Is it fair to insinuate about Islam?

[Netti-Netti]

Greetings Tao....

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The schism that created the the Sunni and Shia sects happened immediately following the death of Muhammad in 632. Not long after. The collection, re-writing, and destruction of inconvenient texts the succeeding warlords of both groups undertook at this time.

It seems the Shia were already on the scene when the Prophet Mohammad was still alive. They were known as "the party of Ali." The schism you refer to was a singular flare-up about Muhammad's successor. According to the Shia, imam Ali was a direct descendent of Muhammad. Not everyone agreed.

I'd describe the schism as a discrete political/historical event. The codification of various theological and legal aspects (Imamah) that served to define Shiism was an ongoing thing that went on long thereafter. In fact, some new Shia doctrine was added 200 years after the Prophet's death.

What happend with Islamic doctrine is not unusual for world religions in general, which often involve the development of totally new "traditions" long after core doctrines have been revealed. In the case of Islam, the ongoing evolution of the Imamah actually resulted in additional splits ....within the Shia school itself. I'm not trying to needlessly add ambiguity here. I'm just pointing out the need to guard against simplistic pigeonholing.

A lack of acceptance for Shia beliefs and principles is fairly prominent in discussions of Islam. Suffice it to say that the fact that Shia is not normative (it's definitely a minority as compared to much more pervasive Sunni Islam) should raise questions as to whether Shiism is representative of Islam. Yet many westerners are perfectly willing to assume that whatever Shiites do or don't do reflects on Islam as a whole.

But there is no reasonable way to refute the assertion that the Q'uran was a political tool devised and engineered very deliberately by powerful warlords.

Did you have some support for this view?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

A lack of acceptance for Shia beliefs and principles is fairly prominent in discussions of Islam.

The world doesn't see the Islamic community separating these beliefs as non Muslim. If this is the case time should be spent to make it more clear.

You call it westernized propaganda, yet if you don't stand up and say that those who strap bombs to themselves are not Muslim, we will continue to believe that you believe they are.

I personally would love to see the line drawn so the world could know that Islam is a religion of peace.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

The world doesn't see the Islamic community separating these beliefs as non Muslim. If this is the case time should be spent to make it more clear.

Clarification is almost always helpful.

You call it westernized propaganda, yet if you don't stand up and say that those who strap bombs to themselves are not Muslim, we will continue to believe that you believe they are.

Not sure if you're referring to *me.* Regardless, such a statement indicates that the propaganda is working. The world has been divided into perpetrators and silent collaborators. While it makes sense in some ways, it's really a remarkable departure from the basic attitude of giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's kind of like assuming the worst in the absence of proof to the contrary, isn't it?

For the record, I was baptized a Roman Catholic. I am not a Muslim and therefore it is not really for me to defend Islam, to demonstrate that it's a religion of peace and that those who preach or perpetrate violence are lost to the path. However, you can expect me to take a stand on my belief that people who truly know G-d would not wish harm to anyone and wish forgiveness for all who need it. To the best of my understanding, love of Allah is no different in this regard.

[seattlegal]

Netti-Netti, I can see your point about how all of Islam shouldn't be associated with the evil acts committed by some who do so from behind a mask of Islam. Christianity went through the same thing with the Spanish Inquisition. (I don't think any Christians today would call what happened there and then very Christian, and would agree that the evil acts associated with it operated behind a mask of Christianity.)

While we in the West may call the evil acts committed in the name of Islam acts ungodly, can we really call these acts Unislamic? Christianity had to have its own reformation in order to unmask the ungodliness associated with the Spanish Inquisition. Is it our place to unmask the ungodliness masquerading as Islam? Wouldn't that be hijacking a different religion?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

While we in the West may call the evil acts committed in the name of Islam acts ungodly, can we really call these acts Unislamic?

This is an interesting way to turn what I said upside down while giving the impression of addressing the issue. The issue I raised is: can we Westerners, who by our own admission know almost nothing about Islam, assume these acts to be Islamic?

Quite simply, the issue is burden of proof, which rests with the poster who is taking a position. For example, it's not my job to prove that the Saudi "witch hunt" follows from Islamic law. For starters, the poster who would suggest that it does follow would need to cite the Saudi law that prohibits witchcraft and then show that it derives from Islamic scripture.

it our place to unmask the ungodliness masquerading as Islam? Wouldn't that be hijacking a different religion?

My question was: Is it anyone's place to impute ungodliness to a certain religion? I doubt I'd be more inclined to accept the propagandist's message to the effect that Islam is ungodly if the propagandist showed some intellectual curiosity about the subject. But it would at least help their credibility. But in this instance there was no evidence of intellectual curiosity that at all.

Like I said, the article on the Saudi witch trial was presented in the context of the thread on Islam without any analysis. Accordingly, I would surmise the posting was not intended to have any educational value at all. It was merely a cheap shot smear that is reducible to "Hey y'all, look at them fruitcakes! They're at it again. It must be the religion because the religious police were involved."

Maybe it is the religion. I don't know. If that's the position the poster wants to take, they would need to defend it. That is, they'd need to prove it's the religion rather than merely insinuate it. Not really very complicated, is it?

More recently a story about Hammas was added to that same thread. As usual with this kind of shabby, second rate insinuation politics, the impression the reader is left with is that Hamas is typically "Islamic" if for no other reason than that the story appears in the context of a thread called "Religion of Peace." ... Again, this new article was posted with no analysis and no attempt whatsoever to explore the authenticity of Hamas' positions. Again. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the subject could have taken 10 seconds to find some online articles written by devout Muslims who love Allah and love Islam and invite all to the way of the Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching (Qur’an 16:125) who actively condemn Hamas violence as unIslamic. Did the individual who reposted the article take 10 seconds? Did they take 5 seconds?

Without trying to present the information in a fair and balanced way, how can this individual avoid the impression of misrepresentation by the omission of relevant facts? Indeed, how can that person avoid the impression of being an obscurantist bigot who has no interest in the truth ?

Christianity had to have its own reformation in order to unmask the ungodliness associated with the Spanish Inquisition.

I see. Thanks to the Reformation, Christian peoples all over the world are now sinless, is that right? They never lie or cheat and if they do they are instantly forgiven, especially if it was for a "worthwhile" cause that pays a few dollars.

Btw, do you have some international crime statistics handy? I think I know where you might find some. IMHO, many Christians' cultural hubris is woefully unsubstantiated and highly dependent on remaining blind to what's happening in their own backyard. Even when you confront them with the crime statistics they still won't accept the fact theirs is a world of sin.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This is an interesting way to turn my position upside down while giving the impression of addressing the issue. The issue I raised is: can we Westerners, who by our own admission know almost nothing about Islam, assume these acts to be Islamic?

Well, if that's what they call themselves, what are others supposed to call them?

Quite simply, the issue is burden of proof, which rests with the poster who is taking a position. For example, it is not my job to prove that the Saudi "witch hunt" follows from Islamic law. For starters, the poster who would suggest that it does would need to cite the Saudi law that prohibits witchcraft.

It's still a witch hunt, and it's still perpetrated under the name of Islam. No amount of formatting and presentation is going to change that.

My question was: Is it anyone's place to impute ungodliness to a certain religion? I would be more inclined to accept the propagandist's message to the effect that Islam is ungodly if it the propagandist were someone who at least showed some intellectual curiosity about the subject. But in this instance there was no evidence of that at all.

Like I said, the article on the Saudi witch trial was presented in the context of the thread on Islam without any analysis. Accordingly, I would surmise the posting was not intended to have any educational value at all. It was merely a cheap shot smear that is reducible to "Hey y'all, look at them fruitcakes! They're at it again. It must be the religion because the religious police were involved."

I wouldn't call exposing a witch hunt being a cheap shot, but that's just me.

Maybe it is the religion. I don't know. If that's the position the poster wants o take, they would need to defend it. That is, they'd need to prove it's the religion rather than merely insinuate it. Not really very complicated, is it?

Well, if the Saudis want to say that this witch hunt has nothing to do with Islam, I think it would put the matter to rest. The death sentence was overturned by an appeals court, but was reinstated by the law court "in the public interest." The article does not say whether the appeals court that overturned the death sentence was an Islamic court, or not.

I see. Thanks to the Reformation, Christian peoples all over the world are now sinless, is that right? They never lie or cheat and if they do they are instantly forgiven, especially if it was for a "worthwhile" cause that pays a few dollars.

Where did I say that? According to Christianity, we are all sinners.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, if that's what they call themselves, what are others supposed to call them?

Just a thought: Call them Saudi officials instead of calling them Muslims when we know nothing about their religious commitments.

It's still a witch hunt, and it's still perpetrated under the name of Islam.

Who said it was in the name of Islam ....other than you?

No amount of formatting and presentation is going to change that.

You haven't established that the witch hunt was perpetrated under the name of Islam.

I wouldn't call exposing a witch hunt being a cheap shot, but that's just me.

Given the context, it is a cheap shot against Islam.

Well, if the Saudis want to say that this witch hunt has nothing to do with Islam, I think it would put the matter to rest.

But in the meantime we should accept the propagandist's insinuation as a basis for assuming something about the "religious" nature of the Saudi case and, on that basis, something about Islam as a whole? In other words, aspersions and remote inferential leaps have the same epistemic status as direct proof?

The death sentence was overturned by an appeals court, but was reinstated by the law court "in the public interest." The article does not say whether the appeals court that overturned the death sentence was an Islamic court, or not.

So where is the connection to Islam?

Where did I say that?

You didn't.

According to Christianity, we are all sinners.

My point relates to the need to recognize it and act accordingly. Do I need to cite chapter and verse about passing judgement?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Just a thought: Call them Saudi officials instead of calling them Muslims when we know nothing about their religious commitments.


Who said it was in the name of Islam ....other than you?

Well the article says that it was the religious police who started the whole thing. Which religion are the religious police representing?

You haven't established that the witch hunt was perpetrated under the name of Islam.

See above.

Given the context, it is a cheap shot against Islam.

Is it? Then perhaps Islam would do well to ask these religious police to stop witch hunting.

But in the meantime we should accept the propagandist's insinuation as a basis for assuming something about the "religious" nature of the Saudi case and, on that basis, something about Islam as a whole? In other words, aspersions and remote inferential leaps have the same epistemic status as direct proof?

If Islam is insulted by a poster posting a news article (about a human rights group appealing to King Abdullah to halt the execution of a woman condemned to death as a result of the Saudi religious police going on a witch hunt) on the internet in a thread entitled "Religion Of Peace Update," then Islam had either better get used to it, or do something about these religious police going on witch hunts.

So where is the connection to Islam?

We do know the witch hunt was done by the religious police. We don't know if the appeal court that overturned the death sentence was Islamic, or not. {If it was, then kudos to them. } We do know that the death sentence was reinstated "in the public interest," and that this woman's last hope rests with King Abdullah.

You didn't.

Thank you for noticing.

My point relates to the need to recognize it and act accordingly. Do I need to cite chapter and verse about passing judgement?

I am not the one who went on a witch hunt and sentenced this woman to death.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well the article says that it was the religious police who started the whole thing. Which religion are the religious police representing?

Since you're asking the question, I would surmise that we have no information on it. Is that about right?

See above.

Sorry, but your foregoing comment adds nothing to the analysis. It merely concedes the point I've been making that we don't have enough information.

Then perhaps Islam would do well to ask these religious police to stop witch hunting.

Since you feel this strongly about it, I imagine you'll be making a serious effort to reach Mr. and Ms. Islam about this. When you get their contact information, if you would please share it with me. I'd like to contact them as well because I am concerned about Saudi Arabia, too. Perhaps you could ask President Bush, who is a close friend of King Abdullah. In fact, the Bush family has long-standing ties to the Saudis.

If Islam is insulted by a poster posting a news article ... on the internet in a thread entitled "Religion Of Peace Update," then Islam had either better get used to it, or do something about these religious police going on witch hunts.

Where did Mr. or Ms. Islam say they were insulted by some silly self-indulgent obscurantist bigotry that flutters about in a remote corner of Cyberspace? What makes you think the propagandist's web site is of any interest to them at all? You seem to be drifting off into imaginary issues. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

We do know the witch hunt was done by the religious police.

Yes, we do know that much. Or at least that's what it says in the BBC article. Unfortunately, this does not establish a connection to Islamic doctrine. It does not even establish that these officials were acting in their professional capacity and in accordance with Saudi law.

Again, let's stick to the facts. I would still appreciate some research effort on your part as far as documenting the Saudi law that prohibits witchcraft. Thanks.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Since you're asking the question, I would surmise that we have no information on it. Is that about right?

Sorry, but your foregoing comment adds nothing to the analysis. It merely concedes the point I've been making that we don't have enough information.


Since you feel this strongly about it, I imagine you will be making a serious effort to reach Mr. and Ms. Islam. When you get their contact information, if you would please share it with me. I'd like to contact them as well because I am concerned about Saudi Arabia, too. Perhaps you could ask President Bush, who is a close friend of King Abdullah. In fact, the Bush family has long-standing ties to the Saudis.

Where did Mr. or Ms. Islam say they were insulted by a some silly self-indulgent obscurantist bigotry? What makes you think the propagandist's web site is of any interest at all to them? You seem to be drifting off into imaginary issues. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

Well, then, what is the purpose of this thread? If there is no Mr or Ms. Islam to slight or insinuate about, then is there any unfairness as per the title of the thread?

Yes we do know that much. Or at least that's what it says in the BBC article. Unfortunately, this does not establish a connection to Islamic doctrine. It does not even establish that these officials were acting in their professional capacity and in accordance with Islamic law.

I can't decide which possibility is more disturbing: If the religious police conducted this witch hunt in an official capacity, or if they just did this witch hunt that lead to this woman being sentenced to death on their spare time, just for fun.

Again, let's stick to the facts. I would still appreciate some research effort on your part as far as documenting the Saudi law that prohibits witchcraft. Thanks.

Hey, wait a minute! Since when did you start passing out homework?
{The article mentioned that witchcraft is an "undefined crime."}

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, then, what is the purpose of this thread? If there is no Mr or Ms. Islam to slight or insinuate about, then is there any unfairness as per the title of the thread?

You seem to be assuming a purpose other than the one that was intended, which was merely to point out the possibility of manipulating contextual cues as a rhetorical ploy. Apart from the fact that I'm into propaganda analysis, it is my way of raising people's awareness about how language can be used to promote religious prejudice, which in turn can lead to religious conflict.

I can't decide which possibility is more disturbing: If the religious police conducted this witch hunt in an official capacity, or if they just did this witch hunt that lead to this woman being sentenced to death on their spare time, just for fun.

I don't expect you'll be able to decide either way since you have no relevant information to help you decide.

Hey, wait a minute! Since when did you start passing out homework?

Just an information request is all. I thought you were genuinely interested in the topic. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

The article mentioned that witchcraft is an "undefined crime."

Yes, I know. Maybe there is some place in Saudi law that says that people can be tried and punished for an "undefined crime."

Just wondering, how many passages in the Koran endorse the prosecution of an "undefined crime"?

[Virtual_Cliff]

I'm a bit disappointed about the way you guys are treating Netti here. She's patiently and carefully pointing out a rather commonplace fact: that we have biased news. As a member of my local Stop The War Coalition I am well used to balancing biased new coverage with a more balanced view from another source.

An example: in the Palestinian struggle, the news here will usually announce some strike against the Palestinians as "in retaliation for a recent attack on Israel". They do not say that the Palestinian attack was in retaliation to an attack on them. This happens all the time. It suits the media in these days of the Iraq occupation to paint all Muslims as a threat. Well, who attacked and occupied an almost defenceless country six years ago? Was it Islamic terrorists or was it a well-know Western superpower?

At the present, the Western powers are busy making themselves rich while the poor countries are ground into the dust. But when the poor people strike back they are "evil".

The Saudi Arabian religious police are a bit of a law unto themselves. When I was in Riyadh they would come and beat on the shutters of shops that stayed open during Sallah (prayer-time), or they would berate or occasionally strike a woman that was showing too much bare arm or leg. The state police would not touch them because of the power base they derive from the ordinary people.

They are not necessarily representative of any shade of Islam or the state of Saudi Arabia. They are just a part of Arabian life. To put it into context, they are directly comparable to England's own Puritans who founded the USA.

Netti is right: a little more understanding and a little less reflex would make the world a safer and a better place.

Love,
Cliff

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

I'm a bit disappointed about the way you guys are treating Netti here. She's patiently and carefully pointing out a rather commonplace fact: that we have biased news. As a member of my local Stop The War Coalition I am well used to balancing biased new coverage with a more balanced view from another source.
<...>
The Saudi Arabian religious police are a bit of a law unto themselves. When I was in Riyadh they would come and beat on the shutters of shops that stayed open during Sallah (prayer-time), or they would berate or occasionally strike a woman that was showing too much bare arm or leg. The state police would not touch them because of the power base they derive from the ordinary people.

They are not necessarily representative of any shade of Islam or the state of Saudi Arabia. They are just a part of Arabian life. To put it into context, they are directly comparable to England's own Puritans who founded the USA.

Netti is right: a little more understanding and a little less reflex would make the world a safer and a better place.

Love,
Cliff

I'm sure that would be a great comfort to the woman who has been sentenced to death as the result of a witch hunt.

[Muslimwoman]

What an interesting thread, may I add my 2p worth.

Islamic view of witchcraft/magic/sourcery:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said:

"Avoid the seven destroyers." They (the Companions) asked: "Oh, Messenger of Allah ! What are they?" He replied: "Shirk (associating partners) with Allah , sorcery, taking the life which has been prohibited by Allah , except in truth (i.e. in accordance with Islamic Law), devouring usury, consuming the property of the orphans, running away on the day of battle and making false charges against the chaste, unmindful3 women." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)

Please note it doesn't say behead them. Punishments can be decided by three ways, the first is where the crime and punishment are clearly set out in the Quran and Sunnah and there is no room for a judge to decide otherwise. The second is where the crimes are set out in the Quran and Sunnah but the punishment is intended to be equal to the crime - therefore requiring a judge to decide what punishment is equal to the crime. Lastly discretionary which largely falls under the 'we make it up as we go along because there is nothing clear in the Quran or Sunnah about it' category.

Saudi has no written penal, judicial or criminal procedure codes so police and judges are largely left to their own 'discretion'. They also have a council of senior religious scholars that interpret Sharia according to the Wahabbi sect of the Hanbali school (the most conservative school based on the interpretations of a 14th century jurist ibn Taymiya, with the wahabbi sect being the most conservative within the school).

This is a very new and ugly episode in Saudi, the first to be killed (for centuries as far as I can find out) under witchcraft 'crimes' was an egyptian man who was beheaded in Saudi last year for sourcery - interesting to note he was having a bit of an argument with a Saudi prince over a lot of money he was owed at the time. Now if I was a cynic, I would think it was a great way to get out of a large debt and now it has reared it's ugly head others are jumping on the bandwagon and using this insanity to deal with 'undesirable' people.

From what I can find on this subject Islamic jurists outside Saudi have said 'yes witchcraft is a major sin but certainly not punishable by death as there is no way to prove witchcraft unless their home is decked out in satanic symbols and they chant a lot, etc'. Here we have the Saudi story, the woman was forced to confess and a confession is proof, therefore was deemed apostacy but then she retracted her statement which has to be accepted in Islamic law, so she was no longer admitting to any wrongdoing and left them in a spot of bother but of course they have the 'discretionary law' to fall back on and so will kill her anyway just to be on the safe side (well I mean what if another sex crazed madman becomes impotent society will go to hell in a handbasket??).

My conclusion - the Saudis are 9/10ths bonkers and are finding any way they can, no matter how much they have to twist the religion, to prove just how bonkers they really are.


Just to add, I love the expression 'no Mr & Mrs Islam to complain to' and believe me if there were they would be hearing from me on a few topics.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What an interesting thread, may I add my 2p worth.

Islamic view of witchcraft/magic/sourcery:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said:

"Avoid the seven destroyers." They (the Companions) asked: "Oh, Messenger of Allah ! What are they?" He replied: "Shirk (associating partners) with Allah , sorcery, taking the life which has been prohibited by Allah , except in truth (i.e. in accordance with Islamic Law), devouring usury, consuming the property of the orphans, running away on the day of battle and making false charges against the chaste, unmindful3 women." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)

Please note it doesn't say behead them. Punishments can be decided by three ways, the first is where the crime and punishment are clearly set out in the Quran and Sunnah and there is no room for a judge to decide otherwise. The second is where the crimes are set out in the Quran and Sunnah but the punishment is intended to be equal to the crime - therefore requiring a judge to decide what punishment is equal to the crime. Lastly discretionary which largely falls under the 'we make it up as we go along because there is nothing clear in the Quran or Sunnah about it' category.

Thank you for posting this.

My conclusion - the Saudis are 9/10ths bonkers and are finding any way they can, no matter how much they have to twist the religion, to prove just how bonkers they really are.

It certainly looks that way.

Just to add, I love the expression 'no Mr & Mrs Islam to complain to' and believe me if there were they would be hearing from me on a few topics.

You go, girl!