Jihad

[Jenny_Jackson]

That is too funny Jenny. What do women get for a suicide bombing? Islamic women in most countries are not allowed to work, yet fully capable for a suicide bombing

I don’t understand that, how islamic leaders can support that point of view.

Women are treated a chattle, Jenn. They have no rights, cannot own land, etc. I do see a certain good thing about muslim women though. Very few join the insurgent terrorists and become suicide bombers.

Tells you something about the size of the male brain in the middle east, don't it??

 

[Liar]

yes, the islamic extremists have appropriated the word, and use it to justify their ungodly acts.

Question is, do they actually say just jihad? Or is that the only thing that our western ears pick up when they actually say al-jihad bis saif or jihad saif or some variation?

Of course, what they then do in the name of jihad bis saif is not jihad bis saif nor any jihad, and not halal on any level, but rather, as you pointed out, hirabi.

But that's politics. Give crap a pretty name, and the gullible will believe it smells like roses.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Question is, do they actually say just jihad? Or is that the only thing that our western ears pick up when they actually say al-jihad bis saif or jihad saif or some variation?

Of course, what they then do in the name of jihad bis saif is not jihad bis saif nor any jihad, and not halal on any level, but rather, as you pointed out, hirabi.

But that's politics. Give crap a pretty name, and the gullible will believe it smells like roses.

Liar,
When you figure that 90% of Americans get all their news from a 30 min (Actually 17 minutes if you delete the commercials) watered down version on the NBC Evening news it's not surprising that Jihad becomes confused. There is no "in depth" reporting in this country. Americans sit back and take what is dished out to them with their Pablem, spoon fed to them by Brian Williams.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Question is, do they actually say just jihad? Or is that the only thing that our western ears pick up when they actually say al-jihad bis saif or jihad saif or some variation?

Of course, what they then do in the name of jihad bis saif is not jihad bis saif nor any jihad, and not halal on any level, but rather, as you pointed out, hirabi.

But that's politics. Give crap a pretty name, and the gullible will believe it smells like roses.

According to my Arabic teacher, jihad is simply an everyday word that means "to come back from a situation of disadvantage". If your people is being oppressed by an occupying force, you jihad to escape that oppression. If your team is losing 1-0 at half-time, you do a second-half jihad to turn the score around 1-2.

 

[neonflux]

Moving this up - earlier hit the send button before I meant to...

Roxanne, regarding your first post, I could find hundreds of similar passages in the Bible (Old Testament in particular) and Christian theological thought (think Crusades). I could also quote plenty of radical right-wing fundamentalist thinkers and find passages that are just as supportive of using violence in the name of religion. In explaining his decision to invade Iraq, Bush himself stated that, “I’m driven with a mission from God." Also from Wikipedia:

"Christian Identity is a label applied to a wide variety of loosely-affiliated groups and churches with a racialized theology. Most of them promote a Euro-centric version of Christianity. Their key commonality is British Israelism theology, which teaches that white Europeans are the literal descendants of the Israelites through the ten tribes that were taken away into captivity by the armies of Assyria. Furthermore, the teaching holds that these (White European) Israelites are still God's Chosen People, that Jesus was an Israelite and not of the tribe of Judah, and that modern Jews are of a separate, subhuman race.

The Christian Identity movement first broke into the mainstream media in 1984, when the White Supremicist organization The Order embarked on a murderous crime spree before being taken down by the FBI. It surfaced again in 1992 and 1993, after the deadly Ruby Ridge confrontation, when it was discovered that Randy Weaver had at least a loose association with Christian Identity.

There is no single document that expresses the Christian Identity belief system. Adherents draw on arguments from linguistic, historical, archaeological and Biblical sources to support their beliefs. There are from 2,000 to 50,000 adherents of these groups in the United States of America[1], and an unknown number in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth (former British Empire).

Christian Identity believers reject the beliefs of most modern orthodox Christian denominations, and claim that modern Christian Churches are teaching a heresy: the belief that God's promises to Israel (through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) have been expanded to create a spiritual people of "Israel," which constitutes the Christian "Church". In turn, most modern Christian denominations and organizations denounce Christian Identity theology as a heresy, and condemn the use of the Christian Bible as a basis for promoting anti-Semitism.

Christian Identity asserts the people of Europe are God's servant people according to the promises that were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It further asserts that the early European tribes were really the ten lost tribes of Israel and therefore the rightful heirs to God's promises.

One of the most controversial beliefs held by Identity Christians is the belief that modern Jews are not the Biblical "House of Israel". Identity Christians go as far as to hold that modern Jews are not even the Biblical "house of Judah", but rather claim they are Edomites, descendants of Esau, that mixed with the House of Judah in Babylonian captivity, or are Khazars that adopted Judaism in 838 A.D. to avoid warring with Christian Europe, or the emerging power of Islam in the middle-east. This is known as the single-seedline version of Christian Identity. Other Identity Christians, known as dual-seedliners, believe that Jews were a result of Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden having sexual intercourse...

Justifying violence
A relatively new tenet gaining popularity among some radical Christian Identity believers justifies the use of violence if it is perpetrated in order to punish violators of God's law, as found in the Bible and interpreted by Christian Identity ministers and adherents. This includes killing interracial couples, abortionists, prostitutes and homosexuals, burning pornography stores, and robbing banks and perpetrating frauds to undermine the usury system. Christian Identity adherents engaging in such behavior are referred to as Phineas Priests or members of the Phineas Priesthood.

This is an appealing concept to some followers, who believe they are being persecuted by an alleged Jewish-controlled U.S. government and society and/or are eagerly preparing for Armageddon, when Jesus will return and Jews, non-Whites and other non-Christians will be killed. However, some CI churches teach that this is false and that the story of Numbers 25 in the Bible is simply of forbidden Adamic lineages, not an Adamic and non-Adamic relation at all. Those that teach this point out that if the sin in Numbers 25 had been race mixing then one must be prepared to accept that Moses (as recorded in Numbers 31:18) promoted race mixing. At the time the Midianites were punished for their sin in Numbers 25, Moses spared the Midianite virgins for the Israelite men, as permitted by God's law in Deuteronomy 21:10-13. In other words, Israelite men were allowed to take virgin, non-Israelite women of the same race (such as the Midianites) for wives, except from the forbidden lineages of Moab, Ammon and Caanan. The idea that Numbers 25 involved race mixing is a theory taught by those who promote a Phineas priesthood for today."
​

I would never suggest that the last quote is indicative of most Modern Christian thought. I also wouldn't assume anything about modern Islamic thought as a whole based on the sources that you quoted...

Life is too short for me to read any of the holy book nonsense, so I am forced to judge what these religions are really about on the basis of what their adherents actually do, not what they say. With Christians, on the positive side, I see a lot of altruistic projects that often are beneficial. On the negative side I see a lot of fulminating and guilt-generating about acts that if you're hanging out on a smut site you think are nothing to feel guilty about. I don't see very many murders attributable to Christianity in the current era.

With Islam I assume there are some good works, but don't know that. There are a lot of murders performed in the name of Islam in the current era. In almost every Islamic society women definitely are second class citizens with limited rights. In some this is downright brutal. All in all, it's not a pretty picture, and provides little basis to believe "Islam a religion of peace and justice" claims. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Yes, Christians perform charitable works. Also among them are people who block clinic access not only to women seeking abortions but also to those seeking birth control and who kill the doctors and support staff who work in these institutions. You also have among them white Supremists (see above).

Economic justice and charitable works is a prime tenant of Islam as it is of Christianity. Charity is also one of 5 primary tenant of Islam, one action required of a "good Muslim," the others being prayer (facing Mecca), fasting (during Ramadan), Hajj or Pilgrimage to Mecca, and Jihad. The first type of charity Zakah, is from the verb zaka, which signifies "to thrive," "to be wholesome," "to be pure" means purification. Giving up of a portion of the wealth one may possess in excess of what is needed for sustenance, is to "purify" or legalize it so that the remainder may lawfully be used by the alms giver. One is required to give 2.5% of one's overall earnings in this way. Deducting zakat from one's earnings is a material acknowledgment of the fact that the actual giver is God. Since the giver is God, the recipient is duty bound to spend it in His cause. The law of zakat is to take from those who have wealth and give it away to those who do not. This rotation of wealth is a way to balance social inequality.

Alms giving is called sadaqat (meaning literally 'righteousness' from the root sadaqa, to speak the truth, to be true) - a very wide term used in the Qur'an. (In Islamic literature, this is referred to as sadaqat al tatawwu, or spontaneous alms-giving). According to Ibn Arabi(Akham al-Quran, 2/946-7), alms-giving is called sadaqat to indicate the sincerity(sidk) of the giver's religious belief. He goes on to say that sadaqat is a voluntary act of worship, a choice made of one's own free will. If the act is other than voluntary, it has no religious merit. "For man makes it obligatory for himself, just as God makes mercy obligatory for Himself towards those who repent." Sadaqat is the result of an inspiration on the part of the donor rather than a "tithe."

Perhaps we hear less about Muslim giving not only because our view of Islam is so limited in this country but because Sadaqat is to be done in private. From a Kashmiri clerical site (Jammu-Kasmir.com): "The Quran in verses 264 and 271 of the second chapter, warns us against spending "to be seen of men". This is false charity. Alms-giving with this motive is worse than not giving away anything at all. In verse 265 God gives a beautiful parable to illustrate the true nature of charity. It is like a field with good soil on a hillside. it catches good showers of rain and the moisture penetrates the soil. The favourable conditions increase in output enormously. So a man of true charity is spiritually healthy. He is the most likely to attract God's bounties. The Quran goes on to give four parables to explain the truly spiritual nature of charity (2:261:206)."

Respectfully,
Neon

 

[TheOlderGuy]

OBL = osama bin laden

Iraq is a mess, and what is the solution?

the current plan is not working, so should the county be split up just like Yugoslavia? After all, when sadam’s uncle was in power there were many violent clashes. Not sure how long the violence goes back, before WWI?

Borders in the Middle East and Africa were drawn by self-interested Europeans, not by the tribal cultures that live there. They've never worked. And it's been suggested often that redrawing the borders to reflect what's actually on the ground would not be a bad idea. One such suggestion, from Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look :

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/xml/2006/06/images/afj.peters_map_after.JPG

and the current map:
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/xml/2006/06/images/afj.peters_map_before.JPG

 

[TheOlderGuy]

Liar,
When you figure that 90% of Americans get all their news from a 30 min (Actually 17 minutes if you delete the commercials) watered down version on the NBC Evening news it's not surprising that Jihad becomes confused. There is no "in depth" reporting in this country. Americans sit back and take what is dished out to them with their Pablem, spoon fed to them by Brian Williams.

sadly there's very little real information these days in the news. the news divisions are not much different than the entertainment divisions. if it doesn't sell well it doesn't get much print or air time. journalistic integrity is pretty hard to maintain in the face of bottom line management. and guess who owns 90% of the media outlets now? the same five corporations that own 90% of the rest of your ass. that's the audience that both politicians and journalists must sell themselves to, not us.

 

[damppanties]

Charity is also one of 5 primary tenant of Islam, one action required of a "good Muslim," the others being prayer (facing Mecca), fasting (during Ramadan), Hajj or Pilgrimage to Mecca, and Jihad.

Jihad isn't one of the five tenets. The five are: Imaan (literally, 'faith' or 'belief' - in Allah and his Messenger), Namaz (prayer), Roza (fasting during Ramadan), Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i can't believe you actually read even ten percent of what you just cut and paste here, or that you think anyone else will, but . . .

yes, the islamic extremists have appropriated the word, and use it to justify their ungodly acts. the point was that this administration has seriously erred (what else is new?) by using the word in that way, because it legitimizes the actions as holy in the eyes of other muslims who hold jihad in the highest regard. our purposes would be better served by pointing out the misuse of the term, rather than, in essence, cursing all of the muslim faith.

I hardly ever post anything I haven't read, and I rarely if ever post anything really lengthy (usually 700-1,000 word columns), but this time I did not read what I posted, the wiki article on jihad. It just went on and on, and I didn't want to be guilty of selective editing. It seemed relevent to insert a reference into this thread.

"curse all of the muslim faith"

Curse? I posted some accurate observations about bad things that are done in its name, acknowledged that there are different voices in that faith, admitted that I don't have the time or interest to sort out whether the bad things are accurate representations of what it is really about, and suggested that those of the faith who contend that the bad things are not accurate representations should "police their movement*." I don't see a curse in there. I do curse specific practices, namely making women second class citizens in a society, and committing murder in the name of a religion. I also stated that I am no fan of religion in general and think we would all be better off without it.


*"Police their movement." I didn't define this, but it seems to me it would mean something between making the bad things stop happening at one end, and condemning them loudly as not accurate representations of the faith at the other. I don't see much more than tepid condemnations of the violence, and virtually no condemnations of the treatment of women, although I imagine there are some.

 

[neonflux]

Jihad isn't one of the five tenets. The five are: Imaan (literally, 'faith' or 'belief' - in Allah and his Messenger), Namaz (prayer), Roza (fasting during Ramadan), Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

I think that I used a term I should not have used in tenets. Rather, I should have used the term "duties." Faith or belief in Allah is not one of the expected duties, but the very basis of becoming Muslim. The first 3, prayer, fasting and Hajj are considered to be one's duties to God. Charity is considered to be one's duty to one's fellow human beings. I have read in several sources that Jihad (in the larger sense that people have already mentioned - one's internal battle) is considered to be one's duty to oneself...

TheOlderGuy While I have a fair knowledge of modern Middle Eastern history, I have never seen that map before. It's brilliant! Of course, the difficulty we find ourselves in now that we've made such a mess of Iraq is whether to get out immediately or try to help straighten things out before we leave. We've so badly botched things there, I fear that there is nothing we can do to right things, even with the help of other states in the region (rather than Europeans), who themselves have a strong interest in stabilizing the country. I know, this last is a very remote possibility, even with a Democrat in the White House.

Neon

 

[cantdog]

I think that I used a term I should not have used in tenets. Rather, I should have used the term "duties." Faith or belief in Allah is not one of the expected duties, but the very basis of becoming Muslim. The first 3, prayer, fasting and Hajj are considered to be one's duties to God. Charity is considered to be one's duty to one's fellow human beings. I have read in several sources that Jihad (in the larger sense that people have already mentioned - one's internal battle) is considered to be one's duty to oneself...
Neon

No, really, neon, there are five pillars of the faith, and dampy has listed them. I don't know why you subdivide them. Jihad, the great jihad, is the life of the spirit itself, and difficult to avoid if you have a spiritual life at all. But it is not incumbent on muslims to have one. Zakat is a pillar of Islam. That's one of the reasons one hears that Islam was designed to include a social system as well as a 'religion'-- the line between secular and sacred is drawn in a different place.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

I hardly ever post anything I haven't read, and I rarely if ever post anything really lengthy (usually 700-1,000 word columns), but this time I did not read what I posted, the wiki article on jihad. It just went on and on, and I didn't want to be guilty of selective editing. It seemed relevent to insert a reference into this thread.

"curse all of the muslim faith"

Curse? I posted some accurate observations about bad things that are done in its name, acknowledged that there are different voices in that faith, admitted that I don't have the time or interest to sort out whether the bad things are accurate representations of what it is really about, and suggested that those of the faith who contend that the bad things are not accurate representations should "police their movement*." I don't see a curse in there. I do curse specific practices, namely making women second class citizens in a society, and committing murder in the name of a religion. I also stated that I am no fan of religion in general and think we would all be better off without it.

perhaps you should reread what i wrote, and you quoted above. i was not accusing you of cursing all of muslim faith. i was pointing out that this administrations misuse of the word jihad effectively does that. it had nothing to do with you. my beef with you was that you would post such an ungodly long cut and paste, expecting us to read what you wouldn't take the time to read yourself.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, regarding your first post, I could find hundreds of similar passages in the Bible (Old Testament in particular) and Christian theological thought (think Crusades). I could also quote plenty of radical right-wing fundamentalist thinkers and find passages that are just as supportive of using violence in the name of religion. In explaining his decision to invade Iraq, Bush himself stated that, “I’m driven with a mission from God."


Perhaps we hear less about Muslim giving not only because our view of Islam is so limited in this country but because Sadaqat is to be done in private. From a Kashmiri clerical site (Jammu-Kasmir.com): "The Quran in verses 264 and 271 of the second chapter, warns us against spending "to be seen of men". This is false charity. Alms-giving with this motive is worse than not giving away anything at all. In verse 265 God gives a beautiful parable to illustrate the true nature of charity. It is like a field with good soil on a hillside. it catches good showers of rain and the moisture penetrates the soil. The favourable conditions increase in output enormously. So a man of true charity is spiritually healthy. He is the most likely to attract God's bounties. The Quran goes on to give four parables to explain the truly spiritual nature of charity (2:261:206)."

Respectfully,
Neon

Neon - I was very careful to not suggest that there isn't a lot of garbage in the Christian holy book, or that bad things are not done in the name of that faith, including some murders. I was also careful to not deny that many good works are done in the name of Islam.

As I said above, I'm not a fan of religion, period, in part because of what you suggest, that it's possible to do all kinds of horrible things and justify them in the name of some interpretation of a religion.

It is accurate to point out that in the current era a lot more of this sort of thing actually goes on in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity. They both have the potential, and the potential has been realized in both in the past. At the present, the potential is realized much more so in one than in the other. This is generally seen as a result of historical and intellectual processes that have occurred in the Christian world (the post-Reformation wars of religion, and the intellectual reaction to that called the Enlightenment). It is hoped that something similar to the Enlightenment may happen in the Islamic world. But it hasn't yet, and we should be honest about these things.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

TheOlderGuy While I have a fair knowledge of modern Middle Eastern history, I have never seen that map before. It's brilliant! Of course, the difficulty we find ourselves in now that we've made such a mess of Iraq is whether to get out immediately or try to help straighten things out before we leave. We've so badly botched things there, I fear that there is nothing we can do to right things, even with the help of other states in the region (rather than Europeans), who themselves have a strong interest in stabilizing the country. I know, this last is a very remote possibility, even with a Democrat in the White House.

Neon

who knows if it could work? and there probably is no practical way to implement it. as you point out, we have made such a mess of the area, there can be no easy way out of it. one thing that is crystal clear: our presence there will never help them sort out their very complicated history into a future they can all live with.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

perhaps you should reread what i wrote, and you quoted above. i was not accusing you of cursing all of muslim faith. i was pointing out that this administrations misuse of the word jihad effectively does that. it had nothing to do with you. my beef with you was that you would post such an ungodly long cut and paste, expecting us to read what you wouldn't take the time to read yourself.

OK, thanks. It's a fair cop on posting the wiki thing. I will now insert a disclaimer and warning in that post.

 

[cantdog]

Roxy, you answered the wrong question, in some ways. In less detail, the same definition was actually included in the article. Or so I read it, but then, I already knew the definition.

If anyone wants to know how being a muslim is actually done, ask the muslims. I know a couple, one fairly intimately; but failing that, write to the Centre Culturel Islamique in Paris, or any similar place, making a respectful inquiry. I did that, and received by return post a book detailing how one prays, how one sits to pray, how to locate the direction in which to face, what to do about personal cleanliness and ritual cleanness, all the details needed to practice the faith. A manual, as it were, for new converts.

I also suggest a good general history of Islam and the dar al-Islam. I read three, but the best is Hodgson. Individual history works, as for instance of Lebanon or of Turkey, are also useful, later on. The Qur'an is also a good source, although it is a scary little book if you aren't used to reading holy books. The Christians' Bible is no less scary. Hadith is harder to find on the shelves of bookstores, but can certainly be had. Its influence is less literal, but it and the Qur'an are two of the three sources of all the various schools of Islamic law.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxy, you answered the wrong question, in some ways. In less detail, the same definition was actually included in the article. Or so I read it, but then, I already knew the definition.

If anyone wants to know how being a muslim is actually done, ask the muslims. I know a couple, one fairly intimately; but failing that, write to the Centre Culturel Islamique in Paris, or any similar place, making a respectful inquiry. I did that, and received by return post a book detailing how one prays, how one sits to pray, how to locate the direction in which to face, what to do about personal cleanliness and ritual cleanness, all the details needed to practice the faith. A manual, as it were, for new converts.

I also suggest a good general history of Islam and the dar al-Islam. I read three, but the best is Hodgson. Individual history works, as for instance of Lebanon or of Turkey, are also useful, later on. The Qur'an is also a good source, although it is a scary little book if you aren't used to reading holy books. The Christians' Bible is no less scary. Hadith is harder to find on the shelves of bookstores, but can certainly be had. Its influence is less literal, but it and the Qur'an are two of the three sources of all the various schools of Islamic law.

Cant, I don't care how being a Muslim is done. They can do whatever the heck they want. I do care that many individuals commit murder in the name of Islam. I also care a lot that most Islamic societies make women second class citizens, and worse. I'm rather concerned that most muslims don't seem to believe in the separation of church and state. (The Turkey example gives some hope on these issues, but I'm concerned that it is backsliding.)

If some or many Muslims share my outrage and concern on these issues then it's up to them to make changes to how Islam is "done," not me. So it doesn't matter what I think their book really says, and not worth my time to find out.

(Especially since I think all such "what God said" books are nonsense anyway.)

 

[damppanties]

Cant, I don't care how being a Muslim is done. They can do whatever the heck they want. I do care that many individuals commit murder in the name of Islam. I also care a lot that most Islamic societies make women second class citizens, and worse. I'm rather concerned that most muslims don't seem to believe in the separation of church and state. (The Turkey example gives some hope on these issues, but I'm concerned that it is backsliding.)

If some or many Muslims share my outrage and concern on these issues then it's up to them to make changes to how Islam is "done," not me. So it doesn't matter what I think their book really says, and not worth my time to find out.

(Especially since I think all such "what God said" books are nonsense anyway.)

What is the point of stating your beliefs or 'outrage' Roxanne if you're just going to leave it to the muslims to sort themselves out on their own? And please, if you have this anti-religion outlook in general and maybe anti-Islam in particular, then you should know what you're talking about. If you care enough that people are murdering in the name of religion, if you're outraged enough, then educate yourself and educate the world. Don't just sit here and say, oh, they're killing themselves and it's so sad and I am outraged. You cannot be outraged and not care at the same time, they tend to be mutually exclusive.

Women are treated a chattle, Jenn. They have no rights, cannot own land, etc. I do see a certain good thing about muslim women though. Very few join the insurgent terrorists and become suicide bombers.

Tells you something about the size of the male brain in the middle east, don't it??

Um, you mean that the common perception is that women have no rights and cannot own land or are you stating that they can't own land, etc.?

And, yes, the male brain in the middle east is just too full of itself. Shouldn't be. Ignoramuses. Or Ignorami?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What is the point of stating your beliefs or 'outrage' Roxanne if you're just going to leave it to the muslims to sort themselves out on their own? And please, if you have this anti-religion outlook in general and maybe anti-Islam in particular, then you should know what you're talking about. If you care enough that people are murdering in the name of religion, if you're outraged enough, then educate yourself and educate the world. Don't just sit here and say, oh, they're killing themselves and it's so sad and I am outraged. You cannot be outraged and not care at the same time, they tend to be mutually exclusive.

What's the point of me not becoming a scholar of Islam, you ask? It's just an acceptance of reality. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you or I or any other "infidel" thinks the Koran really means. Muslims couldn't care less what we think it means. What matters is what Muslims think it means, at least to the extent that they use it to justify actions that I think are bad, like murder and making women second class citizens. Most Muslims probably don't care that I and many others think that those are bad things, either. But some might.

In particular, some women might care what you and I think and say about this. I have an image of a 14 year old girl somewhere in Saudi Arabia who has stolen onto an internet and is reading this right now. She has no choice about the fact that she been promised to a 60 year old rich man to become his fourth wife. I say to her, and to everyone else who hears my voice: It is wrong to oppress women and make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in Islamic societies. The people in those societies should stop it.

That 14 year old girl knows that my interpretation of the Koran is and irrelevent and always will be so. She may hope that what I and others think and say about the things done in the name of the Koran is relevent, or someday becomes so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"And please, if you have this anti-religion outlook in general and maybe anti-Islam in particular, then you should know what you're talking about."

If we were discussing the Aztec religion that demanded human sacrifice, would you say that I must become an expert on the beliefs of that religion before I can say human sacrifice is wrong, and say that they should stop doing it?

I do have an anti-religion outlook, and the depth of my animus toward any particular religion does vary, depending on the actions done in the name of that religion. My animus toward the Aztec human sacrifice religion would not be affected at all by whether I thought they were being true to the "real meaning" of that religion.

They can all think whatever they want. I care about what they do.

 

[damppanties]

What's the point of me not becoming a scholar of Islam, you ask? It's just an acceptance of reality. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you or I or any other "infidel" thinks the Koran really means. Muslims couldn't care less what we think it means. What matters is what Muslims think it means, at least to the extent that they use it to justify actions that I think are bad, like murder and making women second class citizens. Most Muslims probably don't care that I and many others think that those are bad things, either. But some might.

But a lot of muslims do care how they're viewed by people from other religions and how their relgion is viewed by 'the west', especially in these times. Muslims care about what people think the Quran means, especially when some individuals use it to murder innocents and all of Islam is tarred with the same brush. It matters to them. What I'm trying to say here is that if you're going to indulge in intelligent debate about the religion and how it is used by terrorist or fanatics, the least you could do is educate yourself. Your thinking that such and such thing is a bad thing doesn't matter to people. Who are you? Why would your judgement matter?

In particular, some women might care what you and I think and say about this. I have an image of a 14 year old girl somewhere in Saudi Arabia who has stolen onto an internet and is reading this right now. She has no choice about the fact that she been promised to a 60 year old rich man to become his fourth wife. I say to her, and to everyone else in who hears my voice: It is wrong to oppress women and make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in Islamic societies. The people in those societies should stop it.

That 14 year old girl knows that my interpretation of the Koran is and irrelevent and always will be so. She may hope that what I and others think about the things done in the name of the Koran is relevent, or someday becomes so.

I think you're wrong. This comes across as being morally superior, and nobody needs that. The 14 year old girl is going to come off thinking 'what does this woman know of my life in Saudi Arabia and how I live and where does she come from saying something is wrong?' What makes you the pronouncer of judgements, Roxanne, and why does it matter to people what you think? You say it's wrong and people bow down to your greatness? Where is the greatness? What service are you doing really? How are you helping that girl? You just say what you have to say and leave the fighting to the people in Islamic societies?

If you truly want to help the 14 year old girl reading this, tell her about this hadith -
Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3306:
Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: A woman without a husband has more right to her person than her guardian, and a virgin's consent must be asked from her, and her silence implies her consent.

or this -
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 85 :: Hadith 79
Narrated 'Aisha: I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent."

Your saying that her marriage is wrong is no use whatsoever. What you think is right or wrong has no meaning for anyone else. It is merely your opinion. Educate yourself and educate her. Give her the means to fight her injustice in the way that can be acceptable to the people who're oppressing her in the name of that very religion. If you feel for something, Roxanne, do something for the cause, don't merely hand out moral judgements or subjective opinions.

And if your 14 year old girl could get herself to the net and read these lines on a porn site, she could also surf or google for women's rights in islam and then she wouldn't need your or my interpretation but would have the real thing as stated in the original text, abused or not.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But a lot of muslims do care how they're viewed by people from other religions and how their relgion is viewed by 'the west', especially in these times. Muslims care about what people think the Quran means, especially when some individuals use it to murder innocents and all of Islam is tarred with the same brush. It matters to them. What I'm trying to say here is that if you're going to indulge in intelligent debate about the religion and how it is used by terrorist or fanatics, the least you could do is educate yourself. Your thinking that such and such thing is a bad thing doesn't matter to people. Who are you? Why would your judgement matter?

There are contradictions here. They care what I think their religion really says, even though I don't believe in their religion. But they don't care if I think that murder or oppression committed in the name of religion is wrong.

I think you're wrong (to condemn the oppression of women done in the name of Islam.) This comes across as being morally superior, and nobody needs that. The 14 year old girl is going to come off thinking 'what does this woman know of my life in Saudi Arabia and how I live and where does she come from saying something is wrong?' What makes you the pronouncer of judgements, Roxanne, and why does it matter to people what you think? You say it's wrong and people bow down to your greatness? Where is the greatness? What service are you doing really? How are you helping that girl? You just say what you have to say and leave the fighting to the people in Islamic societies?

I have bumped the "Status of women in Islam today's great moral challenge?" thread which wrestles with these very questions.

You condemn me for "coming across as morally superior" when I say that it is wrong to oppress women. Are you saying that this view is morally equivalent to one asserting that it is not wrong to oppress women?

You say that the 14 year old girl who reads my words is not helped by my words. I have no power to change that girl's awful situation, but if she thinks what has been done to her is unjust I can at least tell her she is right, and reassure her that she is not alone in thinking this. I have no ability to "fight for the people in Islamic societies" insofar as I believe that half of them are subjected to injustice, except for one thing: I can bear witness that it is wrong to oppress women, and those societies should stop doing it.

Do you really think that doing so is meaningless? You may be right in this instance, but you are not necessarily right. Sometimes it makes a great difference for people to say that a thing is wrong. Mostly it makes a difference when many people do so, but it starts with one, or a few. That is how slavery was abolished in Britain, and how legal discrimination on the basis of race was ended in the U.S. There were many then who said to the abolitionists or the freedom riders, "What makes you the pronouncer of judgements, and why does it matter to people what you think?"

 

[damppanties]

There are contradictions here. They care what I think their religion really says, even though I don't believe in their religion. But they don't care if I think that murder or oppression committed in the name of religion is wrong.

You don't have to believe in the religion. But to condemn the religion because of what some extremists are doing in the name of Islam is not fair. Muslims care about how people view them and their religion, because at this time, that religion has come to define a person. You're Muslim? Ok, you're a jihadi or a terrorist, a murder, backward, fanatic, stupid, mindless follower... so many things go with being a Muslim. The people, the true followers need people of other faiths to know what Islam is before passing these judgements and being branded because of what a few outspoken individuals are doing in the name of their religion.

I get the feeling you feel Islam is backward and gives people the permission to cut and kill. I just want you to research before you say something like that. For instance, did you know the Quran says "(Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper." (4:79, 80), and "There is no compulasion in religion..." (2:256), or "And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith." (17:53, 54)? This site is a pretty interesting read about the perceived violence present in Islam.

As to the last sentence in the quote from you, what Muslims do not care about is whether you pronounce murder or opression as wrong. Here, the practice being wrong is not being debated. It is wrong, definitely. But your saying it matters not one bit, in my opinion.

Rest of it the post shifted to the Status of Women thread as I think it fits better there.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You don't have to believe in the religion. But to condemn the religion because of what some extremists are doing in the name of Islam is not fair. Muslims care about how people view them and their religion, because at this time, that religion has come to define a person. You're Muslim? Ok, you're a jihadi or a terrorist, a murder, backward, fanatic, stupid, mindless follower... so many things go with being a Muslim. The people, the true followers need people of other faiths to know what Islam is before passing these judgements and being branded because of what a few outspoken individuals are doing in the name of their religion.

I get the feeling you feel Islam is backward and gives people the permission to cut and kill. I just want you to research before you say something like that.

I've been pretty careful to specify that I am talking about what is done in the name of Islam. It seems clear that one can find passages in all the texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam and Christianity that give people permission to cut and kill. To repeat, I don't care or need to know what the texts say to make judgements about the actions they are used to justify, just like I don't need to know the tenets of Aztec religion to make judgements about human sacrifices done its name. If the Islamic faithful don't what like non-believers think about Islam because of the bad things done in its name, they are the ones who are in position and who have a responsibility to stop that from happening, not me or anyone else on the outside.

I too now carry this over and respond to the rest of your post in the status of women thread.

 

[cantdog]

Cant, I don't care how being a Muslim is done. They can do whatever the heck they want. I do care that many individuals commit murder in the name of Islam. I also care a lot that most Islamic societies make women second class citizens, and worse. I'm rather concerned that most muslims don't seem to believe in the separation of church and state. (The Turkey example gives some hope on these issues, but I'm concerned that it is backsliding.)

If some or many Muslims share my outrage and concern on these issues then it's up to them to make changes to how Islam is "done," not me. So it doesn't matter what I think their book really says, and not worth my time to find out.

(Especially since I think all such "what God said" books are nonsense anyway.)

I don't care how being a Christian is done. They can do whatever the heck they want. I do care that many individuals commit murder in the name of Christ. I also care a lot that most Christian societies make women second class citizens, and worse. I'm rather concerned that most Christians don't seem to believe in the separation of church and state.

If some or many Christians share my outrage and concern on these issues then it's up to them to make changes to how Christianity is practiced, not me. (Especially since I think all such "what God said" books are nonsense anyway.)

And so on.

But the fact is that members of all such religions seem very willing to kill non-members. They outnumber you, Roxanne. Something does indeed have to be done to minimize that. In 1789, perhaps, one could have listed Somalia and Afghanistan as places where, whatever happened, it couldn't conceivably affect the security of the United States. In the last generation, we have sent troops there, it was so vital. Ignoring the problem is no longer feasible; we left an isolationist path long ago.

You position yourself, here, as an angry spark, on the sidelines. But others may wish to become more knowledgeable and engage the problem. I think it a citizen's duty to become informed enough to make good decisions.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't care how being a Christian is done. They can do whatever the heck they want. I do care that many individuals commit murder in the name of Christ. I also care a lot that most Christian societies make women second class citizens, and worse. I'm rather concerned that most Christians don't seem to believe in the separation of church and state.

If some or many Christians share my outrage and concern on these issues then it's up to them to make changes to how Christianity is practiced, not me. (Especially since I think all such "what God said" books are nonsense anyway.)

And so on.

But the fact is that members of all such religions seem very willing to kill non-members. They outnumber you, Roxanne. Something does indeed have to be done to minimize that. In 1789, perhaps, one could have listed Somalia and Afghanistan as places where, whatever happened, it couldn't conceivably affect the security of the United States. In the last generation, we have sent troops there, it was so vital. Ignoring the problem is no longer feasible; we left an isolationist path long ago.

You position yourself, here, as an angry spark, on the sidelines. But others may wish to become more knowledgeable and engage the problem. I think it a citizen's duty to become informed enough to make good decisions.

The first part of your post is very cute, but doesn't prove a thing. I addressed this in post No. 38:

"It is accurate to point out that in the current era a lot more of this sort of thing actually goes on in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity. They both have the potential, and the potential has been realized in both in the past. At the present, the potential is realized much more so in one than in the other. This is generally seen as a result of historical and intellectual processes that have occurred in the Christian world (the post-Reformation wars of religion, and the intellectual reaction to that called the Enlightenment). It is hoped that something similar to the Enlightenment may happen in the Islamic world. But it hasn't yet, and we should be honest about these things."

That said, to the extent there are Christians who have not accepted the Enlightenment, and there are, I agree with you.

On the second part of your post, how informed do I need to be to know that oppressing women is wrong, and murder committed in the name of a religion is wrong? I addressed this above in the analogy using Aztec human sacrifice, and in in post No. 62 in "status of women" thread:

"In probably half the Muslim world the status of women is very bad. In most of the rest it is not good. Only in a few places is it not bad. The oppression of women in Islamic societies is so widespread that it is impossible to say that it is the work of minority. The violence done in Islam's name is the work of a minority, but there is plenty of evidence showing that it is supported by a signifigant portion of the population in many Islamic nations. This is context that matters.

"There seems to be an undercurrent that says we shouldn't point these things out or talk about them, because that would somehow be "insensitive." I am not oblivious to the danger in pointing these things out, that doing so can be used by yahoos and demagogs to persecute. That is not sufficient reason to shut up about the existance of injustice, though, or pretend that it is not real, and extremely widespread."