Is it fair to insinuate about Islam?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

I'm a bit disappointed about the way you guys are treating Netti here.

Not to worry, Cliff. I'm holding up alright.

The Saudi Arabian religious police are a bit of a law unto themselves....They are not necessarily representative of any shade of Islam or the state of Saudi Arabia. They are just a part of Arabian life.

Unclear to me how religious police can be representative of any kind of meaningful legal system at all in the absence of written penal, judicial or criminal procedure codes.

As it turns out, "Islamic law" did not take any meaningful, comprehensive form until the 10th century -- long after the Prophet's death. It is therefore hard to make the case that any legal system purporting to be "Islamic" is fully rooted in core legal doctrine as set forth by the Prophet in the Koran. It took hundred of years for legal doctrine to develop. So the Koran apparently was not sufficient to inform Islamic law.

Practically speaking, it appears the Koran actually has only a small part in the Sharia system of legislation. That alone should make outsiders of the West cautious when they undertake broad characterizations of "Islam" and "Islamic law."

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Netti

I am sorry, I meant to add to my post my thanks to you for taking a balanced and non-propagandist view on this matter. It is very difficult as a Muslim sometimes to get across that a vast majority of us do not support such nonsense as this, killing people for cartoons or naming a teddy bear, etc. As we can clearly see from the money owed to the first man to be beheaded for sorcery last year, it was just a way of using our religion for greed and politics (something done all too often).

You are absolutely right about the Sharia, most of it comes from the Sunnah and not the Quran. We know that there are weak and untrustworthy hadiths but these are used to justify killing and oppression - which is totally unIslamic (go figure). It is like the issue of rajm (stoning to death), which is one of my soap box issues. The word rajm is not contained in the Quran and this comes entirely from the hadiths but even those hadiths state that the narrators do not know whether stoning for adultery was used before or after the revelation of the verse about zina. It is simply political will and tradition imo and if you speak against it you are seen as a bad Muslim or not a Muslim at all (apostacy also has the death sentence - again from the Sunnah). Reformists take the view that life has moved on considerably since the days of tribal warfare on the Arabian Steppes but traditionalists still insist we follow rulings we cannot be certain are accurate (but they say they are certain because someone 600 years ago said so).

One of the funniest jokes going around Egypt at the moment is about an Egyptian religious scholar that stated last year that if your wife wants to work in an office with a man she must let him suckle at her breats!!!! Needless to say we aren't getting many men sending their wives out to be suckled. It is a nonsense and we all know it. Is it Islamic? Well strictly speaking yes, because a man cannot have sexual relations with a woman he was suckled by but it goes against all sense and reason and we all just shrug, get on with our day and make up funny jokes about it.

So again, thank you it is very refreshing to hear from someone that is prepared to stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Salaam

[Netti-Netti]

I think we in the West are tend to get the impression that "fundamentalist" interpretations of Islam are predominant and thus representative of Islam mainly because those are the ones we hear about: The media is known to pick up on weird, extreme cases. There has always been a demand for freakshows. Right wing propaganda outfits know this and are therefore on the lookout for the weird stuff. This kind of material is generally useful for generating interest. Dissing other cultures is of course also what you'd expect for folks who like to indulge in cultural hubris. As Tao Equus noted aptly, it boosts "the collective ego" when we engage in social comparisons where we seem less savage or backwards than the people we are comparing ourselves to. The main problem I see with this kind of narcissistic self-indulgence is that it makes the propagandists who get involved in this kind of seem stupid. Rather than explore the issues in any kind of systematic and rational way, they just pile on the insinuations and generate much anti-Islamic imagery as possible, providing grist for the proverbial self-congratulatory mill.

For some reason I don't really understand they want to discuss these weird cases as though the theology is the culprit instead of allowing for the possibility that some of these weird cases reflect more on the self-serving judgment of persons who have a vested interest in rigid social control or creating the impression of paragon-of-virtue type piousness by espousing puritanical views that defy common sense, or some combination thereof (e.g., Iran's billionaire Ayatollahs).

While the Prophet Muhammad did not formulate much in the way of formal legal doctrine, it seems he did try to provide a methods for incorporating reason and compassion in legal judgments. These methods are especially notable when deriving exemptions to existing penal codes. A functional role for reason and compassion ensures that the enforcement of law is not arbitrary and abusive. Example: forgive an offense in light of extenuating circumstances (a poor man stealing to feed his family).

The fact that some crimes require multiple witnesses (e.g., adultery) is yet another indication of a commitment to justice that was inspired by the Koran.

In the Saudi witch-hunt case, a lack of legislation and codification raises serious questions about the integrity of the process from the get-go. It seems no one is even paying any attention to the need for evidentiary standards. I mean, what is anyone to make of a publicized case that centers on a forced confession to an "undefined crime"? Too weird.

We note here that many of these bizarre legal cases in certain Islamic countries result in acquittal in the end, which at least affirms that reason and compassion are not totally out the window. Only the most extreme regimes actually carry out the extreme penalties. As noted previously, many (most?) Muslims countries actually have a de facto ban on the death penalty.

Obviously, attempts to portray Islam as supportive of misogynistic and arbitrary legal action (like convicting someone on bogus Nonesuch crimes) just ignore all these things. This is an example of how much can be left out of the analysis by certain forms of propaganda.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So again, thank you it is very refreshing to hear from someone that is prepared to stand back and look at the bigger picture.

As-Salaam 'Alaikum, Muslimwoman. Good to meet you and thank you kindly for the thoughtful reply. In connection with big-picturing you refer to, I would note that flawed views of Islam and Muslims arise from a tendency to see an anomaly as representative of a general trend or essential characteristic. To portray the Saudi case as typical of Islam would seem to involve a gross logical error combined with a selective use of evidence. Indeed, I'm not aware of any other witch prosecution in a contemporary Muslim country other than the one you mentioned.

To the best of my knowledge, Muslims are not all that different from westerners. Their emotional makeup is that of human beings all over the planet, as are their hopes, personal aspirations, love of family and friends, and the desire for G-d. Healthy, fully functional, spiritually sound Muslims are just like healthy, fully functional spiritually sound persons all over the world. Portrayals of the Muslim world as Extreme Other bespeak not only the workings of sinister propaganda serving to dehumanize; it also indicates xenophobic paranoia, a lack of empathy, and a lack of intellectual curiosity. Maybe it's part of the "Dumbing Down" phenomena noted elsewhere.

a way of using our religion for greed and politics....

Sadly, all religions are subject to this.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Sadly, all religions are subject to this.

Ain't that the truth.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

As-Salaam 'Alaikum, Muslimwoman. Good to meet you.

wa aleykum salaam, Netti. Good to meet you to, I have been reading your posts with interest.

Unfortunately the Saudi's are 99% insane, with the other 1% generally on a tea break when it comes to certain issues but of course it makes much more sensational reporting than reporting something decent a Muslim country has done.

I came across a comment on a business forum I use about the fact that no Muslims protested in the streets about 9/11 or terrorism. So I took time from my day to post an entire list of Muslim countries that have seen Muslims demonstrating in the streets against terrorism. I was so saddened when the replies I received were along the lines of 'how brainwashed are you'. It as simply assumed that the media here had made it all up.

To me this demonstrates that in the current atmosphere people are not even willing to open their minds enough to see the good Muslims do. It really saddens me and I pray the media will get it's act together one day and help to build dialogue and understanding, rather than propagate hate and fear.

Salaam

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Netti

<SNIP>

You are absolutely right about the Sharia, most of it comes from the Sunnah and not the Quran. We know that there are weak and untrustworthy hadiths but these are used to justify killing and oppression - which is totally unIslamic (go figure). It is like the issue of rajm (stoning to death), which is one of my soap box issues. The word rajm is not contained in the Quran and this comes entirely from the hadiths but even those hadiths state that the narrators do not know whether stoning for adultery was used before or after the revelation of the verse about zina.

I have always been sincerely interested in the most updated chronologies of the earliest foundational texts for all faiths. I have been hopelessly fascinated by (addicted to!;-) the newest translations of texts like the Confucius Analects (particularly Chapters 3 through 9, generally reckoned the earliest chapters), the earliest Buddha sermons from the Digha-Nikaya (in the Tripitaka), the close work done by the Jesus Seminar on the "Q" passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and so on.

Please, it's been difficult for me to find thorough modern chronologies of the foundational texts for Islam, and I've found that very disappointing! Please, could you elaborate on what the most recent scholarship has generally concluded regarding the dating of specific Hadiths, specific chapters in the Qur'an, specific sections in the Sunnah, etc.? Heartfelt thanks.

Depending on whom I speak with, some will say the Sunnah was written down first, others say the Qur'an was, and so on. This doesn't necessarily involve the point at which these works were first conceived in (possibly?) oral form -- although it could; above all that, I'd truly like to know when these texts were first actually written down -- and the answer to that has proved harder for me to pin down. Again, heartfelt thanks.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

It is simply political will and tradition imo and if you speak against it you are seen as a bad Muslim or not a Muslim at all (apostacy also has the death sentence - again from the Sunnah). Reformists take the view that life has moved on considerably since the days of tribal warfare on the Arabian Steppes but traditionalists still insist we follow rulings we cannot be certain are accurate (but they say they are certain because someone 600 years ago said so).

And I'd be sincerely interested in that, too. Please, could you elaborate a bit on the various aspects that place the accuracy in question, the earliest apparent sources for such rulings, and the extent to which there may be textual/literary reasons for some rulings being less accurate than others? Thanks.

Looking forward to any enlightenment you can give on all this.

Best,

Operacast

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Operacast

the close work done by the Jesus Seminar on the "Q" passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and so on.

Hi Operacast

I would be very interested in hearing more about this.

A most interesting subject and one I have been looking into for a while, although sometimes it is like banging my head against a brick wall.

The bare facts that we know from texts. The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) died in 632AD, during his lifetime verses of the Quran were written on stones, bones, leaves, leather, etc and also memorised. The first Caliph (leader of the Muslims) was Abu Bakr, who died after 2 years). In 633AD there was a great battle (al-Yamamah) and many of the men that had memorised the Quran were killed. Umar (who was to become the second Caliph) was concerned that the Quran may be lost so suggested to Abu Bakr that he compile it as a book, this was done using all the verses they could find written down and from the memories of men and the copy was kept in the home of one of the wives of the Prophet. The third Caliph Uthman then compiled the 'authorised' text and completed this in 651.

As with most religious issues you get two conflicting views.

The first are the literalists, who believe that the Quran was compiled as a book during the life of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), with verses and chapters placed word for word in the order they were revealed and remains to this day exactly the same. This view comes from the classical scholars, whose writings still exist.

As evidence for their assertions they would point to the two oldest surviving copies of the Quran (in Istanbul and Tashkent). The authorised text we have today was produced in 651 and sent to major Islamic cities, of which the 2 copies mentioned are the only known survivors.

However a majority of serious modern Islamic scholars do not agree with this. There are a number of questions about the history of the Quran which arise from Islamic texts that need to be answered and so in 2002 a project began which seeks to study and then answer these questions.

You can read about these questions here: Understanding-Islam.org - History of the Qur'an Project

It is a difficult subject because literalists would see it as blasphemy to even discuss these but I am a realist and am aware that things are not as neatly 'bound' as some would suggest.

We must also remember that the revelation of the Quran came over a 23 year period, right up to the last year of the Prophets life, so it would not be possible to make it into a book until after his death.

None of this suggests that any part is fabricated or has been altered to change the meaning, we can trace the Quran back to within 19 years of the Prophets death and can see from comparing the Istanbul and Tashkent versions to the Quran I have that it is essentially unchanged.

Originally Posted by Operacast

Please, could you elaborate on what the most recent scholarship has generally concluded regarding the dating of specific Hadiths, specific chapters in the Qur'an, specific sections in the Sunnah, etc.?

If you go here USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts and click the link for Quran (3rd link down), scroll down and then click any chapter, at the top you will find Maududi's introduction. He explains briefly the period of revelation of each chapter. There is no historical data but he uses such issues as wars, treaties etc to establish the time period.

If hadiths were written down in the first 100 or so years they have not survived. The earliest collection still in existence was by an author that died in 720CE. Of course hadiths came down in oral tradition too.

The first Fitna (Islamic civil war) was between 656-651CE and during this period people began to question the origin and authenticity of hadiths. This was when the first real Sunni/Shia split happened and you can see today how different our collections of hadith are.

The most relied upon scholar of hadith is Imam Bukhari. There is a short biography of Bukhari here Imam Bukhari
(the dates on the biography are from the Islamic calendar not the Christian but he died in 869CE)

Originally Posted by Operacast

And I'd be sincerely interested in that, too. Please, could you elaborate a bit on the various aspects that place the accuracy in question, the earliest apparent sources for such rulings, and the extent to which there may be textual/literary reasons for some rulings being less accurate than others?

There is an entire 'science' to authenticting hadith which is briefly explained here USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts just scroll down to the bottom.

It was after the first Fitna that people began to state 'name me your narrators'.

One of the biggest problems with hadith science is that over time it would be easy to fabricate the chain or narration (or to add in a missing link to give more weight to it) and as time marched on these could be accepted as authentic based on a fabricated chain. We can see the period of time between the death of the Prophet and the first surviving collection of hadith and a lot can change in that period of time.

As I say Bukhari is accepted as the most reliable source of authentic hadith and I do believe he worked very hard to authenticate hadiths but I have a bit of a problem with a few hadiths in Bukhari - here is an example:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

This to me simply smacks of political will based on tradition and custom (ie we want to keep doing it so we will back it up with this).

I hope that has given you a couple of reference points to begin your research and I would be very interested to hear anything you find out.

Salaam

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I pray the media will get it's act together one day and help to build dialogue and understanding, rather than propagate hate and fear.

Hello Ms. Sally. I hope you are well.

I agree with all of what you said. Alas, in some sectors progress is slow - for example at the website that led to the start of this thread. On that same thread there was a new post today to the effect that Islam won't tolerate women in engineering schools. For some reason the regulars over there forgot to mention that the proportion of female university students in Islamic countries has been rising steadily, and that in some of these countries Muslim women are more likely to be enrolled in science coursework than men are (up to 70% female), and this even though one would expect the opposite given the the population's male-female ratios in some of these countries. At least one predominantly Muslim nation (Morocco) has a larger proportion of women engineering graduates than in the US!!

It is astonishing to me that a single US website can have so much inane cultural stereotyping about other parts of the world, particularly with respect to the position of women, all the while totally ignoring gender inequalities and sexual exploitation in Western countries. It is an almost daily thing for them to paste junky bottom-of-the barrel anti-Islamic hit pieces that reek of ignorance and obscurantist bigotry. Disgusting.

Btw, the most truly liberated women I have known -- who were fully functioning and feminist without being strident and reactive -- were Muslim women. Go figure.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I agree with all of what you said. Alas, in some sectors progress is slow - for example at the website that led to the start of this thread. On that same thread .....

I mean the anti-Muslim thread at that other web site.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What you are really objecting to is human nature.

Or maybe just one of the less desirable traits.

The west are taught, and in some sense rightly, to fear the rise of Islam. And so we will always find the extreme end of Islamic faith portrayed as mainstream

It would be one thing if there were an exaggeration of some element of truth. However, much of the West's propaganda is blatantly false and actually very easy to dispute. Much of it is written by uneducated right wing fanatics who have evidently not taken the trouble to research the issues and are unable to form meaningful arguments. It's embarrassing and hard to believe there is an audience for this kind of thing - which in my opinion is quite different from legitimate criticism.

That western "justice" can be equally as inhumane and barbaric as that found in Islamic nations is not lost on me.

Indeed. The US still has the death penalty and uses methods that are clearly inhumane.

the nature of the case you highlight is in some sense a glorification of western advancement.

You're so right. Ingroup/Outgroup schemas are part of a nationalistic mindset. At some level, the West's overt displays of indignation and the persistent tendency to attack the spiritual character of entire populations may actually be expressions of this self-congratulatory attitude you are referring to. But the exercise in vanity is largely unjustified. The ever increasing crime rates in Western societies even now would seem to indicate that the much-touted advancements are to a large extent illusory. Among the largest increases have been observed with respect to white collar crime. One might go so far as to say that business practices are actually criminal to a large degree. Further, the US now has a record number of hate groups. Fools celebrate their presumptive moral superiority while ignoring the contradictions of Western society, which are many and profound.

We, westerners, are all aware of our own brutal flirtation with witchunting and it boosts the collective ego to point out that Islam is savage or backwards in still performing such acts in this modern era.

It seems to me that scapegoating and stirring up xenophobic fears is ironically just a continuation of the old witchunting worldview.

In short, it would seem the West is boosting its collective ego with delusions of grandeur.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Tao. And sorry for the delayed reaction.

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Tao. And sorry for the delayed reaction.

Thank you and likewise my apology for not answering your question on my next post.

Tao: 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.

Netti:
Did you have some support for this view?

If by support you mean is there some paper, book or individual that I have heard/read that puts it in quite that way then no, I do not. But my own broad reading into the evolution of religions leaves me to draw no other conclusion. However, I am not biased, the Emperor Constantine to my mind is exactly analogous to Mohammed. Both saw the political advantage in enslaving hearts, minds and souls to a set of rules they dictated.

As I say when you look at the evolution of religions there may be a first founder who was truly believing in what they were saying. Jesus, C.T. Russell, Bahaullah etc. But invariably such messages are hijacked and used by the politically cunning to their agenda. In the case of Islam the only real difference between what is in the Q'uran and the other Abrahamic texts is the level of "control" it seeks to give itself over its believers. This is why I dislike Islam more than the others, though it is a tight race.

I have read quite extensively on the rise of Islam and Christianity and the parallels are striking. I am far from being a scholar of the subject but from the point of view of a simple man with no agenda the conclusion I state is the only reasonable conclusion to reach.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

....the Emperor Constantine to my mind is exactly analogous to Mohammed.

I'm reading between the lines here and I gather you are referring not only to social control but also to forced conversions (based on comparisons to the Crusades). Then problem we run into when we talk about "Islam" is that we veer toward a unitary concept even though its expressions are diverse. Consider Indonesia, which has the single largest Islamic population of any country. Indonesia has been practicing a variety of Islam that is pluralistic and syncretic and is quite at odds with the variety of Islam we associate with Saudi Arabia. The dominant religion of Indonesia is Sufi Islam. Aggressive ideology is alien to the Sufi Islam traditions of Indonesia and other Central and Southeast Asian countries.

Sadly, Indonesia has been subjected to the onslaught of militant movements like Laskar Jihad. Arabian geopolitics in southeast Asia has included not only terrorist attacks, but also ongoing efforts to convert traditionally moderate Sufi Muslims to an extreme brand of Islam that developed largely in isolation. A number of African countries also have large Sufi populations and I expect they are ripe from militant infiltration.

Islam's origins are syncretic in the sense that it combined element of Judaism and Christianity. The spread and further development of Islam was also syncretic. The spread of Islam into SE Asia and Africa in particular was due in part to the fact that it was adaptive and coexisted with pre-existing tribal culture. (These hybridization phenomena are not specific to Islam. Buddhism also took syncretic forms, as in the case of Tibet, where Buddhism merged with ancient animistic religion to give rise to Tibetan Buddhism.) By contrast, the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out.

Islam is often described as actively evangelistic. Right wing war mongers in the US are particularly fond of portraying Islam as intolerant and intent on forcing itself on the world. Early Islam may have include some elements of aggressive expansionism. However, forcing Islam on people as not always the central focus. It simply wasn't necessary.

In fact, the spread of Islam in SE Asia and Africa was linked largely to merchants who wanted to strengthen trade. Rather like other religions before it. Islam spread along trade routes. The reason half of all Muslims of the world live in SouthEast Asia is because these are Silk Road regions. The Prophet Muhammad himself was apparently a very well to do merchant who (according to the Wiki) "was involved in trade between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea." Interestingly, by the 10th century Muslims were in charge of China's import/export business. Even today, the Silk Road regions have large Muslim populations.

Similarly, Islam's spread in Africa was gradual and organic and as before in Asia, along trade routes. Africa's trade centers became focal points for the development of Islam, with flourishing societies that were enriched by trade as well as by literacy imported by Muslims.

My point here is that Islam is not strictly an Arabic religion. Taken together, Asia and Africa actually comprise the largest segments of the Muslim world. It is also helpful to have historical perspective about the cultural transformation of Saudi Arabia into a legalistic state. This is actually a fairly recent development that seems to have more to do with the monarchy's power politics than the stringent imperatives of fundamentalist Islam.

The role of militant religion in Saudi Arabia became evident during the rule of Ibn Sa'ud, the first Saudi monarch. Saudi Arabia didn't become a unified nation until 1932, the end result of years of effort that did have a religious component. Specifically, after 1912 Ibn Sa'ud sought to advance his agenda by means of the Ikhwan, which is described in the Wiki as "a militant religious organization which was to assist in his later conquests." Before this time, social organization was largely tribal and scattered -- hardly indicative of anything suggesting a tendency toward "global Caliphate" or even strict legalistic uniformity in the system of social control.

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

I am aware of the diversity within both ancient and modern Islam and recognise that by far the great majority of adherents to any religion simply want to live in stability, security and peace. It is never the majority that matter when the blood starts spilling tho, and only by trickery or coercion that they are led to partake. All too often religion is the first tool in the tricksters box.

By contrast, the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out.

This is simply not true. Constantine himself was a pagan and built many temples to pagan gods. Up until he won the battle of the Tiber and marched into Rome victorious Christians had been persecuted and enslaved. But Constantine's, (like Alexandros the great, and in an some sense Oedipedially Muhammed through his marriage to a wealthy, powerful woman many years his senior.....a good topic for a thread!! Tyrants and their mummy's!!), mother was a Christian and he ordered that their persecution must stop. It was he that later in life and as he expanded his domain incorporated many pagan beliefs into Christianity including changing the Sabbath to a Sunday, (which is a story in itself). But to keep it brief, Constantine merged the idea of the Roman Emperor being a living God with monotheism purely as a tool to help control his vast empire and was clever enough to incorporate pagan beliefs and holy dates wherever he could.

However, forcing Islam on people as not always the central focus.

Not always, but often. How about Darfur in the Sudan, here we see no effort to evangelise but to exterminate. Here as in any other such tyrannical operation religion is but a tool. Islam is a rallying call to to legal robbery, rape, murder and genocide. It does not matter that it is Islam or any other religion, what matters is that anybody accepts the diversion. Russia is currently undergoing a nationalistic renaissance that is just as dangerous but with patriotic ideology rather than religious. They are all the same thing. Little men with big ego's using the tools of social manipulation. I think I would probably never have a bad word to say about religion if people had some balls and stopped being sheep. But being an atheist, and seeing how religions are so easily usurped I have nothing but disdain for them. They do very little good and heaps of harm.

Tao

[Alex P]

All that read this, PLEASE do this for me.... (have to do it yourself.)

Go to Dictionary.com type in the word insinuate... and read all that it says. Pause. Then ask, is it fair?

Is it?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Alex P

All that read this, PLEASE do this for me.... (have to do it yourself.)

Go to Dictionary.com type in the word insinuate... and read all that it says. Pause. Then ask, is it fair?

Is it?

In sin u ate.

I feasted