Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
So I am an Islamophobe
This forum is lacking in some good discussion, so as usual, I am willing to provide some.
My last thread on Islam strayed away from what I intended. It ended up turning into a debate on economics. But that's ok. This thread, I intend to talk about nothing but Islam.
This word is used quite frequently in the media today. People who criticize Islam like myself are accused of being intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant. If I say that the burqa is an oppressive instrument against women, I am called Islamophobe. If I say that Muhammed was a barborous war lord, I am Islamophobic.
So I am going to be honest. Yes, I am an Islamophobe. I fear the principles and culture of Islam. I am not 'anti-Muslim.' In fact, I believe that no one suffers more from Islam than Muslims themselves. Especially the women.
So to begin my critique, it seems only fair that we start with the source of this oppression; Muhammed.
No, Muhammed was not some hippie who walked around in sandals and told people to turn the other cheek. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was a savage barbarian and murderer. We should expect the last prophet of God to be a morally upstanding man. Not a sexual deviant who marries 9 year olds.
Founders of a so called "peaceful religion" should NOT pillage, assassinate, and massacre, nor should they be pedophiles.
So as if this barbarian were not enough, he left a book behind; which if taken as seriously as it is meant to be, even makes Fundamentalist Christians cringe. The champions of tolerance in the West who claim that Islam is a religion of peace are just plain ignorant of its texts. One can hardly read through a page of the Koran without encountering some grim future for the unbelievers, or a call to violence against non-Muslims.
If indeed the overwhelming wave of fanatical killing (often suicide) in the name of Islam is rooted in politics or economics, surely we would find such violence elsewhere. Although I too have criticized Buddhism, it is just too blatant not to ask...where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? Why aren't monks blowing up bus loads of people in China right now. Undoubtedly, the Tibetans have suffered far more under Chinese rule than any Muslim country has in recent times.
The answer is simple; Tibetan Buddhism, no matter how superstitious it may come across, just does not lend itself easily to suicide murder. One will find it very difficult to twist any passages of the Dhammapada or other texts to justify such actions.
And the same could be said of the Jains. The more one becomes deluded by Jain philosophy, the more peaceful they actually become and the less violent they will be.
We need only look to the recent failed attacks of Glasgow Airport to put the argument from economics to rest. These would be terrorists were not troubled youths or impoverished immigrants. On the contrary, these were well distinguished, respectable doctors! One of the most prestigious jobs modern society has to offer. So if their motives were not religious, what were they?
So even if you just can't agree with me on the degrees of peacefulness, I would be surprised, no appalled, if you did not agree that the Arab world severely degrades women with its current culture.
-Women must completely cover their faces
-Women may not drive
-Women may not be in public without being accompanied by a male figure.
It is not racist of me to say that Saudi Arabia is a backwards place and about 1400 years behind the times in light of the horrible disregard of female dignity.
If this were not bad enough though, the feminists of the West, these so called 'champions of women's rights' remain almost completely silent on the matter. That's right! The same language purists who are offended at the use of the word 'mankind' and enraged by teenage boys with suggestive pictures of girls, are seemingly unconcerned with the travesty of human rights in the Arab world. I don't understand why!
But don't just take the word of some disgruntled Westerner like myself, ask the people who have actually experienced Islam. Ayann Hirsi Ali, perhaps my greatest hero, suffered unimaginable horrors as a Somali Muslim woman. She is now one of the fiercest critics in the West of Islam.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm
Here are a few people that might find the conjecture of a "peaceful religion" at the very least, objectionable.
My last thread on Islam strayed away from what I intended. It ended up turning into a debate on economics. But that's ok. This thread, I intend to talk about nothing but Islam.
This word is used quite frequently in the media today. People who criticize Islam like myself are accused of being intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant. If I say that the burqa is an oppressive instrument against women, I am called Islamophobe. If I say that Muhammed was a barborous war lord, I am Islamophobic.
So I am going to be honest. Yes, I am an Islamophobe. I fear the principles and culture of Islam. I am not 'anti-Muslim.' In fact, I believe that no one suffers more from Islam than Muslims themselves. Especially the women.
So to begin my critique, it seems only fair that we start with the source of this oppression; Muhammed.
No, Muhammed was not some hippie who walked around in sandals and told people to turn the other cheek. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was a savage barbarian and murderer. We should expect the last prophet of God to be a morally upstanding man. Not a sexual deviant who marries 9 year olds.
Founders of a so called "peaceful religion" should NOT pillage, assassinate, and massacre, nor should they be pedophiles.
So as if this barbarian were not enough, he left a book behind; which if taken as seriously as it is meant to be, even makes Fundamentalist Christians cringe. The champions of tolerance in the West who claim that Islam is a religion of peace are just plain ignorant of its texts. One can hardly read through a page of the Koran without encountering some grim future for the unbelievers, or a call to violence against non-Muslims.
If indeed the overwhelming wave of fanatical killing (often suicide) in the name of Islam is rooted in politics or economics, surely we would find such violence elsewhere. Although I too have criticized Buddhism, it is just too blatant not to ask...where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? Why aren't monks blowing up bus loads of people in China right now. Undoubtedly, the Tibetans have suffered far more under Chinese rule than any Muslim country has in recent times.
The answer is simple; Tibetan Buddhism, no matter how superstitious it may come across, just does not lend itself easily to suicide murder. One will find it very difficult to twist any passages of the Dhammapada or other texts to justify such actions.
And the same could be said of the Jains. The more one becomes deluded by Jain philosophy, the more peaceful they actually become and the less violent they will be.
We need only look to the recent failed attacks of Glasgow Airport to put the argument from economics to rest. These would be terrorists were not troubled youths or impoverished immigrants. On the contrary, these were well distinguished, respectable doctors! One of the most prestigious jobs modern society has to offer. So if their motives were not religious, what were they?
So even if you just can't agree with me on the degrees of peacefulness, I would be surprised, no appalled, if you did not agree that the Arab world severely degrades women with its current culture.
-Women must completely cover their faces
-Women may not drive
-Women may not be in public without being accompanied by a male figure.
It is not racist of me to say that Saudi Arabia is a backwards place and about 1400 years behind the times in light of the horrible disregard of female dignity.
If this were not bad enough though, the feminists of the West, these so called 'champions of women's rights' remain almost completely silent on the matter. That's right! The same language purists who are offended at the use of the word 'mankind' and enraged by teenage boys with suggestive pictures of girls, are seemingly unconcerned with the travesty of human rights in the Arab world. I don't understand why!
But don't just take the word of some disgruntled Westerner like myself, ask the people who have actually experienced Islam. Ayann Hirsi Ali, perhaps my greatest hero, suffered unimaginable horrors as a Somali Muslim woman. She is now one of the fiercest critics in the West of Islam.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm
Here are a few people that might find the conjecture of a "peaceful religion" at the very least, objectionable.
0
Comments
I just know from personal experience that negativity breeds negativity, and that one should lay aside all divisive talk, prejudice, judgement and intolerance, and practise instead - in the Now - the qualities of Compassion, all-embracing acceptance and Love.
Talk of these - and repeated, emphatic talk of these - will eventually turn even the most hardened heart even a fraction of a degree. But even if that fraction is all that is possible, then that fraction is of a mighty importance.
That's just my view, anyway.
Just as people did not 'accept' Apartheid. We did not 'accept' instituted segregation, slavery, or the Nuremburg defense of the Nazi leaders.
In the same way, we should not 'accept' the horrible treatment of women in the Islamic world.
To call Muhammed a pedophile in any discussion is simply a provocative and unfair act, I think. It might make the accuser feel more important, though, if he believes a great man is a worse man than himself. I guess there might be some consolation in such thinking for the little man.
To hold a medieval man accountable for certain modern sensibilities is simply unjust. The affairs of the heart cannot fairly be judged long-distance and over the centuries. That can only be caricaturing and persnicketeering. A loving heart would not take part in this ugly business.
Muhammed was a good and loving man who moved thousands to be better people. He was no Adolph Hitler or Jack the Ripper.
SO, the Muslim world has a lot of icky people doing icky things. Well, it's a naughty world, isn't it?
What about "Us Christians?" We've made a horrible mess ourselves, but I'm not gonna pin the blame on Jesus Christ.
Even if there were someone in some religious tradition I'd like to blame, I'd not do so for fear of hurting the hearts of those who are brought up in that tradition. I'd rather be in dialogue with them than turn them against any possibility of conversation by virtue of my having taken such a hostile stand against THEM [in effect].
I liked what our good friend Federica said above and I concur completely.
Venting frustations with other peoples religions simply has no place in the modern world, save in the stand-up comedy act. Poking gentle fun can be very healthy (However, one must KNOW one's audience.).
My prayer is that people will turn off their attitude and understand there's gotta be about 6 billion ways of seeing things and that we're all in the same sinking ship.
Sure, the atrocities of Christians and Muslims have been reprehensible. But Jesus was quite adamant in word and deed against violence, no matter how badly people have done trying to mirror his image. If you read the Koran and Hadith, you will not find it hard to justify 9/11 and murder of unbelievers.
I don't know where this image of a kind, gentle Christ-like Muhammed comes from. His deeds clearly indicate differently, if not the opposite.
Would you really be willing to tell a veiled Arab woman that? Or a 19th century slave who's masters were completely justified by scripture? "Ya, you know Jim. It is all nice and noble of you to run away from your slave masters, but I'm afraid that the Bible condones slavery"...."What? That's hogwash you say? Well now Jim, you should know that venting frustrations with other peoples' religions, no matter how unenlightened they are, is just plain rude and has no place in our culture. Have you considered stand up?"
I could exchange a few words, make it about a rebellious veiled, Muslim woman and show the equal absurdity.
Just why is it that we are not allowed to criticize religion? Surely, had I made this thread a critique of George Bush and his war (it would not be difficult), my liberal audience here would have first off agreed, and second of all, you all would have no qualms with my ridiculing a political ideology. There is nothing harmful about verbal ridicule of institutions, individuals, or ideologies.
This is my fundamental problem with the mainstream liberal approach to religion. What is really causing more harm? My harmless criticism of a philosophy or the complete and total sexual and cultural oppression of women?
My problem with Islam stretches beyond simple philosophical disagreements or distaste. I am viewing this as an issue of human rights. The West seems totally unconcerned with the awful disdain for free speech, press, and the maltreatment of women in the Islamic world.
Just remember that I appear quite meager in my criticism of Islam when compared to most apostates that leave the faith.
You are mistaken, my young friend. Not only have I studied the history and culture of Islam on the collegiate level, but have known several Muslims. And I am not totally ignorant of the life of Muhammed either, although no one can seriously contend he knows that life well. The ahadith are mainly what is left, and they are rich.
You are too emotional about the whole subject and condemning of a whole class of people, but to call their Prophet a pedophile is just wrong and mean-spirited. That is my main objection to your argument. Discussing one's objections to the religious practices of others in the right context and to a safe audience is not wrong, but to hurl false and incendiary statements is not at all OK.
I prefer the flexibility of the Bahai to the rigidity of a Muslim, but know that I have to accept people where they are if I am to be able to communicate with them. Life is too short to be making issues all the time and there's too much other stuff going on for most people really to make sense of things. But we must be forbearing and kind to all.
As for the warlike qualities, well: Muhammed didn't start that. He was attacked and attacked and attacked. Also, the times were different and there was this mentality that wrongdoers deserve to die. Well, excuse me, it's 2007 and there are still a lot of people even in this Christian country who still think that way, and many, many, many, many more that are wired that way emotionally, so please don't cross them!
Reality is one thing and our thinking quite another. Let's not identify with our thoughts, but with the beauty that resides within and without.
Are you back in school? Get heavy into the sciences for a while.
Be Good.
Nirvy
So I'm not really wrong I think is what you are getting at. We aren't really debating whether Muhammed wedded a 9 year old, we are arguing whether we can contextually call it immoral by our standards. I say we can and I believe that if such leaders as Muhammed, Jesus, and the Buddha, cannot withstand the test of time and the ever changing moral zeitgeist, they are not worthy of our admiration and obedience.
Well obviously the theology is skewed to begin with. If God allowed his last prophet to marry a 9 year old girl, he must have known full well in is omniscience that the Prophet would be viewed as a pedophile in the future. Strange god. By the way, I picked up that from the apostates as cited above.
But my main focus is still on the issue of women's rights, a point that has yet to be countered. This is probably so because there is no good, solid, cultural, or religious reason for the oppression of women. Islam just does not lend itself easily to progressive rights for women. Of course, many point to Turkey as such a place of progress, but it is only the slim minority of secular Turks that are the voices of reason in separating religion from the state over there.
O YES, YOU ARE WRONG about Muhammed and inciting of negative reactions. If I were to call Jesus a Queer because he never married and had intimate relations with the beloved Disciple I would be equally blameworthy.
But your whole approach, KoB is both humourless and hate-filled.
So you're an expert on human relations in all places at all times, are you?
What about Sri Ramakrishna's marriage to a very young girl? The fact that marriages in those societies were basically about PROTECTION and alliance of families is then totally beside the point, because we see marriage differently? The fact that the relationship between Sarada Devi and Sri Ramakrishna was totally Platonic is also irrelevant?
And whether one calls the Muslims a group or a class, it really ought not to be a semantic hoopla. The PRIMARY meaning of "class," right from the dictionary, is: 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.
As for the treatment of women, the West is no great Saviour, either. There's still not equal pay, the ERA never went through, and a woman who falls in the mud still is stained forever, but not so a man who does... There have been great strides made by women just during my lifespan, and now my beloved Episcopal Church USA now has a female Presiding Bishop, but half the Anglican World seems to be up in arms about things like that. Last time I checked, Anglicans are not beholden to Muhammed, PBUH.
Now's your turn, KoB. But mind your manners, take a lot more Science, get a sense of humour, and leave God's good people alone.
Don't take things so seriously. They're not gonna change due to your uncompromising stance.
Once again, I am still at a loss. What is so hate filled about disagreement? Why is religion so untouchable where we have to be unquestionably respectful even to the most ridiculous and damaging of doctrines?
What have I said or done that is hateful? I am not calling for violence against Muslims. I am not telling people to blow themselves up. I am simply call for free thought and a little awareness about this atrocious injustice towards women.
I would like to challenge the part about equal pay with women. Just where are women payed less simply based on gender? I am talking about a woman who has the same exact job as a man. Where is there unequal pay? (I assume we are speaking about America here)
And the reason the ERA did not ratify was not because of some male chauvinism or hatred of women. No, it failed to pass because people thought it was only reiterating what was previously stated in the civil rights amendments. It would have been redundant and unnecessary.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe Islam has some kind of monopoly on the mistreatment of women, but I do believe it is severely lagging behind with its unenlightened disdain for women in general.
And while the West has not always been the beacon of decency, at least our women are allowed to show their faces. They are allowed to drive. They are allowed to be alone without the protection of a man.
You mean ignore one of the most horrible, longstanding afflictions against women? Sorry, but no thanks. I'm sure 18th century abolitionists toyed with that same idea. "Well, you know, we are a pretty stubborn bunch and while slavery isn't a good thing, we aren't going to end it with our uncompromising stance. So let's just give up."
This is absurd. And yes, I am being uncompromising. I'm not willing to cut a bargain when it comes to human rights. The burqa is just plain intolerable to any decent person. Forcing people to completely conceal their faces? Well I may not be an expert on human rights, but I have this cooky inkling that forcing women to cover their faces is a total violation of human dignity.
*One more thing I should address. At school, I employ a very good sense of humor. But there are issues that I feel very passionate about and simply can't ignore. And I don't think genuine 'good people of God' would force women into this kind of social servitude either.
Knight of Buddha, SIR:
Discussing problems with religious theories, practices, and the like is not an untouchable matter at all, but RELIGION IS a very TOUCHY thing. Therefore, although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with looking for and using strong ad hominem arguments against the founders of a particular religion, it is certainly wrong to do so if the arguments use strong unprovable, tenuous charges with emotionally-charged words such as pedophile or Queer or Murderer or Whore or what-have-you. When that happens, Destructive Religious Activity is going on and, yes, IT IS HATEFUL TO BE SO HATEFUL. Period.
I'd like to take this discussion to a higher level, Kind Sir (You really are kind, you know. It's the loving consciousness innate in you, now just a bit clouded by resentment of some others.)
Why do you identify so with this "Islamophobe" thing going on in your mind? Don't you realize that this "Identity Thing" is the very Crux of all our anti-social problems? If the Muslims didn't strive so much to identify themselves as Muslims, would that not solve most of the serious problems in their world that you recount? I mean, most problems that remained would just be people problems, not religious ones. A man, if he were to subjugate a woman, would be doing it for some other reason than religious tradition, and so on.
The Sanatana Dharma of the Hindus, the Dharma of the Buddha, and the Logos of the Christ all show a way out from this Identity-seeking and Identity-building, and teach us the truth that all people are drowning in confusion, greed, misery, and delusion until they realize that their true identity is with the Eternal.
In truth there really is no such thing as the truly substantive (NOUN & ADJECTIVE), but all is ENERGY (VERB, ADVERB, CONJUNCTION, ...) The Substantive is not truly abiding, but is ephemeral and unreal. Therefore, in short, we must identify with the SOURCE (Latin: AUTHOR) of our Being if we are to be who we really are. Sure, enjoy the substantial where you can, but don't give harsh judgment on others, because then you miss the point that it's really all the AUTHOR's play.
Therefore, to call people NAMES is to treat them as Things and, more precisely, things to be eliminated —although even an Apple is just a temporary phase or ACTIVITY.
Nay, people, ALL PEOPLE deserve to be treated as THOUs, not (third-person) things. Second Person, please! Interactions can go on. Things can change. Wonderful things can happen. People can change their minds, their plans, their lives. Nothing really static there unless you fortify their current stance with defiance. Then reaction sets in, and defiance on their part; hostility grows, violence breeds. Bombs are built...
Lighten up and let everyone else lighten up their own burdens. A released burden is a pure joy and that day will come for all. The world has had countless Saviours and still it's a mess. Life is in chains, straining to break free. That is what life is. Our very bodies are a prison to the gravity of this planet.
It is only by lightening up and comforting the burdens of others through love that we are set free to build the friendships that sustain our hope, our courage, and our drive to be better people. When we summarily dismiss whole groups of people from our circle of friendship we become the biggest losers in the world.
For myself, with my Christian background, I honour the Saints and Sages of all times and places, including Muhammed (PBUH), perhaps an unlikely Prophet (as was Jesus of Nazareth and Saul of Tarsus and Moses from the Rushes, and Old Abraham and Sarah, ...), but still True. It hurts my heart for anyone to call that Holy Man a pedophile and I take great exception to it, knowing how enraged the good people at a Southern Baptist Convention would be if I were to go in there with good credentials claiming, "Jesus Christ was a Queer."
As I said above, the affairs of the heart cannot fairly be judged cross-cultures and over 14 centuries. Plus, the whole Muslim idea of Paradise at that time was a garden overflowing with fresh delights, and what could be more delightful than a young girl? The marriage was one of protection and whatever else was entailed was not a scandal or really even an issue. And it was certainly a different world...
But enough on all of this. If this is to be my last entry on this thread, I'd like to sign off saying that I have nothing but the profoundest respect and admiration for Muhammed and I hope that in the future the Muslim world will not take him as seriously as you take him, dear Knight of Buddha. Believe me, world peace depends on that!!!!!
But theories, practices, and the lot ARE religion. Religious practices should not be tolerated blindly, they should be respected as far as they deserve to be respected. Once they cross the line on human rights, become oppressive, or fail to be relevant, the only thing they deserve is to be criticized, or even discarded completely as have the religions that thrive on human sacrifice.
If I look back into history at the Mayan civilization, I see one of superstition and horror. Many of the high priests of the time WERE murderers due to their love of human sacrifice. Is it intolerant of me to call them murderers? Hateful even? Clearly, one could argue that I cannot fairly judge these high priests because of the time span and the changing moral zeitgeist. But the fact remains, by today's most conservative or liberal standards, these men were greedy criminals and murderers.
To continue to banter on the validity of crimes or lack of crimes from centuries ago is I think really to miss the point here. My main bone to pick with Islam again is what I see to be the horrible treatment of women. The complete disrespect for human dignity. For some reason, you seem to be much more offended by my provocative language than by the real, tangible oppression of a whole culture of women.
You mentioned earlier how the West lagged behind with progress, and to a point I agree. But you said how troubling it was that women in the US do not have equal pay. I am confused by this. I mean, regardless of whether or not this is the case, why are you troubled by it? You find that to be unenlightened but have not leveled one complaint against the treatment of women in the Arab world. In fact, I am lead to believe that you wish for me to 'respect' such traditions and cultures.
I simply cannot do this. Because as I believe Plato once said, "If you pardon one offense, you allow for the commission of many more."
There's a thousand thousand wrongs done by our cities and towns and states and national governments every year, and you pardon all these offenses by your silence? We live in a democracy, so speak out on things that you can affect. Thousands of gallons of untreated sewage poured into our rivers and lakes and oceans every hour by U.S. cities and towns, and you want ME to address human meanness half-way around the world in countries I am not even welcome in, let alone likely to have the least impact on? Get real!
STOP BEING ANTI- this and ANTI- that and leave classes of people you don't have any understanding of alone.
Do you think that I am moved by the sight of thousands of people in white robes prostrating themselves down on the ground in submission to some great power? Well, I'm not. I find it more than scary to see so many bow down their minds. It seems rather fascist to me, not spiritual. To see a lone person do it would be moving, because that's where I see the spirit moving. A mob is a mob is a mob, regardless of what "nice thing" they might be capable of doing for a few minutes.
That said, there is also the possibility of a lot of GOOD coming from any idealogy or faith if there doesn't always have to be a tedious fight every other minute. I'd ruther the thousands bowed down in submission to Allah saw a world that welcomed them than one that opposed them. ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT. Respect is not something that can be given once and for all. No, it is rather like RAPPORT: you have to work on it all the time. Therefore, use respectful language and put forth friendly gestures.
But above all, if your mood does not allow you to engage in constructive dialogue, you cannot be part of any solution and are, therefore, part of the problem.
AMEN.
I have strong feelings about the abuse of women in the Arab world, as KOB describes it so well. I've often found the need to pull back when confronted with this reality in order to get back onto the middle path where black and white views do not exist. I have to remind myself that what looks like a hell realm to me is also an old religious culture followed by billions of people of which I have no direct experience whatsoever. It's easy for me, a privileged, white, Western woman, to become outraged at the thought of what I consider to be intolerable, violent misogyny. There have been times in the past when I got so worked up over it I wanted to confront every male responsible for its perpetuation and smack them silly.
But a few years ago I was watching a socio-political discussion on PBS regarding this very subject and a well respected Western feminist writer pointed out that a bunch of privileged Western women full of outrage could hardly march into the Arab world and force Western feminist ideals upon an entrenched male dominated religious culture. It was a far more delicate situation than that. For one thing, does one group ever have the right to force their own ideals upon another? Isn't there a deep Western arrogance inherent in this kind of thinking? Furthermore, changes to male dominated cultures take time, decades, even centuries. It's taken almost a century to gain political personhood for women in our own culture, and we weren't behind the veil when the movement started.
Any change has to come from Muslims themselves, not Westerners trying to impose our own cultural ideals upon them. Western women can certainly serve as examples of those who have had to fight for basic political, social and medical rights and we can certainly help when invited. But to disrespect a massive religious culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be to us, would be futile and would most likely cause more harm than good.
I agree with you, KOB. I believe the treatment of women in the Muslim world is based upon the fear and hatred of women and I view it as intolerable when filtered through my Western eyes and sensibilities. But age has mellowed me when it comes to issues like these and has made it easier for me to find my way back to the middle path.
I believe that change in the Muslim nations is inevitable in our ever shrinking world. The relative isolation of the Muslim world is becoming a thing of the past and as more and more young Muslims come into contact with cultures other than their own things will undoubtedly improve for women in that culture. There is nothing static about human civilizations. They, like everything else, are constantly changing, constantly in a state of becoming. There is an ebb and flow to all things great and small and I rarely get my knickers in a twist over these matters anymore.
Change is the nature of existence and will be so even for the Muslim world. In the meantime, we can offer our support and advice if solicited and take comfort in the knowledge that human society on this planet has greatly improved over the last few centuries. But progress is not an ever forward march. It's often three steps forward and two steps back. There are backlashes in reaction to liberalization as we see in fundamentalist groups in America as well as in the Arab nations. But these extremes are like a rubber band pulled taut and the energy to maintain this pressure is ultimately unsustainable.
That's my two cents.
Bravo, dear Brigid! Thanks for your interest in this "monologue," and for helping to turn it into a dialogue. You may not share my sense of outrage at destructive religious activity, but I assure you that I share your sentiments on the Muslim treatment of women and how it is bound to change for the better in the near future.
Devotedly,
Nirvy
No. Blowing myself up and killing civilians is 'destructive religious activity.' Oppressing women behind a veil is 'destructive religious activity.' Killing anyone else who does not worship the same invisible man as you is 'destructive religious activity'. Criticizing a man who lived 1400 years ago is not.
Those are matters of the environment. They can exist regardless of whether human beings are treated with respect or not. But I believe basic human dignity has far more precedent than a polluted river or lake. Humans come first in my eyes.
I am anti-slavery and anti-fascist. I don't have the deepest understanding for someone who is a fascist or why they are that way, but I am opposed to them none the less because they too seek to limit the freedoms of people. I feel the same way towards Muslim governments that oppress women. I don't necessarily understand their motives completely for doing so, but if it restricts the most basic dignity of a person, I'm against it.
I agree.
I agree. This includes being allowed the dignity to show your face in public.
To Brigid,
I agree. The only true change that will ever occur in the Arabic world can only come from the Muslims themselves. Already, there is a small, but growing movement in Asia Minor from Secular Turks who wish their government to be separate from religion. The only thing we can do as westerners is to express our support and have debates and arguments like this one.
There is no 'war on terror.' Terror is just a tactic. It is a war of ideas and a war of cultures. Whether in 50 years or 500 years, I believe that someday in the Arab world, human dignity and rights will prevail.
KoB, I hope you're not as unversed in history as these words of yours suggest you might be. Look up ATTATURK and see that secularism is nothing new in Turkey but has been there BY LAW since the 1920s.
Accusing someone of pedophilia is one of the worst things you can accuse someone of. I can think of no worse fate for anyone I love than to be accused of such and the charge somehow sticking. You are just blind and stubborn on this point. Justice demands fairness and you are not in the least interested in that, it seems. Muhammed is not here to defend himself and you are being very unkind to someone you never met or harmed you in any way.
Also, I am not going to dwell on the many instances of human exploitation in this democracy, but suffice it to say that there are many. My point in just broaching misdeeds done by our lot LEGALLY to ecological systems that cannot even speak up for themselves, as opposed to people (who can) is lost on a seeming closed mind.
No, blowing yourself up and killing civilians is a depraved and desperate act and not destructive religious activity, in that it does not pick and choose so selectively as you might be suggesting. Oppressing women and keeping them veiled is inhibitive and unfortunate, but not destructive religious activity. Killing people is murder, not destructive religious activity. Both very hot and steamy weather on the one hand, and a hurricane, on the other, are adverse climatic conditions, but not all adverse climatic conditions are hurricanes. I don't understand your logic. To call a Saint a heinous sinner is a bad thing, but to do so when millions of people's lives are based on his teachings is just acting as a criminal. A criminal has no respect for the property of others, just what benefit he can get from it. Just so a slanderer, no respect for the good opinion of others, which is their property, but just for the advantages he may wrest from his false accusations.
In Germany it is a Crime to deny the holocaust publicly. I know that would not pass Constitutional muster here in the USA, but that's our loss. The founders of this constitutional democracy meant, by the first amendment, the freedom to speak the truth, to print the truth, and to practise the religion that one felt called to follow. Understood in the law is the right of people to sue for libel where the truth is a casualty that affects them.
You seem to be unaware of the tradition of the ahadith, or sayings, of Muhammed and the important role they play in the everyday lives of millions of Muslims worldwide. Now, to the extent Muhammed's words still live, so Muhammed still lives. Therefore, it is completely dismissive and inconsiderate language when you say: "Criticizing a man who lived 1400 years ago is not [destructive religious activity.]"
I must say, Knight of Buddha, however much I enjoy exchanging these ideas, I am beginning to start losing respect for you. This is unfortunate, and if you can't recant, would you please give it a rest?
As for me, I can't believe how recalcitrant some people can be when you don't praise their every word. Well, I feel very strongly about this wrong that is being perpetrated by so many.
To be a good and holy person, one must weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. St. Paul, Romans 12:13b-21:
And, from Bernard Clairvaux:
Observe what you are, that you are wretched indeed, and so learn to be merciful, a thing you cannot know in any other way. For if you regard your neighbour’s faults but do not observe your own, you are likely to be moved not to ruth but to wrath, not to condole but to con¬demn, not to restore in the spirit of meekness (GAL 6:1)... by considering yourself... how easily tempted, how liable to sin... you grow meek, and thus you come to succour others in the spirit of meekness... He, there¬fore, who wants to know truth in himself fully must first get rid of the beam of pride, which prevents him from seeing the light, and then erect a way of ascent in the heart by which to seek himself in himself. (4.13-15)
Those whom truth has caused to know, and so contemn them¬selves... aspire to what they are not and have no hope of becoming through themselves... But when they see that they are not sufficient for this (for when they have done all those things which are commanded them, they say, We are unprofitable servants (LUKE 17:10) ), they flee from justice to mercy... they follow the precept of Truth: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (MATT 5:7). And this is the second step of truth, when they seek it in their neighbours, when they learn others’ wants from their own, when they know from their own miseries how to com¬miserate with others who are miserable. (5.18)
Those who persevere, therefore, in these three things, the remorse of repentance, desire of justice, and works of mercy, may then pass through contemplation to the third step, having purged the spiritual vision of the three obstacles arising from ignorance and weakness and willfulness... Otherwise, if they do not know truth needy, naked, and weak as it is now, they may shamefacedly recognize it too late when it comes with great power and strength, terrifying and accusing, and may in vain answer tremblingly, “When saw we thee in need and did not minister unto thee?” (MATT 25:44). The Lord shall be known when he executeth judgments (PS 9:17), if he is not known now when he seeketh mercy... the eye of the heart is purified by weeping, hungering for justice, and devotion to works of mercy. To such a heart Truth promises to appear in his splendour: Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God (MATT 5:8).
Since there are therefore three steps or states of truth, we ascend to the first by the toil of humility, to the second by the emotion of compassion, to the third by the ecstasy of contemplation. In the first, truth is found harsh; in the second, loving; in the third, pure. Reason, by which we examine ourselves, leads us to the first; love, by which we sympathize with others, entices us to the second; purity, by which we are lifted to invisible heights, snatches us up to the third. (6.19).
On the first step the Son, on the second the Holy Ghost, on the third the Father seems to be acting. (JOHN 13:14; ROM 5:5; MATT 16:17, 11:25; ISA 38:19)... You see that those whom the Son first humbled by precept and example, and over whom the Spirit then shed love, have finally been received in glory by the Father. The Son makes disciples, the Paraclete consoles friends, the Father exalts his children... one and the same Truth, without violating the distinction of persons, performs these three things on the three steps. On the first, it instructs, as a teacher; on the second it consoles, as a friend or brother; on the third, it draws close, as a father his children. (7.20)
First, when the Son of God, who is the Word and wisdom of the Father, finds that faculty of the soul called reason weighed down by the flesh, captive to sin, blinded by ignorance, and given over to outward things, he gently lifts it, powerfully strengthens it, prudently instructs it, and turns it to inward things. Miraculously making the reason his vicar, as it were, he appoints it judge of itself, so that, out of reverence for the Word to which it is joined, prosecutor and witness and judge of itself, it performs the office of Truth against itself. From this first conjunction of the Word and the reason is born humility.
Another faculty, called the will, infected to be sure with the poison of the flesh but now under the control of the reason, is graciously visited, gently purged, ardently energized, and made merciful by the Holy Ghost; so that, like a skin which is anointed and stretched, it, divinely anointed, is extended in affection even to its enemies. And thus, by this second conjunction of the Spirit of God and the human will, love is created.
Both faculties, reason and will, the one taught by the Word of Truth, the other inspired with the Spirit of Truth, the former sprinkled with the hyssop of humility, the latter kindled with the fire of love, now form a finally perfected soul, flawless through humility and unruffled through love (EPH 5:27), since neither the will resists reason, nor does reason dissemble truth. The Father unites this soul to himself as a glorious bride, so that neither the reason can think of itself nor the will of its neighbour, but that blessed soul delights only in saying, The King hath brought me into his chamber (SONG 1:3). And it is worthy, coming from the school of humility, where it first learned from the Son’s teaching to enter into itself, taking heed of the warning, If thou know not thyself, go feed thy kinds (SONG 1:7). It is worthy to be led by the Holy Ghost from that school of humility and brought by affection into the storerooms of love, by which are meant the hearts of its neighbours. Thence, stayed with flagons and comforted with apples, namely good habits and holy virtues, it is finally admitted to the chamber of the King, of love for whom it is sick (SONG 2:5). There for a little while, about half an hour, there being silence in heaven (REV 8.1), it rests sweetly in the longed-for embrace, and sleeps itself; but its heart waketh (SONG 5:2), with which it searches out the secrets of truth, that it may feed on the memory of them when it returns to itself. There it sees invisible things, hears unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 COR 12:4). They surpass all that knowledge which night sheweth unto night; but day unto day uttereth speech (PS 18:3), and it is lawful to speak wisdom among the wise, and to compare spiritual things with spiritual. (7.21).
There is then a way down and a way up, a way to the good and a way to evil. ...David seems to have offered you two ways, but you know there is only one. Yet it is distinguished from itself and is called by different names, either the way of lying (PS 24:8) for those going down, or the way of truth (PS 118:29ƒ) for those going up. The same steps lead up to the throne and down; the same road leads to the city and from it; one door is in the entrance of the house and the exit; Jacob saw the angels ascending and descending on the same ladder... If you desire to return to truth, you do not have to seek a new way which you know not, but the known way by which you descended. Retracing your own path, you may ascend in humility by the same steps which you descended in pride. (So, Curiosity, Frivolity, Foolish Mirth, Boastfulness, Singularity, Conceit, Audacity, Excusing Sins, Hypocritical Confession, Defiance, Freedom to Sin, Habitual Sin.) (9.27)
I who know more about going down than going up did not think it would be proper for me to describe the way up... I have nothing to tell you about except the order of my own descent. Yet if this is carefully examined, the way up may be found in it. For if when going to Rome you should meet a man coming from there and ask him the way, what way could he tell better than that by which he had come. In naming the castles, towns and cities, rivers and mountains, along which he had passed, he describes his own road and prescribes yours, so that you may recognize the same places in going which he has passed along in coming. Similarly in this descent of mine you will find, perhaps, the steps leading up, and ascending will read them in your own heart better than in my book. (12.27).
I think Holocaust denial is an awful thing, but incriminating people who believe as such is equally ridiculous. I am adamantly opposed to the laws against Holocaust denial. Because if we follow that to its logical end, we should imprison anyone who denies the truth about God, science, or what have you.
The founders intended that we voice our opinion, print our opinion, and practice whatever religion we thought we were called to, or none at all. The government, or for that matter, the constitution, does not impose on people to speak the truth. Only that it not defame other people unjustly as you said; slander or libel.
Murder/suicide bombers act out of depraved indifference, but it is undoubtedly inspired by their faith in the fruits of martyrdom, so yes, it is a destructive religious activity. Oppressing women through the veil and limiting their rights is supported throughout Muslim scripture. By oppressing women because of scripture, the guilty act in a destructively religious manner. I on the other hand, act out of no religious influence here. I view the world through a lens of human suffering and dignity. If the former is perpetuated or the latter is trampled, then the cause of it, must either be ridiculed, reformed, or overthrown. Not unlike slavery.
And to call a person a Saint has no bearing on the goodness of a person, only how he is perceived. There are is no shortage of false prophets and charlatans in this world. It should be obvious, that madmen everywhere throughout all of history have been followed by great swaths of people. But does this make them any more respectable or true? Or deserving of reverence? I think not.
They deserve reverence for the good they inspire and commend, but they deserve criticism for their pitfalls and their shortcomings, and their evils as well.
You have claimed that Muhammed was a pedophile and deserves to be criticized for it. To Wit:
What, are you standing in judgment? Is this something like the Final Judgment we are to expect?
Morality is not a fixed star throughout all times and places, so what right does anyone have to criticize somebody of another eon and place on moral grounds who was the seminal moral figure of his own time? I should think there should be some sort of doctoral program that should look into the matter of how such an honour could possibly be conferred.
Jesus said that whoever would cause one of the little ones who believe in him to stumble, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. [Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:2]. How dare anyone confound the faith of another and then hold out a hand that contains nothing!
I recall reading somewhat similar thoughts by Lord Buddha about how easy it is to destroy and how hard to build up again. I'd be grateful for references to these stanzas or sutras.
I do usually despise all this exegesis of what another has posted, as though it were some sort of scripture, but in this case I must do what I hate:
Well, Knight of Buddha, I was taught by my swami, who ought to know, that
I'm talking about human feelings and the sense of the sacred, and all you can talk about is the sufferings of some people as being absolute —as though they had no wherewithal artfully to make the most of their small liberties. You don'tr give people enough credit. Believe me, we are very hardy and we all have quite an interest in looking after ourselves. True, bad things happen, but it is usually people without hope that are the perpetrators. Just don't you do anything that might diminish another person's hope. Faith, hope, and charity: these theree things abide. Love, son, love thine adversary and make peace with him before he comes down the hard road.
What about the wrongfully imprisoned in this country? Should the rest of the country go to hell on that account?
Tolerance for the religion of others is downright necessary, but a profound respect is what would make this world a better place.
All I am saying is Give Peace a Chance, if not by accepting the prophets of other traditions, at least by not challenging their basic core goodness, which no one has the RIGHT to do. If you must play the Devil's Advocate, though, there's so much good that can be done elsewhere. The Devil can't be all bad, else God wouldn't have made him so derned talented.
I was merely stating that this was where and why I drew the criticism from the apostates' website. I have not yet to my knowledge contradicted myself. Perhaps to have clarified, I should have added "to which I agree" after that bolded statement.
Yes, I have. I don't deny that.
But this is how I hold up all characters of perceived authority and righteousness. Muhammed said some good things, not least of which your signature which I like. But he also did some less flattering things which I needn't repeat again. I am not in the business of putting up historical figures on some high, unreachable pedestal. I have no doubt that as far as his time period was concerned, that Muhammed was a noble guy and all and especially justified by the scriptures he authored. By the standards I hold dear, he comes across like a criminal and war lord. I'm not trying to skirt this point at all, I'm just being honest.
I think I see where we differ now more clearly. You see, I do believe in moral absolutes. I believe that there are some things that are always immoral; honor killing, rape, murder-suicide, gender based oppression, and the like. And contrasting that, I believe there to be things that are always good; love, reason, empathy, and the like.
I believe there are things that are bad no matter what the spirit of the times might say (slavery, institutional segregation, child marriage) And I believe there are things that are good regardless of the zeitgeist (inter-racial friendship and marriage)
The novel "1984" is an excellent reference here. When Winston is being tortured by O'Brien in the 'Minsitry of Love,' he gets in a philosophical quarrel with his torturer. The argument centers around whether or not there really is such a thing as truth, reality, or moral absolutes. Winston maintains that there is, but O'Brien counters (true to the zeitgeist), that "Whoever controls the past, controls the future. Whoever controls the present, controls the past."
This sums up Winston's horrible nation in a nutshell. Oceania had truly stamped all that was good from human culture. ("imagine a boot stomping on a human face, Winston, but forever.")But in reality, no matter how oppressive a government like the fictional one of '1984' or the 3rd Reich of Hitler's Germany, the truth is the truth. Enslavement is always evil and always was and will be, regardless of what a society may say. Freedom of thought and expression will always be positive things, no matter how authoritarian a government may become. The only thing that can be altered is the perception of truth and reality and of absolutes.
So in answer to your question....no. I don't believe Jesus should be criticized because Germany's zeitgeist said compassion was for the weak and the undesirables. This does not make Jesus any less moral or correct in his assertion. But the difference here is that Muhammed's marriage to a young girl was not a matter of doctrine as was Christ's message of charity.
Another key difference. I am less concerned with feelings and the sacred as I am with suffering. And just because people can delude themselves into toleration for such evils as slavery or the mandated burqa, this does not make them any more acceptable or less evil.
Well I like charity, and hope has its upside too. I can even tolerate people having faith. It doesn't bother me. But when it goes so far as to become oppressive and violent, then I have no patience for it.
As I have mentioned before, this reminds me of something that I read concerning virtue by the Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his essay Freedom from Fear:
From the Buddhist point of view, the actions that are defined as being wholesome and unwholesome are always considered to be wholesome and unwholesome:
Jason
Sir, you're the one who first started talking about Zeitgeist and the "test of time." Now what a particular Zeitgeist (what you imply is part of an ever-changing order of Zeitgeists) necessarily has to do with any universal morality completely escapes me.
And now you say that I'M the one who doesn't believe in any abiding moral values, when you're the one who appealed in print to an "ever-changing Zeitgeist" as some sort of final arbiter. How do you know that personal selfishness will not in the end win out in the spirit of the times for all time? You introduce a notion (ever-changing Zeitgeist), I point out a flaw in it, and you, like a political candidate at a debate, use it against me to your seeming advantage, as though it were my idea in the first place —all this to get a thunderous applause from some segment of the unthinking crowd, moved not by reason but by transient EMOTION.
Of course, Hitler was an evil man who stood for evil things, but a whole time and place saw him as a Saviour. That was the Zeitgeist of the 1930s in Berlin.
I think what we're mostly doing in this thread is misunderstanding one another. Whether that's on purpose or by design is quite beside the point, you Devil's Advocate, you.
And, Jason, all that you have written is Greek to me in that I don't really know what aspect of life or cognitive activity you're trying to address, and more importantly why.
I think, KoB, that basically you and I are both a bit Islamophobic, but that I am more interested in keeping the peace with all Muslim people, and especially am keen not to make any of them angry by either the ignorance or resentment I might exhibit in encountering them. Therefore, I embrace Islam with my curiosity, my interest, and my love.
Surely this is not as contemptible as you seeem to be saying sometimes. Indeed, you are a bundle of contradictions. But to be human is not noted for any real consistence.
Apologies. You said that, "Morality is not a fixed star throughout all times and places, so what right does anyone have to criticize somebody of another eon and place on moral grounds who was the seminal moral figure of his own time?" This reminded me of something that Thanissaro Bhikkhu said in relation to virtue, specifically, "Some people have argued that, because the Buddha recognized the principle of conditionality, he would have no problem with the idea that our virtues should depend on conditions as well. This is a misunderstanding of the principle."
The essential idea is that in Buddhism, the actions that are defined as being wholesome and unwholesome are always considered to be wholesome and unwholesome. The reason is that the root of each wholesome action is either non-greed, non-hatred, or non-delusion, while the root of each unwholesome action is either greed, hatred, or delusion. The importance being that from a Buddhist perspecitve, killing is always seen as unwholesome regardless of the time, place, et cetera. Therefore, one with right view should criticize actions that are worthy of criticism.
Jason
What I'd like to talk about is what the Christians would call humility. I think that Buddhists would call it selflessness, but I'm not sure (doubtless, there is a term in another language I am not familiar with). I am not going to try to pose an answer or a "right" point of view here, which is my point, really.
What benefit do we give when we make judgments on another? Here are two examples:
In fundamentalist Islamic cultures, women are forced (let's consider "force" to equal a "my way or death" approach) to physically cover themselves, among other cultural rules. The general western view is that this represses, dehumanizes and greatly harms these women. How dare anyone tell women they "must" do a thing because they are women? Well, as an American woman I receive signals every day of what is acceptable in my appearance and behavior. I must be thin, I must be blemish-free, I must have large breasts and on and on and on, ad nauseum. There are parallels. Women must cover themselves vs. women must expose themselves. Women suffer genital mutilation vs. women opt for sexual plastic surgery. These parallels continue, but that is not the point. They are not the same culture. They have similarities. They both have goods and they both have evils. I do not think from where I stand I have room to judge. I am not perfect, nor can I be. I do not live in a perfectly supportive culture. Moral perfection is not possible. Recovering from your "off path" moments with grace is possible and, in my opinion, leads you closer to "enlightenment." Here is my point, I believe that any woman can achieve peace in her own life and that is the most important thing. I must face the things society expects of me. No one can do that for me. No one can save me but myself.
I know I will now have stones thrown at me. "Are you saying we should just stand back and hope for the best?" Now, for my second example... (I will pull a rabbit out of a hat!)
I teach school. The old ideology of how to teach children was that if they misbehaved, they needed to be punished. If they were "too dumb" we failed them. This is not how we teach any longer. Negative consequences and retainment still occur, but are used only in specific circumstances. We now understand that when you hand children punishments for "bad" behavior, especially boys, they tend to act out more, fail more and, basically, punishments do not improve the situation. When you take the time to dig deeper (why are they a class clown? bad home life, illiterate still in the eighth grade, no positive male role-model) you see that in order to fix the problem, you must learn to have empathy as well as great flexibility. What is right is what is fair for the individual.
I know in one example I said we must save ourselves and in the second it may look like I showed how to "save" others. Actually, in teaching we do our best to show students how they can achieve and then we step back. We do our best to remove the hurdles that scare students off track, while encouraging, challenging and engaging. I cannot teach my students how to do something. I can show them how to learn to do it for themselves only. My job is to support them on that path.
Let the stoning begin, if it will.
I am a little pressed for time right now, so I will respond to Nirvana's post tomorrow some time and deal with the most recent one first.
@ mouthfulofclay
Don't worry, I won't stone you. I was actually surprised that your analogy of the East/West feminine culture thing didn't come up earlier in this debate. But I'm just not sure the comparison holds up. Although I am in no short supply of grievances about the feminine values culture of America, my thoughts on the subject will be rather brief here.
I personally despise the notion that is all too prevalent in American teen culture that encourages young girls to favor being dim witted and pretty, over any degree of intelligence or reason. I can safely say that I prefer brains over beauty with respects to the opposite sex. And this is coming from an unashamed hypersexual teenage guy.
But I will leave that for another time. My point is that these ideals (if you can bear to call them that) in American culture, while seemingly irresistible, are NOT mandated. There is a choice in the matter. Social consequences may arise from the failure of compliance and they inevitably will, but in the end, there will be no executioner. No state sponsored killing because you failed to march on with the crowd. Ostracized is one thing, but executed is quite another entirely.
On everything else, I am inclined to agree. Muslim women will have their own awakening some day as did the women of the West who demanded suffrage and the slaves who demanded freedom. With any luck, the whole Arab world will have their's as well. A peaceful one, I can only hope. Ultimately, the victims of suffering will be their own saviors.
No, I'LL BE the one to be stoned here.
Quite often to a brash or outspoken woman of any age I'll say: "We need to send you over to Saudi Arabia to teach those Muslim women how to fuss."
Knight of Buddha: D'ya always have to have the last word?
KoB: I have one question for you. I'm assuming you would "lift the veil" right this moment if you could. How would you deal with the women who would choose to stay covered, choose to keep being abused, choose to remain oppressed? Would you force "enlightenment" on these women as well as hand it to the rest? I'm not attacking your point of view, so hopefully it doesn't sound that way. This just hasn't been addressed yet. There are women/people who live in oppressive regimes who are happy where they are. There are also many women who are not ready to change... yet.
KOB,
The level of will behind the "choices" women and girls make in our culture can't be so easily measured. The pressures behind an 8 year old girl's decision to go on a diet, or on a grown woman's efforts to starve herself to death or have her body mutilated by a plastic surgeon are very real and much stronger than you can know. Just because women become complicit in their own oppression doesn't mean they wish to be oppressed. The majority of Muslim women in Arab countries firmly believe, and will tell you, that it is their choice to wear the veil.
Things just aren't as black and white as you wish them to be.
I was still writing my response when you posted so I hadn't read your post when I posted! lol! Great minds think alike!
Yes, I would lift the veil this instant if I could. At least lift the law that mandates it. Beyond that, I believe it is up to the individual to choose whether or not they continue to stay behind the veil. Though it should be known, I would feel much pity for anyone that chose to do so.
You are probably right, but I feel nothing but sorrow for the person who wishes to forever hide their face from the world.
That's just it.
There is NO law that mandate it.
the Qu'ran recommends that a woman be modestly attired and not overt with her sensuality but there is no religious or social law that makes it mandatory. men have interpreted and implemented this.
many women wear the veil because they wish to, and agree with doing so. many women wear the veil because they feel compelled to do so, and risk victimisation - or worse - if they do not.
See here.
But there is no written law that requires women to wear the veil. It is a matter - entirely, fundamentally - a matter of choice
KoB, dear heart, your indignation does you credit. I should, however, caution you about its object. Remember the old adage about those who live in glass houses. The behaviour and beliefs of the founder of Islam may be reprehensible in our terms but, by the same token, so are those of the revered founders of your Republic: adulterers, oath-breakers, genocides and slave-owners. Their attitudes towards women were horrendous too.
Each of us lives in a house that is in need of being put in order. It is all too easy to carp and criticise those 'barbarians' over the water whilst ignoring the facts of our own cultural dissonances. Our two nations are involved in highly dubious warfare. Have we any right to criticise?
Jason/Elohim: thank you for the wise words that remind us how far our our own cultures depart from skillful and beneficial action.
Palzang
Now, i know i'm coming in late, and i haven't read everything that was written, but i do have a few points i'd like to make. Firstly, you say you've studied the history of Muhammed, peace be upon him (and all that), but based on my previous discussions with learned Muslims, your knowledge of this subject is actually quite poor. Imo, it seems that you've taken a generalized characature of Muhammed and Islam's beginnings as a detailed, factual account without really doing a whole lot of work to find the whole story. Now, I am not very well informed myself, perhaps less than you, BUT i have had discussions with very well educated people who could frame the 'facts' you are complaining about in their actual contexts. This seems to be a very western thing. Focusing on particulars and simply ignoring context. Both a strong-point AND a deficiency, if you ask me.
Anyway, how many translations of the Qu'ran have you studied? Are you fluent in Arabic? Can you name sources? I say this because (like many Eastern languages) Arabic simply does not translate simply into English. I have been part of other discussions where people rant and rave about the violence in the Qu'ran and it turns out the translations they are using are drastically different than other ones which are actually done by reputable scholars. Usually these translations are found on websites with Anti-Islam agendas (not so different from yours, others much more malicious). Even further, did you know that the contemporary Arab society was VERY barbaric. In fact, Muhammed could be considered a great reformer of his time that put to end many barbaric customs of the time.
Are you aware that the Muhammed's people were being routed horribly by others when he led his people in battle. And also, it is said within the Qu'ran that if those people ask for a peace (truce) that it should be accepted. Now, there is an instance I am have heard where it was ordered that this request be ignored with people who had asked for a peace, but betrayed it. So, it is hard for me to see Mohamed in the light of 'brutal murderer' that you have portrayed him in. The following is a statement about Muhammed's character as a leader in battle:
(from the second link below)
See my point at all?
Now, on the matter of his marrying a girl of 9 would be a subject of outrage these days, it was quite common at the time. Appealing to current moral sensibilities to judge such actions is not really the kind of authority you are trying to present it as. So, unless you can thoroughly lay out some sort of absolute moral imperative which paints this as a crime against humanity in all contexts, then please do it. Here's a question that i'm not sure of myself. Was his marraige to the 9 year old before his religious turning point or after? If before, what does that mean? If after, what does that mean? Either way, can it truly be used to demonize Muhammed without relying on contemporary moral norms which are based on unprovable assumptions? Honestly, you might want to look up the word 'ethnocentrism'.
Beyond all that, the Islamic world certainly has had a violent and bloody history. And they have certainly used the teachings of the Qu'ran and Hadith to exploit women and brutalize non-muslims. However, it is my understanding that a lot of this has actually been misuse. For example, there is a section in the Hadith which discusses female genital mutilation. Muslims have used this section to justify and enforce the practice for a long time now. However, it is my understanding that the Hadith which talks about this was written at a time and culture where this practice was already widespread and, actually, advocates that this is to be done on a limited basis and to not mutilate the female genitalia. In other words, it is a prescription for those who do decide to do this, rather than an order for all Muslim women to have this done to them.
Also, do keep in mind that only about 10% of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims live in Arabic culture and that a lot of the more violent and barbaric practices are not prevalent outside of these regions. IMO, a lot of the problems are actually cultural baggage and a symptom of what happens when there becomes a socially popular Religion in a society. The most ignorant and ruthless individuals use it as a superstition and sometimes as a measure of other people, rather than finding out what their religion is about. We can see this in ultra-puritanical societies, cultural forms of buddhism, hinduism, and virtually all religions which have gained regional or cultural prominence.
So, the question for me is how much of the violence and ignorance in Islam actually is a correct understanding and practice of Islam. My imagining is that it is not nearly as much this as it is the misunderstanding and mis-practice that contributes to the vast majority of the problems prevalent in the Muslim world today.
Some links you might want to peruse:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/hearingmuslims/particulars.shtml
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/faceoftheprophet/particulars.shtml
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/muslimwomen/particulars.shtml
metta
_/\_
That's a pretty powerful statement of the integrity of the man.
I especially like the next line, Nirvana:
"I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."
If only those committing terrorist acts by his instructions would realize a similar sentiment.
_/\_
metta
Until I am in a better position to do so, I will not recant anything that I have said up to this point. In the near future, I hope to address a few of the many counter-arguments that have been put forth in my recent, brief absence.
I am not leaving the forums or anything, but I will probably just be giving my thoughts on the less heady discussions for now.
It's ok, buy yourself some time :tonguec:
lol
Anyway, i'm not really all that concerned about continuing the argument. I just hope that maybe you'll be a little more thorough and evenhanded in your investigation and argumentation.
metta
_/\_
If we strip away the religio-mythic accretions, I can see the two positions, whether pro-Islamic or pro-democratic, as very similar belief structures. In both cases, there is a presupposition of an overarching principle of "the best".
The real problem arises when one person's "best" (say "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "the will of the people") is judged to be better than someone else's (say the internal jihad, the principles of the Q'ran, etc.) If a decision is then taken that 'our best' must be imposed on 'their' view, conflict arises, particularly if force is deemed the way to achieve this.
There is nothing very new about this, of course, although imposition of political structure as a 'mission' seems to be a child of the revolutions of the 18th century. Spreading the religion of love by killing people has a long and venerable history however. It is therefore not too surprising that we are spreading democracy in the Middle East by slaughtering the voters!
For some of us, however much we may prefer democracy to some of the other politico-economic systems (with reservations), imposing our ideas by force is only so much more imperialism, so much more patriarchal phallocracy.
Nothing.
;-) (hope you get the joke)
To have won "Nothing" is to have come first in the great lottery of life!
Yes. I agree. Put the women in charge. Reverse the roles and see if we can manage to do any better....
What, incidentally, is the Opposite of 'Phallocracy'?
I suppose that the opposite of phallocracy would be gynocracy. Partnership rather than domination by one gender or another would be preferable I think.