disruptive of all immigrant groups, why not? Maybe we could put that to a vote? Consider the difference in the incarceration and welfare recipient rates between sub-continent Muslims and Hindus in the UK. Hindus are about 10 less likely to cause trouble. Why I ask? What is the difference? Consider that England has been the most accommodating and liberal of European nations towards Islam. What has this attitude given the UK? Hate and violence! The Muslims in the UK are the most radical and hate-filled group on earth. They openly sale books about beheading infidels outside the mosques. The Imams spew forth the most vile hate against us and British Muslims (or as they like to call themselves, Muslims in Britain) do nothing. They are mostly deobandis.
So why should I then not consider Muslims immigration to be a big negative on any society? Yes there are a few (?) good Muslims but I can’t pick them out, so why take any?
For Muslims it is always about themselves and their feelings. Since you are the son of an Imam I suppose you know the Quran and ahadith. Let me ask you three simple questions and I want a yes or no answer.
1. Considering the text of the Quran, do I as a non-Muslim have a right to be offended by the things said about us in the so-called “word of Allah”? Y/N
2. Considering the stories in the traditions, do you think that the actions of your prophet are vile and immoral at times? Y/N
3. Do you think that the West, as a whole, is more respectful of human rights than Islamic societies? Y/N
My experience is that Muslims are not very good with simple, direct questions, particularly when those questions refer to issues of morality. Note that these three questions are directly tied to the vote on the minarets.
You know that verse in the Quran that says “fight them (them is us evil infidels) util all persecution ceases”? Based upon my experience, Muslims equate “criticism” with “persecution” insomuch that if you ask questions that Muslims don’t like or criticize their behavior and religion, you are “persecuting” them. As I have said many times here. Muslims are not very good with criticism. Criticism is not persecution. Muslims values are not Western values. Your terminology is not even the same: a martyr is not somebody that blows people up with a bomb!
Majed, regarding #405 above…I am not foaming. I am not even mad at you. I don’t want to bury 1.4 billion Muslims – too big a hole. This is just a discussion, an exchange of ideas. You Muslims have to get over this constant outrage at every perceived offense. It seems that for Muslims it is “I am outraged therefore I exist”. Rage gives meaning to their lives. Read the news? Seven people killed today because of outrage over the Quran? 7 dead fathers, brothers and sons! It seems that outrage and hate are the only emotions that motivate some people. If you want to get outraged, why not consider causes such as abuse of women or discrimination against non-Muslims?
About Malaysia. Look up the name Lina Joy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy
Daisy is right. This “Muslims scannot help themselves, they cannot think and they cannot be expected to be tolerant, those poor poor Muslims” attitude is a form of racism in that these liberals consider Muslims to be unable to act morally or refrain from violence because ‘that is the way they are’. This is also a double standard.
PS: I don’t write happy stories! What kind of doom and gloom guy would I be if I wrote happy stories? In case you don’t understand, we are all in this together, there will be no winners.
January:12:2010 - 13:12
Majed, I have to differ. The media in Muslim countries, particularly Arab Muslim countries, never fails to mention when an Islamic institution–mosque, cultural center, what have you–is defaced in the West. I don’t object to that in the least. I’m pleased to see that Arab media are reporting on extremist attacks on other religions’ institutions. To do so is far better than to ignore them which would suggest that the attacks were unimportant.
January:12:2010 - 15:06
John…is it the other way around? Does the media mention when Muslims deface non Muslim institutions/houses of worship? and if they do mention it is it wrapped up in Islam and how it was deserved or that they had been driven to it etc? Does the “Muslim” media actually ever take Muslims to task for what they do?
I am going to ask a really obtuse question so please be patient. Where did this severe persecution complex come from that Muslims have? You lived among them that is why I am asking. Are they capable of seeing a more nuanced version of the world rather than “the entire world is out to get us?” I know it is a simplistic question and surely they must have a reason, but it seems to me an unbelievable amount of energy is wasted on victimhood rather than focusing on moving forward. Other peoples have been persecuted and they were able to move forward and flourish.
January:12:2010 - 15:11
@428 Elliptical suspicions are my trademark grrrrr
Some people just can’t get their facts straight!
Also Daisy good points as usual especially in 429… elliptically speaking there has been no attack on minarets…there has been a proposed ban…elliptically…there has been real violent attacks on churches elliptical drawling…
I am seeking cover as a learning disabled abused victim. I will start a group. Donations are kindly accepted.
January:12:2010 - 15:29
When a synagogue, Jewish cemetery, or social center is defaced, it gets media mention. When a Black church gets torched, it gets mentioned. I’ve seen media reports of vandalism at Sikh and Buddhist structures. I guess other religions’ facilities don’t tend to be abused as much, at least for political reasons.
I do agree that victimhood is a not-very-honorable status to seek. But being a real victim can all too often happen for real.
January:12:2010 - 16:01
Daisy–thank you for sharing what has been one of your underlying concerns about the topic of Swiss Minarets–that they are receiving more attention than the Malaysian problems with certain Muslims bombing Churches.
This issue has, in my experience been addressed in the media and in the blogosphere, particularly the issue of the use of the word Allah.
I do think that many have failed to highlight the point that this use of the word Allah was granted to the Catholic Church of Malaysia to use in their newspaper’s native language section ie in the Malay part of the newspaper, The Herald. However, Malays are not native speakers of Arabic. It is artificial to use Allah to mean the Christian God in this context, unlike its common usage by native speakers of Arabic who are Christian.
The following article I found very interesting and appropriate. It points out that the English language use of the word Allah is to refer to the Muslim concept of God not to the Christian or Jewish one (and references several dictionaries). Given the context in Malaysia where religion, ethnicity and politics are closely tied together, and where conversion/apostasy is a huge issue this is particularly problematic. It does seem to me as if the Catholic Church was playing a political/conversion game with the use of the word Allah where it is totally misplaced. As the author points out, correct usage in English is God for the Christian God, Allah for the Muslim concept of God; and, I would add, G-d for the Hebrew God [I have myself used these in peer-reviewed publications, ie academic ones].
The only part of the article with which I have an issue is the final paragraph/conclusion:
“A pagan is a person who holds religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions. For example, paganism includes such religions as Hinduism and Taoism.
Idolatry means the worship of idols. I believe the Hindus and the Taoists believe in idol worship.”
However, I do believe it explains why you are so concerned about this topic, and why this thread goes back to Muslim-Hindu relations.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/49331-but-the-word-allah-is-a-word-in-the-english-dictionary-nh-chan
Majed–agreed.
January:12:2010 - 16:17
ie Majed #31 Agreed. I do think that vandalism of Muslim sites is addressed but at least in Canada not with the fervour of bombings of Jewish sites. Officially, however, ie police, take them seriously.
January:12:2010 - 22:54
I think Oby was talking of Muslim media in Islamic countries, not in other parts of the world. When Muslims attack non-Muslim shrines in other parts of the world (since there are not many non-Muslim shrines in Islamic countries), does the media in Islamic countries denounce the violent acts of these extremist Muslims? I think that was her question.
January:12:2010 - 22:59
Indian religions are also world religions; they are not just idolatrous religions. It is highly offense to the followers of Indian religions to be told that their religions are not world religions. And Hinduism is not JUST an idolatrous religion. Those who think that way don’t know about Hinduism. It’s too complex a religion to be classified that way.
This tendency of extremist followers of Abrahamic religions to relegate the Indian and other non-Abrahamic religions of the world to the status of almost “insignificant views”, not even proper religions is highly offensive and smacks of arrogance if not racism.
January:12:2010 - 23:26
Daisy #443–Agreed, which is why I specifically stated that that is the part of the article that I have an issue with. It does reflect on the types of ethnic and religious (since they are tied in Malaysia) problems among Malays, Indians, and Chinese (the latter are also addressed at the end of the article among the pagans and idolaters). In short, although Malaysia has in the past been held up as model of ethnic and religious collaboration, obviously there are also tensions.
John–perhaps it is time to close the comments on this thread formally or informally so that the issue now under discussion can be better addressed under the appropriate post, ie More Politicizing of Religion.
January:13:2010 - 04:50
Thanks Chiara, for your last comment and also for posting that link above on Swiss minarets ban and its repurcussions (# 379).
We can move the discussion on Malaysian churches to the other post, while this discussion can be continued here, though both can often be interlinked.
I just read that report and I feel it needs a closer look. There are some important points this report makes (see #379) –
One, Switzerland arrested Qaddafi’s son earlier in 2009 and there was trouble with Libya over this.
Libya happened to be the major oil exporter to Switzerland and its oil export to Switzerland dropped by 90% subsequent to this tension.
Swiss people felt Qaddafi’s son shouldn’t be above law. However, that didn’t cut much ice with Libya.
Researcher are trying to find out if the Swiss vote was related to this – on an emotional level, there is every possibility that they are related. This is apart from the immigration and current economic problems.
The Swiss-Libyan tension and the international opposition to the Swiss is now forcing Switzerland to consider whether its political system needs a reappraisal.
The message one gets from this is –
Not that the Swiss think of the Muslim groups as victims and are therefore redefining their democracy, but that oil economy of Libya is forcing the hands of Switzerland. Also the international pressure is tied to the oil, business and strategic relations with the Islamic countries as I said in the very beginning.
Hence, this could well be a case of Libya blackmailing Switzerland with support from Islamic countries countries pressurising the West into building a pressure on Switzerland.
We don’t see a parallel of this in Malaysia so far. Malaysia doesn’t have a lot of oil to export, but it has the oil exporting strategically important Islamic countries as its Muslim Brothers.
This is for all commentators and John as well to consider.
January:13:2010 - 07:28
Jkactuz
well, brother do not give much of importance to what i have said about burying and banishing us, I guess It is just my writing style, and about our readily irritable and violent attitude which I know it is true, may we can attribute it to the high level of Testosterone and Adrenaline in our blood ,or may it is due to our mental set up, and also it can be attributed to the policies many and many of our preachers adopt, by the way most of whom have only superficial knowledge of islam and are new comers in the business or call it trade, they will play on any chord that sounds better and attracts maximum number of followers and patronizers but I know for sure, that they keep their own children away from their influence and teach them in best schools available and send to them America and Europe for higher studies to study with ( bad vulgar girls and boys).
And the answer to your questions as per my limited knowledge are :
1 # No . why ? because you have to take many aspects and analysis into your considerations and also you have to remove interest-motivated explanations during different periods to realize the meaning of certain verse (God knows better).
2 # without any doubt No, because he was not only a prophet he was also a the leader of a new nation that is surrounded by enemies and imminent dangers with very little resources he did a good job considering that he died leaving his shield under mortagage to a jew in return for few kilos of barlely to feed his family i think he did very good job and if you do not understand certain things may be those things where permited by traditions and customs of the period, like his marriage to Ayesha peace be upon her when she was only 9 and consummated the marriage when she was 13 , may be you know or may be you do not know that she was before him proposed to someone else , but for his family apologized because they did not want to take a muslim girl .then someone suggested her to the prophet (pbuh) so it was very common by then.
3# 100% true west in general is more tolerant and more democratic and more respectful of human rights than most muslim societies and we should not live with that we have to change.
Oby.
thank you for not forgeting me in your comments, i really appreciate it.
It is not out of negligence that i do not direct my comments to you in response , it is because it takes hell a lot of time to read all those things you people write and you must have notice by now i am week in english. well I am good at writing in Arabic which is my love and my father language and Urdu my compassion and my mother language but i wish i had married an english girl then english would have my wife language then I would have been more at ease with it , it is really the gate language to knowledge and a lot of treasures
January:13:2010 - 11:38
Majed….
I was taking a break for awhile from responding and I hadn’t planned on writing anything but I just want to say your comment to me made me smile. Especially the part about “it takes hell a lot of time to read all those things you people write”. Yes, it is true we do tend to write long statements and debate with each other and I was thinking about you the other day and Uncle Google Translator…putting all our statements into it and trying to understand what we are saying. (Some of it from some commentators is rather high level English so I am not sure Google will translate perfectly)…I just want to say regardless of whether you and I agree or disagree on some issues, you have my deepest respect for making the huge effort you are making to participate on this blog with us. I hope that, even though it is difficult for you, you will continue to contribute your perspective. We may not always agree, but having a dialogue is so important. As for your weak English…it is 1000% better than my Arabic which is nonexistent so kudos to you!
January:14:2010 - 00:37
M.,
Thank you for having the integrity and courage of responding to my questions. Very often when debating these important issues with Muslims, they will not respond.
Now let me comment on your responses:
1. You say I should not be offended by verses in the Quran promote that hate because…
those verses are situational depending upon different periods in which they were written. You also seem to condemn “explained by interest-motivated explanations”.
No divine law should depend on the motivations of the reader. A verse from a god should say that it means and mean what it says. Note that Muslims are certainly motivated by their interests when they interpret the Quran as an instrument of Allah’s peace and mercy. Why not then let the foes of Islam interpret it as meaning hate and violence, according to their interests. You are saying the Quran says what you want it to say (and that is basically right – a person can get anything they want out of it).
As to the text depending on the situation of the time the verse was written, this is the standard explanation given to explain the difference in tone and even contradictions in different parts of the Quran. The old “Medina verses vs Mecca verses” theory is very troubling, because it essentially teaches that Muslims, when they are weak, should be nice (the earlier Medinan verses, the ‘peaceful’ ones) but then they become strong they can attack and conquer (the later Meccan verses, mandating attacks and conquest). If this is your answer, it says all we need to know about Islam.
Note also that this theory basically takes the position that the Quran is incomplete, unclear and poorly written and Allah forgot to put the relevant context with each verse (even though the book itself says it is perfect, complete, easy to understand and “in your own language”).
I find much of the Quran violent and offensive. Verses like these have no context that limits time or place:
[4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. Allah is Almighty, Most Wise.
[9:111]Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?
2. You have not read the ahadith. You got most of it wrong. Mohammad was not surrounded by his enemies. When he first announced his revelation he attacked the idols of his neighbors, even breaking into their homes. They wanted to kill him but he was protected by his uncle. He then moved to Medina where here began a 10 year campaign of raids and wars against neighboring tribes and villages. He was a good leader and tactician. According to a vast array of sources, including the most reliable ahadith and Islam’s greatest early histories (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Hisham, Kathir, etc…) Mohammed fought about a dozen battles and personally led about 25 raids on villages and caravans. We also sent out from 2 to 4 dozen other raids in which he did not go. Only two of the battles were remotely defensive (the enemy came to him, but only after they tired of his raids). Obviously Mohammad was a good and very motivated warrior. This is, in a nutshell, what the traditions say. There is no other way to read them. I will give you a few links:
Yes, the story is that Mohammad was poor when he did died, with few possessions – except he had vast estates with significant income. After his death Fatima and Aisha fought for them in a rift that would eventually become the Sunni-Shia battle. To be honest it seems that Mohammad cared more for power and women than earthy goods (my impression).
Aisha – the given ages are 6 and 9, not 9 and 12. This is mentioned in three different hadiths. I did not call Mohammad a pedophile because I don’t know if Aisha had reached puberty (nobody does) but the evil was in Allah letting this be recorded so Islam has condemned millions of young, half-grown immature children to sexual abuse for 1400 years because Allah doesnt care for little girls, or “forgot” to mention this. This alone is enough to send Allah and Mohammad to a pit of eternal fire in my opinion.
The fact is that the ahadith are an unending series of attacks, raids, situational stories and diatribes against Mohammad’s enemies. There are some funny stories and many with good moral lessons. But what about the violence and hate? There is no way you can read more than 2 pages and not find something that is morally reprehensive, like these:
a. Attacking, herding women and stripping them (see #4348)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html
b. Attacking a village by surprise Muslims (Book 019, Number 4437)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html
And there are dozens of accounts like this.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 198: Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to carry out a Ghazwa, he would use an equivocation to conceal his real destination till it was the Ghazwa of Tabuk which Allah’s Apostle carried out in very hot weather. As he was going to face a very long journey through a wasteland and was to meet and attack a large number of enemies…
Chapter 59 of Bukhari is nothing but a listing of the aggressions of Mohammad, aaaaaand the names of his companions who went with him in his expeditions.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html
c. Here is the most evil action, in my opinion: (see #38.4348)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/038.sat.html
I only only given a few examples here but there are hundreds. In fact if you read the last chapter of Bukhari’s hadith, it is nothing but a lists of all the men that when on each raid (Ghazawat) with Mohammad.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html
Each of these means attacking villages, killing people, capturing and enslaving men women and children, torture, rape of the females, and so on. There is no such thing as a “defensive” raid. Don’t these things, written in your Traditions by Muslims, mean anything?
I notice you were much more firm and forceful in defending your prophet (Mohammad) than your god (Allah). This point was mentioned above.
3. So the West respects human rights more than Islam. Now what does that tell you? So you are saying that countries where people follow Allah are worse than those that don’t? Are you saying that they don’t understand Islam? So many? Or could it be that they act the way the do because that is what their religion teaches.
Yes, you (Majed) have to change all this, but you can’t because you (Muslims) refuse to be honest about the basics of your history and theology. Your explanation is standard fare, even for the good, nice, moderate, sweet, westernized Muslims. When it comes to islam and the Quran, Muslims start making silly excuses (out of context, you don’t understands, that was then, etc…). When it comes to their prophet, they start forgetting (leaving out) important parts of the story or they invest new details that contradict the text but sound must better.
I have done this “quiz” before with Muslims and it is not encouraging. When a seemingly good person tells me that a story about pregnant woman having her belly ripped open by a knife is not really bad in some circumstances, I have a problem with that. Do you?
One last quote: O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble… Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.” (Quran 5:101-102). Yes, Majed, never ask questions, never use your brain.
K.
January:14:2010 - 10:02
J. Katuz: Christianity and Judaism certainly adopt the situational reading of sacred texts. Verses that offend modern sensibilities are most definitely abrogated: we don’t see towns burnt to the ground, with all the men, women, and children slaughtered. We don’t stone adulterers or, typically, kill homosexuals on principle. Yet there are verses in the Old and New Testaments that require just that. We do ‘suffer witches to live’ as well. Yet with this change in behavior, there’s no striking out of verses in the Bible.
I consider all ahadith to be weak. I think they are latter-day justifications for contemporary political actions for the most part, ginned up to provide cover for whatever the local authority wanted to do. Now, cherry-picking either verses from the Quran or from the ahadith can be used to justify just about anything if you look carefully enough. That clearly identifies me as non-Muslim, of course…
January:14:2010 - 10:38
JKactuz…
I really must protest the tone of your response to Majed…perhaps Majed did not understand when you wrote those questions you were waiting like cat to pounce. I think the rest of us certainly understood that…It was a no win for him. If he didn’t answer he was coward afraid to defend his religion and couldn’t argue for it as you have said about so many Muslims. If he did you had a perfect sharp sword waiting for him. Your arguments obviously have been argued before or certainly fomented for a long time inside of you. You know his limitations of English. Why can’t you argue your point with a bit of graciousness? You can disagree with him, ask him questions,cite your points and links. But why use such inflammatory statements? Your argument in this form IMO, should be saved for someone who is as fluent in English as you are. It’s an unfair fight. I don’t get the feeling you really want to debate your point. I have the feeling that you are out to destroy. I understand that you feel anger and contempt toward Muslims or Islam, but it seems to me you are committing the same crime that you accuse them of…hate. You don’t have to actually declare it. The tone of your response practically oozes it.
I have been one of the few on this post that has said I think your concerns are valid… I have said although I don’t see things as black and white as you I do believe we should ask some of the questions you raise. But I don’t think bludgeoning someone is the effective way to argue your point and get those questions answered. It’s certainly not the way to open a conversation. Your methods even have me jumping into the opposite camp and in some ways I agree with you as I said above.
Say what you have to say, but with people who are at an obvious disadvantage linguistically why not cut them a little slack in the harshness? I know Majed is a big boy and doesn’t need me to defend him but It feels as if you are making Majed pay for all the Muslims who wouldn’t step up to the plate and answer your questions or argue with you.
January:14:2010 - 11:00
J Kactuz,
I understand the bitterness inside you. But please consider the following –
Raids of Muhammad were more political in nature than religious and all political battles involve that kind of violence. This characterises me as non-Muslim too.
All religions without exception, differ from their sacred texts in their practices. This is the essential requirement of social change.
You are right that there are violent verses in Quran, but even then, if a Muslim wants to read only the peaceful aspect of Quran or wants to interpret the Quran in a peaceful sense, we should welcome such an effort – regardless of what the Quran itself says. Yes, it means that he is following the Quran only partially, but a positive partial following is desirable.
Our fight should be against the Muslims who want to read the Quran to the letter, including the violent and outdated practices such as stoning, lashing, amputation of limbs etc.
January:15:2010 - 01:22
Thank you, Daisy and Oby, for your thoughts. I know that I can be offensive and counter-productive. You both are very kind. The world probably needs more of you and less of me (but it still needs people like me!).
Yes, it was a set up. Yes I suspected that M would say what he said, nothing more and nothing less. It is typical fare. I have been down that road before, many times – the only thing I didn’t do was bait him about the authenticity of the hadith (the concepts of Sahih, mutawatir and isnad) before asking the questions (to leave no wiggle room).
I am sorry if I offended anybody. I apologize to Majed. He is a brave intelligent young man. Note that I didn’t write those “inflammatory statements” – I quote them and linked to them. Also it is my opinion that Majed is very smart and his English is good. My experience is that Google does not translate that well. I hope his future is good and all the ways that are important (family, health, money).
John, I agree with you about the hadith. They are all written 150-250 years after the “facts” in persia, far from Arabia, so certain are mostly inventions about Mohammad, assuming that he even existed in the form proclaimed by islam. I accept the hadith as written because it serves my purposes. There is a german critic (I forget her name) that has a great analysis of this issue).
The lesson was about the meaning of the minarets and the attitudes that are leading to a confrontation between non-Muslims and Muslims in the West. You cannot reconcile Islamic values with those of the West, unless the West chooses to bury its enlightened legacy in the grave of Multiculturalism and political correctness. It could happen but I will not be a part of it.
Understand that the teachings of the Quran are like putty (you can squeeze them any way you want) but the hadith are very clear about how Muslims should deal with infidels. Note also Quran 33:21 (“Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for Allâh and the Last Day”). So if Mohammad is a moral example and Muslims are to be like him, well you guys figure it out. The fact is that a Muslim never never never almost never will express any reservations about Islam and Mohammed, in spite of the appalling nature of the texts. This is very troubling. I could tell you stories…. As I have said before, the most disturbing thing is how Muslims will constantly ignore their own texts when attempting to explain their religion and history. Because of this total inability to respond to serious questions, Muslims resort to name-calling (racist, islamophobe) and violence to silence their critics. If one cannot criticize Islam or Mohammad, then any abuse is permissible – all you have to do is wrap it in an Islamic context.
In the next European elections we will see tremendous gains by rightwing parties. People see the news and, understandably, associate hate and violence with Islam. They feel threatened. We will then see serious altercations between Europeans and Muslims (My guess, anyway!). We will see the liberal establishment (government, media, academia and churches) take the side of the Muslims. It will be messy.
Muslims need to wake up and see what they are doing! As M says, they need to change things. I have no faith that they will do this because they are incapable of self-reflection (probably because that would mean a loss of faith and automatic apostasy).
I will leave you guys for a while and concentrate on Diaz’s Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. In many ways, Mohammad reminds me of Cortes (religion as a declared motive and, most of all, the seemingly impossible and insurmountable odds they both faced to conquer).
To me, this is less about Islam-bashing than the need for honest, serious dialogue. I blame us (non-Muslims) as much or more than I do Muslims for this the lack of honest dialogue. John, thank you for your patience.
K.
PS: What I will never understand is why Muslims put all those texts online. It is kind of stupid but it sure makes things easy for ornery old guys!
PSS: I am not bitter. Here is proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc
No self-respecting bitter person would post a link to a Doris Day song.
January:15:2010 - 02:41
Jay,
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. You haven’t offended me in anyway. I was just trying to give some critique of your analysis of the Muslims’ views of Islam.
Of course you are right that there is no space for explicit self-criticism in Islam – I have said it many times before. But what is important is, if there is a section of Muslim population that attempts to have a peaceful interpretation of Quran, that should be welcome, no matter whether Quran is a peaceful text or not.
After all, whether a Muslim deviates from the text, whether s/he interprets it incorrectly or even tries to reinterpret it differently, how does it matter to us, the non-Muslims?
For us the important factor is that these Muslims are trying to forge a path of peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims. That’s why we should give value to these kinds of Muslims – regardless of whether their interpretation of Quran goes by the letter or not.
January:15:2010 - 04:25
“I have done this “quiz” before with Muslims and it is not encouraging. When a seemingly good person tells me that a story about pregnant woman having her belly ripped open by a knife is not really bad in some circumstances, I have a problem with that. Do you?”
Not since qualifying in obstetrics. A statement made in reference to the emergency hysterectomy only, not in reference to religious debate.
It is always interesting to watch people cherry pick their way through the Quran and ahadith for the negative and violent quotes taken out of context to support their portrayal of Islam and Muslims, while rejecting all of the quotes that would counteract that, whether they were also cherry picked, or placed in context.
True dialogue and even debate are not possible in such discussions, only using rhetorical tricks to “win” an argument.
January:15:2010 - 04:35
Anyone have any proof that there is no place for self-criticism in Islam? Or to reframe so that you can try to prove a positive, that Islam requires blind obedience only? How about the injunctions to think for oneself, to use free will, to consider what another it saying, and determine one’s own right path; to examine oneself and choose to forgive another, to weigh one’s good deeds vs bad? It seems to me there is a lot of room for self-criticism, though perhaps not with the same premises or conclusions as some would like to believe.
January:15:2010 - 04:39
This is a freebie, just to help us get to 500 faster, and without referencing the Swiss.
January:15:2010 - 04:50
Oops–missed Daisy’s comment at 445. You are welcome, and surely the Malaysian material can stay on its own thread. I wouldn’t overextend the Libyan argument either within the referendum or to all other European countries and oil exporting countries. It was merely one part of why the vote may have gone the way it did: part of the portrayal of Muslims in the media for the months prior to the referendum was the poor behaviour of Gaddafi’s son, and the response of his father.
January:15:2010 - 07:03
It’s a little complicated with the muslims, isn’t. The swiss punish muslims, because of Gaddafi’s (-son) behavior, and Gaddafi
son is having a good time ( and a couple of million less in the pocket) with Beyonce on a new years party in St. Barts.
But he isn’t exactly looking as if he is enjoying himself on the pictures.
http://allmusicsite.blogspot.com/2010/01/beyonces-first-pictures-performing-for.html
January:15:2010 - 07:04
Chiara,
You could be right, but that link says Libya cut down its oil export to Switzerland by almost 90%.
My impression is that so far only we – the commentators are counting the number of comments on this page – John does not seem to care how many hundreds we have reached!
About self-criticism in Islam, I think J. Kactuz was refering to the criticism made by Muslims, not to what the Quranic verses say about it. At least that’s how I understood his comment, but he can explain it. Yes, there is that verse he cited that one should not ask questions and there are also the verses about thinking about one’s path etc.
If you present a sound theoretical critique of some negative aspect of Islam, perhaps that will be a good refutation of this proposition that there is no room for self-criticism in Islam.
January:15:2010 - 08:12
NielsC,
Thanks for that link. Gaddafi’s son is looking that way because he is drunk! Speaks a lot of the kind of politics that is being played there.
January:15:2010 - 11:33
Daisy–precisely, my point, the Libya-Switzerland issue is narrow to the 2 countries, and shouldn’t be generalized; and, it is possible that the news being full of this story impacted the referendum there, given that the Swiss Muslim population is a non-problem.
Re: the comment numbers on this thread; my comments about them are a joke, it helps to keep me amused at some of the turns this thread has taken. I realize John is above that sort of thing, except for amusement as well, and is not given to blogospheric boasting about the number of comments on a thread.
I do realize that Jay was referring both to the Muslims and the specific verses of the Quran he cited. My examples are a direct refutation of that claim in both theory and practice: the Quran advises Muslims to do these things I mentioned, which involve self-criticism obviously, and in my experience, personal, academic, professional and blogospheric, Muslims do them.
January:15:2010 - 11:51
C, you missed the point – three times:
1. There are too many cherries to ignore. It is not one or two or one hundred big blood -red mean cherries.
2. We get no brownie points for being good, at least not in this world, at least for common folks. If you commit a grave crime only once in your life – on only one day in 50 years – all the other good deeds in 18,000 plus days mean nothing to a judge and jury. Why should it be different from one man? We are not talking one crime.
3. We are not also talking about Mr. Joe Anybody here but a person considered to be a moral example, someone whose life is supposed to be emulated. I also see a serious problem of logic. Suppose Islam is true and Mohammed was a great prophet and noble moral example. Why did Allah let Muslims write those horrible stories about him?
As to the “out of context” comment, I am disappointed in you. Perhaps then you could provide the proper context to the accounts in the links provided. Be creative.
You cannot argue that certain events should not be considered because of the nature of those events and the credibility demanded by those who believe them to be true. Once again, I did not write them and I did not create a “science of hadith” to show how true and authentic they are (I have no idea why Muslims do this – it doesn’t make much sense to me, but then again I don’t understand how they can ignore the ethical consequences either).
And most of all, there is the link to modern times and contemporary issues. In a nutshell all the ahadeeth would be totally irrelevant if we did not have the problems with Muslims we have today. If Muslims did not discriminate, persecute and resort to violence, nobody would care about what happened 1400 years ago. Nobody would drag out these things and throw them in the faces of other people. The problem is that Muslims are causing trouble and people are: 1. Asking why, and 2. forming a negative opinion about Islam.
This is just my interpretation of the “why” as to what led to the vote about the minarets I don’t think the Swiss have any intrinsic dislike of tall, narrow brick and mortar structures. It is something else. It is the unease and fear caused by a group of people who cannot live peacefully or respect others.
This is not deep theology; it is Current Events 101. If I were Swiss and I were to vote on this I would think, decide that it was discriminatory and morally wrong – and then vote for the ban anyway. I would do it to send a message. I would justify this by telling myself it was the “lesser evil”. That, I think, is what happened.
Daisy, I find Muslims unable to criticize Islam. This is problematic because all an Imam or another Muslims leader has to do is wrap anything in an Islamic context and, poof, it cannot be criticized. John also has mentioned that Muslims are very reluctant to tackle their texts. I have actually asked a young girl to read a tradition and watched her read each word slowing, hesitating and pausing after each, as if she were afraid of the next word she would come to. But in the end, nothing happens, Muslims go on as if words mean nothing to them. They go back to the mosque and pray as usual. I am mystified. This indifference and/or denial of good moderate Muslims is what causes me concern. It is what makes the radicals possible.
What really makes me mad, most of all, is that I make erudite references to the classics and I post links to great and or interesting music videos and none of you comment on them. Igmore me, fine, but how can you turn your backs on Boggie, Gardel and Mario Lanza?
January:15:2010 - 12:02
Jay,
I watched your videos and must say you are a true Brazilian at heart with that great taste in music videos!
The interesting part is that you predict a gloomy future for the world while you post a video about Doris Day!
I hope you are not leaving the blog. Please don’t, we absolutely need your viewpoints and your video links.
PS – Chiara just said Muslims she knows criticise Islam, so perhaps you can debate this point with her for everyone’s benfit.
January:15:2010 - 14:38
Jay–I get the point. I disagree. Same with context: you know the context, I don’t have to waste time providing it for you. We disagree.
I always love your videos and jokes, Jay. They are the best part of your comments.
Daisy–Why don’t you stand up like a woman and debate your own differences of opinion with me? Why are you always calling on male intellectual protectors? Why don’t you read and cite some of the contemporary Muslim thinkers who do criticize Islam, or are purported to do so? Why don’t you start with Irshad Manji? She, unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who claims to be an atheist, is proud to call herself a Muslim. She is certainly highly self-critical about Muslims, and about Islam. Her whole book (which is a fast read) is online free in multiple languages at her website. Or is it because you think that all the Muslims with PhDs in Islamic Studies from Western universities are incapable of being self-critical of themselves as Muslims, and of Islam–without of course expecting them to become apostates, just as others are allowed to be critical of their religion required to renounce it? For example, John Dominic Crossan, the Catholic scholar of the New Testament and the Historical Jesus, voluntarily resigned from the priesthood (mostly to get married, but also out of a desire for greater intellectual freedom) but stayed on as a theology professor at Loyola. He is considered to be highly critical of his own religion, and is certainly self-critical as he writes in his autobiographical pieces, but remains in the fold.
January:15:2010 - 15:22
Edit: …just as others are allowed to be critical of their religion without being required to renounce it?
January:15:2010 - 19:26
Chiara,
When I have differences with you, I’ll stand up and fight and I like to decide for myself when I want to fight and when I don’t want to fight. It is my right to decide, not yours or anybody else’s. It was you who said Muslims are critical for themselves, so you should cite those authors, you should not ask me to cite them.
It was just a suggestion I was making to Jay to see how he debates with you. I am not using him as a male intellectual protector. In fact you and I were not exactly having a debate when I wrote that to Jay. When I want to debate with you, I’ll do so. I’ll not do something because you are telling me to do it.
January:15:2010 - 19:53
Kactuz…
Let me take a moment and say that it if I offended you I’m sorry…that was not my intent. While I do stand by the content of my post to you, perhaps I, myself could have been a bit more of an example of graciousness in my response.
I do very much appreciate your commentary and I do think we need “watchdogs” (I mean that in a very positive way.)I have learned a lot and enjoyed the heck out of all of you debating although of late it seems things have gotten a bit testy and I am hoping that we can all take a deep breath, refocus and come back reenergized, myself included. The point is too important to get lost in minutiae.
Please continue to post your viewpoints here as well as other topics. We need the watchdogs of the world to offset the extremists.
By the way, I love your little posts at the end. You have made me smile more than once!
January:15:2010 - 20:38
Chiara…
“Why don’t you read and cite some of the contemporary Muslim thinkers who do criticize Islam, or are purported to do so? Why don’t you start with Irshad Manji? She, unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who claims to be an atheist, is proud to call herself a Muslim. She is certainly highly self-critical about Muslims, and about Islam.”
Let me say from a very personal experience that once I posted that idea on another blog because rightly or wrongly I was very impressed with her book. I was impressed with the way she was proud to be a Muslim and yet she was able to take Islam to task for the things that need to be changed very similar to John Dominic Crossen who you know I like…(my thinking didn’t change just because it was Islam.) I wanted to share my experience with others who were questioning the things we are on this blog. If words were a sword my head would be rolling on the floor! LOL! A Muslim man I always thought of as moderate came after me with a vengeance saying I thought like a neo con and a Zionist…he accused me of trying to change Islam because I had presented a book from a lesbian woman. All I had seen in the book was a hopeful message that she was advocating living Islam like it should be lived in peace and love basically and a road map to get there. Through her book I felt a sense of loss for Islam, that the religion was fractured and being robbed of it’s goodness by all the infighting/cultural baggage and the loss of critical thinking replaced by literalism. He couldn’t get past the fact that she was a lesbian and told me in no uncertain words that NO ONE in the Muslim world would listen to her because she was a lesbian and her message was one of destruction of Islam.HUH????
Wow! That put me into a funk because I thought if this man whom I always thought of as the middle of the road moderate Muslim was so virulently opposed to her message could there be any hope out there for any Muslim to hear the message of moderation? Where I saw beauty and a way out of poverty and violence, he only saw ugliness. Not sure anyone Muslim would be open to that message.
January:15:2010 - 21:32
Daisy–it seems that whenever you run out of arguments you call on some man or the group to take me on and do the debating or disproving for your\. You try to bait them with distortions of comments that I have made and ask them specifically and at times repeatedly to respond. I am not here so that you can be amused by having some man take me on and watch our debating styles. I am only here to exchange ideas and learn, and share with anyone interested in the knowledge and insights that I might have on a topic. I have no interest whatsoever in scoring points or even convincing anyone else of anything.
If you don’t appreciate my addressing you and suggesting that you tackle a topic or do so differently, how do you think others feel when you call on them to do so, and direct what they should be commenting on and to whom? This is not your classroom to orchestrate as you wish, and to set up debates or grade comments. If you are so insistent on your own rights and autonomy as a commentator, then please respect that of others, including myself.
It is to the credit of the blog owner and moderator, and to the quality of the commentators that he attracts that you have not been able to manipulate others into doing your bidding more than you have.
I obviously don’t need you to cite the authors I cited, but if you read my comment in its entirety my point was clear. You wouldn’t cite them because their work counters your belief that Muslims are incapable of being self-critical and critical of Islam. The point is too ludicrous to debate. All persons are capable of being self-critical and Muslim scholars are no different with regard to their own religion than any other scholar, and by scholar I mean the bona fide academic ones not the ex-cons who memorized the Quran.
Do you think Tareq Ramadan has been insufficiently self-critical of Muslims or of Islam? Please cite any evidence that Muslims and Islam are capable of self-criticism. Extremist fundamentalist literalists of all religions are poor in this area by definition, but they are also a minority, by definition.
January:15:2010 - 21:49
Oby–I do remember reading that exchange that you had with the pseudo-moderate self-styled arbiter of moderate Islam. He has a reputation in the blogosphere for being the abuser that he is, and for years, since he started commenting and in his previous blog. Apparently he has modified his commenting somewhat as he was so well known for his personal attacks and abusiveness.
When at a loss now he resorts by his own admission in a recent comment to tag teaming with a friend, and in fact has more than one he does this with. Like all abusers he does this claiming the moral high ground and providing a service to the blogosphere. Frightening, that this passes at least for a while as moderate, isn’t it? Also he is hardly the typical Muslim, a quality he never fails to emphasize. In other words, he wasn’t worth the funk, but you probably know that by now.
Irshad Manji requires RCMP protection because she enrages Muslims so much, whether it is because of her pro-Israeli stance, or her lesbianism, or being a lipstick lesbian activist or being an extremely abrasive debater (she too has modified her style but there are early shows of her debating Michael Coren on TVO (Television Ontario) which show her in full fight mode (Coren deserved it though and the show was set up that way).
I have intellectual problems with her book (and many of her views), but appreciate that she has made others aware of the tradition of ijtihad in Islam and that it predominated until about 300 years ago when there was a steady shift toward greater orthodoxy, and now fundamentalism within Islam. I do think that it is important to revive the concept of ijtihad, and I believe Manji is sincere in her belief in that and in Islam. I only referenced her in my earlier comment as someone who is Muslim, self-critical about Muslims, and critical of Islam.
Thanks for addressing this so honestly and openly.
January:15:2010 - 23:39
Chiara…
Well it is good to know I wasn’t the only one. I think I must have come pretty late to the party because I don’t remember any tirades of his in particular.But then again, although it seems like a lifetime to me I only started reading the blogs in September…yeah, I’m probably late to the party. LOL!
I have a question and if you don’t want to comment I totally get that because it is not on the subject of this blog. Or perhaps you can direct me where you would feel comfortable addressing it if not here. I wouldn’t mind getting your thoughts/problems about Irshad Manji. I ask because he was so opposed to it and now you say you have trouble with her premise so I am wondering what your thoughts are and how much of what she says is true, slanted, blown out of proportion…it can’t be because she is a lesbian…there has to be something more to it. I am really curious because what she says seems plausible to me. I just hate to lose the opportunity to question her ideas with someone who won’t go ballistic. But again, I understand if you are not comfortable.
also, here I am going to play devil’s advocate…Tariq Ramadan seems like a moderate Muslim and I looked him up in response to someone else mentioning him on a blog somewhere(sorry…trying to keep them all straight I sometimes forget where I saw things). In doing so I came across an article(and again if I knew he would come up I would have paid closer attention to the web address so I could reference the article.)What they said (and the thing that worried me) was that he says things one way (very moderate) for a non Muslim audience and changes his message leaning toward the more orthodox for a Muslim audience. As you can imagine that bothered me because that certainly would undercut what he has to say if it were me listening. It goes to a center of trust. Is he committed to his vision or not and if so why change the message? I know he had a father in the Muslim Brotherhood. Can you shed more light on Tariq and again, if not here, that is OK. I understand.
January:16:2010 - 04:27
Edit: me to Daisy # 469 “Please cite any evidence that Muslims and Islam are INcapable of self-criticism.”
Oby–thanks for your comment. If you look at past threads with high numbers on the blog where you were abused you will find other examples from the same person and the “gang”. A friend calls them “intellectual terrorists” though I would disagree with the intellectual part since most of it is raw emotion and personal attacks.
I admire Irshad Manji’s courage, although I disagree with her specifically about her stance on Israel. She was, and to me remains, an extremely bright undergrad, one with good research skills,highly articulate, and impassioned by her topic. Her book reads like a 4th year senior thesis that would deserve an A but it remains at that level. Specifically, she musters the evidence to prove her points but doesn’t provide much in the way of nuance, or more indepth understanding. At times she distorts events or positions to bend them the way they suit her view. For example, her acknowledgement of Tarek Fatah’s contribution to her book, and that of his wife was publicly repudiated by him. However, on broad lines of history she is accurate, and as I wrote above, she has made more widely known that Islam does not have to be fundamentalist, and can draw on its own critical and multi-voiced tradition of ijtihad to develop itself in light of contemporary challenges, or at any time in its history for example. My other issues with her probably have more to do with her style of arguing (overtalking, not stopping for air, repetitious, overreliance on autobiography), although she is improving in this.
I wouldn’t underestimate, though, how much her being a lesbian, and moreso being very public about it, discredits her in the eyes of many Muslims, not just the born again Muslims, or the reverts looking for a conservatism to match their own, but the intelligent, educated, born and raised in Muslim majority country Muslims. To many of them she is transgressing Islam twice, once by acting on her lesbian desires, and the second time by being public about it.
I admire Tareq Ramadan a great deal for his intelligence, qualifications, research, and presentation and discussion skills. I have read the same criticism that he says one thing to Muslims, and another to Westerners (articulately in many languages), but I haven’t yet read anything that demonstrates that he does so in a deceptive or nefarious manner, rather than tailoring his content to his audience eg a general audience of Westerners with minimal knowledge of Islam, or a specialist audience of Islamic scholars. Any good speaker/writer who wishes to be understood and communicate his ideas intelligibly would do the same. His central idea that Muslims are capable of a European Islam, of blending their own cultures ie the ones they came from and the ones they are raised and living in, seems to me self-evident, because “my Muslims” (LOL
) all do, and have done all their lives, whether they were in school with the nuns in their home countries, or absorbing European languages and ideas in their studies, or studying and living abroad. It is important that Ramadan express and develop this idea to counteract the “clash of civilizations” hypothesis, to share with those who haven’t had the opportunity to do this being “a Muslim in the West”, and to give that position greater depth and nuance. In a way he is Manji’s ijtihad in action, critiquing Islam as it is understood and practiced by some, and drawing on its resources to have it evolve as its adherents do.
Thanks again for your comment and questions. If there is ever anything you prefer to discuss offline feel free to contact me at chiaraazlinquestion AT yahoo.com
January:16:2010 - 21:58
chiara…
Is chiaraazlinquestion AT yahoo.com an email or a text address? Ask as I don’t have text on my phone…someone sent me dozens and dozens perhaps a hundred prank emails and I couldn’t get them to stop so I deactivated my texting.
If you had some time and the interest I might like to explore further Tariq or Manji…might be old news for you so if there is no interest I am fine about that…I know so few people I can ask about these two. Or maybe you have said all there is to say right here. Just a thought.
January:16:2010 - 22:11
Oby–that is an email address. Just replace the AT with @ and leave no spaces. I write it that way to cut down on spam–although it is lovely to win so many international prizes, and be mentioned in so many wills LOL
I would be happy to discuss with you further, and I guess we would see if we had any more to say in the process of the discussion!
January:16:2010 - 23:15
I find it disturbing that spammers know so much–and so little!–about my body…
January:17:2010 - 04:58
John–take heart, the spammers are determined that Coolred must have Viagra and Cialis, and are so kind as to remind her repeatedly in multiple languages. I guess they want her to either rant about other things or be in such as state as to not rant at all. Google reader faithfully sends me all her spam to her blog, I guess so that I might encourage her to see the value in these medications.
January:17:2010 - 20:53
Not to beat a dead horse, but
A good article about the poster itself, and the mentality / message behind it (When Fear Turns Graphic) in the N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/arts/design/17abroad.html
Expect to see more of this type of message (or propaganda)
January:17:2010 - 21:46
Yes, I saw that discussion about the Swiss poster and its message. It shows how claustrophobic they had become.
January:17:2010 - 21:59
Those are pretty powerful posters. Graphic arts have a way of short-circuiting (or perhaps concentrating) rational thought by direct appeals to emotion. Leni Riefenstahl made that abundantly clear.
January:19:2010 - 07:23
Jkactuz #448
I wonder why wise man like yourself, who is actually trying to question certain things and criticize aspects in a religious book, a book which is considered to be the most comprehensive among all religious books. Aspects, which are by the way are very few and plastic. i have answered your questions but it was the end of the story because this story is one without end. to be true I was expecting a bit more solemn response from an old man like you who has been to places, have seen people, read stories and have learned stuff from real life. to my disappointment , may be I could be wrong, when I say I felt some sense of victory in the 1st round on your part ,apparently after you had seen that I did not fare so well in answering your questions, well, you are wrong, I am only knocked out when I am dead.
you should know there are more than a billion living muslims and billions who had died and many folds of those figures of non-muslims , do you think out of all these people no one has along 1400 years questioned most of the controversial aspects of islam,i am sure they had questioned and they are questioning and they will go on that way, but we believe it is the words of the Omniscient God, so it must be due to our shortcomings that we are unable to understand it properly because God does not make mistake but our intelligence often fails us. and the Quran is for all times and the way it is revealed is the best way to accomodate the change in societies, mentalities. let us take simple example, what would you say if Albert Anishtain told you that he was sure that 1+1 can be 3 I am sure you will you not say he was wrong instead I sure you will think, that he must have tackled that simple equation differently also we see constitutions written by human in very simple way yet they need to be expounded and explained in different ways and bypasses made to go around it and according to those simple constitutions and laws innocent people could lose their lives and others do many crimes and go free, and so is devine constitution it is purposely meant to bear interpretations so that it can be flexible, you are only given guidelines so that can resort to your discretion too, or may be you prefere to be put in a track that goes either forward or backward, but I think that way our life means nothing.
as for
4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. Allah is Almighty, Most Wise.
Before above this verse there is a verse that talks about the disbelievers in the other Abrahamic faiths too thery are also nominated for the same punishment too so that is another ambiguity needs to be looked into, ofcourse you disregarded the scientific miracle in this verse something about skin. you can search about scietific miracle in Quran for more and no said the earth set some mud or in a jugle.
and
[9:111]Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?
here he talks about 83 men and 2 women who took pledge to shelter the prophet against all odds and to protect him in the same way they protect themselves and their children and wives and in pursuit of that purpose they either will kill or be killed. and by means of this verse he gives them like the amercans give (purple heart ) and specifically has mentioned them in a Quranic verse so that they can be for ever remembered and cherished so that everyone might read this verse will remember them.(God knows better)
regarding Ayesha you have chosen to take the least mentioned ages regarding her marriage may you also know even Marry peace of be upon her was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus peace be upon him.
I can also make dirty acusation regarding your relegion Christianity but it is not like me as i hate to impute anything to anyone that could be false, and would be very cheap of to do that. but please for the sake of anything you believe in spare My God and the prophet from any insult. because no matter how exasperated i might be i prefer drop dead before i can say anything wrong about Marry or Jessus.
January:19:2010 - 14:32
Kactuz #477–thanks for the link. It is a good overview.
John #470–Agreed. Since there is no rational threat, in this case the only recourse (rather than a supplemental one) is to the irrational fears, or the creation of irrational fears.
Majed #480–Thank you for your comment. Your final paragraph captures well the dilemma for Muslims in this type of dialogue with Christians slandering the Prophet or Islam. It is impossible to reply “tit for tat” as Muslims revere Maryam and Isa (Mary and Jesus) too, so they are unable to “offend reciprocally” even if they would like to, in order to give the other “a taste of their own medicine”. A friend who was very distraught by the Danish cartoons told me he was a very good cartoonist (true) and would love to respond in kind by depicting Jesus and Mary in an unflattering way (which he described) but he couldn’t because he would be offending esteemed figures in Islam whom he loved.
You obviously are knowledgeable about the teachings and spirit of Islam. On my own blog Chez Chiara, http://www.chezchiara.com, I have posts on Religion, Interfaith, and Islam (that is also the title of the category ReligionInterfaithIslam). I hope you will visit and comment on any posts that interest you. All the best.
January:19:2010 - 15:09
Majed…
You are right about Mary…I saw a show a few weeks ago that spoke about how she was pregnant by 14. I think sometimes people forget that during the ages ago during Jesus and Mohammad’s time it was quite common to marry very young. So we can’t judge them by our standards of today…what was normal then is not really normal in much of the world today. We cannot look down on that as for that time and culture it was not abnormal. Thank you for your comment about Mary and Jesus…I knew Islam saw them as important but I didn’t know they were THAT important for the religion…Thanks for teaching me something I didn’t know!
January:20:2010 - 02:16
Chiara,
thank you very much for considering my comment worthy of your notice and response,and also for inviting me to visit your blog, that really means a lot specially when it comes from someone like you, whom I consider to be very objective and practical person, I am really feel enthusiastic and quite flattered.
Oby,
Whatever I might say, I could never be thanking you enough, you have always been so supportive and encouraging and kept me on the ring despite Jkactuz lefters righters that can make any champion give up.
Oby,
Yes Oby believing in Jesus and Maryam `s purity peace be upon them are among the basics of Islam (unlike Ayesha and companions of the prophet ) and any evil word against them nullifies our Islam. our only problem with Christianity and Judaism is that we contend that their books have been tampered with and that they have adopted other gods or invested the privileges of the One true God that they were told to worship into others.
January:20:2010 - 03:18
But Majed, who are these other Gods in Christianity and Judaism? Do you know who they are?
January:20:2010 - 06:28
#483
” is that we contend that their books have been tampered with and that they have adopted other gods or invested the privileges of the One true God that they were told to worship into others.”
I’m sorry Majed, but your comments here isn’t the way to dialogue. Your remarks just confirm that some muslims just don’t get it. You have no respect for our religion, because your stance make it look like a competition. But of course this is also the reason why sunni muslims kills shia and reverse.
Christians at least the protestantism sort is born with reflexion, we know, that what we know of our religion is brought to us by texts, which you should interpret.
Some muslims doesn’t even bother to think about why muslims have killed each other in the name of religion.
January:20:2010 - 06:46
#481
“it is impossible to reply “tit for tat” as Muslims revere Maryam and Isa (Mary and Jesus) too, so they are unable to “offend reciprocally” even if they would like to, in order to give the other “a taste of their own medicine”
Im sorry to say Chiara, but you also regard it as an competition. Christianity has developed through awful wars and cultural clashes, where depiction of God, and his servants on earth is an integral part. Thats a part of our tradition. We know religious texts can be interpreted, and this is one of the reasons for wars.
Some muslims don’t se it this way, thats of course why they have difficulties explaining religious violence against other muslims. (ex. the murder attempt on Naguib Mahfouz).
January:20:2010 - 07:44
NielsC,
Muslims or any other people – should not give a value judgement on other religions about whether they are doing it the right way or not. It is for the followers of a religion to decide how many gods they want to worship, whether their gods are true or false and whether their texts are divine texts and how they want to interpret their religiosity.
This is simply not acceptable from the Muslims or anyone else for any religion in this world. It is not the business of any religion to become the arbiter for all the religions of the world.
But I would really like to hear from Majed who these other gods are whom the Christians and Jews are worshipping, because of which Islam has an issue with them.
January:20:2010 - 09:06
The quotation, which is rather oblique, seeks to refute the Christian idea of the Trinity. It so happened that Islam developed during a period in which Christian doxology was being developed and when there were many what are now called heresies about the nature and personhood of God. The Prophet was exposed to these clashing ideas and reasoned that the ‘persons’ of the Trinity were ‘persons’ in the normal sense, not the mystical sense that Christians now believe. Thus, the ‘other gods’ parsing. The concept of the Trinity is not an easy one for most Christians to get ahold of, for that matter, at least not in the sense the Christian theologians would support!
January:20:2010 - 09:08
There were iconoclastic Christians, of course. Certain Greek, Russian, and even early English Anglicans took offense at imagery. All of them resulted in bloody conflicts within Christianity.
January:20:2010 - 10:28
So, in a layperson’s language, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are the three manifestations of God as conceptualised in Christianity. Is that right? Is Jesus Christ a part of this Trinity – mystically or personally?
What about Judaism? Who are the other gods in Judaism according to Islam?
January:20:2010 - 10:58
I haven’t a clue what’s meant by multiple gods for the Jews! For the Christian trinity, there’s a lot of complication about just how to assess it, particularly as Jesus took on a human form. Wars have been fought and thousands killed in the arguments over his ‘nature’ and his ‘godhead’. Personally, I think the Hindu concept of ‘avatar’ works pretty well to conceptualize the manifestations, but that’s not exactly right either. ‘Avatar,’ sadly, has taken on new meanings that are rather different from the original, as shown by the various avatars in these comments!
January:20:2010 - 12:00
I think it’s close to the Hindu idea of the Supreme Divine Power manifesting itself in myriads of forms. The Divine Power itself is formless, but it takes many forms at will – including incarnations or avatars. It’s quite easy for me to imagine a God who manifests himself in three forms – as incarnations, as mystical or spiritual forms or as persons, though I may not be able to explain it in clear language.
So, is Jesus a manifestation of this God as His Son in the Trinity – in the ancient connotation of avatar as its closest analogy if you will? Especially because Christian prayers are usually addressed to God through Jesus or directly to Jesus?
January:20:2010 - 13:01
According to Christian theology, Jesus is identical with God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit). It is a religious mystery just how they manage their separate identities while being the one, same God. Manifestations and avatars are close for practical purposes, but not exactly kosher (forgive the cross-sectarian simile!). There is both more unity and more separate identity than ‘avatar’ justly conveys.
January:20:2010 - 13:30
NeilsC–I’m not sure what you think I think is a competition. I was repeating my friend’s stance. I respect that each of the 3 Abrahamic faiths has a distinct view, and I don’t attempt to convince any one of them about the rightness of the others.
John–I agree with most of what you would said. I would only add that the situation of Arabia and Makkah at the time of the Prophet was one in which many Jewish and Christian tribes were worshiping the ancient gods and goddesses of the peninsula, hence the Idols at the Kabbah. This was part of the Message via the Prophet Mohamed that there is no God but Allah; and the other part was against the Christian idea of the holy trinity ie Allah or God being triune 3-in-one manifestations, persons (in the spiritual sense), or aspects, and Jesus as the son of God not just a great prophet–ideas the Prophet was familiar with because of his travels as a trader.
Daisy # 492–the idea of the Hindu Supreme Divine Power is not at all the Christian idea and is closer to the Classical Greek, Roman, and even Egyptian ideas than the Judeo-Christian one, where there is only one God and he only manifests himself as the Holy Spirit (rarely) or Jesus (once so far and waiting for the 2nd coming). The answer to the question of the other gods of the Jews is the idols ie not real gods.
Religion has served as a convenient cover for politico-economic and nationalistic wars. For more motivational for the masses to fight for the liberation of Jerusalem from the infidels (this time the Muslims) than for a land grab for 2nd born sons of noblemen suffering from Europe’s system of inheritence by primogeniture.
January:20:2010 - 13:48
#494 Chiara
“than for a land grab for 2nd born sons of noblemen suffering from Europe’s system of inheritence by primogeniture”
I don’t really understand this sentence. You don’t refer to the Reformation wars in Europe ?
January:20:2010 - 14:21
Majed #483–it is my turn to feel enthusiastic and flattered. I look forward to your comments here, and on my blog as well.
NielsC #495–No I refer to the Crusades, which had multiple motivations not the least was a much need land expansion of Europe, mainly because of population increases and the difficulty of the sons who didn’t inherit the father’s lands ie all but the firstborn to make their way in the world–often the military or the clergy were their chosen professions/ routes to power. Their own need for land was one of the motivators for their contribution to the Crusades.
BTW The Kingdom of Jerusalem, all of it, ie what we would now consider the Levant, has never been fully relinquished and its current king is King Juan Carlos II of Spain (although there are pretenders to the throne of course). One could do worse given his ability to transition from Franco’s dictatorship to a contemporary democracy, and his way with a put down when Hugo Chavez misbehaves at the UN.
January:20:2010 - 14:50
I’m pretty sure the idols at the Kaaba weren’t Christian or Jewish ones. Those two faiths had their monotheistic bent well established by then. Rather, it was the Arab tribes and their multiplicity of gods/goddesses who were the dominant users of the Kaaba. It’s reported that an icon of Jesus and Mary was included amongst the Kaaba images at the time of, and for some period after the Prophet.
January:20:2010 - 15:42
John…
I just read this the other day that before the advent of the prophet Muhammad and Islam, the people of the Arabian Peninsula worshiped hundreds of deities, as illustrated by the 360 idols (one for each day)found around the rim of the Kaaba in pre-Islamic Mecca. Islam’s rejection of paganism in favor of shahada, or profession of faith in a single God, would become one of the five pillars of the new religion.
January:20:2010 - 16:41
John–I didn’t mean the idols were Christian or Jewish but rather non-Abrahamic, and it was my understanding that all were worshiping idols in addition to their one God, much like the integration of pre-Christian and Christian elements in other cultures, whether European, African, or South American,and especially Haiti’s voodoo culture blending Catholicism, and African religions. Other Caribbean Catholicisms I have been exposed to have similar though less African influences. Also, the tradition in Arabia of all tribes including the Christian (and presumably the Jewish) ones performing an annual pilgrimage to the Kaaba pre-Islam reinforced this idea regarding the idols. There were other altars throughout the peninsula including to 3 Arabian goddesses. My reading suggests that the all tribes in Arabia at the time of the prophet were insufficiently monotheistic.
To you, sir, the honour of #500.
January:20:2010 - 18:42
I was under the impression that the revolution the Prophet brought to the region was belief in the One God. Prior to him, that was a very minor deity amongst the myriad. His emphasis on monotheism came from his knowledge of Jewish and Christian beliefs–as well as direct revelation, of course!
Islam certainly did not take the syncretic route, quite the opposite!
January:20:2010 - 19:00
500 posts Woo Hoo!!
John, that is my understanding as well. Part of the problem he faced was many little fiefdoms all worshiping separate deities. In order to unify these groups he “borrowed” from the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity and became more sure that it was the right path through revelation.
January:20:2010 - 20:00
Congratulations John on #500–There were Jewish and Christian tribes among the polytheists who were not appropriately observant of their own religions either. The Revelation was for monotheism to the polytheists and a correction of the corrupted books (the Hebrew and Christian Bibles) and practices for the monotheists, or what was passing has monotheism.
St Paul had brought Christianity to Arabia, especially Yemen during a 3 year sojourn there. The Apostles Matthew and Bartholomew also were assigned to preach in Arabia. The proximity to Ethiopia, one of the oldest centres of Christianity and trade between Arabia and Ethiopia increased the influence of Christianity. The persecution of Persian Christians in the 4th century resulted in an influx of Christians expecially to port cities, and coastal areas, though with little impact on the Bedouin of the interior. Many settled in the EP and Oman and maintained ties with the Persian Church which had Arabian bishops as well. The language of dissemination was originally Aramaic,then Syriac (both semitic languages related to Arabic), and the Church is/was known as the Church of the East or the later misnomer the Nestorians. Many early Christian writings record these and other Christian activity in Arabia.
The Message of the Revelation had to be so insistent on Jesus NOT being the son of God and the Prophet Mohamed being a Messenger to counteract this Christian presence.
The Jews populated Arabia from the First Temple ie 2nd century and continued migrating in high numbers to the 6th-7th century and were particularly numerous in the Hijaz, near and in Medina where there were 3 main tribes: Nadir, Qunaiyqa and Qurayza. There were numerous other smaller Jewish tribes. The Constitution of Medina recognized the Peoples of the Book and included specific Jewish tribes.
So methinks Jews and Christians were there, along with the polytheists.
Agreed, not syncretic so much as a corrective (from the Islamic point of view).
January:20:2010 - 20:26
Majed #483…
You are most welcome. I always appreciate you sharing your viewpoint with us here. As a practicing Muslim, I think you have a lot you can add to our conversation. I hope you will continue to comment on other posts as well.
January:20:2010 - 21:51
John is right. Jewish and Christians didn’t worship the idols at the Kaaba. Kaaba was a sanctuary of the idols of various Arab tribes. I didn’t say Hindu concept is the same as the Abrahamic monotheism – we were just trying to draw an analogy. Yes, Islam didn’t take the syncretic route as John rightly says – the idols at Kaaba were removed when Kaaba was turned into the Islamic sanctuary.
John,
Avatar is just one out of many such concepts in Hinduism. That idea is also there – a divinity can be one and many at the same time. Jesus being identical with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit is quite comprehensible to me. I think Muhammad was critiquing this idea. Jews were not worshipping the Kaaba idols – so far I haven’t seen any such reference.
Majed, would you like to say something?
January:21:2010 - 04:55
Daisy–Please explain then the annual pilgrimage of all and all tribes, Christian and Jewish to the Kaaba to worship during the pre-Islamic times and during the lifetime of the Prophet Mohamed up until he made it an Islamic event with the first Hajj by him and his followers from Medina? It is common for Christians to have “side idols” in various cultures as I mentioned, and some would argue that marianismo, or mariolotry, borders on idol worship of the Mother of Jesus.
I realize you were drawing an analogy, I disagree with it, at least in these aspects. It seems common enough for Hindus to draw an analogy between the Supreme Divine Power, and a form of monotheism. The concept is distinct from trinitarianism, however.
There are links in the wikipedia article on the Hajj to the all religions pilgrimages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj
“Prior to Muhammad’s era, each year tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula would converge on Mecca, as part of the pilgrimage. The exact faith of the tribes was not important at that time, and Christian Arabs were as likely to make the pilgrimage as the pagans.[11] Muslim historians refer to the time before Muhammad as al-Jahiliyah, the “Days of Ignorance”, during which the Kaaba contained hundreds of idols – totems of each of the tribes of the Arabian peninsula, with idols of pagan gods such as Hubal, al-Lat, Uzza and Manat, and also some representing Jesus, and Mary.[12]
Muhammad was known to regularly perform the Umrah, even before he began receiving revelations.[3] Historically, Muslims would gather at various meeting points in other great cities, and then proceed en masse towards Mecca, in groups that could comprise tens of thousands of pilgrims. Two of the most famous meeting points were in Cairo and Damascus. In Cairo, the Sultan would stand atop a platform of the famous gate Bab Zuwayla, to officially watch the beginning of the annual pilgrimage.[13]
In 632 AD, when Muhammad led his followers from Medina to Mecca, it was the first Hajj to be performed by Muslims alone, and the only Hajj ever performed by Muhammad. He cleansed the Kaaba, removed all the idols, and re-ordained the building as the house of God.[14] It was from this point that the Hajj became one of the Five Pillars of Islam.”
Regarding the presence of Christians and Jews in Arabia, from an Islamic scholar:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/9.htm
“The Prophet received at Medina a deputation of the Christians of Najran and held discussions with them on religious questions. Christianity in the south?west of Arabia received a fresh stimulus by the invasion of the Chris tian Abyssinians, who put an end to the rule of Dhu Nawas. There were Christians in Mecca itself; Waraqah ibn Naufal, a cousin of Khadijah, the first wife of the Prophet, was one of them. Christianity was also found among certain tribes of the Euphrates and the Ghassan who lived on the borders of Syria. Their conversion was due to their contact with the Christian population of the Byzantine Empire. The Ghassanids, who were Monophysites, not only defended their Church against its rivals but also fought against the Muslims as the allies of the Byzantine emperors. The Christians were also found at Hirah, a town in the north?east of Arabia, where Arab princes of the house of Lakhm ruled under the suzerainty of the Persian kings. These Christians, who were called `Ibad or the “Servants of the Lord,” belonged to the Nestorian Church, and contributed to the diffusion of Christian ideas among the Arabs of the Peninsula.
By the sixth century, Judaism and Christianity had made considerable head way in Arabia, and were extending their sphere of influence, leavening the pagan masses, and thus gradually preparing the way for Islam.”
From Discover Islam:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/About-Islam/The-religion-of-Islam/a-history-of-the-hajj
“After building the Kaaba, Abraham would come to Makkah to perform Hajj every year, and after his death, this practice was continued by his son. However, gradually with the passage of time, both the form and the goal of the Hajj rites were changed. As idolatry spread throughout Arabia, the Kaaba lost its purity and idols were placed inside it. Its walls became covered with poems and paintings, including one of Jesus and his mother Maryand. Eventually over 360 idols came to be placed around the Kaaba.”
The Hajj: the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca and the holy places By F. E. Peters
http://books.google.ca/books?id=EK5MqskDYC0C&dq=hajj+pre-islamic&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
also details this, and that the Prophet Mohamed allow the picture of Jesus to remain but removed the picture of Abraham thought to be more representative of the god of his Quraysh tribe, Hubal.
Judaism was prevalent in the Hejaz as well as in Yemen, and although is race based, did influence the Arab tribes, though to a lesser extent than Christianity did because of that. Zoroastrians were there among the pagans as well.
Allah was considered the supreme being among the other gods and idols–at least by some pre-Islamic Arabians. Allah was made the exclusive God and idols prohibited by Islam, sent as the Message to restore Arabia to its pure Abrahamic form, from the days of Abraham and Ishmael.
I hope that clarifies. More scholarly sources are available directly to those with uni level library internet access, but these sources are available to all.
January:21:2010 - 05:08
Daisy,
sorry, obviously you have anticipated my answer to your question, and are prepared with something in your pocket, but a cat ready to bounce thing won`t work with me twice, i guess you will have to give me some time to think how to answer , the idea or the concept is clear to ( me ) but molding into understandable englsih is quite a task (but of course there are other ideas ) and I am willing to hear.
And daisy, i did not even hint to how people are supposed to thing or how many gods they should have or not have at all it is non of my business. and if it sounded that way I apologize for that, I only wanted to show you all the view of the picture from our side.
And, thank to John for taking upon his good self to answer the easier part of your question, which is about the gods in christianity (mystically or personally) even though i could not understand how if one can be the result of another yet all are eternal, and how come if all are the same One, that we can not put them in any other order but : Father, Son and the Holy Spirit without being condemned just like (1,1,1)is one in any order.
Who are the other gods of Christianity and Judaism, was the questione, The christian part was easy to answer because christians adimit it and practise it (some how) as we see it although it is not written clearly in the scripts. but the one related to Judaism is difficult because they have nothing about it written in their reviewable srcipts and they do not admit it too. but I will try to throw some light on that from our perspective soon.
NielsC,
“I’m sorry Majed, but your comments here isn’t the way to dialogue. Your remarks just confirm that some muslims just don’t get it. You have no respect for our religion, because your stance make it look like a competition” .
The explanation and apology above is also meant to you and to all those who felt bad about what i have said.
You are asking me to interpret your (texts), and that is exactly what i meant to say that there are not one Bible there are Bibles, i should at least know that, after all Christianity and Judaism are not something new that came to us from Mars, our land is their birth place and their cradle and I am very proud of that, Islam to us is just like you can say the revised,complementary, reformed version of both (as we believe).
January:21:2010 - 05:29
Majed–I found you very clear on the idea that the 3 persons of the Christian God can strike Muslims as polytheistic. As I wrote above the Kaaba held at one time idols and paintings of Jesus and Mary, who were worshipped by the pre-Islamic Christian tribes of Arabia. Mary is not to be worshipped as a goddess but venerated, held in high esteem, as the Mother of Jesus. Some Christians even today tread a very thin line between goddess worship and venerating the Virgin Mary. Marianismo or very high veneration of Mary is part of Latin American culture. It is both a comfort to its adherents and holds up an impossible standard for Hispanic women. There are psychiatric studies done on it, as well as culture studies and religious studies.
I look forward to your further explanations, from the Islamic perspective.
January:21:2010 - 06:01
Majed,
Please remember that I was the first person who had said to J Kactuz that he should be sensitive towards you – not anyone else on this blog.
If despite this, you have preconceived notions about what I am going to say to you then there is no point in having any kind of dialogue with you.
You can think about me whatever you like, it doesn’t bother me in any way.
January:21:2010 - 06:03
Chiara,
You need not interfere in something I am asking someone else.
January:21:2010 - 06:20
all those arab who lived in arabia before islam worshipped and believed in one God they Called him Allah too, but used the idols as mediators.they clearly admitted of this concept.
January:21:2010 - 06:47
That is true, but they were not Christians and Jews. They followed their tribal pre-Islamic religions. Islam makes a statement about Christians and Jews. John in above comments has talked about Christianity, but what about the Jews?
January:21:2010 - 08:37
Daisy #509–I expected that comment from you to me, but the topic was an ongoing one amongst all of us, and I see no reason that Majed, as capable as he is, should bear the burden of explaining pre-Islamic practices. Also, I am not sure what type of online research access he has.
Majed #510–yes Allah was considered a god above the others in Pre-Islamic Arabia at the time of the Prophet, thank you for adding the idea of the idols as mediators.
Daisy #511–The answers to your questions are in my comment #505. Or are you less concerned with the answers, than forcing Majed to reply in the way you want? The Jewish question is answered there too.
January:21:2010 - 11:21
Majed @# 506…
I feel I need to interject here. Sorry, but this time you have gotten it wrong. Daisy is not the one to pounce like JKactuz…if she asked you a question it was purely to get an opinion or your perspective or even to debate with you. She might not agree with you but she isn’t the one to set a trap for you so in this way you have no worries about that like with Kactuz. Or at least I don’t have that impression of her. I feel she can be sure of her point and want to argue it, but not in such a way as to try to hurt you.
January:21:2010 - 11:25
Oby,
Thanks.
January:21:2010 - 11:49
Majed you said ” all those arab who lived in arabia before islam worshipped and believed in one God they Called him Allah too, but used the idols as mediators.they clearly admitted of this concept.” Can you expound on that please? I am assuming you mean Arab Christians and Arab Jews?
I am finding it a bit confusing…Chiara, you are saying the Christians and the Jews were there at the time but were involved in Idol worship as an adjunct to Monotheism and someone else is saying that they were there and brought the idea of Monotheism to Mohammaed or rather he observed it and received it through revelation and Majed is saying that all those who were in the area before Islam believed in one God as well as Idol worship…but there were many, many that were there who did not believe in one God and instead had many deities that they worshiped who were neither Christian or Jewish (and of course not Muslim yet).
So let me recapitulate…There were Jews and Christians in the area that were monotheistic…there J & C who were monotheistic AND had idol worship…there were pagans who had ONLY idol worship and had not embraced Monotheism yet and into all this mix came Mohammed. He, through revelation, revealed that monotheism was the “correct path” and established Islam, also taking some of the traditions of both Judaism and Christianity into Islam. Eventually the pagans dropped their idol worship and became what? Muslim? Or as per your citings above did they become Jewish or Christian? Does this summarize it (sort of?)
January:21:2010 - 11:50
P.S. anyone can answer this…it is not only for Chiara or Majed…
January:21:2010 - 11:53
Daisy,
You’re welcome.
January:21:2010 - 12:41
Oby #513–Majed seems to think Daisy did this once before, but I am sure he can clarify for us.
Oby #515–I would summarize pre-Islamic Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohamed this way:
There were Christian tribes and Jewish tribes who had converted to those religions centuries previously, or also more in the case of the Jews arrived there as part of the diaspora of Jews from Jerusalem. Some of these practitioners of monotheism also worshipped idols which were of local Arabia gods, just like Christians in Europe held to druid or celtic beliefs or in Africa to pre-Christian beliefs, and the Jews in Arabia had an Abraham confused with the Arab god Hubal and painted on the Kaaba. All performed or were eligible to perform the annual pilgrimage to the Kaaba. Most of the pre-Islamic tribes of Arabia were more clearly polytheistic, believing in a variety of Arabian gods and goddesses, and worshiped their idols in the form of stones, and in shrines throughout the peninsula. They also made the pilgrimage to the Kaaba which was filled with their idols, about 350 of them. Of these gods, one, Allah, was considered to be a superior one over all the others, and some believed, as Majed said, that the idols served as intermediaries to Allah only.
The Prophet Mohamed was aware of these tribes and beliefs, especially because his tribe was the keeper of the Kaaba. In addition, as a camel trader, he met and talked with Jews and Christians from, and in, far off lands. Muslims believe that the Message was given to the Prophet Mohamed to bring people back to the right path of Islam. They believe that Abraham and Ishmael had originally brought Islam to Arabia, at Allah’s bidding, when the Kaaba was created. They believe all since Adam and Eve are Muslim, but people have strayed. Allah sent the message of the Law via the Prophet Moses (Musa) and the message of Love via the Prophet Jesus (Isa). The Hebrew Bible, and the Christian Gospels and New Testament were the books of these messages, but have been lost in transmission and translation ie they contain errors. The Quran is the final book to transmit the correct message, that of Islam or Submission to Allah, directly from Allah through the Angel Gabriel and Mohamed. For this reason the Quran is thought to be perfect in its Arabic language version, but less reliable in translation. Problems of understanding are not due to the Quran being at fault (since it is the Divine recitation of Allah) but due to human limitations in understanding.
After the Revelation, more and more converted to Islam, but there was also resistance from the Prophet Mohamed’s own polytheistic tribe, those of the Christians and Jews, and the polytheists. There were battles over this (whence many of the citations about dealing with Jews and Christians and polytheists WHEN they are your enemy). The Constitution of Medina was part of a peace plan negotiated by the Prophet Mohamed, and deals with how non-Muslims are to be treated in Muslim lands, ie Jews and Christians, people of the Book, had the right to their religion but not to proselytize. Polytheism was to be eliminated.
I think that is simplified but accurate, and hope it helps.
January:21:2010 - 13:06
#507 Majed
I didn’t ask you to interpret the christian texts. My point is that christianity from the beginnings is based on different (and in part contradictory) texts. We don’t have different bible’s, but different gospels, and a lot more than the four that’s are the New Testament.
In regard to Islam thats a very important point, because we accept that knowledge of our God is textually mediated, and we therefore accept that it can be interpreted, in different ways.
You prefer to talk of Islam as one common religion based on a common understanding, but if you have eyes and look around it’s clear that there are many different interpretations. Why don’t you accept it.
# 510 Majed
‘all those arab who lived in arabia before islam worshipped and believed in one God they Called him Allah too’
This is simply not true, you can start by defining ‘arabs’.
The interesting question is of course why some muslim feel the need to postulate this. To secure arabs a special role ?
And I don’t really think that the discussion about religion in the middle east at the time of Islam birth is interesting regarding the problem in our time. At least not for christianity.
#496 Chiara
‘BTW The Kingdom of Jerusalem, all of it, ie what we would now consider the Levant, has never been fully relinquished and its current king is King Juan Carlos II of Spain ‘
Once again I don’t understand your historical references, and whats the point. What is King Juan Carlos connection to The kingdom of Jerusalem ?
And regarding idol worship of Mary in latin america, I always found the ‘black’ mary’s very amusing, and interesting.
January:21:2010 - 13:49
NielsC: the point was mostly to see if anyone was awake (congratulations!) and to inject a little humour with the idea that some still believe that the Crusades came down to a truce not a trouncing. The current King of Jerusalem (the Kingdom Jerusalem of the Crusades which spans most of the currently contested territory in the Levant) is King Juan Carlos I of Spain, who is a very able negotiator and could perhaps help out in the current quagmire.
Once again wiki provides a reliable starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Jerusalem (pretendents are from various principalities now part of Italy and the occasional German aristocrat, and French nobleman)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Jerusalem_family_tree (up to 1291)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_of_Jerusalem (hmmm so few Queens, so many consorts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain (oops sorry for making him the II instead of the I)
Oh, and I was the one who “flipped a coin” towards the expansion of this thread way beyond Switzerland and their referendum and the implications for Eurabia, after my futile resistance to all things Asian, so the other part of my point was to expand to the far west of Asia and get the number of comments up to 500.
Now that that has been achieved: 600 here we come! LOL
Yes there are black Marys and Catholic Virgin Fatimas in the South of Spain too–very intriguing.
January:21:2010 - 17:04
M., First of all, I am not wise, neither smart. I try to be fair (same standards for all) and honest (mostly). I also believe I am curious. That is all I can manage. I think fairness is one of the great virtues, surpassing intelligence. Fairness requires honesty. I find Islam and Muslims lacking in both. I say this based upon the fact that Muslims will not repudiate the evil things in their sacred writings and they refuse to consider how they treat others.
I see no victories here. I really don’t care if you change your mind or not. I don’t think it will make one iota of difference what any of us say and write here. I may score “points” in a debate but that is not my objective. I have been debating Muslims for years and as far as I know I have not make anyone change his/her mind. I do what I do because I believe in equality and basic personal freedoms. I happen to think that Islam – as it exists today under the present complex circumstances – is hurting people and it will cause much pain and suffering in the near future.
You are a Muslim – you have “submitted” to Islam. Your values and opinions are therefore those of Islam (and not those of the “West”), and you will act accordingly. You cannot accept a single element of evil in Islam because to do so would mean Islam is not perfect and it is wrong / untrue. Thus you are put in the position of having to defend everything in Islam and a lot of things Muslims do. It is an impossible task – beyond the strength of Hercules and the powers of Superman.
Under the classic liberal view, that before the 1970s, anybody that saw an evil had the right and duty to speak out against it, no matter what it was (communism, capitalism, environment, discrimination, war, women’s rights, walmart, etc…). Other people, even those that did not agree, recognized the right of a person to protest and have a contrary opinion.
Today, most so-called liberals are leading the war on free speech and equality. They hide behind concepts such as “hate speech” and “political correctness” to suppress personal freedoms. Islam is a big part of this. Thus, this week, we have an 80+ page Pentagon report on the Fort Hood massacre that doesn’t even have the word “Islam” in it even though Islam is the motivating factor in that tragic event. We also see Dutch politician on trial this week for “hate speech” against Muslims. This is nothing more than a politically motivated witchhunt against all basic freedoms. This is Islam in action.
Which brings me to your comment # 480 about my comment #448 –
1. I seen no “scientific miracle” in burning skins off and replacing then to repeat the torture. I have no idea how you came up with this explanation. This verse is simple says that Allah will personally torture people that don’t believe in him. Nice! Note that this is without respect to a person’s actions in this life.
2. I see no reference to “83 men and 2 women” in the text. It says “believers” which means Muslims. Your explanation is silly. It is beyond silly! Since you talk about shelter, consider the treatment of Christians by your prophet. They sheltered him, and then Mohammed expelled them from their homes. Nice. The text says that Muslims are put on earth to kill and be killed. There is no other interpretation.
Please don’t explain any more texts to me. I cannot handle it!
Why do people have to respect religion? Why do Muslims respect Jesus and Mary but not the millions of Christians in Islamic countries? Muslims cant hurt Jesus and mary but the persecute living people. The fact is that Muslims respect nothing but Mohammad. For all practical purposes he is Islam’s god, not Allah.
My impression of the Quran is that Mohammad had a very limited understanding of Judaism and even less of Christianity. He made stupid errors (No, Mary is not part of the Trinity and no, Muslims cannot eat the food of ‘people of the book’) when making reference to those religions. He didn’t even know the correct names of Bible persons or their relationships or timeline. He obviously was exposed to Jewish history and customs around campfires when growing up, but he never learned the basics. He confuses the Talmud with the Torah.
Note that the idea that a god can let his books be “tampered with” is stupid. Is god so weak that he cannot protect his word? It is then God’s fault that people are misled. Note also that Christians are consistent about this. They accept Jewish writings as God’s word. In fact, Jews are allowed under rabbinic law to discuss and teach Christians, but not Muslims. Why? Because Christians accept the “Old Testament” as god’s word.
As to the kaaba, it was and continues to be a shine of idol worship. It was before Mohammad and nothing has changed. In fact, a mere 20 years after the death of Islam’s prophet, the same family that controlled the idol worship was back in control, but with a better business model (called Islam). I am talking about the caliph Uthman in case you don’t know. Now, as then, people continue to bow down to a black rock in the side of the Kaaba. Allah is MIA but the old rock is there.
After Mohammed’s death there were no more Js and Cs in the Mecca area because Mohammed expelled them. The Ps had already been given the choice of convert or die.
Oby, Daisy would never “pounce” on anybody. She would just sweet talk ’em until they begged for mercy!
January:21:2010 - 17:55
Chiara…
First, that was a very complete yet to the point explanation…whew! I truly appreciate you taking the time to do it. Now that you have it has dropped a couple of pieces of the puzzle in place.
That leaves me with a couple of questions:
“Allah sent the message of the Law via the Prophet Moses (Musa) and the message of Love via the Prophet Jesus (Isa). The Hebrew Bible, and the Christian Gospels and New Testament were the books of these messages, but have been lost in transmission and translation ie they contain errors. The Quran is the final book to transmit the correct message, that of Islam or Submission to Allah, directly from Allah through the Angel Gabriel and Mohamed. For this reason the Quran is thought to be perfect in its Arabic language version, but less reliable in translation. Problems of understanding are not due to the Quran being at fault (since it is the Divine recitation of Allah) but due to human limitations in understanding.”
How do they know that the Jewish and Christian contain errors? I am not saying they don’t but if we don’t have an original template of what it was supposed to be how can there be a claim of incorrectness? Ie: you build a building and you have a blueprint…you can look at the original blueprint and see if it was done correctly. In the case of the Jewish and Christian books/bibles we have oral and written histories but how do we know that they are adulterated and not as God wanted them to be?
Secondly, IF these two books are adulterated due to the imperfection of man, what makes Muslims so sure that the Qur’an is perfect in its Arabic language translation? Muslims (or the people that were to become Muslims) are as human as anyone else…open to misunderstanding and perhaps tweaking the holy texts to suit a purpose or need of the time. If it could happen with the first two why not with this one as well? And moreover, if Muslims can understand that the J & C texts were possibly adulterated, why can it not apply to Islamic texts…
Besides, as I understand it Hadith was written down 200 years after it was first revealed…doesn’t it make sense in all that time, like a game of telephone, that as it was passed orally through the decades the original message got changed or even adulterated for someone’s own gain?
“There were battles over this (whence many of the citations about dealing with Jews and Christians and polytheists WHEN they are your enemy).”
I get that… to me that is not divine revelation but rather warfare tactics. It makes sense to treat your enemy that way. However, Allah clearly says in the Qur’an that He created other people of other cultures so that we may know each other and they are to be respected. How is it that God/Allah is monotheistic and loves ALL His children (the message Jesus/Isa brought) yet in the Qur’an which is the supposed “improved” edition declares such awful things about Jews and Christians? Doesn’t it make more sense that this is something added by people (Muslims) to defend themselves against the enemy? (Jews and Christians) The fact that the Qur’an says these hateful things about Jews and Christians clearly (I mean the actual words, not whether or not we should apply it today which IS interpretation) to me speaks directly about the obvious “tweaking” by humans to justify warfare (whether it was deserved or not)…not divine revelation.
That being the case, why should the Qur’an be considered perfect with no changes since its revelation? If Jesus brought the message of love why would Allah, in his new and improved revelations that are required to correct the old misguided texts, contradict his own directive brought by Jesus? Doesn’t it make more logical sense that was humanly inspired to strengthen the resolve of people going into battle against them? All the better if we put the stamp of God on it…makes it OK then. and certainly more noble of a cause.
My point is that I contend that the Qur’an, like the other texts has been influenced by people and is therefore open to question like the other texts would be/are and not just interpretation of the words, but what is divinely inspired and what is humanly added.
January:21:2010 - 19:18
I haven’t come across any academic research proving Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad were praying to the gods and goddesses at the Kaaba. I would like to know who has done this research. And I’m not asking about popular Internet links, but rational academic historical research based on primary sources of the time. It may or may not be on the Internet – that’s not important.
J Kactuz,
No, a lot has changed at the Kaaba since pre-Islamic times. Kaaba was violated by Muhammad, the tribal images broken and removed, those who didn’t accept Islam driven out of the place so that till this day non-Muslims can’t go there. Pre-Islamic images can’t be worshipped there. No religion other than Islam can exist in Arabia – Saudi or otherwise. Allah’s 3 daughters have been killed and this Allah has the same name but is a different deity. The pre-Islamic tribal pilgrimage rituals of the Kaaba have been appropriated by the Hajis. From being a purely local shrine, Kaaba has emerged as a reference point for a billion Muslims across the world. Only Muslims have the right to venerate the Black Stone, no one else.
Oby,
Jews and Christians are believed to be worshipping other gods and not following the divine word brought by their prophets. But going by John’s explanation above, Trinity in Christianity is not all that polytheistic and about the Jews’ “polytheism”, the case is even weaker. So, J Kactuz may have a point that Muhammad had a very limited understanding of the other two Abrahamic religions. He didn’t understand the finer nuances of the concept of Trinity in Christianity and the descriptions of the Jews’ “digressions” are very vague in Quran.
January:21:2010 - 21:19
“Jews and Christians are believed to be worshipping other gods and not following the divine word brought by their prophets.”
Perhaps that is true…again, I am not as familiar as all of you with this histroy…the only thing I can think of as to idol worship of the Jews is the story of how they were worshiping the golden calf in Moses absence to get the Ten Commandments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf
I can’t seem to find any other references to idol worship by the Jews…of course it was a quick search and i could have missed it. Please if someone finds it outside of an Islamic reference preferably Jewish please post here.
As for Christians…that is new to me. I had not heard of that before. The fact that statues of Mary and Jesus might have been found at the Kaaba to me is nothing unusual…even today many Christians especially Catholics have these statues in their homes. That does not mean that they are seen as Gods.
Perhaps it is a nuance in definition…
I again can find no online references to idol worship in Christianity. I found this which sort of talks about it and seems to say that they clearly did not want anything to do with idolatry.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Idolatry
Jump to “Idolatry in Christianity”, but it is an interesting read about all faiths and idolotry.
January:21:2010 - 22:00
Oby #522–that is my best summary here of what Islam states, ie the belief in the errors of the Judeo-Christian holy books, and the divine immutable word of Allah in Arabic to Mohamed for the Quran. I would say it is part of the acts of faith, and that there are of course academics who study the genesis of the Quran. The Hadith are a separate issue because they are acknowledged as fallible reports by men. Hence the elaborate system of which are strong and which are weak, and the proviso that the Quran overrides any contradictory hadith. The Quran was revealed in stages and its words addressed the issues Allah felt Mohamed and the people needed to know at the moment. Thus the verses for defense war (jihad) during difficulties with Jewish and Christian tribes. Later verses correspond to new circumstances for new knowledge, so that surah 119 is one of peace and tolerance and turning the other cheek (more of a walking away from conflict, actually). Your contention is excellent for graduate studies, but contradictory to standard Muslim teaching.
Daisy–#523 “I haven’t come across any academic research proving Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad were praying to the gods and goddesses at the Kaaba. I would like to know who has done this research. And I’m not asking about popular Internet links, but rational academic historical research based on primary sources of the time. It may or may not be on the Internet – that’s not important.”
Is this addressed to me? from a woman who never provides any references, and becomes very “difficult” when asked for them? If so, LOL
you to J Kactuz: “No religion other than Islam can exist in Arabia – Saudi or otherwise.” You have never heard of all the Churches in the rest of Arabia ie the current non-Saudi part?
you to Oby: “Jews and Christians are believed to be worshipping other gods and not following the divine word brought by their prophets. But going by John’s explanation above, Trinity in Christianity is not all that polytheistic and about the Jews’ “polytheism”, the case is even weaker.” You seem to miss the point that there were polytheists, and Christians and Jews, some of whom incorporated polytheistic practices, AND that according to Islam Judaism and Christianity were in essence Islam misunderstood.
“So, J Kactuz may have a point that Muhammad had a very limited understanding of the other two Abrahamic religions. He didn’t understand the finer nuances of the concept of Trinity in Christianity and the descriptions of the Jews’ “digressions” are very vague in Quran.” Mohamed understood, Daisy, he just disagreed with you (<–joke)
January:21:2010 - 22:21
Chiara…
“that is my best summary here of what Islam states”. I thought it was an excellent summary. So much so that I had a moment of clarity!! At least all the pieces fit at the moment, hence i wanted to run with it even if it was contrary to teachings…sometimes it is good to look at things from a different point of view from the mainstream. You have always been helpful and taken the time to explain when I have trailed behind a bit trying to get my feet under me in understanding and I do appreciate it always. Well, at least I am learning enough to make a decently cohesive argument…I’ll take that as a compliment! LOL! Thanks again.
January:22:2010 - 00:48
Oby,
You are right. There is no authentic historical evidence of Christians and Jews worshipping other gods. This is a hoax of some intolerant extremists who don’t want to acknowledge there may be flaws in the thoughts of Muhammad and they are using this as a tool to fan anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments amongst impressionable Muslims. You can see the potential of this ideology to turn the Muslim youths against other religions.
Unfortunately, this ideology also serves the purpose of some political activists in the world who want to do politics not on the basis of humanitarian values but by using religion as a tool for gaining political mileage for themselves and their supporters.
You should have faith in your own analytical abilities, which are quite praiseworthy.
As I said earlier, it’s not the business of Muslims to pass judgments over how many gods and goddesses people of other faiths should worship, whether their gods are true or false, whether they are leading a sinful life, whether their texts are divine, pure , false or contaminated and whether they are following the right religion.
It is the right of the people of each religion to decide these matters for themselves.
Islam need not become the arbiter for every religion of the world.
January:22:2010 - 00:52
Islam has a lot to learn from Christianity. Rather than passing judgments on others, Islam will do well to learn from other older religions of the world –
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100121/876/twl-church-in-malaysia-forgives-arsonist.html
I truly salute the Church today, not because it is required of me to do so anymore, but because they deserve it.
January:22:2010 - 07:32
Oby #524–I agree that what constitutes idol worship requires a nuanced definition. However, if one starts from the Islamic perspective that there should be no representations of Allah or religious figures then the pictures and statures of religious figures are at risk of, or are idolatry. No doubt the stone representations of the Arabian gods and the altars to them are seen as idolatry, as are their idols in the Kaaba before the Prophet Mohamed cleaned it out. Similarly the paintings of Abraham, Jesus, and Mary inside the Kaaba were seen as examples of idol worship, whether the Christians and Jews of the time thought they were worshiping them or not. It often appears to non-adherents of a religion that the adherents are practicing idolatry, whether it is worship at a shrine to the Virgin Mary, or the veneration of the Arch of the Covenant, or the Black Stone of the Kaaba. The adherents of course see these as facilitating prayer to God/Yahweh/Allah and see no idolatry in their practices. Each religion believes they are right and sees history from their own perspective. Each has a genesis story of their own religion, usually involving an improvement on the ambient religions.
I don’t see what the great fuss is about, except as intellectual and academic curiosity. Current Muslims do not say that Christians and Jews are polytheists or idolators. They accept them as monotheistic peoples of the book while disagreeing about a number of points about Jesus/Isa, specifically that he is the Son of God, or the son of a carpenter, and died on the cross (as opposed to being carried to Heaven before dieing). The most pious, knowlegable, and intelligent Muslims I know (former students) taught me this surah as part of explaining their attitude:
Surah 109 (The Disbelievers)
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Merciful.
Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your way, and to me mine.
It is a later one, from after the tribal wars were over.
On the Jewish perspective of the history of the Jews in Arabia:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01214.html
Idol worship is of course not mentioned. The original sources for this Jewish Encylopedia entry are listed.
Oby #526–It is a compliment! You always are coherent, and pleasantly open about seeking knowledge. “Your contention is excellent for graduate studies, but contradictory to standard Muslim teaching.” Also a compliment, and a serious hint. If I didn’t think all family members would form a firing squad if I were to suggest my doing another graduate degree, I have a list of them to do that I would start enacting. You, however, seem to have suffered from graduate studies interruptus, and maybe that is in your future. Any thoughts of doing grad work again?
Daisy #528–Any proofs, references, links to academic scholarship, or conspiracy theorists on any of these assertions of hoaxes and their relationship to political activism?
“…it’s not the business of Muslims to pass judgments over how many gods and goddesses people of other faiths should worship, whether their gods are true or false, whether they are leading a sinful life, whether their texts are divine, pure , false or contaminated and whether they are following the right religion.
It is the right of the people of each religion to decide these matters for themselves.
Islam need not become the arbiter for every religion of the world.”
One might say the same of any group, including the at least technically Hindu graduates of Christian schools, of which there are many.
Daisy #528–I am sure your former teachers rejoice with you.
January:22:2010 - 07:39
In anticipation of comment #600 I suggest that it be reserved for John, a sort of prize for his forbearance, and an honour to his status the blog owner.
January:22:2010 - 10:54
Chaira…
I agree with your statement about idols…until now I had never given it a lot of thought simply because I assumed that those at the Kaaba, like those with pictures or statues of Jesus or Mary in their homes or any other religion with a physical manifestation of a revered or holy figure did not actually worship the item.., eg: I always assumed that those at the Kaaba used the stone as symbol of God or thought of it as a Holy Place like Jews might think of the wailing wall as symbolic or holy. I just assumed ALL religions used their images whatever they may be in a symbolic form innately understanding that the item was NOT God. However, when I went looking for idols in Judaism I found a statement that actually seemed very close in attitude to the Muslim one which was(paraphrasing)that NO symbol of God either painting, drawing, statue,or any other representation or physical manifestation is allowed as it is considered idolatry. (or that is how I understood it.)
Of course it does depend on which side of the fence you are standing on…and from what perspective you are viewing it. That is why I think it is so important for all religions to have a live and let live attitude. What might seem “unusual” to one, seems perfectly normal and understood by the adherents of that faith. It truly is all about nuance and perspective and having respect for other people’s perspectives.
BTW…the sura was lovely…thanks for sharing it.
Graduate school…hmmmm…I was reading Coolred’s blog and drooling over going to back to school. I went to school for a long time (8 years after highschool..4 undergrad and 4 grad) and became a chiropractor and practiced for awhile. Long story short, got married kind of late-in my early thirties-had a child and decided to stay at home and raise her as I knew she would probably be an only. She’s only 10 now. I ALWAYS loved school and education however. My favorite shows are documentaries/historical/scientific topics. My family gets annoyed with me when we go to a museum and I actually read all the placards pertaining to the items. LOL! Graduate studies is an idea…Not sure what to study. But I have always had that thought rumbling around in my head. Maybe I’ll think anew!
January:22:2010 - 11:42
Daisy…
“You should have faith in your own analytical abilities, which are quite praiseworthy.”
Thanks for your compliment…it means a lot to me… But it is due to you and the others on this post (and other blogs) that have helped me learn enough to sort of piece it together. There are still patchy parts obviously (probably more patchy than not.)and sometimes i find what is obvious when I reread things was not so obvious on the first go. So your patience and kindness has been very helpful and I do appreciate it.
I am very glad that the church is taking a forgiveness stance…as a minority I am not sure it has another option…having said that,however,I do think that is the great part of Christianity…to turn the other cheek and I can only hope that by taking this tone they serve as an example for the more extremist crowd. Time will tell…
January:22:2010 - 12:18
Chiara, I have never seen you go so far out in defense of Islam. I am beginning to wonder.
You have a few things wrong. May I correct you?
1. You say that the hadith are recognized as “fallible reports by men” when Muslims take great pains to portray them as accurate and reliable (the whole idea of isnad). So are they accurate but fallible? You mention that the Quran was given according to circumstances but how then to understand those circumstances without the traditions? I may not like Islam and its writings, but even I have to admit that the Quran and hadith are consistent in their message and theology, even as that message and theology changed according to events narrated in the ahadith.
2. The Quran does not override any contradictory hadith – or have Muslims started praying only three times a day like it says in the Quran? Note also the use of “Kill anybody that changes his religion” to overrule the “no compulsion” argument. And so on. To me it is a simple matter of who outranks who.
3. You have it backwards. Almost all scholars agree the defensive (or peaceful) verses were written in Medina prior to the offensive verses in Mecca. That itself should cause concern.
4. As to the “Immutable word of Allah” let me give you a short history of the evolution of the Quran…
a. the whole ideas that it was given to many people over different times and mostly memorized and then put together 50 years later is beyond ridiculous and beyond human intellectual capacity. Muslims will say that it was written down in parts (on skins, rocks, bricks, bones, paper also). In fact, it was compliled by a scribe under Caliph Uthman (mentioned above). So in fact, the completenessand accuracy of the Quran depends on the scribe not Mohammad. I wont even go into the pages eaten by a goat story. Of course, it would have been a lot easier if Allah had found somebody that could write!!!
b. According to Muslim historians, Uthman had 4 (?) complete copies made and these are the basis for all current Arabic texts. After this was done, Uthman ordered all incomplete and imperfect collections of the Quranic scripture destroyed. So how do we know he got the right ones or if he missed any verses? So there were multiple versions of the Quran before the third caliph? Note that Uthman is supposed to have died while holding his copy (3 of 4 caliphs were murdered, peacefully murdered of course).
c. Very early copies of the Quran are hard to find. Most authorities accept that none of the “originals” exist. The oldest are the manuscripts found in Yemen. Muslims are reluctant to study these texts historically / contextually and they don’t want non-Muslims anywhere near them (mostly). The oldest Quran is probably the one in the British Museum.
d. Muslims wont say it but Arabic has changed. Duhhh. The first Qurans were originally written in the Arabic language without vowelling marks (also vocalization marks) or diacritical marks (i’jam). These are essential for pronunciation and word meaning. Therefore, those men who added the diacritical points to the Quran long after it was first written assumed the responsibility of interpreting the entire book, and were in the position to change and rewrite anything that they did not agree with. Not only that, early Arabic had different types of script used in different places with different letters and words. In any language words change over time. It is not possible for Arabic words not to have changed during the shift from Arabia-centered Islam in the 7th Century to the Persina/Iran/Syria based Islam of the 8th century.
e. The earliest Qurans had no headings or separations between the suras anmd verses. It was one big long text.
f. The Quran is full of non-Arabic influences (foreign words, customs, Bible references and even stories from the Talmud. Why are Persian and other foreign words used? There are also traces of old Arabic poems (Imrau’l Qais) in the Quran. Why?
g. One can also find influences of the pre-islamic Arabian religious traditions in the Quran, including the accounts of the prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu’ayb, the adaptation of the pre-Islamic pilgrimage ritual. Why?
h. Note also the constant presence of archaic laws and 7th century Arab customs in the Quran, including the treatment of women and captives. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal and unchanged (even if it itself says it has better verses that replaced other verses but never mind that) then how all of these things get into the Quran?
h. Fast forward to the 20th century. The standard Quran used today is the so-called ‘Egyptian’ edition, also known as the Fu’ad edition, since it was introduced under King Fuad in Egypt. Let me quote from an authority and provide a link:
Quote:
For textual research on the Qur’an it is not wise to take the phonetic face of the Egyptian King Fu’ad edition as the only basis, because there a meticulous system of signs has been strewn over the skeleton text proper which, more often than not, can totally level down the variants of the “Rasm” underneath. Viewed from the accepted Standard Text of 1924 (and later until the Saudi editions from al-Madinah) the variants are mainly ascribed to a lack of precision in script or a lack of orthographical competence on the side of the scribes. Thus, for many Muslims as well as for many Orientalists, deviations from the orthography of Classical Arabic are usually seen to be “defective” writings, which can be “healed”, however, by the application of a swarm of Masoretic “letters”.
The orthography of the Standard Text is full of inconsistencies, as if they became petrified in a time when an orthographic reform had started already, but which had not yet become effective in the whole corpus. It is just this “defect”, however, which enables us to reveal many details of its orthographic history. The more so if we take the early manuscripts of the Qur’an into account, because, for lack of a critical edition, we cannot rightly be sure at all that the Standard Text is really the “Rasm ‘Uthmani”, i.e. the earliest possible shape of the text. End of Quote.
http://quranconference.nd.edu/lecture-abstracts
Read the whole page about different lectures on this subject. It is interesting. The fact is that the Quran has been modified and “improved”. If it was perfect when given (without accents, divisions, etc…) why then did Imams and Muslim scholars improve it to make it as it is today?
I must say that for a “daughter of the book” you need to decide which book you are talking about (Who’s your daddy?).
K.
January:22:2010 - 14:55
Oby #531–Thanks, it is important to remember that unlike Christian iconography, other cultures do worship inanimate objects, or are perceived as doing so. For sure you should go to graduate school! Coolred’s enthusiasm, and Anthrogeek’s including her post on my blog make me want to do ANOTHER graduate degree and I have a long list of what and in what country in the fantasy file. If your daughter is 10 now she may be moving to a time when having a mom in Grad school is cool–right before the “OMG you’re not going to the same uni as I am?” phase. I have a psych prof/mentor whose daughter thought she was going to a different city and uni, but due to unrelated circumstances he took a position there and voila, back at home she was! LOL
Jay #533–As I mentioned to Oby the summary I gave is a simplified version of the Islamic stance. I am well aware of the scholarship on the genesis of the Quran, and on the Quran generally and have considered adding to it in the academic world, thanks anyway. The Hadith are considered fallible in the sense that different hadith are ranked as weak or strong, reliable reports or not, in an elaborate process of which I am sure you are aware.
What’s to wonder, Jay? I have always stated I am a Daughter of the Book, and think Islam is a beautiful religion. Fortunately I live in a world where no one ever asks me to choose up sides beyond that, including one of Jewish colleagues who enjoy my appreciation of their religion, and general Abrahamicness, while encouraging me in my philosophical pursuits–when they don’t want me in clinic that is.
Nice link, and very thoughtful too (the Notre Dame), thanks.
January:22:2010 - 15:04
Chiara,
I feel you live with too much of hatred towards everyone except the extremist Muslims and there is nothing beautiful or philosophical about that.
But you are not even consistent in your hatred – you don’t have the spine to take up a conflict with J Kactuz for his criticism of Islam or Muslims. You don’t have the spine to take up a conflict with anyone else on this blog if they question Islam or Muslims.
But you have some kind of bias and extra hatred towards me. It may be your inability to argue with the “male intellectual power,” it may be your misplaced racism, it may be your false arrogance that you are the Daughter of the Book, it may be your illusion that you are born superior to everyone else. Honestly, I don’t really care.
It only shows the kind of person you are because you live with whatever biases you have towards others.
January:22:2010 - 15:06
John,
I’m sorry for that personal attack. I really didn’t want to do it.
January:22:2010 - 16:47
Daisy #535 and #536–All false and unworthy, ie you denigrate yourself by these types of comment. Please stick to commenting on topics as John requested; and please don’t resort to personal attacks every time it is suggested here, or by anyone on any blog (eg. MNE on one of your favourite blogs) that you offer a reference, even just one, to anything.
January:22:2010 - 17:55
Okay, I’d like to remind everyone that ad hominem attacks don’t really belong here, nor do they accomplish anything. How about everyone’s stepping back a bit?
January:22:2010 - 21:29
John #538–Agreed.
January:23:2010 - 00:30
Kactuz…
“According to Muslim historians, Uthman had 4 (?) complete copies made and these are the basis for all current Arabic texts. After this was done, Uthman ordered all incomplete and imperfect collections of the Quranic scripture destroyed. So how do we know he got the right ones or if he missed any verses? So there were multiple versions of the Quran before the third caliph? Note that Uthman is supposed to have died while holding his copy (3 of 4 caliphs were murdered, peacefully murdered of course).”
I found this on Uthman…is it accurate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Qur'an
” Muslims wont say it but Arabic has changed. Duhhh. The first Qurans were originally written in the Arabic language without vowelling marks (also vocalization marks) or diacritical marks (i’jam). These are essential for pronunciation and word meaning. Therefore, those men who added the diacritical points to the Quran long after it was first written assumed the responsibility of interpreting the entire book, and were in the position to change and rewrite anything that they did not agree with. Not only that, early Arabic had different types of script used in different places with different letters and words. In any language words change over time. It is not possible for Arabic words not to have changed during the shift from Arabia-centered Islam in the 7th Century to the Persina/Iran/Syria based Islam of the 8th century.”
If these things are known and evident meaning that if they know the first was written without voweling marks and the current ones have voweling marks what is the argument? the link I provided says that the Qur’an is possibly the oldest(sorry no mention of the one in the British Museum)and has no vocalization…it is in a mosque in Uzbekistan so Muslims know that it physically exists and that the vowelings were added at a later point. How can there be an argument about that when it is provable? The fact that the markings were added later and therefore MIGHT have changed the meaning seems self evident. I guess it would depend on HOW MUCH the markings could change the meaning. If it is nominal then, maybe it can be argued hypothetically that it hasn’t changed since revealtion…If, however , it would make a big difference I guess to me the logic is that if it is POSSIBLE then it must at least be considered that the Qur’an is not in original divinely revealed form. To this I say “so what?” That doesn’t mean that Islam can’t be a perfectly wonderful religion that brings joy and comfort to many. All religions have been tweaked…that doesn’t mean that we can’t find them to be true religions. God is eternal, man can make mistakes and that includes in translations. Maybe it is just bypassing me completely but as I am understanding it, it isn’t a very difficult concept to get. Seems pretty logical and straightforward to me.
[jfb: I made links out of the above URLs. They should work correctly now. The problem was the apostrophe in Qur'an, which was confusing the HTML parser.]
January:23:2010 - 03:20
Oby #540–I think the difference is in approaching the Quran’s immutability as an article of faith, and as a scholarly topic. Much like approaching the nature of Jesus: the son of God as a article of faith; the historical Jesus as a scholarly topic. Muslims for the most part, ie non-extremists, do believe that human interpretation of the Quran is fallible, and that the Revelation was for its time in the details but universal in its principles. That is how, for example, in Islamic bioethics the Quran and the hadith are part of the resources for determining the ethical response to a contemporary problem: IVF, organ donation and transplantation, withdrawal from a ventilator, etc. None of these techniques were available in the 7th century, but the principles elucidated then apply, eg. no fornication or adultery/ use knowledge to advance health/ having children is desirable = yes to IVF with the married couple’s sperm and ova only.
January:23:2010 - 05:49
Oby,
Both of your links do not lead to any articles. It seems Wikipedia has removed these articles.
But to reply to your query, yes it does seem there were multiple versions of Qurans. In fact, there is evidence that the Quran was not revealed in its entirety in a short period, but rather, it was a collated text of many thousands texts of different kinds, some of which may have been earlier than even the period of Muhammad ie, even earlier than 7th century. Till the time of Uthman’s standardised edition, many versions of Quran existed. There is definite evidence that it was not treated as a closed-ended, unchangeable source of reference in the first two centuries of Islamic history. Uthman standardised the text and ordered the other versions to be burnt. However, there is evidence that the Quran continued to be an evolving text in different parts of Arabia.
Even the story of Uthman’s standardisation of the Quranic text and burning of other copies comes from the Hadith tradition, which is several centuries later than Muhammad and the standardised version was not the only one being used in the early history of Islamic evolution.
Hence, the Islamic claim that the Quran has always existed as an unchanged unified text is historically not valid. It is very much like the Bible and any other ancient religious text that goes through a natural process of evolution over the centuries.
There is nothing really wrong with that, because this change reflects the changing needs of the society that the text is accommodating. It’s in fact healthy for the society that follows the text. The decay begins to set in when a society attempts to block this natural process of evolution by making the text unchangeable. It means the text is no longer accommodating the changing needs of the society, which is unhealthy and problematic.
January:23:2010 - 06:09
Oby,
About the Malaysian Church being a minority in Malaysia and therefore, not being in a position to do anything other than to forgive the arsonists. You only have to compare this with the reaction to the Swiss ban on minarets as shown by the Muslim community in Switzerland. They are in the minority in Switzerland too, but they were quite vocal about lodging their protest and forgiving the Swiss was never on their agenda, even though the Mosques were never bombed and damaged in Switzerland. This kind of tolerance is something that the orthodox Islam is yet to learn.
January:23:2010 - 06:10
Chiara,
There is no obligation on you to respond to my comments if you don’t like them. You don’t have to respond to them.
January:23:2010 - 06:26
Daisy,
what is wrong with you,I am sorry, I just was trying to be funny but I did not know that my jokes need strong stomach. i was just wanted to remind you that i still remember, what happens when you hurry.
To anyone interested.
(Kaba and Black stone)
Muslim do not worship the black stone or Kaaba, they just revere it because Ibrahim or Abraham and his great grand son Mohammaed a(pbut)after revered the Kaba and black stone which is the only remaining stone from The original Kaba since Adam (pbuh)which (Kaba) has been destroyed via different factors and was rebuilt many times along the human history but only the black stone has always been there as the authentic corner stone.( as we believe)
and we muslims are proud that we believe only in one God, because we can not give his exclusive right to anyone or anything else without any lightest cloud of doubt.
and if it happened that, any doubt occured to me that i worship Mohammad or the black stone or Kaba i will instantly renegade to original Abrahimic faith and stop believing in Mohammad that (there is no God but Allah and full stop.)
just as a proof that we do not worship the black stone, may be some of you know this piece of information the black stone was stolen by the Qramites after they had attacked the kaba betwee the 317H and 337 but during this period of 20 years, we did not stop praying to The kaba. while our god the (black stone)was taken hostage and even if the Kaba is leveled to the ground we will be praying to the same place, we follow the drictions of God, as we used to pray to Jerusalem before kaba.
January:23:2010 - 07:23
Daisy #544–Thank you for further instruction on how to behave on John’s blog.
Majed #545–I am glad you have shared your view of the difference in Islam between revering and worshiping, and provided more detail on the Kaaba and the black stone. Indeed Muslims originally prayed toward the direction of Jerusalem before Allah told them to pray toward the direction of the black stone and the Kaaba in Makkah. You also rightfully reminded us that the black stone is believed to be there marking a place of worship since the time of Adam, which was part of why Allah ordered Abraham and Ishmael there.
You frame well from your own perspective as a born Muslim, why converts seem so determined to announce their renunciation of the idea of the trinity, and to argue about it in the blogosphere, often shadow boxing I might add, though some have provided very good information and perspectives.
Thanks, you were interesting and informative.
January:23:2010 - 10:16
Majed,
Now you tell me you were only joking! I wish you had said it earlier.
I think it’s well-known that the Black Stone is not divine and is only revered not worshipped as God. There is no confusion about that.
January:23:2010 - 10:51
Chiara…
“I think the difference is in approaching the Quran’s immutability as an article of faith, and as a scholarly topic. Much like approaching the nature of Jesus: the son of God as a article of faith; the historical Jesus as a scholarly topic.”
Yes I agree…and gosh darn it you said it better!
That is why I think even if we examine the Qur’an and find it is not in it’s original form that IN NO WAY changes the value of the religion or the principles which can continue forward and should not change the people’s faith in Islam. The details are for the time(warfare, severe punishment etc.-that fit the time)but the principles are timeless and adaptive as you have illustrated above. This is what I mean about Islam moving forward and not staying in the 7th century.
Personally, I would think that if they did study and find that it is not in it’s original form and had changed somewhat over the years, for me as a scientifically leaning person, that would lend truth to the religion and make it more believable…all of a sudden it would become a living piece of history and not just something that has remained static for 1400 years…may be I am not saying that right but I hope my meaning is clear. I don’t mean it disrespectfully.
Daisy…
I don’t know why the links have not come through…if you type in “Uthman Qur’an” it will come up in Wiki. It is still there as I just checked.For the other type in “history of the Qur’an”. Wiki will pull it up. I know Wiki is not the last word in scholarly info but for me it is a good starting point to familiarize myself with things without having to read an entire book…helps me quickly read everyones references and sort of stay up to speed during the course of a conversation.
“There is nothing really wrong with that, because this change reflects the changing needs of the society that the text is accommodating. It’s in fact healthy for the society that follows the text.”
I agree totally…that is what I meant by my “so what” comment. I was not trying to be disrespectful , but rather trying to show at least from my perspective, it would not diminish Islam’s authenticity or value as a belief system…even when we examine it from a scholarly/anthropologic perspective, I don’t think that should change it’s standing as a great faith. In fact, I would argue that to remain a great faith it should and needs to evolve as we move forward in time or run the risk of becoming completely bound by ancient ideals/cultural practices that will make it difficult to practice and hold the people back.
Majed…Thank you for your comment. You seem to have agreed with what I was saying that the stone (Kaaba) is a representation of God and a Holy place. Muslims don’t believe that the stone ITSELF is God. Thanks for your input…
to anyone…I just read (probably on Wiki) that the stone is a meteorite and has been examined and confirmed by Islamic and non Islamic sources(I am guessing geologists.) Does anyone know about that?
Kactuz…patiently waiting for your response to my wiki sources.
January:23:2010 - 12:08
Oby #548–Thank you. I’m certainly with you on the interest in academic scholarship on the Qur’an and certainly many Muslims do exactly that: retain their faith and study the historicity of the Quran; much like John Dominic Crossan for Christianity, or any other religious scholar. However, most would rather leave it at the Quran is immutable stage, much as most Christians don’t really care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin– without reverting (deliberate word choice) to the 7th century lifestyle but only drawing on the principles. Of course there are also those who mis-interpret, more or less deliberately, to give religious weight to their cockamamie idea of the day. Pat Robertson comes to mind in the Christian realm thanks to his recent comments on Haiti. Fortunately most American Christians just roll their eyes. Similarly most Muslims are dismayed by the perversions of interpretation of their faith by extremists of all ilks. Even more so because they are greater targets of extremists than non-Muslims are.
I think we (you and I) are coming upon the real reason my hub doesn’t want me anywhere near any Near Eastern Studies program–he can see the PhD wheels on Arabic lit, including the Quran, turning in my brain (already have the courses accredited from prior studies ticked off) LOL
Oby #548–yes it has long been thought and “proven” (without samples obviously) that the Black Stone is a meteorite. But as academics including geologists are wont to do, there is ongoing and recent dissent about whether it is a meteorite (it’s an agate according to some) or what kind of meteorite it is, in great glorious rock analysis detail of its surrounding bits. (Who knew that meteorites came in flavours? LOL
)
Google Scholar [kaaba meteorite] will let you access abstracts, and the occasional full article on this. I’m sure you are a better geologist than I.
January:23:2010 - 20:11
Oby,
Yes, the Black Stone is a meteorite. In fact the texts of all the other religions have been critically examined and scholarly arguments even refuting the established notions within that religion have been made. There have been oppositions from the orthodox sections of that religion, but in general the people accept these scholarly researches. Islam is the only exception in that Muslims tend to be touchy about the scholars breaking any of their long-held beliefs even if there are enough archaeological and historical evidences are there to support these arguments.
Orthodox Islam has attempted to either wipe out or suppress many archaeological and historical sources relevant to the study of early Islam anyway. For example, the thousands of Quranic texts I am talking about were suppressed for quite some time and the kind of evidences their examination is revealing now may challenge many of the established notions regarding Quran. This may not be acceptable to the Muslims, but it’s time they begin to honour academic research.
January:24:2010 - 01:48
Re: scholarship in Islam and on the historicity of the Quran by Muslims
Just a quick sample of scholarship by Muslims on the origins of the Quran, available to all online (ie no special uni access).
Oh yes, definitely feeling a thesis coming on.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18464437
Titre du document / Document title
The historical status of the qur’an : Modern discussion among Turkish academics
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ALBAYRAK Ismail (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Faculty of Divinity, Sakarya University, TURQUIE
Résumé / Abstract
Recently, Turkish academics have been increasingly interested in discussing the historicity of the Qur’an. Some revisionist academics think that the Qur’an was revealed in precise historical circumstances and primarily responds to such circumstances. Thus qur’anic commands in general are not universal and do not, therefore, satisfy the demands of all Muslims for all time. So a new understanding is inevitable. Having used both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, they try to develop a new methodology to transform qur’anic prescriptions for the present day. The scholars who adopt an anti-historical approach to the Qur’an hold the view that, by historicizing the content of the Qur’an, revisionist academics create an artificial problem. They believe this is not an internal Muslim problem but that this controversy was injected into the Muslim world with the promulgation of both modernity and Western influence.
Revue / Journal Title
Islam and Christian-Muslim relations ISSN 0959-6410
Source / Source
2006, vol. 17, no4, pp. 457-469 [13 page(s) (article)] (1/4 p.)
Langue / Language
Anglais
…cont’d
January:24:2010 - 01:54
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hMheI464lYUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA97&dq=quran+historicity&ots=fGl7GXQW8o&sig=qT9Twiq5nj-WI-LstbJXwVc3Gno#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur’an Edited by Suha Taji-Farouki
Very interesting book, with an Introduction well worth reading.
NB pp18 and following on the Quran and historicity
The beginning of the introduction situates scholarship in this area against a backdrop of a back lash against Western colonialism both historical and contemporary, including in intellectual and academic discourse; and marks the last 2 decades as ones of increased productivity by traditional schools and by reformist intellectuals as well. The author likens the current period as analogous to the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic Church.
…cont’d…
January:24:2010 - 01:57
[originally online in the KSU library collection--removed LOL
http://repository.ksu.edu.sa/jspui/handle/123456789/3155
HAND AND FOOT SYMBOLISMS:FROM ROCK ART TO THE QUR"ËN* by AHMED ACHRATI
Abstract: Wedded to creativity and spirituality since the dawn of humanity, the symbolisms of the hand and the foot have assumed many religious and artistic forms. This essay explores the artistic and religious signi cance of the hand and foot in the prehistoric rock art of North Africa and Arabia and examines their various ethnographic and mythological expressions in historical times. It then shows how these symbolisms were restructured in the Qur'an to a strictly iconoclastic monotheism. It is a multidisciplinary approach to a collective consciousness that has its roots in an Afroasiatic substrate and its expression in the artistic and linguistic traditions of the eastern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean.
* Many thanks to Janet Stanley and Dave Thomas at the NMAFA Library, Smithsonian Museum.
Introduction
As pointed out by M. Arkoun, “[c]urrent Islamic thinking ignores the anthropological approach to the religious dimension,” and Islam continues to be based on the false assumptions that “religion descends(tanz’l) vertically into history, escaping, in its essence, the mechanisms of social existence;” that language is functionally xed [sic] to those foundational semantics which God used in the Qur’an; and that Salvation is in the identification of worldly history with legal institutions (Arkoun 1982,173). All the while, archaeological reconstruction undermines the historicity of religions events; linguistics challenges the sacred status oflanguages; sociology casts new lights on the transcendence of religion; anthropology points to the parallels among various religious beliefs; history of thoughts outlines the similarities between various theological and philosophical systems; and psychology unveils the deep motives of our religious inclinations. All this poses an enormous epistemological challenge for Islam and calls for “une théorie de l’interpretation du récit mythique”(Id. 103) in which mutually reinforcing interpretations of symbols converge to create a worldview where man’s existential and ontological conditions are sustained by an imaginary that de es [sic] les prétentions démystifantes de la raison raisonnante et même les faits massifs de l’histoire réelle—a theology liberated from traditional dogma (Id. 13; 1994, 38-9; and 1984, 10-11). Happily, in this confrontation between faith and reason,the modern scientist is very much like the mystic in his or her ability to make a definite distinction between man’s psychosomatically-based emotions and his or her inner leaps in search of Being (Arkoun 1982,174). What follows is a discussion of how this realm of the “transcendental aesthetics” is revealed through the symbolism of the hand and foot in Islam.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Arabica, tome L,4
[typos corrected and emphasis added by Chiara who feels a thesis coming on]
…cont’d…
January:24:2010 - 02:00
the citation/current link for the above article won’t post
put the title into Google Scholar
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_1_41/ai_n28728938/ Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity against Oppression. By Farid Esack. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997. 288 pp. $22.95.
[Journal of Church and State, Wntr, 1999 by Mohamed A. Mahmoud --Review of an interesting book on Islam as a liberation theology ie the opposite of fundamentalist Islamist thought, attacking similar socio-political problems from the opposite direction]
The recent rise of Islam as a sociopolitical ideology of transformation in Muslim societies, particularly since the Iranian revolution of 1979, has provoked vigorous debates within contemporary Islam. A conservative trend wants to stick to what it perceives as orthodoxy while a liberal or progressive trend argues for a reinterpretation and a reshaping of Islam to be compatible with the perspective of modern secular humanism or the cause of the marginalized. Farid Esack’s book is rooted in a double quest: a broad quest for an Islam that is receptive to the “progressive” values of our modern (and postmodern) world and a more specific quest for a South African Islam that is fully and genuinely committed to the poor and the disempowered. The author’s voice fuses that of a scholar who has reflected deeply on the Islamic tradition, and in particular the rich and contentious tradition of Qur’amic exegesis, and that of an activist who fought against apartheid. It is within the crucible of apartheid South Africa that the author and other co-activist colleagues worked to develop an Islamic theology of liberation.
[..] As a Muslim theologian of liberation, Esack has to argue on the one hand for the text’s historicity, its embeddedness in the Prophetic time; and its specificity. But on the other hand, he has to maintain that the text is universal and hence is relevant and binding for present-day Muslims. As Muslims no longer have any access to direct revelation, they are left only with the text and their understanding of it. This understanding is bound to involve their “preunderstandings” and the specificity of their historical condition. In engaging the text, Esack fuses his “horizon” as a contemporary South African Muslim living under the oppression of apartheid (and patriarchy and capitalism) and the “Qur’anic horizon” to re-present the text’s truth in terms of an identification with the oppressed and a rejection of doctrinal exclusivism. Esack is fully aware that the hermeneutic perspective he proposes is “tentative,” “biased,” and “heuristic,” but he insists that “the marginalized and oppressed are hermeneutically privileged; they are favored to arrive at a more correct understanding of the text, because the author identifies with them” (p. 256). On the basis of this hermeneutic perspective he re-thinks the status of the Other and Women and argues that the Qur’amic [sic] message does not in reality discriminate against them. [...]
…cont’d…
January:24:2010 - 02:04
http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/jqs.2006.8.2.24 Arab Prophets of the Qur’an and Bible Brannon Wheeler United States Naval Academy Citation Information. Volume 8, Page 24-57 DOI 10.3366/jqs.2006.8.2.24, ISSN 1465-3591, Available Online October 2006. PDF plus Recent scholarship on the Qur’an has noted the need for more attention to the historical content of the Qur’an, and in evaluating how the historical study of the Qur’an compares to the long tradition of Biblical studies in Europe and North America. This paper examines the question of the historicity of the Qur’an’s contents with particular attention to how historical information in the Qur’an has traditionally been used and compared to the historical narrative drawn from Biblical scholarship by Muslim exegetes. In particular, this study focuses on the question of the ‘Arab’ prophets H?d, S?lih, and Shucayb: of all the prophets mentioned by name in the Qur’an, only these three appear not to be mentioned in the Bible, and, as such, they provide a helpful example with which to examine the treatment of historical materials in the Qur’an. In addition to Islamic exegesis, this paper uses a number of non-Qur’anic literary sources, and archeological findings, to demonstrate that there is a fair amount of evidence external to the Qur’an for the historicity of the Arab prophets, suggesting the need for a much more varied and wider consideration of the phenomenon of prophecy in the ancient world as the common heritage of the religions of the Book.
http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1465359109000497 Conference Report: ‘The Qur’an in its Historical Context’, University of Notre Dame, April 19–21, 2009 Shawkat M. Toorawa Citation Information. Journal of Qur’anic Studies. Volume 10, Page 131-133 DOI 10.3366/E1465359109000497, ISSN 1465-3591, Available Online Oct 2008 .
…cont’d…
January:24:2010 - 02:05
http://www.soas.ac.uk/islamicstudies/jqs/
The Journal of Qur’anic Studies
The Journal of Qur’anic Studies, launched in October 1999, is the first scholarly periodical dedicated to the study of the Qur’an. It aims to address the importance of the Qur’an for Islam and Islamic Studies, along with other issues vital to the development of Qur’anic Studies as a discipline.
The Journal is a biannual, bilingual, peer-reviewed journal and publishes original articles on all aspects of the Qur’an, focusing on the linguistic and stylistic features of the text, while also discussing the Qur’an’s influence on literature, theology, law and political and social studies.
In addition, the Journal of Qur’anic Studies addresses new approaches and ways of reading and re-reading the Qur’an. The traditional concern with the ‘determination’ of the origin and development of the Qur’an is now just one of many approaches being adopted by scholars in their exploration of the Qur’an as a sacred text, a cultural phenomenon, a historical source and literary masterpiece. All of these approaches, new and old, may inform each other, and a dedicated periodical is a useful way of enabling the diverse and developing methods of Qur’an scholarship to come together.
The Journal of Qur’anic Studies is a shared space for all those whose concern is the Qur’an and its study; the Journal is not a platform for one view or set of views at the expense of another, nor does it flinch from addressing issues of controversy in the field.
The criteria of the Journal reflect those of our readers: scholarly rigour, the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, new ideas and approaches grounded in the best traditions of textual and religious scholarship. Articles are published in both Arabic and English, to create a strong and unique link between scholars in the West and the Muslim world. Authors from all over Europe, the United States, Asia and Africa are invited to contribute.
Although the Journal is principally dedicated to articles, it also contains book reviews and a Notes and Correspondence section providing information about activities related to the Qur’an, such as conferences, courses, forthcoming publications and theses.
The Journal of Qur’anic Studies is published twice yearly. Links to the Journal’s homepage, which contains links to contents and abstracts and details of how to subscribe can be found above or choose Journal of Qur’anic Studies Subscription for details of subscription rates.
January:24:2010 - 02:12
John–sorry, the above series of comments was not an attempt to spam, or even to falsely increase the number of comments, but I had done the research and edits before realizing that the comment format would choke on such a large bolus.
I do think that this easy to find smattering of current scholarship by Muslims (and non-Muslims) on the Quran (and other elements of Islam) is interesting and relevant to the discussion of just how intransigent what parts of Islam are. Certainly the extremists with the great PR people are not the only voices that should be given credence on Islam.
Academics is definitely a trickle down business: people in universities teach students who graduate and go out in the world and share their ideas, including as teachers, diplomats, writers, journalists, businessmen, professors, professionals, family members, friends, expats, bloggers, etc. and spread the ideas they learned, not to mention engaging in life long learning and sharing.
I see this contemporary academic research as a hopeful sign.
January:24:2010 - 08:22
Chiara: Don’t worry about lengthy comments. I do have a limit (intended to stop spam) of four links per post. If that limit were not effective, I’d change it, but spammers do love their links!
I’d point out, too, the use of making HTML links for URLs. I’ll be looking for a comment editor plug-in that makes this easier, but the HTML isn’t too difficult.
Allow me to refer commenters to this post from 2007 which gives fairly easy instructions.
January:24:2010 - 10:31
John–double thanks about the length and the HTMLs!
Nice spam prevention manoeuvre.
I just learned to do those HTML links for URLs and I am delighted to be able to do so.
If you find a comment editor plug-in please let me know as it is one of the things I have started a search on to facilitate linking in the comments on my blog. If I find one or my technical helper creates one I will let you know too.
Nice post on HTMLs. I incorporated some of those in a post I did recently (about reposting the older comments on the posts I transferred to my new blog), but I might think of a separate post like yours to refer commentators back to easily. Or just link yours! LOL
January:24:2010 - 17:30
Wow! go away for a day or so and a whole new aspect of Islam is revealed! LOL!
Chiara…the links are great and thank you so much for sharing them. I am very heartened to know that there is some academic research out there into the Qur’an and it’s history. Considering how people don’t like to question it, I think that is very brave. Like any other religion, for me at least, I think Islam will only be enhanced by the anthropological study of it. Surely there is a rich and nuanced history waiting to be revealed if only Muslims will allow those wanting to do the research an open forum in which to operate. Perhaps it might be a bit different than what they believe but as you pointed out above with Christianity for a lot of people that won’t make a difference. And that is what I was also saying…one can separate the history from the faith without being unfaithful to ones beliefs or principals. Perhaps it is just my preference to know the truth in things regardless of what it turns out to be but I find religion FAR more interesting when we breathe life into it and give it a face and personality and a history. Sometimes that comes with change to our original understandings. However, that only reveals a new truth which I think is better because it IS the truth. It is provable, it happened(or as close to happened as scholars can get), it isn’t a story someone made up…one can reach out and almost touch history. What an amazing gift.
January:24:2010 - 20:24
Oby– I share your enthusiasm for scholarship, and rest assured there is a great deal in this area. I think the problem with perception about Islam is that most people hear only about the fundamentalists and the extremists, and the ex-cons who memorize the Quran. If one looks where scholarship is being done ie in university departments, research institutes and at publications in academic and research journals there is a great deal. My husband did a Masters in Social Sciences on the concept of water and purification in Islam. He was one of many who did graduate degrees in different aspects of his faith and culture, and he wasn’t even in a department of Near Eastern Studies, Islamic Studies, or Arabic Studies. I am sure if you are interested in this aspect of Islam you will find much more written of interest to you. Unfortunately it is rarely in the media which is more likely to report on what interests it, which is violent world events, fundamentalist claims, and social aberrations.
I do hope you pursue this more yourself; and I would like to start with more Tareq Ramadan for myself.
Philosopher Paul Ricoeur is brilliant on a number of topics including Christianity; and Rene Girard a sociologist is brilliant on the sacrifice of Jesus as well. They are a far cry from the media interviews with Pat Robertson. The Islamic world contains the same breadth.
Another brilliant piece with a number of Muslim scholars from diverse beliefs within Islam was the reply to Pope Benedict XVI’s unfortunate lecture early in his papacy: An Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI or the subsequent interfaith initiative by 138 Muslim scholars. Both of these might be worth consulting to get more ideas about Islamic scholarship…or your local uni LOL
January:25:2010 - 00:30
Hey Oby… I’ve been busy (fighting my lungs and work!)
The Wiki article is good. The evolution/change of the Quran is fascinating stuff. It is one of those things they will argue about forever. Here is the link I refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur%27an
I wish I could go the Notre Dame conference.
Good luck with the link above. As you say, browsers don’t like non-standard orthography. I found it interesting that it mentioned the fact that one reason was Uthman decided to commit the Quran to paper was because so many of the companions of Mohammad were killing each other and soon none would be left. (“this policy was reversed after the Battle of Yamama in 633. During the battle, 700 Muslims who has memorized the Quran were killed” – by other Muslims). Few people realized how bloody this period was. I even once wrote a history of Islam for my own pleasure. Fascinating stuff (took me two weeks to work out the marital relationships between the four caliphs! They married back and forth like they lived in West Virginia)
I would like to see photocopies of the Yemen manuscripts in public domain, like the Dead Sea Scrolls (After 50 years they managed to leak them)..
Daisy, I don’t fight with Chiara, I debate, kinda, sorta. Whatever her defects, if she has any, I certainly think that she has a good brain (*). Just look at her research. I learned something. In real life she would cut me into little pieces and feed me to the fish. Even so, you, Daisy, are my favorite here. You are a model of moderation.
Majed, you jokes are ok, but here is one for you: What do Muslims yell at the girls in Saudi strip clubs? “Show us your ankles, Show us your ankles!” Pretty lame!
Can’t write much, I have to go. These have been weird days for me.
K
PS: (*) I was going to add “but I don’t know about the rest of her” but that would be a Brazilian joke.
PSS: Doing my part to get to 600.
January:25:2010 - 04:51
Jay,
Thanks for those compliments. I value them a lot.
I am sorry if I gave a wrong message. I’m the last person to advocate a conflict between two people. I didn’t mean that you should have a fight with Chiara. What I meant was that one should have same rules for treating everyone, rather than having different sets of standards for different people.
If two people are making similar statements and a person is nice to one but attacks another for this, then there is certainly something seriously wrong somewhere with the person.
It could be anything, I’m not interested in finding out.
There is no point in having a good brain or being a true follower of the book – whatever book it is – if one is not a fair human being first of all.
As for the “researches” on critique of Islamic history and their acceptability by the believing Muslim population, Chiara’s links above are outdated and off the mark from the point of discussion here.
Current scholarship on the various texts of Quran has gone far beyond the stage she has alluded to and has produced conclusions which may challenge the the very basics of Islamic notions.
However, if it makes her feel better to live with the notion that the Islamic world is infallible and represents a human Paradise of some kind, she has the right, privilege and the freedom to live with that notion. I am not going to engage with that kind of thought.
I hope your lungs are better now.
PS – If you want to help us reach 600, you should have made that PS into a separate comment!
I find Brazilian jokes quite refreshing!
January:25:2010 - 07:14
Jay–I’m sure in real life we would enjoy a great foreign film together, with all mahrems in attendance of course. LOL
Daisy–“As for the “researches” on critique of Islamic history and their acceptability by the believing Muslim population, Chiara’s links above are outdated and off the mark from the point of discussion here.”
What is out of date about 2003, 2006, 2009, and the current issues of the Journal of Quranic Studies? In humanities research in academia 1997 and 1999 are recent, not out of date. Are you thinking of DNA research, where 1997 and 1999 MIGHT be more out of date depending on the article’s actual content? Standard academic performance reviews look at a professor’s last 6 years of publications as a guide to being current and productive. For this academic year that would put us to 2003.
What is off the mark about pointing out current research by Muslim scholars challenging the Quran, and showing trends in literary theory applications to the Quran which promise more challenges in contemporary Islamic scholarship, in a discussion about Muslim attitudes towards the Quran, and in counterpoint to repeated assertions that Muslims are some how incapable of critical thinking about themselves, their religion, or the Quran?
“Current scholarship on the various texts of Quran has gone far beyond the stage she has alluded to and has produced conclusions which may challenge the the very basics of Islamic notions.”
Where has it gone exactly? What is is saying? What conclusions has it produced? Which basic notions of Islam are being challenged? Who is doing this research? Where are they doing it? Where has it been published? Any specific references? Any links, either the URL or the embedded link as John pointed out and I used in my comment #561?
“I am sorry if I gave a wrong message. I’m the last person to advocate a conflict between two people. I didn’t mean that you should have a fight with Chiara. What I meant was that one should have same rules for treating everyone, rather than having different sets of standards for different people.”
You repeatedly call on men (most often) here to challenge something I have said, usually Jay or John or sometimes an open invitation. Is that not advocating some form of conflict between 2 discussants? or even a piling on against 1? Note that you aske them to challenge me by name, not a concept I have raised, ie you ask that I as a person be challenged, not a topic up for discusion or a point on a topic I might have made. Is this a technique you use in your classroom as well as here? Does it work well? To what purpose? Does it lead to fair and balanced discussion of a topic or perspective? Does it de-personalize the debate?
“There is no point in having a good brain or being a true follower of the book – whatever book it is – if one is not a fair human being first of all.”
Since I have been routinely on a number of blogs, including one of your current favourites, been commended for being fair, and showing the proper way to comment on a controversial topic without making personal attacks against commentators or the persons/groups being discussed, and urged to start my own blog (which I finally did for other reasons), it seems you are in the minority of those who are irritated by my intellectual style, and failure to respond from the gut. The “I go on my feelings” people often wonder, for example, how I can discuss a topic without repeated exclamations of severe disgust, though I may find the behaviour being discussed (eg gang rape) as repulsive as the next person. Yet you seem to be more of a “I go with my thoughts” person who experiences a similar irritation. Perhaps because we disagree? Perhaps because I ask for references, or links? Perhaps because you prefer statements of personal intellectual stances? It is true that there are a minority of the “I think it therefore it is” commentators who have found a penchant for scholarship annoying. Is the real problem that we disagree? I have no problem with that, as I have stated before. Is the greater problem your unwillingness to provide a reference, a link, a scholar’s name? That I do think is a failing in a discussion which merits them, and goes beyond personal opinion. In other discussions of course personal opinion is all that is warranted. Eg. Personally, I would not like to live on the “shores” of Misk/Musk Lake.
Is your reference to “being a true follower of the book–whatever book it is” meant to imply that I am a true follower of a holy book, and to suggest by innuendo that it is the Quran? Have I made any such claims, either to true following of any book, or to the Quran? Do you think I am engaged in some sort of covert Quranic conspiracy (the notion is so hilarious I couldn’t resist the temptation to go with the alliteration)?
“However, if it makes her feel better to live with the notion that the Islamic world is infallible and represents a human Paradise of some kind, she has the right, privilege and the freedom to live with that notion. I am not going to engage with that kind of thought.”
Have I made any such claim? Have I not pointed out repeatedly that the Islamic world contains extremism and fundamentalism but is also broader than that, eg in my most recent comment to Oby? Have you not already, directly or indirectly engaged with my “kind of thought”? Have you not already, and including in this most recent statement implied that I may “feel” something but that something is wrong? I mean, when you aren’t telling me or someone else directly that they are wrong, as you do often.
“If two people are making similar statements and a person is nice to one but attacks another for this, then there is certainly something seriously wrong somewhere with the person.
It could be anything, I’m not interested in finding out.”
You and Jay do not make similar statements, though you both are critical of Islam and Muslims. More over, you don’t make them in the same way. Jay provides evidence, citations, and references. You don’t, you only provide repetitions or elaborations on your perspective on a topic, and bold generalizations, yet seem to think we should change our minds and agree with you. You are suggesting that there is something seriously wrong with me as a person, something so seriously wrong that it could be anything. Is this not a passive-aggressive (since in the third person, and by allusion, otherwise it would be just plainly aggressive) attack on me as a person, one who suffers from a character (both personality and moral) flaw? Someone to be disregarded, discredited, dismissed from the discussion? (again the temptation to alliterate is too great–note the internal rhyme here). Is this what you consider worthwhile debate? Is this what you do when commentators disagree with you, and you have nothing else to offer in the way of discussion? Do you think that neither John nor I can recognize passive aggressive personal attacks? (John because as moderator he specifically asked that they not be part of the discussion). Is this type of demeaning (to yourself as a commentator) psychobabble what you consider discussion, or debate?
Please note that all the questions above are rhetorical. I am merely interested in pointing out to others the challenges within your comment about, not to, me–another rhetorical device which self-demeans a commentator, imho.
BTW Jay and I have had a happy to disagree with each other commenting relationship here and elsewhere since before your advent on this blog. No Brazilians are involved.
January:25:2010 - 07:14
J.Kactuz
Again as usual you try to cast doubts by all means.
I think you know for sure that muslim take great pains in memorizing the holly Quran and by memorizing i mean really memorizing without even a mistake in a single vowel some as young as 9 years old boys and girls can read by heart from cover to cover with hardly making any mistakes, this in our present days as i told my father reads the whole quran from cover to cover, i do read the last third part of it by heart (even though we are not ex cons), so it is very common having Quran in our minds. well imagine what it was like when Islam was fresh. (this same care and cuddle non of the previous revelations or any other book in history was so lucky to get.)
most of the literate muslims in the time of the prophet kept whatesover amount of Quran they memorized commited to leathers…etc as you have mentioned and ofcourse there was special committee of (writers of the revelation) who used to write everything instantly after it was revealed.
and the prophet used to refresh and review the whole Quran every year in the month of Ramadan (compare notes). and in year 11H after the death of the prophet the 1st Caliph taking into consideration the huge number of mortalities among memorizers from (40-70) only not 700 as you said (may be you have better sources as scholar) in one single battle (al Yamamah)died while fighting angainst the followers of Musailamah (who claimed prophecy) after the death of the prophet, the Caliph had reluctantly decided and accomplished gathering the whole quran he entrusted the task to one of the best memorizers ( Zaid Bin thabit) who could have writen it alone because he lead the last note comparing session with the prophet only one year before he was assigned to the task and he was helped by also other best memorizers and who refered to hard copies to resolve doubts i only heard of two verses that were not found on hard copies which are 128-129/9.
about hadiths the prophet himself used to urge his follower to only write the quran not anything else and that if anyone has written anything else they should delete it.
in year 11 the Quran was formally gatherd between to covers and kept with the Caliph and after him with Omar and after him with his daughter Hafsah ( IT WAS THE model ) after which Othman made his six compies… to be continued.
by the way arabs do not need dots and vowels to read their writings in fact non arabs who became muslims needed it very badly even now most arabs can read the quran withou vowel marks but others cant, in fact i can realize when an arab news reader makes a mistake in vowels. arabic is quite intersting language and also very expressive and powerful.
well i did not see any strip clubs here, even if it were there I would would feel shameful to haunt such places with all that grey hair creeping all over my head.
if someone can help me to resolve my confusion and doubt about bibles as far as i know there are four main bibles (Mutta, Morcos,Loca,Yohanna)I tried hard to get their english names but could not, and whether they are bible or something else.
January:25:2010 - 07:18
John–I just recalled that I chose in my references above to use the URLs much like titles to clearly distinguish each reference, rather than use my new found HTML linking capacities, as here. LOL
Also, It seems that Swiss minarets have even greater capacities as missiles than the Swiss imagined.
January:25:2010 - 07:27
I can figure where to stick those Swiss minarets! Like Swiss chocolate ummmmmm tasty
January:25:2010 - 07:42
Majed,
While what you say is right from the perspective that was accepted so far and followed by the believing Muslim community, there has been recent scholarship on different texts of Quran that is challenging these notions now – and it IS being realised that this scholarship may not be acceptable to the devout Muslims, because the evidences are quite in contrast to the religious ideas about Quran held so far.
I understand your sentiments in this regards, but J Kactuz made those remarks in the light of this research. But of course he will reply to you himself.
January:25:2010 - 10:35
Daisy and Chiara…
I feel I need to say that,from my perspective, both of you are important to this commentary and both of you have something valuable to add. I was telling my husband how we have gotten this far in commenting and the breadth of coverage and he said, “that is a little community” and it is. Just like in a community sometimes the neighbors have disagreements with each other as you two seem to have. I am not passing judgement on it’s validity because I am sure to you it is. But I value both of you and as members of the community and it kind of hurts me to see you going at each other and I am gently asking if you could somehow bury the hatchet.
I know I am getting in the middle of something that does not involve me, and if you both want to tell me to mind my own business I certainly will do just that. But as someone who cares about what both of you have to say I felt I needed to reach out to you and at least ask.
January:25:2010 - 10:55
Majed…
“if someone can help me to resolve my confusion and doubt about bibles as far as i know there are four main bibles (Mutta, Morcos,Loca,Yohanna)I tried hard to get their english names but could not, and whether they are bible or something else.”
I am not at all sure I am right but I think the names you are referring to would be the names of the four Gospels of the New Testament part of the bible. (vs. the old testament or Jewish part of the Bible)
The Four Gospels
The word ‘gospel’ means good news. There are four gospel accounts in the New Testament:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I think:(Mutta, Morcos,Loca,Yohanna)added by oby
The first three gospels are sometimes called the ‘synoptic’ (same view) gospels. This is because they each cover teaching and miracles by Jesus that are also covered in another account. John, writing later, recounts Jesus’ other words and miracles that have a particular spiritual meaning.
All four gospels present Jesus as both the Son of God and son of man. They all record His baptism, the feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fishes, Mary’s anointing of the Lord Jesus, His prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, His betrayal, trial, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. However, each writer does so in a slightly different way, recording additional details or emphasizing one aspect more than the others.
Matthew was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus (Matthew 9:1; 10:1-4) and therefore an eye-witness; he records more of Jesus’ teaching concerning God’s heavenly kingdom than the other writers, for example the entire Sermon on the Mount.
Mark was Peter’s son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark’s gospel is therefore Peter’s account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.
Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with Paul (Colossians 4:14; Philemon v24). Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely. Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary’s extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.
John was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness (John 19:35); John brings out the spiritual significance as well as recording the practical aspects of Jesus’ works and words. John lived to be older than any of the other writers. It is therefore likely that he was familiar with their accounts and wanted to supplement theirs with additional teaching and miracles by Jesus which had a bearing on the situation towards the end of the first century AD.
This is a very brief and thin overview…if you were interested in finding out more search under Gospels of New Testament.
They are not separate Bibles…but in fact are part of the New Testament. I would say that they function similar to Hadith, but the more knowledgeable commentators here can verify that.
January:25:2010 - 11:06
Daisy…
You have struck upon a topic that interests me a great deal. I can’t find it now darn it, but you said that they were making headway in research that was turning the understanding of the Qur’an on it’s ear (me paraphrasing). Can you point me in the right direction of that info…I would LOVE to read more about it…Jay’s link above is a start, but like the way they have studied the bible and it has become a living history, I would love to read about it for the Qur’an, if it exists…might be a bit early in the study of the Qur’an to have gotten wuite that far! Thanks.
January:25:2010 - 11:08
Jay…
I hope that your lungs get better. I am sorry for your difficulties. Thanks for the link…it was the one I was meaning and if you think it is accurate then it is worth pursuing. Jump back in and join us with more info when you have time.
January:25:2010 - 11:14
Anyone…
Quite off the subject and a bit simplistic perhaps…Majed mentioned that Muslims have the Qur’an memorized. what is the reason for this? I understand a long time ago perhaps when people did not have access to a scribe and they couldn’t read or write that it would have been quite important to ensure that the history was not lost. But nowadays it is written down and has been preserved. Memorizing it is not the same as actually understanding what you have memorized. Does it go any further than memorization?
Most Christians don’t have the Bible memorized, but they can turn to certain chapters and verses and apply them in a nuanced manner to their life and situations.
I am not trying to confrontational, but understanding the meaning and nuances of something is very different from knowing it by heart. Maybe that is where all the Islamic scholarship we are talking about comes in.
January:25:2010 - 11:55
I think that this is a very good synopsis of the four orthodox or canonical gospels. It should be noted, however, that there are also ‘heretical’ or apocryphal gospels, rejected by most Christian churches. Examples of these are the ‘Gospel of Thomas’, the ‘Gospel of Judas”, and the Gnostic Apocrypha. These are, if you’ll permit the crossing of religious borders, the ‘weak’ hadith, generally promoting ideas declared to be heresy by the formal church.
January:25:2010 - 11:59
When illiteracy was the norm, recitation played the role that books (and video and audio recordings) now play. I think it became a bit of a fetish, however, with glories redounding upon those who memorized the Quran, including special titles, like hafiz. At a time when there were no schools, madrassas played an important role in conveying religious (and some secular) education. I guess you could imagine the routine of memorization as having a book with built-in hyperlinks! The teacher was there to clarify and explain. That is, if he saw his role as anything more than simply conducting a course in rote memorization.
January:25:2010 - 12:33
Oby and John,
Thanks for that description of the Gospels.
Oby,
Check your mail.
And no, I don’t mind. I understand you feel concerned that’s why you say it.
January:25:2010 - 12:39
Wow! Google Reader is way to slow for this.
Majed #465–an excellent and informative comment as usual, thank you. I should explain that my comment about ex-cons is in reference to the fact that early on my use of the word scholar would result in some commentators getting irate, until I realized that for some, scholar would include those ex-cons who have earned a reprieve by memorizing the Qur’an and becoming religious police or taking other roles in the community. I recognize that recitation of the Qur’an by heart is an admirable goal of pious Muslims from all walks of life, including the vast majority who are obviously not ex-cons. No offense was intended to anyone and least of all the you and your family.
The 4 Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and are what is referred to in the Qur’an as the Injil. They are the opening chapters of the New Testament which is the story of the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ and his ministry and death, then the work of his disciples in spreading the “good news” and Christianity in the years following his death. This is part of the Christian Bible which includes as well the Old Testament, that is the Hebrew Bible of Judaism. A testament is a bearing witness the Old Testament bears witness to the stories of Creation, the development of social law, and the history of the formation and development of the tribes of “Israel” ie the 2nd son (according to Islam) of Abraham (Ibrahim).
Oby gave an excellent summary in her comment #570 and there is more explanation available from a variety of sources. You might also enjoy my blog entries on Christmas, especially Part III which explains about the Gospels and their stories of Jesus.
Daisy #568–it is well understood in the academic world that this issue of offensiveness of certain types of Islamic and Quranic scholarship to some Muslims, including the ones doing it from both streams–the more uniquely divine and the more historically generated ones–is a dilemma for all academic scholars, and is addressed overtly in the references I gave and most explicitly in the one in comment # 554 if you are interested.
January:25:2010 - 12:45
In fact, handing down a textual tradition in the oral fom through memory was the norm till quite recently in many societies. In India, most texts were handed down for thousands of years by the mode of memorisation. John is right that this was because these societies were mostly pre-literate.
If today’s Madarsa system of education is any indication of the way the Quran was transmitted to the generations of students in pre-modern times, explanation of the verses go hand in hand with memorisation. Only, explanation flows only in a particular direction, softening the negative edges, so that the students become positively oriented towards the text, without ever questioning it. Questioning the descriptions given in the Quran is not encouraged.
January:25:2010 - 12:55
Oby #569–I for one agree that the regular readers and commentators on a blog form a community and I appreciate and continue to comment on the blogs where the moderator/owner keeps the community civil. Unfortunately, some don’t and allow the personal attacks, even the covert ones, and allow commentators to be attacked to the point that they stop commenting at all and just disappear (I know several of the “disappeared” who have confirmed this in email communication to me), or are by the other commentators own admission run off a blog in a tag teaming, gang mobbing effort. Needless to say the abusers are proud of this and see themselves as doing a service to the blog in question, which they neither moderate nor own, and which they have stated explicitly on the blog(s) in question.
I have no intention of being discredited on this blog as a racist, hindu-phobic, Muslim extremist, bossy and psychologically crippled commentator, nor being ganged up on at the instigation repeatedly of anyone els–while I welcome any genuine criticism of any position I have actually held or stated. If you have read enough of my comments on any blog, including my own, you will know that I welcome differing perspectives, am happy to clarify if I have unintentionally given offense, and to stand corrected when I am wrong. I have even corrected my own posts.
I have myself asked Daisy to desist (way up there somewhere on this thread that I can’t be bothered scrolling for now), and would even be happy to let her have the last word, if it weren’t always so overtly or covertly vile about me as a person, let alone a commentator. I have also suggested she just agree to disagree and offered to do so. It seems she prefers not to.
Most offensive, in some ways, is the burden on other readers and commentators, who diligently read all comments as I do, to have to wade around this. Ultimately the worst is to sully John’s blog with it, no matter how many shout outs to John to either join in the slanging or to forgive it there might be.
I do hold a blog’s community’s behaviour to be of high importance which is why I addressed it overtly in the 2 posts on Blogging and Ethics on my own blog, Part I and Part II, and why I also addressed in the introductory post, and the newer one on the Comments from older of my postings being ethically reproduced anew on my own blog.
I am glad you shared your perspective.
January:25:2010 - 13:16
Oby #570 Excellent; and #571 sounds like YOU have a thesis topic developping. LOL
John #574 and #575–excellent points. Women fare better in the apocryphal gospels, and Mary Magdalene does so in particular. One might add to the confusion, all the translations of the Bible, each of which perforce introduces nuances of meaning, and the various lost codices. Madrassas old and new form all or part of the education of many and one might argue that except for the ones actively perverting the religion into a uniquely hateful one, this education is useful to those who have no other options. Historically many a Christian’s only education was either a self-taught or home-schooled reading of the only book in the house: The Holy Bible.
January:25:2010 - 15:41
John…
As for ‘heretical’ gospels, several years ago I saw a program from National Geographic (seems to be a favorite source of mine as it keeps popping up in my references)about the Gospel of Judas. It wasn’t actually written by him but rather about him. It seems to question the story of Jesus being betrayed by Judas… instead Judas was obeying Jesus’ command that he(Judas) go and reveal Jesus’ whereabouts to the authorities so that a series of events that leads to Jesus’ death is put into action. It appears that instead of being a traitor he was actually Jesus’ close confidante and friend. For me that was a very exhilarating finding. Yes, it changes the story of the betrayal as we know it but it turned out to be, IMO, an even better story…Judas is not a selfish scoundrel who does it for money but rather a friend that follows and believes in Jesus so much he is willing to do as Jesus asks which no doubt was very,very difficult for Judas to do. I thought that really was an incredibly touching story and I felt sorry for poor old Judas getting such a bad rap all these years! It was a story of friendship and love…way better than a story of betrayal I think. That is what I mean about studying the Qur’an (and other religious texts too, of course)…there might be some fantastic stories that have gotten lost over the centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
If it doesn’t show up just type in Gospel of Judas which is what I did to get to it.
January:25:2010 - 15:58
Oby #481–It is important to remember too that Judas was an agent of God in this necessary betrayal so that Jesus might die for the sins of mankind. Jesus acknowledges this when admonishing the disciples in their anger at Judas, and in his own words on the Cross. In this sense Judas was sacrificed as was Jesus.
January:25:2010 - 17:30
oby: I was amused with the recent fuss over the ‘Gospel of Judas’ as it’s an idea I offered (without National Geographic backing, darn it!) back when I was in fifth grade. The nuns were not amused. A priest was called in to set my wagon straight on the track. He explained that the issue at hand was that Judas, as a moral actor, still betrayed the trust that was put in him. He was not forced to follow a command (if ever there were such) and that to think that he was compelled is to fall into the heresy of predestination: that we do as we do because that’s all we can do.
January:25:2010 - 19:08
Chiara…
When I watched the show that was my thought exactly. That Judas sacrificed himself as well to do what needed to be done to bring the plan to fruition. I don’t think Judas told the others after the betrayal and took it to the grave with him. I do remember that Jesus took him aside and explained about the Kingdom of heaven because he felt as if Judas was the only one of the 12 to really “get it”.
Although Judas had a “higher calling” in helping Jesus fulfill the scriptures, I can’t help but put myself in his place and wonder what it must have felt like to hear what Jesus was confirming to him about the Kingdom to come and telling him what he must do in order to set that in motion. Imagine the bewilderment, awe and I am quite sure fear and sadness at not only betraying Jesus his “Master”, but also the knowledge that by doing so he was sealing his own fate too. How long did he have to ponder this? Minutes? An hour or two? What a heavy burden as a human to have to carry with so little time to “wrap your brain around it”.
January:25:2010 - 19:10
John…
You were a man ahead of your time… a visionary. You must have felt at east a little vindicated to hear that you were on the right track!
January:25:2010 - 21:00
John,
That WAS an insight as a fifth-grader.
Oby,
All of the Judas codex is on the National Geographic website, along with Coptic and English translations and also some other codices that were found along with the Judas Gospel.
January:25:2010 - 21:29
‘Ahead’ if you mean finding heresies! Do remember that the story continues… Judas, feeling deep remorse and despair, went off and hanged himself. That–both the despair, a mortal sin, and suicide, a mortal sin–took him out o any contention for a ‘good guy’ award.
I gave my teachers lots of problems, starting in kindergarten and continuing up until, well, today, I guess!
January:25:2010 - 22:10
Majed, you really need to lighten up (be less negative!). I don’t try to “cast doubt by all means”, this is just a discussion and I am stating my position. You just happen to be on the other side of the fence; it’s not personal. Muslims are not shy about telling others how wrong they are so why do they get upset when others tell Muslims why they are wrong?
You do not worship the black stone, you just bow down in front of it or in its direction, 5 times a day. It reminds me of a similar conversation I had with another Muslims several years ago. “Where is Allah”” “Everywhere!” “Where is the Black Stone?” “ So if you are bowing to Allah you could bow in any direction – but you always happen to bow down in the direction of a stone.” Or something like that. If an UFO was flying over the Grand Mosque and the little green men looked out the window, my guess is that they would think Muslims were bowing to a rock cube!
Hafsah… She was the fat one, if I remember. Perhaps more than any other person she was responsible for saving texts of the Quran. Just threw that in for nothing but it gives me a change to post my “Arabia wedding Guide” text:
The first four caliphs were all related to Islam’s prophet and to each other, either by blood or marriage. Here is a summary of the marital and family relationships:
Abu Bakr was father-in-law to both Mohammad (twice, two daughters) and Omar. Actually, Omar married both a daughter and a widowed daughter-in-law (Atika) of Abu Bakr.
Omar (Umar) was also Mohammad’s father-in-law, but decided that wasn’t enough. To add legitimacy to his position, he needed to be part of the Prophet’s family, also. So he (age 55) asked Ali for his daughter, Umm Kultham (age 4 or 5, 10 or 11, Mohammad’s granddaughter). Ali didn’t like the idea and replied: ‘But she is only a child.’ Omar then made a threat: “By Allah, I shall damage the well of Zamzam, and I shall leave nothing precious belonging to you except that I ruin it” and then added a rather confusing statement about getting a witness to testify that he stole something and would then cut off his right hand. Anyway, what the Caliph wants, the Caliphs got. It also appears that Omar married one or two more Umm Kulthum’s, including Abu Bakr’s daughter (Note: there were at least 4 girls named Umm Kulhum in the family, including daughters of Mohammad, Abu Bakr, and Ali. Sometimes people can’t figure out which Umm was married to which Kulhum). Omar also married the sister of Uthman.
Uthman bin Affan, was the Propher’s nephew. After becoming Caliph he married Ruqayyah and Umm Kalthum bint Muhammad, the two daughters of the Prophet and Khadijah, thus receiving the title of Dhun-Nurain, “the Possessor of Two Lights” (because he had married the Prophet’s two daughters). As ancient Shia records remark “In this he was supposed to outrank Ali ibn Abu Talib, who had married only one of Muhammad’s daughters.” So now Uthman was nephew and double son-in-law to Mohammad, uncle to Omar and brother-in-law and cousin to Ali bin Abi Talib. (Note: There are some controversies about Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom. Some say they were Khadijah’s daughters by a previous marriage. There is also the fact that Chapter 111 of the Quran was supposedly given to resolve the marital issues of these two girls and their previous husbands and in-laws, Abu Lahab and Umm Jameel, who had been cursed for their perversity). As mentioned, Uthman’s sister was also married to Omar. I am not finished. Omar was father-in-law of Mohammad (by Hafsah) and brother-in-law to Ali.
Ali was cousin and son-in-law to Mohammad (because he was married to his daughter Fatima) and grandson-in-law (married to Umama, daughter of Zainab, Fatima’s sister, Mohammad’s granddaughter and also Ali’s niece). He was also brother-in-law to Abu Bakr, father-in-law and brother-in-law to Omar and double brother-in-law to Uthman. Oh yes, after Abu Bakr died, Ali married his widow, so I guess he was also husband-in-law. According to the great historian Tabari, Ali had 9 lives, I mean 9 wives, plus the usual compliment of slave girls.
So, these were all uncles, nephews, cousins, or married to cousins, or brother-in-laws, or father and son-in-laws. Ali was his own uncle and Omar is unique because he was one of the few people in history who (by marriage) was his own great-grandfather (The father-in-law of Mohammad married to the prophet’s granddaughter).
One thing that I noticed is that, for a man with so many wives, Mohammad had very few children. It appears that only Ali and Fatima were able to establish a lineage (well the ones that survived, but more about that later). The only other child that comes to mind is Ibrahim, the son of Mary the Copt, a concubine. The boy died young. Sad.
The relationships between these people are complex. Although they are all intermarried, they are not friends. The lines between the two rival groups were very clear. They were all of the Arab Quraysh tribe (from Mecca) but of different families or clans. On one side is a group representing the early companions (Abu Bakr, Omar and Aisha) supported by the Umayyad clan, the richest and most powerful family and responsible for the management of operations and revenues from the pilgrimage to the Kabah. These were also the same group that controlled the Kaaba in Pre-Islamic times. On the other side are Ali and Fatima and their family, often known as the Hashimites (Banu Hashim). They represent, if you will, the “spiritual” dimension of Islam, or the common folks, kind of. Of course, this spirituality is mostly the result of not being among the elite of the Quraysh or having the power and wealth of the caliphship – not that they didn’t try (Note that the Shia believe that Umayya was the adopted son of Abd Munaf, so an imposter!).
What I am saying is the compilation of the Quran was very much a part of this dispute between Ali and the Umayyads. You can be sure that Uthman made sure that there was no support for Ali’s claims in his “authorized” version. Islamic history, including that of the Quran, is interesting but full of blank spots and unanswered questions. There is plenty of room for speculation and textual analysis.
Also I wanted to post a long scholarly text to impress Daisy and Chiara.
January:25:2010 - 22:52
Oby #584–You raise very interesting points on the psyche of Judas. I guess I see this in much more Northrup Frye’s The Great Code type of narrative structuring (I was taught by 1 of his “disciples LOL
and my first peer reviewed publication applied Frye’s analysis to a contemporary text).
John #587–I’ve been thinking since Grade 5 that science is a myth, which I have subsequently modified to “the dominant myth of our society”, but I try to keep that to myself or express it well couched in Kuhnian terms.
Jay #588–long and detailed. I would suggest taking one for the team and splitting it in 2 to get us to 600 faster, but we seem to be getting there quickly enough as it is.
I would suggest again that John get the honour of #600.
January:25:2010 - 23:00
JK,
I am quite used to long-winded family trees in India, though marriage with blood relations is a taboo, something which even many Muslims follow here. However, your account of these marital alliances has got me really confused and it will take me a long time to work through this cobweb of marital relations!
I like the concept of husband-in-law!
I am quite impressed – it seems you are a scholar of Islamic history and religion.
January:25:2010 - 23:49
John really doesn’t have a number fetish, so if it hits 600, it hits 600.
Hitting 600, though, makes it difficult to post comments! Unfortunately, neither the reader nor the program can just jump to the ‘good parts’. It (and the reader) have to scroll through everything that came before and that takes time.
I’d really suggest finding another post on which to carry the conversation. Maybe I’ll have to find it myself, figuring out a magic word that draws so much intellectual attention!
January:26:2010 - 00:48
Chiara, here is one for you. Sarah Vaughan singing an English version of Travessia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3sLxtAW0nY
Milton Nascimento is one of the greats and Travessia is one of my favorite songs. Had you ever come across this song?
And for you, Daisy, another Sarah singing one of the great modern hits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5b-IgKRi9s&feature=related
I once tried to buy tickets for a Brightman concert but silly me, who am I?
You must admit that Sarah has great stage presence. She is the show.
I invented the concept of husband-in-law. It is a blow for women’s rights!
For you, Oby, Ol’ Man River. This is Warfield version, much better than Robeson’s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XlEzY4tMyg
I really enjoy deep masculine voices. I love the old musicals.
And for you, Majed, I had to think a bit but decided to pull a song from my youth. Yes, I used to sing in a choir. Now understand that nowhere in the world do people sing like in a Baptist church. Nothing matches the singing found in an old time evangelical congregation. Hey, the Catholics and even the Mormons now sing the great protestant hymns of the late 19th and early 20th century. A few years ago I was at a Catholic Church (I can’t remember why) but it was strange to hear them sing “A Mighty Fortress is our God” by Martin Luther. Weird! It was really strange. Anyway, here is one of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYP–c2LTfg&feature=related
The music starts at 1:60 but it is a great song and story. If I could choose one song for my funeral, it would be this (followed by an ABBA hit maybe! I would certainly choose a few songs that would really confuse the 6 people at the service.)
My, am I in a musical mood tonight.
I have no idea what these have to do with minarets but we are one closer to 600 and being able to move on to something else…
John is starting to refer to himself in the third person. He’s losing it.
Good night, all
K.
PS: Majed, was the song better than the stripper joke?
January:26:2010 - 04:58
Jkactuz,
nice work you have done job tracing back the lineage of all those you have mention in your post #588 down to Adam, and how they were related to each other, well i gues they were not living in Bombay where you might see someone like only once in your life time, but in small town with only thounsands living in small area there is good chance that you will collide face to face quite a few times a day. it is really great, because out there, there are pepole who can hardly trace their own lineage any further than their direct father. I think all those you have mentioned should have married from Persia or Greece just to please you.
Yes Jay, you know we also sometimes pray to the direction of air plane pilot and sometimes to our train and luxury bus driver too.
you might have seen Hafsa i did not, may be she was fat or ugly and may be she also used to eat and excrete and marry just like you and me and she died and was burried, that is why we call such things creatures. she was not god not do all these things and to lack perfection.
Regarding Omar, I guess you are not raising doubts you have just scholarly made historical search and found sound evidents to say all these things only that Zamzam well is 400Km from where they lived and it was not Ali `s property that Omar can destroy, do you know (once omar came to Ali who the was Judge of Madina and said that he saw a couple committing adultry, Ali told him that if you can not bring 3 more eye witness to that incident that he will have him flogged 80 lashes for slander and defamation (here all the eye witnesses must have seen the genetals in copulation position meanigly penetration) he had to take back his accusation, this proves how despotic and haughty Caliph he Omar was.
with reference to other things you are just confused at times between the devine and human and at others between politcs and power struggle in one side and religion the other. may be that has something to do with your background.
As far as Quran is conscerned it does not say who has the right to rule and who does not. I do not think Hashimite should rule just because they are from the prophet `s tribe they are just like others.
January:26:2010 - 06:39
Oby,
thank you very much for your explanation, your comment made even more sense to me, after I had it blended it with Chiara `s comment yet i still need more, but from here I think I can manage to grope my way to more informations.
I know it sounds strange why should people memorize while they can read it with ease, may you don`t most of the people who memorize it specially arabs know basically what they are reading and get the gist of it, but many in india its derivatives and other countries, mostly people in local madrasas Not major school only memorize , and we mainly memorize because of the dignity, prestige and status attached to it and also in our tradition one memorizer can emancipate 10 of his family members from hell or punishment of Allah, I only started memorizng it when I got my first child I don`t know may be someone will think I am a fool, yes believing has a lot to do with foolishness but it is necessary to be a fool sometimes and also we need it to be memorized so that we can read when walking, driving and while insomniac and trying sleep rather than counting stars…etc.
Chiara,
I hate to say this, but I was really very afraid and reluctant to even hover over your links about the conferences about the reviewing the Quran and islamic tradition, but I stealthily sneaked in,and to my surprise it really was not bad at all I got quite a good things and even very intersting names and topics I really liked it, and, am already searching about that in arabic. so thank you very much.
and regarding the ex cons, just forget about it, it is ok no offense was taken, I only wanted to show i was around and that it hurts, yet you were not wrong altogether too yes many convicts get years waived out of their sentence by memorizing.
Daisy,
I don`t know for sure but i know that indias even Hindus have the tradition of cross cousin marriages and also interfamily marriages. Interlinking families and making ties and lobbies and syndicates and allies is a long practised style and purpose of marriage everywhere and everytime, i wonder why this cobweb confuses your sophisticated mind.
January:26:2010 - 06:42
John #591–I fully agree with the problem of a high number of comments. Keeping an eye on the number has been my way of keeping myself amused at the reluctance to move on from here. I am sure you are aware that anything about sex, the abaya, or the niqab is sure to attract attention, though maybe there is another unsuspectedly magical minarets word.
Majed–interesting points. The one about demographics reminds me of visiting my maternal grandmother’s hillside village in Tuscany, where the same few family names repeat a lot, eg on monuments. Noticing that I noticed, a native explained there were a lot of intermarriages especially in older times when there was no highway out, and little travel between villages. As you point out “scholarship” can be used to support a previously held ideology. I don’t know any Muslims who actually believe the Hashemites have the right of divine rule, but most are not free to say so publicly.
January:26:2010 - 06:51
Jay–Thank you for the song. I wasn’t aware of it, to the best of my recollection. It also reminded me to tell you to take care, and to offer Lara Fabian, my favourite Italo-Belgian singer in 2 concerts: one for an English audience, and one for a French one.
January:26:2010 - 07:38
Oops my comment #595 was for Majed’s comment #593.
Majed #594–I understand your apprehension. Isn’t it wonderful to learn what excellent, responsible and diverse research is going on in Universities everywhere?! Regarding the Injil, I do hope you will visit the Christmas posts I did. If there are any errors about the Quran in them, please let me know.
I was also very perplexed and hurt by the misunderstandings about my misuse of “scholar” that others would jump to make, using the portrait of the ex-con Muttawa. We are good.
An interesting comment on endogamy (marrying within the group) in India. A brief search of the scholarly literature reveals that it is the predominant form of marriage in India: within subcastes, castes, and myriad subgroupings. Given my current interest in genetics, I found this one interesting. The embedded link is to the full article, the abstract follows.
The population of India is composed of many thousands
of subpopulations, divided by geography, language,
religion and caste or biraderi (patrilineage) boundaries,
with endogamous marriage the norm. The net effect has
been the creation of multiple genetic isolates with individual
mutation profiles, but to date the clinical consequences
of this highly complex differentiation have
been largely ignored. In contrast, the topic of consanguinity
continues to attract attention among medical and
population geneticists, clinicians and social scientists.
The significant progress made in India in improving
childhood nutritional status and combating infectious
disease means that genetic disorders have assumed everincreasing
importance. In populations where consanguineous
marriage is widely practised, recessive genetic
disorders will continue to gain greater prominence in the
overall spectrum of ill health. At the same time this
increase will in part be negated by urbanization and the
move to smaller family sizes, which predictably will
result in a decline in the prevalence of consanguineous
unions. Developing an understanding of these changes
will require a wide-ranging and multidisciplinary investigative
approach for which community genetics is ideally
suited.
Not to be outdone by an Aussi geneticist, a South Asian sociologist contributes this:
Surname Endogamy among the Brahmin of India
Suhasini Bhatnagar
Suraksha Agrawal
Endogamy has been a strong influence on Hindu society over the centuries and most of the 75,000 subcastes or subgroups of India’s complex social stratification system practise endogamy, while the further divisions within these subcastes, called gotras, are required to marry exogamously. The present study focuses on three socioculturally isolated, highly endogamous groups, to study the effect of endogamy on genetic microdifferentiation. The groups are all subdivisions or classes of the Brahmin or priest caste, namely Bhargavas and Chaturvedis and Kanyakubja and Sanadhaya Brahmin, and all groups practise patrilineal surname endogamy. Two-generation pedigrees were drawn up and microdifferentiation was estimated using parameters like mean concordance, i.e. within-gotra marriages in Bhargavas and Chaturvedis, FIT (the inbreeding coefficient or inbreeding-like effect due to endogamy), FST (within-group a priori kinship) and RST (reduced variance of the mean value of within-group a priori kinship). Our results indicate that there is an increase in same-gotra marriage showing that these groups are in fact not following the strict rule of exogamy. This is highest among Chaturvedis (17.1 percent) as compared to Bhargavas (11.2 percent), Kanykubja Brahmins (13.4 percent) and Sanadhaya Brahmin (16.92 percent). The FST is almost the same in all the populations over two generations; however, it is slightly lower among Bhargavas and highest in Brahmin indicating that although these populations follow endogamy at surname level they are exogamous at gotra/kuldevi level. The same is indicated by FIS, which shows that in spite of strict endogamy there is no inbreeding-like effect in these populations. RST measures variance among populations and our results reveal that these populations are distinct from one another.
January:26:2010 - 07:49
On consanguinity (marrying blood relations)in India wiki is a good starting point:
India
Attitudes in India on cousin marriage vary sharply by region and culture. For Muslims it is acceptable and legal to marry a first cousin. But for Hindus this is technically illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act, though the actual situation is more complex.[44]
For Hindus in northern India, cousin marriage is generally proscribed and seen as incest, as for example is the case in the state of Rajasthan. In fact it may even be undesirable to marry within one’s village or for two siblings to marry partners from the same village.[45]
However, in southern India, it is common for cross cousins to marry, with matrilateral cross-cousin (mother’s brother’s daughter) marriages being especially favored, and this may be arranged deliberately by parents. Matrilateral cross-cousin marriage results in especially strong ties between a nephew and his maternal uncle, who is then also his father-in-law.[46]
Central India for the most part follows the northern model, though not entirely.[47]
For consanguinity and genetics I like this one available in full and short. The abstract and the opening follow:
Consanguinity and chromosomal abnormality
S Amudha, N Aruna, S Rajangam
Division of Human Genetics, St. John’s Medical College, Bangalore, India
» Abstract
BACKGROUND : Consanguinity is defined as the marriage between close relatives. The deleterious effects associated with consanguinity may be caused by the expression of rare recessive genes inherited from common ancestors. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES : The present study was undertaken to analyze the effect of consanguinity on chromosomal abnormality (CA). METHODS AND MATERIALS : During last 6 years period, a total of 1465 cases with suspected genetic etiology like bad obstetric history, mental retardation, multiple congenital anomalies, Down syndrome, primary amenorrhea and primary infertility was referred to Division of Human Genetics for karyotyping and genetic counseling. The information regarding consanguinity was obtained through pedigree analyzes up to three generations from all the patients. Chi-square test was applied to test the significance. RESULTS : Consanguinity was seen in 427 cases (29.14%), 305 cases were confirmed to have CA, among them 240 (78.7%) had numerical abnormality and 65 (21.3%) had structural abnormality. The presence of consanguinity in CA was seen in 53 cases (17%), including 43 (81.1%) with numerical and 10 (18.9%) with structural abnormality. CONCLUSION : The effect of consanguinity on CA was almost significant ( P < 0.001), whereas the effect was not significant for the type of CA. It may be because of the pooled types of consanguinity as well as the CA. Further information is needed to state categorically that there could be the effect of consanguinity on CA.
Keywords: Chi-square test; chromosomal abnormality; consanguinity; genetic counseling
Consanguinity may result in the homozygous condition for recessive autosomal/deleterious genes. The incidence of consanguinity reported in India is 5-60% and uncle-niece and first cousin are the more commonly occurring relationships in Indian population.[1]
January:26:2010 - 07:55
Oh, and another favourite topic, the incidence of genetic Retinitis Pigmentosa (also a problem in Saudi), and India, the abstract only is here and below:
Consanguinity and Ocular Genetic Diseases in South India: Analysis of a Five-Year Study
G. Kumaramanickavela, B. Josepha, A. Vidhyaa, T. Arokiasamya, N. Shridhara Shettyb
Departments of
aGenetics and Molecular Biology and
bVitreous and Retina, Medical and Vision Research Foundations, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India
Abstract
Objective: Consanguineous marriage is a widely practised social custom in Asia and northern Africa. In south India, Dravidian Hindus have contracted consanguineous marriages for over 2,000 years. In the present study, the influence of consanguinity on the prevalence of visual disorders was examined in patients attending a specialist genetic eye clinic. Subjects and Methods: A total of 2,335 patients attending Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India, were screened for genetic eye disorders over a five-year period. The patients were drawn from all parts of India and from neighbouring countries in south Asia. Results and Discussion: Six hundred and seventy-three (28.8%) of the patients tested for ophthalmic genetic disorders reported a family history of consanguinity. The majority (n = 574) of these families were from south India. In the patient group as a whole, the most common form of consanguineous union was between first cousins (n = 367), followed by uncle/niece marriage (n = 177), equivalent to a mean coefficient of inbreeding = 0.0202. Among the consanguineous families, 430 of 673 (63.9%) had retinitis pigmentosa, 167 of these cases were autosomal recessive and 199 were isolated cases. The public in regions such as south India should be made aware of the merits and demerits of consanguineous marriages.
Copyright © 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
John–to you #600. I have done my best to bring this thread as logically as possible back to India! LOL
January:26:2010 - 08:13
Ha, HA , HA!!
Jay = John
You, lady, may refer to me as “The big Mr. 600″ from now on…
First 600, then the world! (background laugh of mad scientist!)
It’s mine, Its all m i n e!
January:26:2010 - 08:44
Why do I hear Vincent Price’s laugh in reading comment #600?
John Burgess–any thoughts of euthanizing any further comments on this thread?
January:26:2010 - 11:14
Chiara,
You are right about health problems that result due relative marriages, the concept is not new,it was well known to people snice very early i remember smilar stuff from preislamic arab poetry(may be non arabs also, but don`t know), that goes in the same direction many arab used to refer/atribute the cause of week and small offspring to marriagess among blood relatives. and they used to suggest certain people to marry from certain tribes to improve their posterity in a way we can call it (eugenics) in present days scientific terms. may be you know arab were excllent in breeding and cross breeding horses, goats and camels may that is how they knew much about.
January:26:2010 - 11:19
Jay,
Thanks for those beautiful songs. That was an exotic way of celebrating. Congratulations for your achievement! I do hope you are not saying goodbye to this blog.
January:26:2010 - 11:35
Mindless posting of internet links without critically examining the material, superficial knowledge of a culture combined with internet links that may not always be accurate or well-researched and may even be fallacious and reliance on articles published by people who may not have researched an issue properly and not understanding properly the context of an article, simply posting contents without understanding the context of the contents does not validate one’s stand, nor does it prove anything. An argument doesn’t become justified only because one can produce bad quality internet material or misunderstood published articles.
One should have the ability to understand how valid the material itself is.
Majed,
No, Hinduism has a well elaborated and complex process to ensure that two people related by blood do not get married. There are only some communities in South India where a marriage between maternal uncle and the eldest niece is practised, but this is not the norm in Hinduism.
January:26:2010 - 11:48
Chiara,
Muslims can marry among relatives yes, but the nearest relatives we can marry are our cousins and it is by way of permission not not that it is favorable, that mostly depends on traditions and cultures.
I was going to say that I knew personally people in india who are married to their nieces but i did not like say it less it might hurt Daisy who might think i was making it up.
but seeing it your post i was encourage give it a voice.
by the thank you for those abstracts.
January:26:2010 - 11:55
Majed,
I said there are some – only very few – communities where marriage between maternal uncle and eldest niece is practised, but this is not the norm in Hinduism. Otherwise marriage between blood relatives is a taboo. In fact, cousins are brothers and sisters in Hinduism – there is no difference between cousins and real brothers and sisters.
January:26:2010 - 12:15
Daisy…
I am not going to be much help to you here because,now,14 years later I don’t remember the formula, but when I was marrying my husband I remember asking that exact question to his family. If marriages are arranged and they tend to marry people with the same surname or within the same social strata more or less, how does one know that they are not marrying a close relative? I was told as you indicated that there is a formula or rule to follow when choosing a spouse. One of the things that was definitely taboo was marrying someone too close in relation. They described the whole process to me but as I said now all these years later I can’t remember it and I am not sure that I even fully understood it at the time, but i do remember thinking “wow…that seems like a pretty good system and would prevent people too close in relation from marrying.” As you said there are some minor exceptions to that I am sure, but the mainstream I remember was pretty clear about not marrying close relations or relations at all.
January:26:2010 - 12:23
Just in case John does euthanize this thread I wanted to say to everyone that it has been probably the best post for me ever. Full of information and links that helped add nuance to the Qur’an and Islam. It started out as a link about negativity and fear and wound up, for me at least, on a deeper level thinking about the Qur’an as a historical work.
Chiara… I responded to your post about a thesis forming but can’t find my post…sorry! Generally I have a few uninterrupted blocks of time to read and post during the day but I kept getting pulled away from the computer yesterday and wrote it but probably forgot to hit send as I was once again getting up to handle something. It has been a weird 24-48 hours in terms of reading and commenting so if I have missed something of yours that you posted to me I do apologize. It was not intentional that I not respond. To summarize: I am very interested in the Qur’an in a historical/anthropological context so in that way you might be right about a thesis…like you, I am very interested in genetics. I think it is fascinating how in many ways peoples’ genotype/phenotype can be written on their faces…or not. I find genetics particularly interesting in the arena of inherited diseases such as Tay Sachs or sickle cell anemia. Have always loved it since high school. I think that you are right about Islam and all that we see about it today…all we see today is the extremist side of Islam, the ones grabbing the headlines killing and maiming. I do wish that there was more focus on the scholarship of Islam and the Qur’an. Other than those in academic circles probably no one is aware (maybe not even Muslims)that there is any sort of critical thinking or examination going on in the Muslim world of the Qur’an or the history of that time and place. I was very, very heartened to know that it is not static and that people have taken the choice to look at it as a piece of history very similar to what we are doing with the Bible….Now that is something I could get into. I, too, am interested in Tariq Ramadan and maybe someday you can find a way to fit that into your blog. I have not forgotten about contacting you…there are two points in particular I wanted to touch upon. But before I do that I wanted to familiarize myself once again with the topic and to be honest, I have not sat down and read it again what with reading all these other links and info…not to mention doing all the other duties such as helping with homework and projects, preparing our taxes and other commitments. But I haven’t forgotten and I hope you will still be open to discussion as you said somewhere waaaaay up in this thread.
Jay… thank you for the song…it happens to be one of my favorites. I love Showboat! The work you did on the family interrelations is amazing and I am still trying to untangle it…I am very impressed you were able to work that out. Your links and arguments were very thought provoking for me maybe more so because you look at it from a historical perspective without the need to sugar coat it in any way…I have followed up off of the blog with reading on the things you have posted and you have added to my interest in the Qur’an as a historical document in a big way. More than you know.
Daisy…you know how much of a help you have been as well!
John… As for difficulty reading all the comments, I just scroll to the bottom and go up to the new comments. Easier than scrolling down.I hope we stay open, but in case we don’t I just wanted to get all my thanks in.
January:26:2010 - 12:24
Oby,
Yes, there is not one but an elaborate and complex set of many rules which exclude blood-related matches from the orbit of marriageable partners. It’s natural for you not to understand or remember it as it’s a very elaborate system. Even people not directly related by blood at present are excluded if there is a possibility that their ancestors many generations ago may have been related by blood. There are some exceptions, but marriage with a blood relation is not the mainstream practice.
Just in case we are closing this thread, thanks to John for keeping this post open.
January:26:2010 - 12:57
Rather than ‘euthanasia’, one can always just decide to not keep replying in the same comment thread! There are other–I hope interesting–posts.
I put it in the hands of you, the commenters…
January:26:2010 - 13:49
@ 600- Jay
I fear what may happen if this thread reaches 666! I’ll check back!
January:26:2010 - 13:59
I was re-reading some of the comments here, trying to respond before John puts this thread out of its misery.
Chiara, from #595: “anything about sex, the abaya, or the niqab is sure to attract attention, though maybe there is another … magical minarets word”… I see right through you – - -> you are trying to suggest that minarets are nothing but a phallic symbol. You women (sneer!) All you can think about is sex. Behind that erudite academic mind lurks a sex fiend struggling to get out.
Majed, so you do have a sense of humor. Memorization is good for the brain.
Why do you say the zamzam well is 400 miles from where Omar lived? Other than the Jerusalem trip, he was pretty much in the “Two Holy cities” area and the zamzam well is only a few feet from the Kaaba. I have some great 19th century pictures of it when Mecca was a small town. It wasn’t until the 1950s that they ruined the whole area with that massive construction that is the Grand Mosque today. Of course you can buy zamzam water on Ebay (zamzam faucet water!).
Yes, Hafsah was the fat wife, according to all histories. She is the one that gave up her turn when she was about to be divorced – the verse from quran tells Mohammad “You can put away any of your wives that get to fat” (actually I invented the last 4 words but that is basically the official story). Too bad that men so often only look at the physical side of women. It took me many years to see the obvious, that a good woman is the product of body, mind and spirit, not just body. I am a slow learner.
I really don’t take sides in Ali’s fight with Aisha and friends. I just find it fascinating today that there are so many Sunni and Shia sites that say such horrible things about these people that have been dead for 1300 years. They make the Hatfield vs McCoy feud seem like a highschool reunion.
The story of the rashidun and their families is not a matter of “Human and divine” but about a bunch of rich and powerful people trying to stay on top. It was no difference from the Roman Emperors or the Byzantines (the oldest brother would often blind or mutilate his siblings to ensure they weren’t eligible for the thrown). If you read those histories they married each other and killed each other for money and power. This was the same for the so-called rightly guided Caliphs. They fought tooth and nail. That era was very bloody by all accounts, with Muslims killing Muslims by the tens of thousands.
tbc…
January:26:2010 - 14:27
“The story of the rashidun and their families is not a matter of “Human and divine” but about a bunch of rich and powerful people trying to stay on top. It was no difference from the Roman Emperors or the Byzantines (the oldest brother would often blind or mutilate his siblings to ensure they weren’t eligible for the thrown). If you read those histories they married each other and killed each other for money and power. This was the same for the so-called rightly guided Caliphs. They fought tooth and nail. That era was very bloody by all accounts, with Muslims killing Muslims by the tens of thousands.”
Just goes to show you that power, greed and treachery are equalizing vices…Muslims don’t hold the full bag on that one!
January:26:2010 - 17:38
Daisy #604 and #606
Mindless posting
What mindless? The references were directly related to the topics raised, and I provided the rationale for including them.
of internet links
Internet links to published academic journals, or to a wiki starting point with its references, not to hokus pokus.
without critically examining the material,
Of course I examined it critically, I don’t reference or link anything I don’t think is worth reading.
superficial knowledge of a culture
Superficial in what way? I know enough that is relevant to the discussion at hand, and to what I linked, and considerably more that would be off topic, from colleagues, collaborators, patients, friends, the publications of Indian researchers, etc.
combined with internet links that may not always be accurate or well-researched
Did you check them out? See the journals they were published in? Look at the qualifications of the researchers, and their affiliations? Examine their methodology? I did, and they are accurate (in the scientific, and scholarly sense) and well-researched (ditto).
and may even be fallacious
May? In what way? All science and scholarship has counterarguments and proofs but one would have to address these articles in a literature review on the topic because they are part of the recognized corpus on the topic.
and reliance on articles published by people who may not have researched an issue properly
May? Did you check their credentials, affiliations, and methodology?
and not understanding properly the context of an article,
If I didn’t understand the context well enough I wouldn’t have included them.
simply posting contents without understanding the context of the contents
Ditto
does not validate one’s stand, nor does it prove anything.M/i>
What stand? What proving? Sharing information. Providing the sources so others may check it out for themselves.
An argument doesn’t become justified only because one can produce bad quality internet material or misunderstood published articles.
Who is arguing? I am just sharing interesting information I found on topics raised by commentators on this thread. The material is high level recent academic material that thankfully is online and available to all, or at least the abstracts are. My training, experience, and publications mean I actually do understand these. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have cited them.
One should have the ability to understand how valid the material itself is.
I trust that material produced by recognized scholars and published in peer-reviewed journals is valid enough, ie one may not agree with it but it is usually done properly for what it purports. I only selected materials from domains where I do have the training to understand and read critically.
<Majed,
No, Hinduism has a well elaborated and complex process to ensure that two people related by blood do not get married. There are only some communities in South India where a marriage between maternal uncle and the eldest niece is practised, but this is not the norm in Hinduism.
Actually, according to Indian researchers in the know, matrilineal endogamy, whether uncle-niece or cross-cousin (the offspring of a brother and sister) is the predominant mode of marriage in South Indian Hindu culture. Exogamy is the predominant mode of marriage in North Indian Hindu culture, including arranged marriages between complete strangersm and the complex rules to which both you and Oby refer. This helps explain the cultural taboo of marrying North-South; and also helps explain the problems with dowry extortion, bride burnings, and bride suicides in North India, again as elaborated by Indian scholars.
Indian Muslims of course follow Muslim laws of marriage including marriage to 1st cousins both cross cousins, and parallel cousins (offspring of 2 brothers, or 2 sisters), matrilineal and patrilineal.
Not all, Hindu or Muslim, choose these patterns of course.
Majed,
I said there are some – only very few – communities where marriage between maternal uncle and eldest niece is practised, but this is not the norm in Hinduism. Otherwise marriage between blood relatives is a taboo. In fact, cousins are brothers and sisters in Hinduism – there is no difference between cousins and real brothers and sisters.
Ditto and repetition does not make something true.
January:26:2010 - 17:50
This has been an interesting thread, I hasn’t commented the last 150 or so. Quran exegesis isn’t my strong point. It is great although that something is happening at last. There is also the Berlin Koran project which in due time ( I think they have got a 15 year research grant) will provide us with – not a textciritical Quran edition ( but if anyone can do that, it’s the germans, they really have something for text critical editions), but an edition which will compare many of the earliest Quran manuscripts, among others those who were rediscovered a few years ago; a german Dr. has taken a lot of microfilms in Yemen in the thirties, but everyone thought they were lost during the war.
But I don’t think consequences will be seen in our lifetime. It’s word remembering that a general acceptance of a more critical reading of the Gospels first was generally accepted in the middle of last century, at least in public schools ( and public schools is traditions last bastion) . And this kind of understanding isn’t generally accepted, on the contrary (just think about the so called religion wars 10 years ago in USA). But it’s of course very important that the intellectual classes in general has this stance. It will take generations in the muslim world, before reading of the Quran in school will be substituted by teaching religion. But it’s not the most important problem. In most muslim countries the basic school teaching is par level with or below Western Europe 150 years ago.
That’s a problem.
January:26:2010 - 18:07
Majed #602 and #605–Yes part of the tradition of interclan and intertribal marriages is to protect the gene pool as well as to build alliances. I wrote some of that in the Royal Saudi/non-Saudi marriage posts, particularly the Introduction and the Reflections ones. Also there is a post based on an article about the inter-marriages of royals from different MENA countries. The ones in between parts I-IV are examples of different Saudi Royals marrying non-Saudis. All show the diversity genetically and culturally and the positive contributions of alternate traditions. Just check the blog category in the side bar of my blog if you are interested, and of course I would welcome your comments. Thank you for the reminded about Arab excellence in husbandry (breeding and cross breeding of animals).
If genetics interests you, you might be interested in the work of an internationally famous geneticist, who is himself Palestinian and has dedicated his career to exploring Arab genetics. He was based in Canada for a long time, but is now in the New York and Qatar. His name is Ahmed S Teebi and his most famous book is Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations and is outstanding.
You would be able to know better than I what he has published in Arabic.
You are welcome for the abstracts and the links. Thank you for inspiring me to research this. I do know about the Muslim permission to marry up to 1st cousins, mostly because my husband and his patrilineal parallel cousin (his father’s brother’s daughter) used to laugh about being betrothed by cultural and religious rules. And thanks to you I finally found the English expression for this!! (Patrilineal parallel cousins).
Ist cousin marriages are now legal in most US states and Canada, and are only frowned on religiously and culturally in Christianity. Roman Catholics used to prohibit cousin marriages up to the 7th degree, which of course didn’t stop anyone. Now they are prohibited to the 3rd degree. So Rudy Giuliani when he wanted to marry his first wife, who was his cousin, said she was a 2nd cousin, and later when he wanted a religious annulment said she was a 3rd cousin.
January:26:2010 - 18:39
Oby #607 and #608–Yes the elaborate exogamous rules apply to North Indians, but the South is endogamous. You are soooo up for a graduate degree in Anthropology!!! combining cultural and biological anthropology. Or in Islamic studies and Anthropology. Anthrogeek has looked at the different approaches each department takes. You might want to look at her blog, and of course at mine! LOL:) Yes there are blog post topics in all that including Tariq Ramadan…hmmm. Meanwhile, feel free to contact me any time and don’t worry about being overly prepared ahead of time, unless you want to. My email is listed in the sidebar on my blog, but here it is again:
chiaraazlinquestion AT yahoo.com
Looking forward to further discussions on and off blogs!
Daisy #609–True for North Indian Hindus
John #610–yes the distinction between passive and active euthanasia and murder is so fine, and so crucial. Remember the good old days when the thread was set to close automatically? and because your posts update on topics frequently, we would all comment on the update. I do intend to comment on other posts I haven’t got to yet.
Jay #612–I told you back there some where in the pre-500′s I was sleeping with the enemy.
NielsC #615–yes and it is important to remember that most MENA countries are 3rd world ones, and a substantive number of people in the “rich” ones are poor. Poverty, despite public education for both girls and boys ages 6-15 prevents learning adequately even during those years, as some aren’t sent to school or are sent tired from work, undernourished and with no supplies, and no means to do homework or study.
January:26:2010 - 20:31
Chiara…
I am confused. Why to get married would Giuliani claim that his wife was CLOSER to him in bloodline? wouldn’t it work the other way around? To allow the marriage wouldn’t he want to distance himself from his wife’s relation? How does saying she’s his 2nd cousin to get married and then distance himself (relationally speaking)from his wife to get divorced? Could you elaborate?
You are right…my husband is North Indian.
“It is important to remember that most MENA countries are 3rd world ones, and a substantive number of people in the “rich” ones are poor. Poverty, despite public education for both girls and boys ages 6-15 prevents learning adequately even during those years, as some aren’t sent to school or are sent tired from work, undernourished and with no supplies, and no means to do homework or study.”
It makes me so very sad to hear that. I was not sure what the MENA countries were in total and the list that Wiki provides surprised me. I think of some of them as 3rd world but a lot of them I did not think of that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA
January:26:2010 - 20:51
Unfounded obstinacy and unwillingness to see one’s folly makes one unsuitable for any kind of dialogue.
Jay,
I think Muhammad wanted to divorce her not because she was fat but because she was old and he didn’t want an aging wife. Since she had nowhere to go after divorce, she said to Muhammad that he shouldn’t divorce her so that she will be maintained in his house and she surrendered her “turns” to Aisha in exchange for this maintenance.
The reason why they were marrying like that was that women were becoming widows when their husbands died in battles and these women had to be maintained by their kinsmen. The custom of successful, self-sufficient business women went out of usage when Khadija married Muhammad. Marrying them off to the first man available was economical for these kinsmen, because they didn’t have to support these widows if someone married them. Islam did not – and still does not – have a well thought-out provision for the maintenance of a divorced woman who didn’t want to or could not remarry and whose relatives couldn’t maintain her for whatever reasons. Hence, remarriage of widows was a kind of compulsion, not exactly a reform as it has been argued. It meant that a woman could be maintained only if she was sexually available to a man and there was no scope of she maintaining herself.
Yes, political alliance was another strong reason. But it didn’t seem to work as they fought despite their marital alliances.
NielsC,
You are right about the German research. But I am not sure we will not be able to see the results when it gets completed.
January:26:2010 - 21:12
Actually, due to popular request, I re-opened the comment window which would otherwise have closed after two weeks. That window was established to block spammers who would target old posts for some odd reason.
Now, it seems to be just a technical matter that lots of comments make the page and comments sluggish for users.
January:26:2010 - 21:15
Daisy, I’m not quite so sure the self-sufficient woman disappeared with Khadija’s marriage. There have certainly been powerful and independent Muslim women since then, in Arabia as well as in other lands. I think the dependency is more a latter-day issue. I can’t document my suspicion–haven’t looked for data yet.
January:26:2010 - 22:03
John,
You are right, in later times there were women in different royal families across the Islamic world who were quite independent and in fact even acted as de facto rulers in some cases. We had such women in the historical Royal Muslim families of India. But these women came only much later and they were exceptions, not the norm. If you look at the lifetime of Muhammad and immediately after his death, when these marital relations were taking place which Jay has written about, can you find evidences of independent women who were self-sufficient and who didn’t need to be maintained by men?
I think dependency was more the norm in Muhammad’s own times. The situation gradually changed over a period of time and there began to emerge strong women, but less in Arabia, more in other regions where Islam reached later.
PS – How about making a post titled “Sequel to the Meaning of Minarets” or something like “Minarets Deciphered” ?
You can write something related to the kind of arguments taking place now on this page, which don’t have much to do with minarets, but this can continue the discussion on this new page without slowing down the uploading process.
January:26:2010 - 23:47
I think there’s a big void in the history of Arabia immediately following the first caliphs and the move to Damascus. Arabia sort of disappears, men as well as women. Actually, after the Omayyad dynasties, we don’t hear much from Arabia until about 400 years ago!
January:27:2010 - 02:05
Yes, this being a poor region, merged with the Islamic empires that were being ruled from more resource-rich centres. But the accounts of Muhammad’s lifetime and of the immediate aftermath to his death are pointers to the way women were “managed” by the men in this society in 7th century.
January:27:2010 - 03:51
Daisy,
May be you are are right, because I only lived in south of india that is why I know about those marriages amongst relatives, I believe Chiara `s abstract also says the same thing too.
And i said that not to judge anyone or show scorn, but only to share what meagre knowledge and experience i have, of course we all heard about the man who married his own daughter in Australia,even though it is disgusting but they both say they are happy and that they love each other, unfortunately their children paying the price in very hard to cure genetic/hereditary diseases.
You are also right that many indians consider their cousins like brothers and sisters which also influenced muslims too, that is when someone tells you this is my sister or brother you can`t sometimes tell if he is talking about real brother/sister or cousin.
Jkactuz
just to crrect your information, Omar and Ali lived in Madina while Zamzam is in Makkah where the black stone and the cubic structure is located the distance between both places is 400km, I wonder how the Mars people in The UFO forgot to tell you this.
Considering your sort of closely successive comments i can say your lungs are doing well and i am happy for you, I wish if i can only see you at least once even in a photo, if you could direct me to somewhere where i can see your photo like facebook or my space i would be much obliged and honored. don`t worry i will not get a Fatwa issued on your head,your are really born fighter and i like fighters you even wont let me give up. take care. i only wonder where i can find you again if they stopped this thread.
i hope we wont all end up lost for ever except for Jhon and Chiara i know where to find them to say hi.
January:27:2010 - 04:22
John should enable avatars for commentators and for the blog owner as well on this blog, so that we can see everyone’s image – those who want to show their face and upload their photograph. For those who want to wear the veil, we will have the computer generated avatars which are quite amusing.
Majed,
I know you don’t want to scorn other people’s culture. Wanting to discuss a practice which appears curious or different from one’s own is perfectly normal.
In fact, this taboo on marriage IS the norm everywhere in Hinduism – north and south. There are some small communities which practise some blood-related marriages, which are exceptions.
There are many such practices in India which are of interest to the Anthropologists. For example, if you lived in Kerala, you may be aware that Kerala used to have a matrilineal society till quite recently. Muslims in Lakshadweep Islands are still matrilineal, because they got it from the Kerala Hindus and have retained the practice.
Similarly, there are some tribes in the Himalayas where polyandry is practised. Brothers in a family marry a single woman.
But these are not the norm. They are exceptions and should be treated as such – eventhough a lot of research has been done on these practices precisely because they are not the norm. When we say something in passing about a culture, we talk about the norm, not the exceptions.
January:27:2010 - 06:19
Oby #618–Yes, my apologies for the typo. Giuliani’s wife went from being a 3rd cousin when he wanted to marry her (still required a dispensation) to being a 2nd one when he wanted an annulment (to be free to marry again in the Catholic Church). Funny it took him kids and decades, and her kicking him out because of his mistress for him to realize it. LOL
Yes the problem in the oil-rich MENA countries is that of a distribution of wealth which is concentrated in the hands of a few. There is a website on poverty in Saudi which is striking; and the rate of home ownership is very low.
Daisy #619
Unfounded
obstinacy
and unwillingness
to see one’s folly
makes one unsuitable for any kind of dialogue.
5 personal attacks. Nothing of value to add to the discussion? Nothing substantive to say about the research? No references, links, other scholars, counterevidence? Nothing but personal venom?
Daisy #626–none of the research I cited is anthropological. All of it frames the situation for all of India which is primarily endogamous: in the North within subcastes but not families ie endogamous for subcaste, exogamous for family; in the South within families. Each of the researchers rightfully specifies the group for focus as part of the methodology. One situates endogamy, understood as within families, as from 5-60% depending on the region. All acknowledge regional differences from the biggest North-South to the smaller ones, whether geographic or cast, eg Brahmin. Caste endogamy in North India is matrilineal. All refer primarily to Hindus, while acknowledging both Muslims as following distinct marriage practices based on religion. One specifically cites trends away from the 2000 year history of the predominance of endogamy both caste and family with increasing urbanization and decreasing birth rates.
When we say something in passing about a culture, we talk about the norm, not the exceptions.
Please note then that polygamy in Saudi Arabia, which gets so much attention is the exception (2-12% depending on region; 90% of which are 2 wives only), not the norm; the experiences of expat American ladies living in Saudi are the exception, not the norm; the media reports focus on exceptions not norms; violent extremism is the exception not the norm no matter how conservative a religion including fundamentalist/ orthodox/ conservative/ Salafist (not Wahhab, that refers to the tribe or the specific scholar within Islam) Islam; etc
January:27:2010 - 06:26
Some pretentious people who “claim” not to be abusive are very abusive as is evidenced in the “Meaning of Minarets” for the careful and meticulous observer. In terms of driving people away. Nothing can deter me other than death. Allow the truth to speak for itself.
At any rate, I suggest this post end with 666!
January:27:2010 - 06:30
John #620–ah yes I remember it well; and also volunteering hundreds of comments back some new articles on the Swiss minarets for an update. However, this thread has long since left Switzerland and minarets and focused instead on distantly related topics and geographical spheres. No problem, much of it has been interesting, the rest has been more heat seeking missile-style.
Majed #625–very interesting about your experience; please send me an email to chiaraazlinquestion AT yahoo.com. I have an offline question. Thanks.
If this thread dies a natural or assisted death then the rest can be found by their regular comments on this blog and others.
January:27:2010 - 07:49
The Toda and Nair in southern India are reported to practice polyandry as well. I recall a Times of India piece on them back in 2000.
The Greek Historian Strabo reported that polyandry was practiced in Arabia Felix (Yemen) as well, in pre-Islamic times, at least according to Wiki. It’s been too many years since I’ve looked at Strabo to remember that!
January:27:2010 - 08:20
John,
Thanks for that interesting information! I don’t doubt it’s true.
January:27:2010 - 10:42
Sparky…
LOL! Yes, 666 would be appropriate. Even still although we have wandered far from Minarets I surely have learned a lot and enjoyed it…LOTS of interesting info and factoids!!!
January:27:2010 - 16:37
Sparky #628–Positively Mesphistophelian!
John #630–yes other scholars have reported on polyandry in pre-Islamic Arabia including temporary marriages for sex mostly initiated and terminated by women. Moroccan sociologist Fatema Mernissi did so in her introduction to Beyond the Veil (a publication distilling her PhD thesis from Brandeis).
Daisy #631–no doubt.
Oby #632–Yes, as I said above I am happy with lateral thinking, and “flipped a coin” to applauding the number of comments on this post and the fewest possible referring to Switzerland, minarets or Europe. I am not sure that 666 will be sufficient though! LOL
January:27:2010 - 17:14
If 666 roles by, I’ll close the comment thread. Might as well start moving the conversation elsewhere…
January:27:2010 - 20:10
Starting now? Bravissimo!
January:27:2010 - 22:17
John,
Yes, moving the discussion elsewhere is right.
January:28:2010 - 12:25
Chiara…
I ask you not to put you on the spot but because it seems you are fairly familiar with this topic.
Last night I was thinking about the post and all the comments on the studying of the Qur’an that we had all discussed. One thing came to mind though (and if I missed the meaning above, please excuse me)Are the scholars both Muslim and non Muslim who are doing the research doing it in the way that they have done with the Bible? In other words take information either written, archeological,geological and all other -ogicals and let the information lead them where it may even if it runs the risk of turning up a different result than the “accepted” narrative of the history of the Qur’an? Or are they starting with the hypothesis that Qur’anic revelation came to them in the way it is accepted and working toward proving that?
Obviously in one case you are letting the facts and evidence lead you where it may to whatever conclusion it might reveal and in the other you have already made your decision about the end result and are trying to prove that and therefore run the risk IMO of discarding anything that might not point in that direction. I think, two very different ways of doing research, one being open to truth;the other contriving it.
As for moving I’m OK either way… just let us know under what heading it will be.
January:28:2010 - 13:17
I’ll butt in here. The tensions you describe are exactly those that affect this area of scholarship. There are some Muslim scholars who believe the subject material is exempt from critical analysis (as has been done with the Bible and other texts). For them, even to attempt to analyze the Quran is blasphemy. Others seek to ‘prove’ the verity. They’re the ones who already know what they want to find and seek only evidence that supports their view, rejecting anything contrary. Then there are those who try do be objective and let the study lead where it may. In some places (such as Egypt) these scholars are considered dangerous and come under intense, organized pressure, often through state channels. One Egyptian scholar was forceably divorced from his wife by a judge because it became clear (to the judge, anyway) that he was no longer Muslim and thus his Muslim wife could not be married to a non-Muslim! The couple left Egypt and now live, I believe, in Belgium, happily still married.
January:28:2010 - 13:33
Thanks John…
That leaves a very big problem in my mind. IF very few in the Muslim world will look at it objectively and those that do are banned how can there be anything OTHER than a non Muslim research done? And of course, anyone doing research on the Qur’an who is not Muslim will be accused of trying to change or worse, destroy the religion and their work will never be taken seriously. So if I take it to the logical conclusion there really is no serious study going on in the Islamic world by Muslims to get at the truth of the Qur’an the way they have done with the Bible and any non Muslim study will be rejected outright, is that about right?
January:28:2010 - 13:35
Oby #637–yes they do, and the believing ones have to do the same mental gymnastics as the believing Christians do. They also face social repercussions as John described, and so are safer being based in Universities in the West. The same is true of Chinese scholars, one of whom dedicated his bioethics thesis to those who had helped him, but couldn’t for their own safety be named, and praised his ability because he lived outside of China and its one-child policy to freely love fully his daughter, without concern that she would be an only child because of government policy.
John #638– psychiatrist Nawal Al Saadawi and her husband were similarly divorced for her writings on women’s status; and now live in the West
I think the move to other threads on John’s blog will just happen as other topics take up some of these themes.
My newest post on “Muslim Women and Interfaith Marriage” deals with some of the themes here, especially the issue John just raised; and is based on the Doha Debate on the topic, with its 4 Muslim scholars with very different views–showing the diversity within Muslim scholarship, and among the Muslim student audience members.
You both might enjoy reading their perspectives, including on who becomes a Muslim how, and who is an (inadvertent) apostate.
Of course all who are interested are most welcome to read and comment.
No voting required! LOL
Oby #639–in general although those types of accusations can be hurled anywhere in higher end scholarship, most are judged on the merit of what they write not who they are. There is indeed excellent scholarship being done by Muslims, and non-Muslims, and this is too be commended, imho, and made known, especially in answer to low level scholarship by anyone Muslim or non (and particularly those whose scholarship doesn’t identify its own sectarian affiliation), biased media reports, and general ignorance.
Someone like Karen Armstrong is given more credence than she deserves by non-Muslims, as she at least attempts to explain Islam to others and has what I would call a high end journalism level knowledge. The real academics in the field deserve more recognition for their efforts and courage, and that their findings be more widely disseminated.
January:28:2010 - 14:22
No, not ‘about right’, exactly right! As long as fear of being called a ‘bad Muslim’ hangs over the head of researchers, they’re not going to be doing (or at least publishing) much research.
January:28:2010 - 14:52
Chiara- I rate Karen Armstrong better than that. Many Muslims do not rate her at all(even if they haven’t read her) simply because she isn’t Muslim.
@ anyone
It is typical in the Islamic world that if someone with any credibility at all starts to interpret something “differently” they are suddenly outside Islam. In this way the “scholars” can always claim “consensus” and maintain control of the doctrine.
Fear of being called a “bad Muslim” affects many people too. “Bad muslim”, “secularist”, “liberal”. These are all bad words that can be thrown at someone to shut them up- whether or not they even apply. I have found it personally very liberating to no longer give a flying fig what people think.
January:28:2010 - 16:55
I think we are talking about different worlds to some extent. The academic world is generally more tolerant, but people do tread a line to not sacrifice their own religious standing. The world of self-described scholars, or sectarian “seminarians” is much less forgiving, and more protective of whatever doctrine they are allied with.
Karen Armstrong to me seems overrated by non-Muslims with little knowledge of Islam, and I understand she is discredited by Muslims. I have no issue with her faith but rather with her level of scholarship. I think she is good as far as she goes with it, and a decent starting point, but a starting point only.
January:28:2010 - 18:24
I think you put it exactly right… ‘as good as far as she goes.’ I find her a bit rudimentary–not a bad thing when your audience is starting at zero–but rather quickly tends toward a ‘nothing bad to see here, folks’ attitude. If she has written about Islamic extremism, I’ve failed to find that book.
January:28:2010 - 21:31
I think even in academics there is a line drawn which the Muslim scholars wouldn’t cross. And if the non-Muslim scholars cross it, they are accused of hurting religious sentiments of the Muslims. The Bible and the texts of Indian religions have been assessed most critically by the scholars. This is generally accepted in academics. But the same level of criticism of the Quran will not be accepted anywhere. For example, one can’t say that any verse of the Quran is a later interpolation. This will not be accepted as far as I know.
January:28:2010 - 22:31
thanks Chiara…I certainly understand about the research taking place in western universities. Do you by chance have links to some of the research if any has been published? Remember? The developing thesis! LOL!
The DOHA conferences you are talking about on your blog sound very interesting. I will certainly try to catch them on the BBC.
January:28:2010 - 23:31
Sandy @ 642
I have been to the liberating flying fig camp as well. Too bad we haven’t met there. I find this mentality of labelling that you speak of destructive to Islam and Muslims. It creates people who will choose very extreme stances at some point. Either they may come to totally renounce a faith because of the lack of tolerance for critical thinking or scholarly research or they may just blow themselves up (blow themselves up literally and blow themselves up metaporically either way is nauseating).
In the in between, I would say there are those who are numbed with fear. Thus, they choose to have no outwardly expressed opinion; yet, they are internally rife with conflicted reasoning which is unhealthy for the psyche. The whole ideal of HAVING TO label someone comes from both sides. You will find strange people who mislabel themselves to get their points across to support their own twisted one way view and mislead people because they are of such and such label or of no label twisted sisters. HAH.
John’s golden words were and I will always remember this, “Focus on the topic and not the person”. I highly suspect how this thread got turned into Indian subliguil (sp.) relations. It is because any serious critique or analysis is perceived as a threat. People will turn the issue around saying, “Well even in so and so you do so and so.” Who cares this is NOT about so and so and so and so. Of course one can bring in parallels but when it gets to the extreme point when one does not like where the conversation is going or they are losing ground or feel like they are being cornered into reasoning, they will take a topic or discussion into a whole other region. That is evidence of disregard for looking at a topic with a serious objective. It is evidence of what oby said looking to find evidence in support of a concluded foundation. I have no qualms about discussing all regions but when it comes so blatangly obvious who turns the topic in one direction and flies with it then comes back to criticize the very thing they created. Well twisted sisters. “We’re not going take it.ANYMOREEEE.”
January:29:2010 - 00:08
John #644–yes you said it well, she is rudimentary and essentially sharing with non-Muslims like herself some basics to get them startedm and to give an alternate view to the media portrayal that is too far the other way–mainly emphasizing the extremists. Fair enough, but she and her fans seem to think she does more.
Daisy #645–any evidence for any of those opinions? The references I gave in #551-556 state the contrary. There are lines drawn everywhere, and in academia more often by academic politics than outside ones (though they interact to some degree but far less than in other endeavours given the nature of academia. I haven’t read any discrediting of anyone’s scholarship based on faith in any academic journal, or heard it at any conference in public or private conversation. See the references below in my comment to Oby if you are interested in what is being done.
Oby # 646–You are welcome, and glad to hear about the developing thesis! In fact the references I gave in 551-556 way up there, on the Quran point you towards some discussions, academics, conferences, and appropriate academic journals. The ones in #554 and #555 specifically address Quranic and Biblical scholarship, and the 2 major streams within Quranic/or Islamic studies, the conservative (especially post the Iranian Revolution in 1979) and the progressive ie the ones challenging the orthodoxies. Both currents have always existed, as they do in most academic endeavours–remember the Ancients vs the Moderns debate of the European 17th century, one to which Jonathan Swift of Gulliver’s Travels fame contributed greatly.
Here are 3 more references that I found interesting (for MY budding thesis LOL
) and which show the diversity of accepted academic views within scholarship on Islam and the Quran:
The Qur’an in its Historical Context
The Routledge Book Series on Studies in the Qur’an a series of 10 books so far of major interest to you I’m sure (they sure are to me)
The latest is The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext–definitely up your thesis alley!
The Doha Debates are great and the past ones can be viewed online. Don’t hesitate to read the one on my post–and read the full transcript/ watch the whole video if you wish (they are linked)–and comment. So far we have one Christian woman voting for Muslim women to marry only Muslim men, and one Muslim woman voting for Muslim women to marry whom they choose. Both are thoughtful and knowledgeable. We need a tie breaker! Or don’t commit to a position if you prefer, as you can just share whatever thoughts you have on the post or the topic.
January:29:2010 - 01:16
I haven’t met a kinder blog owner who allows his body to be host to leeches!
It speaks volumes of character which I will always admire. That is true confidence and character.
January:29:2010 - 02:26
“The Quran in its Historical Context” is certainly a commendable book and one that I will include in my collection.
However, please note that all the scholars writing there are non-Muslims. The Muslim scholars so far have not produced this kind of critique of Quran. This was precisely my point.
Besides, this book has been recently published. We have to wait to see what kind of response it evokes from the Muslim scholars – whether they really grant its acceptability.
In fact, on p. 88 of this book, it is expressed mentioned that students who come from a Christian and Judaic background into Islamic studies are surprised that an equal critique of Quran does not exist in the Islamic studies.
I would add that students who study the Indian religions would also feel the same if they go for Islamic studies, because all the texts of Indian religions have been critically examined without much problem from the Indian society or the academicians of India – the latter in fact have contributed to this kind of critical analysis.
P. 141 of this book again reiterates the difficulty in critically examining the Quran because Islam rejects this kind of exercise.
While floating an internet link or any other reference one should examine first the context and the nature of the material being provided. It doesn’t serve any purpose to just float links to show that one is giving references.
This book only proves further what Oby, John and I have been saying.
January:29:2010 - 05:00
@ Sparky,
I hope many more will joind the “Flying Fig” way of thinking.
As for the rest, I see this thread somewhat differently. It winded it’s way from here to there- and I always appreciate it when people support their opinions with references.
January:29:2010 - 05:04
regarding Karen Armstrong
Keeping in mind it’s been YEARS since I read her. She generally is friendly to Islam and she knows more about Islam than many Muslims. I am suprised they don’t realize the potentially valuble ally they have.
I like her earlier stuff better. It was meatier. The History of God, and The Battle for God (which covers Islamic extremism as I recall) I also like her biography on the Prophet. Her later stuff seems more geared as pop “how to understand” manuals in the post 9-11 world
January:29:2010 - 07:25
Sparky #649–yes John’s forbearance with commentators is admirable. Or else, he is a closet Satanist and wants us to implode at 666.
Daisy #650–When critiquing a link or reference one should examine the context and content in their entirety: what the commentator was purporting to do ie provide more starting places for scholarship in this area, ones of high quality, not only by Muslims; be sure of one’s facts not float a generalization that hopefully holds, eg. in this instance most of the contributors have Anglo names but may still be Muslims, and the editor may well have added Said as his Islamic name but we don’t know that nor do we know that these are all non-Muslims; challenge the commentators actual assertions not distorted ones, ie I never said that there was equal textual critique of the Quran as of the Bible, only that it is happening currently, has happened in the past (according to the scholars in the field) and that I see it as a good sign. Muslims and the Quran have received more intense interest including academic since 9/11. A colleague/friend who is head of the Religious Studies Dept of a major North American university fought long and hard to get the first professor of Islam they ever had, and yes the prof is Muslim, and critical of Islam.
Of course this book is recently published it is part of a current series, and it will be duly critiqued, as I imagine it has been already in reviews. Thank you for agreeing that 2007 is not “out of date” as you remarked on the previous set of references I supplied.
Didn’t you bother looking at the other 9 books in the series? Didn’t you want to cherry pick them for evidence to support your contention, which we all understood but some of us disagree with in part or whole?
Is it too inconvenient that the editor of the one on textual criticism of the Quran–the book most closely related to your position–is a Muslim, or at least a person who prefers to be photographed in hijab?
Here is her professional profile (impressive) with her pic (lovely):
http://www.ptr.bham.ac.uk/staff/elawa.shtml
Doesn’t it give you a hint that no one cares what the religious backgrounds of these scholars are, to the point that they are not indicated? What is indicated is important to their credibility as scholars, ie degrees, academic affiliations, publications.
Did any of us doubt you would reintroduce Indic and Hindu studies into this discussion between Oby and I about the Quran and secondarily the Quran and the Bible?
Did any of us doubt you would invoke John again? Or Oby (though she seems to occupy a middle ground)? Both can surely speak for themselves, can you?
Would it be too difficult to thank me for the reference (just a point of etiquette, not required); or, MORE importantly, refrain from broad generalizing conclusions not supported by your “evidence”; or, as might be normal in such a critique of a reference, to provide others in support of your counterarguments?
Sandy #652–thank you for your support of references and links as part of responsible commenting. Like those of many religions, Muslims may have little knowledge of their religion besides what they learned in cultural and familial context. I guess if they were interested they would start closer to home than Karen Armstrong. I agree that she is stronger on other topics.
January:29:2010 - 08:53
I’ve read most of her stuff, but as you, it was some time ago. I recall thinking that her biography was a bit on the candy-coated side, though. I prefer Maxime Rodinson’s.
January:29:2010 - 08:57
I think it is important to note the religion of the researchers, not that it will affect their research, but because it is perceived by many Muslims that a non-Muslim is simply incapable of doing objective research, and anyway, even if they could, they would miss the ‘nuance’ because they’re not native-speakers of Arabic. I’ve certainly heard that complaint coming from people who really should know better. It’s the same nonsense that argues that only an African-American can teach African-American Studies, because only s/he has the experience (or the genes) to do it with the proper insight.
January:29:2010 - 08:57
Actually, with this comment, I’ll close off this discussion! That will save everyone from any allegation of Satanic converse.