Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Brant Gaede]

At the moment the name of our pain is radical Islam (it used to be communism). The real enemy is an internal weakness or corruption, but Man is a sinful being and there will always be a moral and intellectual defect to overcome. The real Jihad or Struggle is to overcome our weaknesses and our inclination to do ill to ourselves and others. As it says in Perke Avot -- Who is strong? He who overcomes his inclination.

As to the translation; to put it bluntly, you lie. Islam is Submission to the Will of God, not peace or wholesomeness. You people have never, ever been peaceful. You breathe war along with CO2. The Umah is the latter day version of the Amalekites.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, I agree with you. This is called Jihad Al-Nafs, ie the struggle against ones self or one's desires. This is also known as Jihad al Akbar, the Greater Jihad. The majority of the Muslim world believes that this is far more important than any war. For more info on Jihad al Nafs you can go to: http://www.imamreza....eza.php?id=7756

Regarding Salam.. I think that the problem you are having Ba'al is that you're assuming what things mean due to similarity. I thought, being a Jew that you'd realize this isn't a logical thing to do due to the closeness of Hebrew to Arabic

Islam means submission to God

Salaam means peace..

They are similar because they both come from the root "Silm", or the Arabic letters are: Seen-Lam-Meem

Silm, actually means a state of peace, with one's self and with one's surroundings.

The way that we believe is best to attain this state of peace with ourselves and our surroundings, is through submission to the Creator of the Universe by following what He has commanded us to do.

All arabic words are derived from a root word, a word of three letters. This is why some people get confused by meanings and Islam and the Qur'an gets misinterpreted.

Is Hebrew similar to that?

That's right Abdul, blame the Jews. So why is the -Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion- the number one non-Arabic best seller in the Muslim world? Islam is profoundly anti-Jewish and very anti-human. Why is the penalty for abandoning Islam death, oh Servant of God? Do you think people should be put to death for having "wrong thoughts"? Wrong actions are punishable, but if a man is not free to think his thoughts and speak them to those who will listen, just how free is he?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Who was blaming the Jews? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a known forgery.

I don't believe that the penalty for leaving Islam is death, it contradicts the verse that states:

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower." (Qur'an 2:256)

The idea of forcing someone to stay Muslim or any other religion is illogical. You can't force a person to think a certain way or contain something in their heart, if the person doesn't want to be Muslim then let them leave, if you don't you'll only have hypocrisy.

Also, in terms of your other question. You can't control people's thoughts, Islam has never legislated that having other ideas is a punishable offense or a bad thing. Think anything you like, explore and voice your ideas. Islam doesn't infringe on this right.

Adonis, there are several ways the United States can be destroyed, but none involve Islam taking over. Europe has a demographic problem and a weak-kneed intellectual-political elite, so that can happen there.

--Brant

Who said the US would be destroyed? I didn't state that it would be it's demise.

But it would be. Actually not the cause but one possible result.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hello Adonis,

Just as background, my mother was a S'fardic Jewess, born and raised in Alexandria, whose family moved to Palestine in the 30's. Seemingly, the treatment of Jews in Egypt was fairly benign, compared with other Muslim States.

However, after she left the fledgling Israel with my Brit father to move to Central Africa, I remember her utter fear for the rest of her family still there; I was filled with stories about what the Arab countries were promising to do (in daily radio broadcasts)to those Jewish settlers.

As far as I know, they are still threatening annihilation.

Now, here in the RSA, I have worked with Muslims, and met many. I judge people individually, not as tribes, and have found most to be hard-working, intelligent, and decent.

Up to a point, when a kind of Jeckyl and Hyde nature takes over. The very person you would like to call a friend, suddenly demonstrates an irrational, dogmatic, and viciously anti-West, anti-Israel, defensive/aggressive stance.

Here's my point : within every collective of people, from Israelis to Americans to Christians,(yes, even to Objectivists), one finds disagreement, openly voiced and argued. e.g. there are minorities in Israel who vehemently oppose their own government's policies on Palestine.

Now, why is it that more Muslims - like yourself - do not stand up publically and denounce the words and actions of their extremist fellows?

Why does Islam deny self-responsibility and individualism?

If these moderate, thinking Muslims do not show themselves, morally and courageously, who can blame the rest of us for lumping all of you together?

Tony

Tony, I'm sorry your mother went through such things. However, as mentioned previously. I don't believe the state of Israel had the right to be created and instead believe that the Jews, being welcome the the Mid East as they always had been, should have lived side by side with their Arab brethren in the same state. Creating another state and confiscating the lands of people who had lived on it for generations is just counter productive and unjust. But that's for another thread

Also, I believe the Muslims have done enough to speak out, I mean look at the list of condemnations of terrorism that I found. Have you even searched for these things? There are so many examples If you did so that you'd be overwhelmed. But you don't, you expect the media to hand it to you on a platter.. Why would they do that when it is only drama and fear that sells their media?

What more could we have done in your opinion?

Islam also doesn't deny self responsibility and individualism. I'm not sure where you got that from.

Question to Adonis: what is awaiting the women in the paradise you believe in? Or don't they get into paradise at all?

Paradise is whatever you want really, sure there have been many attempts to make examples of it to show the people the extent of what they could have, but this is paradise.. It will be the person's reward for their life, surely a lifetime of good deeds is worth more than just a fast food menu type paradise where you don't really have a choice of what you get.

Adonis,

Dawood translates the underlined portion of 24:33 as

You may not force your slave-girls into prostitution in order that you may enrich yourselves, if they wish to preserve their chastity. If anyone compels them, God will be forgiving and merciful to them.

I did understand the reference to God's mercy as applying to the slave-girls who had been forced into prostitution. Could it be that Muhammad anticipated that the girls would be blamed for becoming prostitutes, even though they had been forced to?

Robert Campbell

Yes, I am aware of that translation, however according to the tafsir or scholastic interpretations that I've read it includes fornication.

You're also right, Arabs at that time, and even now have a tendency to blame the victim for crimes committed against her rather than the guilty party. Thus, honor killing.. A wicked and despised act against humanity itself.

I must say, in my opinion, Islam was not brought to the Arabs because they were a great people, it is because they had become so corrupted and were the ones who needed reformation the most.

- Willing to go to war at the drop of a hat, engaging in blood fueds that lasted generations

- Buying and selling women as if they were their property

- Burying their baby daughters alive

- Slavery

- Honor killings

- Idolatry

etc etc etc..

They had perverted the message of monotheism they were given by Ishmael and Abraham, peace be upon them and made it into something disgusting.

To be honest, I would argue that within the Gulf especially and also places like Jordan, a lot of this stuff continues today as these people have fallen back into the time of Jahiliyah, or ignorance.

But can't a 'good man' also be in error?

Sure, a good man can.

But not even the Pagan Qur'aish claimed that he was a liar or wrong.

Below is an example of such of when Muhammad pbuh sent a letter to the Byzantine king, inviting him to Islam. Upon receiving this letter the King summoned Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who at that time, and even until the day he died (I and many others would argue) was an enemy of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and of Islam.

Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet (Peace be upon him) to Hercules, king of the Byzantines:

“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad, the slave of Allâh and His Messenger to Hercules, king of the Byzantines. Blessed are those who follow true guidance. I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, Allâh will give you double reward, but in case you turn your back upon it, then the burden of the sins of all your people shall fall on your shoulders.

“Say [O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)]: ‘O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh.’ Then, if they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’ ” [3:64]

The Muslim envoy, Dihyah bin Khalifah Al-Kalbi, was ordered to hand the letter over to king of Busra, who would in turn, send it to Caesar.

Incidentally, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who by that time had not embraced Islam, was summoned to the court and Hercules asked him many questions about Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the religion which he preached. The testimony which this avowed enemy of the Prophet gave regarding the personal excellence of the Prophet’s character and the good that Islam was doing the human race, left Hercules wonder-struck.

Al-Bukhâri, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, narrated that Hercules sent for Abu Sufyan and his

companions, who happened to be trading in Ash-Sham, Jerusalem. That was during the truce that

had been concluded between the polytheists of Quraish and the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon

him). Hercules, seated amongst his chiefs of staff, asked, “Who amongst you is the nearest relative

to the man who claims to be a Prophet?” “I (Abu Sufyan) replied: ‘I am the nearest relative to him

from amongst the group.’ So they made me sit in front of him and made my companions sit behind

me. Then he called upon his translator and said (to him). ‘Tell them (i.e. Abu Sufyan’s companions)

that I am going to ask him (i.e. Abu Sufyan) regarding that man who claims to be a Prophet. So if

he tells a lie, they should contradict him (instantly)’. By Allâh had I not been afraid that my

companions would consider me a liar, I would have told lies”, Abu Sufyan later said.

Abu Sufyan’s testimony went as follows: “Muhammad descends from a noble family. No one of his

family happened to assume kingship. His followers are those deemed weak with numbers ever

growing. He neither tells lies nor betrays others, we fight him and he fights us but with alternate

victory. He bids people to worship Allâh Alone with no associate, and abandon our fathers’ beliefs.

He orders us to observe prayer, honesty, abstinence and maintain strong family ties.” “Hercules, on

hearing this testimony, turned to his translator bidding him to communicate to us his following

impression which reveals full conviction in the truthfulness of Muhammad’s Prophethood: ‘I fully

realize that Prophets come from noble families; he does not affect any previous example of

Prophethood. Since none of his ancestors was a monarch, we cannot then allege that he is a man

trying to reclaim his father’s monarchy. So long as he does not tell lies to people, he is for the more

reason, immune to telling lies as regards Allâh. Concerning his followers being those deemed weak

with numbers ever growing, it is something that goes in agreement with questions of Faith until this

latter assumes its full dimensions geographically and demographically. I have understood that no

instance of apostasy has as yet appeared among his followers, and this points to the bliss of Faith

that finds its abode in the human heart. Betrayal, as I see, is alien to him because real Prophets

hold betrayal in . Bidding worship of Allâh with no associates, observance of prayer, honesty and

abstinence and prohibition of paganism are traits bound to subject to him all my possessions. I have

already known that a Prophet must arise but it has never occurred to me that he will be an Arab

from among you. If I was sure I would be faithful to him, I might hope to meet him, and if I were

with him, I would wash his feet.’ Hercules then requested that the Prophet’s letter be read. The

observations of the emperor and finally the definite and clear-cut exposition of the Islamic message

could not but create a tense atmosphere amongst the clergy present at the court. We were ordered

to go out.” Abu Sufyan said, “While coming out, I said to my companions, ‘The matter of Ibn Abi

Kabshah [i.e. Muhammad (Peace be upon him)] has become so prominent that even the king of

Banu Al-Asfar (i.e. the Romans) is afraid of him.’ So I continued to believe that Allâh’s Messenger

(Peace be upon him) would be victorious, till Allâh made me embrace Islam.” The king did not

embrace Islam — for it was differently ordained. However, the Muslim envoy was returned to

Madinah with the felicitations of the emperor.

Ho do you know your belief the true religion?

How does anyone know this? We as humans can only look at all of the evidence put before us and judge based on our knowledge, understanding and natural expectations of the Creator.

Does that mean Islam is the only correct religion and that all followers of other religions are wrong and thus, only Muslims would go to paradise and the rest to the fires of hell?

No, God says:

"Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)

How do you receive 'orders' from your "master"?

Through that which has been revealed ie the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

How does this mesh with the unequal treating of men and women in Islam?

Which unequal treating of men and women in Islam are you referring to?

The issue is not about justifying one's belief, but about justifying the imposition of one's belief upon others. What for example happens to a woman living in a society with islamic moral values, but who wants to have no part of it? Who doesn't care one bit about entering marriage as a virgin, wearing a headscarf, etc.? In short, who says: "I'm entitled to believe as I choose".

I don't believe that such things can be imposed on a person by the state nor should she be forced to adhere to religious practices if she doesn't want to. Providing she doesn't engage in public indecency by going out 'buck nekkid' as some would say. I don't see an issue with it.

Others will have a different opinion to me, but at the end of the day I get my opinion from having lived in both the Mid East and the West and see the dangers of such impositions. People, if given the right to choose, ultimately will choose the way they think is best to live their life.. You can't impose things on them.

If any of you have seen the packs of Saudi Arabian male students that are drunk on Queen Street here in Auckland on a weekend at night, you'll understand that they become like this after not having the freedom to choose in their own nation. So they go from one extreme to the other.

Yet in the West where people are free to make their own choices, the majority of Muslims don't drink and in my opinion are better than anything I've seen in the Middle East.

Whose 'business' is marriage then in your opinion (aside from the two people directly involved)? Religion's?

Yes religion's, but not as an institution, rather as a guide as to how to live their lives to attain paradise if they so wish to participate in that structure.. However at the end of the day, it isn't really anyone's business but the people themselves and maybe their family's.

[Libertarian Muslim]

But it would be. Actually not the cause but one possible result.

--Brant

You believe that Islam becoming the majority religion in the US would result in the US' demise? If so, how and why?

[anthony]

Adonis,

Thanks for your response. (And, belatedly, a hot welcome to OL.)

Why do I believe that Islam is non-accepting of self-responsibility and individualism? The same way that I don't believe anyone who refers to any Book as his supreme Authority, can.

The tiny bit of skewed respect I feel for a Jehovah's Witness, an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim, is that all these at least are consistent in their belief in every word of their Bible, Talmud, Q'ran. But I still fear their irrationality. Whereas, every other moderate religionist, bends himself into pretzels to rationalize those scriptures - "Oh, we don't really believe that", or "no, of course God won't do that to you", or similar responses.

If a bridge is ever to be built between our cultures, the first necessity will be the removal of all religions from the public realm (which is why I fervently want to see Israel become a secular State). Your belief, and my atheism, are our private business. Just as you are suspicious of the motives of the West, so the West is distrustful of you -- the big difference being that we don't (explicitly...mainly...) depend on any ancient Writings to guide our actions.

Tony (the k'fir )

[Christopher]

Adonis,

Thanks for your response. (And, belatedly, a hot welcome to OL.)

Why do I believe that Islam is non-accepting of self-responsibility and individualism? The same way that I don't believe anyone who refers to any Book as his supreme Authority, can.

The tiny bit of skewed respect I feel for a Jehovah's Witness, an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim, is that all these at least are consistent in their belief in every word of their Bible, Talmud, Q'ran. But I still fear their irrationality. Whereas, every other moderate religionist, bends himself into pretzels to rationalize those scriptures - "Oh, we don't really believe that", or "no, of course God won't do that to you", or similar responses.

If a bridge is ever to be built between our cultures, the first necessity will be the removal of all religions from the public realm (which is why I fervently want to see Israel become a secular State). Your belief, and my atheism, are our private business. Just as you are suspicious of the motives of the West, so the West is distrustful of you -- the big difference being that we don't (explicitly...mainly...) depend on any ancient Writings to guide our actions.

Tony (the k'fir )

Well spoken. As Ken Wilber argues, what we need is a whole lot less of religion, a whole lot less.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Thanks for your response. (And, belatedly, a hot welcome to OL.)

Why do I believe that Islam is non-accepting of self-responsibility and individualism? The same way that I don't believe anyone who refers to any Book as his supreme Authority, can.

The tiny bit of skewed respect I feel for a Jehovah's Witness, an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim, is that all these at least are consistent in their belief in every word of their Bible, Talmud, Q'ran. But I still fear their irrationality. Whereas, every other moderate religionist, bends himself into pretzels to rationalize those scriptures - "Oh, we don't really believe that", or "no, of course God won't do that to you", or similar responses.

I still don't see any examples of how you believe that Islam is non-accepting of self-responsibility or individualism?

Also, hopefully people would group me in the category of being consistent in my belief of the Qur'an.

If a bridge is ever to be built between our cultures, the first necessity will be the removal of all religions from the public realm (which is why I fervently want to see Israel become a secular State). Your belief, and my atheism, are our private business. Just as you are suspicious of the motives of the West, so the West is distrustful of you -- the big difference being that we don't (explicitly...mainly...) depend on any ancient Writings to guide our actions.

Secularism created Zionism, Hertzel was an avid secularist and many Orthodox Jews were against Zionism, claiming it to not only be blasphemous but also completely contradictory to the teachings of Judaism, in that God had meant for Jews not to have and rule a state due to breaking their covenant with him. That because of this their role was to spread out throughout the world and live peacefully with their neighbors.

So I don't believe that making Israel a secular country will make a difference, the problem isn't so much religion as it is of a group of people who were from Europe and after having lived there for generations (whatever their religion) migrated to a land where another people who had stayed in that land for thousands of years, the Europeans claiming that due to their race, they have more right to the land than the group who had been living there for generations.

I don't want to detract so I'll at some stage write down what I would like to see as a solution in a bit more detail on the Palestine thread that Michael created.

Tony (the k'fir )

כפיר‎?

or

كافر?

[Max Eichelberger]

But it would be. Actually not the cause but one possible result.

--Brant

You believe that Islam becoming the majority religion in the US would result in the US' demise? If so, how and why?

If you'd allow me, sir. But before I begin I'd like to thank you. Thank you for coming to Objectivist Living and expressing your views competently, coherently and with great personal character. Something I do not say often, and only when the occasion merits.

I will, for now, simply dismiss the notion of a Muslim majority appearing in America or any Western country. Mark Steyn is undoubtedly entertaining in American Alone (a book that must start any conversation these days; for rightists or leftists), but like many entertainers he squiggles the facts. "Religiousness and Fertility Among European Muslims," (published in Population and Development Review) basically recommends common sense as a cold bucket of water for xenophobic flames. European welfare statism and moral relativism acts on new Muslim immigrants fairly fast demographically. They are not invulnerable to the laws of nature which govern all other ethnicities in the EU (unsurprisingly). Increasing levels of Muslim percentages must be found in immigrants and the highest TFR [Total Fertility Rate] Muslim countries (surprisingly) have lower TFR's lower than American Hispanics. The lowest (North African) Muslim countries have "European" levels.

Quite simply, with European welfare statism eating into Muslim percentages abroad and less potential emigrants there is little chance that Europe (much less America) will become Islamic.

However, a sizable percentage will cause damage disproportional to its size.

How? Two ways: Switzerland initiatives and atheistic mockery.

I'll try not to ramble, and I'll keep this short. There should never be a choice between freedom and democracy. Most especially when the side representing freedom and liberty has a large albatross around its neck. Like the current Gay "Rights," movement Islam will become unseemly allies to what are classically referred to as "anti-statists." If the choice comes down between liberty of religion, and the threat of religion; security will win out every time. For that salient potential, or the chance of that potential, Islam should never reach American shores.

Secondly, Islam sounds ludicrous to American ears. The more the U.S. knows of the religion, the crazier and meaner it sounds. This is not meant to be offensive too you; it's impossible to not be moved by the Koran's value as literature and art. But what it represents is, quite frankly, not Islam but self-reflection.

If one religion sounds stupid to our ears, what makes 'our' religion intelligent?

I'll talk more later.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Areopagitican

[Libertarian Muslim]

If you'd allow me, sir. But before I begin I'd like to thank you. Thank you for coming to Objectivist Living and expressing your views competently, coherently and with great personal character. Something I do not say often, and only when the occasion merits.

Thank you, sir for your lovely welcome. I believe that the OL boards are a great asset and example of how Objectivists can be and I feel very welcome here. In comparison to the other SOLO board where it seems everyone there must be the Wahhabi equivalent of an objectivist.

Secondly, Islam sounds ludicrous to American ears. The more the U.S. knows of the religion, the crazier and meaner it sounds. This is not meant to be offensive too you; it's impossible to not be moved by the Koran's value as literature and art. But what it represents is, quite frankly, not Islam but self-reflection. .

Quite interesting, if this was indeed the case, then why are so many Americans becoming Muslim? It isn't the fastest growing religion in the US simply because we like having babies (although I have to admit, we do love having babies!).

So why are so many people coming to Islam if it sounds so ludicrous?

And all of this whilst people see the worst examples of Islam in the media.. I wonder how quickly the rate would rise if there were actually great examples of Muslims in the media?

[9thdoctor]

Cat Stevens who said --- Salmon Rushdie must die.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I’d forgotten about that. However his Wikipedia page does say: “In the years since these comments, he has repeatedly denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie or supporting the fatwa.”

“But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother you have to wait”

The Beatles Revolution

[Max Eichelberger]

If you'd allow me, sir. But before I begin I'd like to thank you. Thank you for coming to Objectivist Living and expressing your views competently, coherently and with great personal character. Something I do not say often, and only when the occasion merits.

Thank you, sir for your lovely welcome. I believe that the OL boards are a great asset and example of how Objectivists can be and I feel very welcome here. In comparison to the other SOLO board where it seems everyone there must be the Wahhabi equivalent of an objectivist.

I'm exceptionally poor at similes and understand little of Wahhabism beyond the evening news. It certainly sounds like a similie that accurately portrays their zeal and fervor. But I am hardly unbiased.

Secondly, Islam sounds ludicrous to American ears. The more the U.S. knows of the religion, the crazier and meaner it sounds. This is not meant to be offensive too you; it's impossible to not be moved by the Koran's value as literature and art. But what it represents is, quite frankly, not Islam but self-reflection. .

Quite interesting, if this was indeed the case, then why are so many Americans becoming Muslim? It isn't the fastest growing religion in the US simply because we like having babies (although I have to admit, we do love having babies!).

So why are so many people coming to Islam if it sounds so ludicrous?

I believe we should clarify that atheism is the fastest growing affiliation.

A 2001 survey directed by Dr. Ariela Keysar for the City University of New York indicated that, amongst the more than 100 categories of response, "no religious identification" had the greatest increase in population in both absolute and percentage terms.

[http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf]

Which is, of course, sort of the point. Right now in today's America, people see Islam and think to themselves... "Wow, virgins? In heaven? Kinky..." Then they turn to their daily lives and think "Surrounded by invisible 'angels?'" Americans have always wanted to be considered part of the "educated and legitimate" international scene. Religion and revolutionary liberty obviously conflict; a love hate relation. But as it's made obvious to Americans... Non-Christians view them the same way they view Islam, and as America has this critical analysis of itself it's hard to maintain that impetus to stay faithful.

That affect can only increase with coverage of Muslim practices.

And all of this whilst people see the worst examples of Islam in the media.. I wonder how quickly the rate would rise if there were actually great examples of Muslims in the media?

Media in general is allergic to theism. Whether or not positive media coverage would increase rates of conversion is a "what if," discussion of almost no value. We might as well consider gravity pushing things away... Or chances of being struck by lighting twice in one day.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Areopagitican

[Libertarian Muslim]

Cat Stevens who said --- Salmon Rushdie must die.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I’d forgotten about that. However his Wikipedia page does say: “In the years since these comments, he has repeatedly denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie or supporting the fatwa.”

“But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother you have to wait”

The Beatles Revolution

This whole situation was silly.. Firstly, Rushdie's book and the controversy did nothing but promote him in addition to bringing Islam into the spotlight, like the result of 9/11 I know people who studied about Islam and became Muslim after hearing about that controversy.. I guess it's true.. Any press is good press..

Next, Yusuf Islam was a new Muslim at the time at a very uncertain time where his access towards Islamic knowledge was lacking. He was still learning and not a spokesman for Islam. I don't know whether he actually said it and even if he did, I'd put it down to the zealousness that most people who become Muslim or who rediscover Islam go through when they first become Muslim. It's trying to find a balance between the differences being non Muslim and being Muslim while at the same time learning new things that brings this about.

It's a process of building a wall up around yourself and making things simple and black and white while you learn. Most new Muslims break that wall down and start to realize that it's not so black and white but unfortunately some don't. It appears that Yusuf Islam broke his down a long time ago, but people keep focusing on some stupid statement he may have made in the past.

I said a WHOLE lot of stupid things that I wouldn't even dream of repeating now up until about the age of 22. Only three years ago.. But it's a process of learning and youth, now I'm a better person for it because I found balance.

There needs to be more support for new Muslims to allow themselves to come into Islam gradually, rather than run straight into it because this is the type of problem it causes.

[anthony]

Adonis,

Secular : 'Concerned with the affairs of this world, worldly, not sacred, not monastic...'

If one is concerned with the divides of hate and fear, as I am, and you appear to be, the last place we should look is into our respective Books. Your Book will tell you this, mine (if I had one) that, and as Christopher says "to and fro".

Quid pro quo, tit for tat, whatever! Our subsequent actions spiral into further irrationality, and increased hatred.

Any Christian, Muslim or Jew who is not prepared to separate his belief from matters of state, is immoral, and ultimately, inhuman. That concern for lives and rights (our own, and others) is revealed then as mere window-dressing.

I was wryly amused by your comment about it being the secular Jews who were behind Zionism; it seems you hvae allied yourself (temporarily? ) with the fundamentalist Jew who would rather live at the mercy of strangers, to await the coming of the Messiah. This is the same person who has been refusing to budge from settlements in Palestine, as you know. This is more proof that the Word of a 'Book' is dangerous.

Still, there is another thread, as you suggest, for discussion of Palestine and Israel.

I'd like to get the ball rolling with this question:-

Do you completely recognise Israel's right to exist?

Thanks,

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Because of this thread, I moved an article I had written in 2006 from the Articles section here to the Mideast section. It was the result of my first research on Islam, which admittedly was not deep, but it was solid. I sought clear explanations for my information back then, not agendas. I had to wade through—and discard—a ton of stuff (all that preaching and all that yelling!). Skimming over it just now, I see that my essential views have not changed, although I am no longer so mission-oriented.

Over time, the constant bickering and hatred I encountered in discussing these matters turned me off. Let's say I hate hatred.

I wanted to let reason have a shot and actually organize something, but you can't reason when people are preaching hatred all the time, insisting on slinging vile insults around, and telling you not to use your own mind, but use their views instead. All this reminded me way too much of the racism I grew up with and left behind in my hillbilly past.

So I think you might be interested as a further indication of where I am coming from. But please understand that this was written when I practically knew nothing intellectual about Islam. My only contact before had been living side-by-side with Muslims for several years in Brazil. We rarely discussed their faith back then.

Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues

For Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people reading this who are not at all familiar with Islam, it is also a basic primer that is easily accessible from our perspective. In other words, my agenda is to get a factual overview of Islam and an initial understanding of the intellectual challenges (especially in terms of individual rights), not to advance one view of Islam or another.

Michael

[Xray]

Also, contrary to what the Wahhabis and Taliban believe, Islam doesn't forbid a man and woman who are unrelated from talking in public.

I know; I have had contacts with many muslims, mostly through my work as teacher. I was just using this as an example of how a rigid moral code can look like.

I recall a situation where I wanted to introduce myself to a muslim man with a handshake, and to my surprise he shook his head, holding both hands up in front of him, almost like in self-defense, and said "No, I can't do that. Please apologize if I can't give you my hand - my faith forbids this as inappropriate, shaking hands with a woman in public." (We were standing in the school aisle).

I was indeed surprised since I had never had any problem shaking hands with a muslim man before (with the Turkish fathers of my pupils for example).

He felt very uncomfortable at my surprise, thinking I might be offended. He said he used to shake hands with women before too, but that through the in-depth study of his religion which he had done in recent ears, he realized the 'mistake' and that he now knew more than ever that his religion was "right" on this.

While he was speaking to me, he was very nervous, his eyse darting from left to right. Like he was afraid of something, haunted by a constat fear of not behaving according to the moral code demanded by his religion.

I have no idea of what school of islam he adhered to (he was from Egypt); I felt pity for him being in this Procrustes bed of 'proper' moral behavior.

Like all faiths, Islam too is split up in various groups fighting each other over the "right" faith.

AV: Next, Yusuf Islam was a new Muslim at the time at a very uncertain time where his access towards Islamic knowledge was lacking.

Wrong. Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) is no "new Muslim" at all. He converted to islam over 30 years ago, in 1977.

Xray, on 06 January 2010 - 06:21 AM, said:

How does this mesh with the unequal treating of men and women in Islam?

AV: Which unequal treating of men and women in Islam are you referring to?

Example:

Marriage and divorce

"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper...."

The Book of Women 4:3

English translation by M. H. Shakir

"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else).... "

The Book of Women 4:129

Translated by Rashad Khalifa

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "

The women are clearly not given the same "rights" as the men. Every attempt to explain this away is futile.

It also says in the same surah that male heirs are entitled to the double amount than female heirs.

AV: If any of you have seen the packs of Saudi Arabian male students that are drunk on Queen Street here in Auckland on a weekend at night, you'll understand that they become like this after not having the freedom to choose in their own nation.

Which just shows once more that any attempt of imposing alleged "objective values", "objective morality" on humans will only result in resistance.

Christopher: As Ken Wilber argues, what we need is a whole lot less of religion, a whole lot less.

I believe those religions will at last crumble to dust, and that the recent revival of islam is merely like a candle flickering before dying down for good. In time of crisis, people will of course flock to whatever gurus promise them 'salvation', but this is not going to last.

Areopagitican: I believe we should clarify that atheism is the fastest growing affiliation.

Probably yes. Would be interesting to have some statistics on this.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Folks:

This is a quote from a review of The Faith Instinct.

I heard Wade interviewed last night about some of his theories on Islam:

"Wade, I think, touches all bases in this survey. He is very good on the way that literate religions have of rewriting their historical origins, and the poor-to-nonexistent evidence for much of what is claimed about those origins. Jews were polytheistic before the Babylonian exile of 587 B.C., while Moses, Joshua, and the Exodus may all be fictions. Perhaps a small group of Hebrews trekked from Egypt to Canaan, but most were already there.

Though Islam came up much more recently, it too has big holes in its historicity, which bold revisionist historians have plugged with ingenious theories. Wade takes us through some of the more surprising ones. Was the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750 A.D.) really an Arab Christian sect? Was the Dome of the Rock (which does not face Mecca, or anywhere) originally a church? Did Mohammad really exist? Was he, in point of fact, actually Jesus? It sounds like crackpottery, but these are serious scholars with coherent arguments. (Not all of them new. Hilaire Belloc included Islam in his book on the great Christian heresies.)"

I am including the link:

http://www.nicholas-...faith-instinct/

Apparently, an extension of his scholarly investigation of Islam speaks of a significant internal change which may take one to two hundred years which would take Islam out of its revert or die concepts that we have ample evidence of today.

Are any of you familiar with his work?

Here is his site: http://www.nicholas-wade.com/

http://search.barnes...e/9781594202285 Barnes and Noble.

Adam

seems to have some interesting ideas

Post script: Another review with lots of links:

"The star in The Faith Instinct is the horizontal and integrative dimension of religion, but it seems that in the developed world a combination of rampant pluralism as well as a general weakening of organized religions is breaking bonds which tie people together in a sacred body. Rather, it is a more atomistic faith instinct on the individual level which persists once the communal aspect is stripped away, a world of ghosts, energies and spirits. The future may be Sedona and not Ethical Culture."

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/11/the_faith_instinct_how_religio.php

Edited January 6, 2010 by Selene

[sbeaulieu]

Adonis,

Welcome to OL. Thank you, so far, for an insightful view into your interpretation of Islam. It's certainly eye-opening. I agree wholeheartedly that the media panders to the fearful - their agendas too painfully clear.

Two points I'd like to make: interpretation and feasible longevity of the written word (any religion and philosophy).

Interpretation: Everyone has an opinion. As such, everyone's interpretation will likely be different to one degree or another. Give a screenplay to five directors and you will get five wholely different movies. This will always be a source of strife inside and outside of any religion. Without living authors to clarify their passages, we will never be 100% certain what their intent was. They are not hear to answer questions and thusly will remain unanswered. On TV, there's a female pastor, Melissa Scott, that goes to extremes at interpreting scripture. It's amazing to watch her. Her knowledge, in my opinion, is unsurpassed in my experiences. But again, it's one interpretation. I'm sure not all will agree with her.

Feasible Longevity: The Bible, Qu'ran, and ancient philosophies were written to address issues relevant to their time. Do you still think all passages hold water for today's world? Fundamentalists grasp every word as truth as if it still applies today. I would be more sympathetic if there were updated versions that cover the changing world. I'm uncertain if something like a Papal Bull, for instance, is sufficient or if there's a Muslim or Jewish version of the same.

Again, welcome!

~ Shane

[Libertarian Muslim]

I know; I have had contacts with many muslims, mostly through my work as teacher. I was just using this as an example of how a rigid moral code can look like.

I recall a situation where I wanted to introduce myself to a muslim man with a handshake, and to my surprise he shook his head, holding both hands up in front of him, almost like in self-defense, and said "No, I can't do that. Please apologize if I can't give you my hand - my faith forbids this as inappropriate, shaking hands with a woman in public." (We were standing in the school aisle).

I was indeed surprised since I had never had any problem shaking hands with a muslim man before (with the Turkish fathers of my pupils for example).

He felt very uncomfortable at my surprise, thinking I might be offended. He said he used to shake hands with women before too, but that through the in-depth study of his religion which he had done in recent ears, he realized the 'mistake' and that he now knew more than ever that his religion was "right" on this.

While he was speaking to me, he was very nervous, his eyse darting from left to right. Like he was afraid of something, haunted by a constat fear of not behaving according to the moral code demanded by his religion.

I have no idea of what school of islam he adhered to (he was from Egypt); I felt pity for him being in this Procrustes bed of 'proper' moral behavior.

I see, yes this isn't uncommon. Some believe that PHYSICAL contact between unrelated or unmarried men and women is not allowed. But I don't see why someone would have a problem with this?

Like all faiths, Islam too is split up in various groups fighting each other over the "right" faith.

That's not true at all. The majority of Muslims get along with each other VERY well no matter what group they are from. The problem is however in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and some parts of the Mid East where there are a minority of extremists that engage in acts like that.

Wrong. Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) is no "new Muslim" at all. He converted to islam over 30 years ago, in 1977.

I didn't say that he is a new Muslim, I said that at the time, he was a new Muslim. And yes, I know you might not think that being a Muslim for 12 years is being a new Muslim but it is. At that time, in the UK the lack of information he'd have had would be phenomenal. All I can say is look at him now, he clearly doesn't think like that anymore and he's as dedicated to peace as he always has been.

Marriage and divorce

"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper...."

The Book of Women 4:3

English translation by M. H. Shakir

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your problem is with this? It's talking about doing justice to orphans and making sure you don't take their inheritance.

"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else).... "

The Book of Women 4:129

Translated by Rashad Khalifa

Again, what is the problem with this? Do you understand the meaning? Tell me what you think this means?

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "

The women are clearly not given the same "rights" as the men. Every attempt to explain this away is futile.

Do you understand the meaning of this? Below is a sermon titled "Removing the Silence from Domestic Violence" by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an American Muslim scholar who spent a lot of time studying classical Arabic in the Gulf and Islamic studies in Mauritania amongst other places. Translations themselves can mean many things, that one word has several meanings.

The best example is to look at the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's life. He never laid a finger on his wives and was known to have said, the best of men are those who are best to their wives.

It also says in the same surah that male heirs are entitled to the double amount than female heirs.

I'll explain this again because I don't think you read it.

A lot of people say this is unfair but let's take a look at it.

1. In Jewish and Christian law, women have no right to inheritance whatsoever unless there are no sons.

2. Up until recently, common law dictated that a man who marries a woman, automatically owns all of her wealth (An example is that of George Washington who married a rich widow).

Also,

Let's take a look at what Islam says should be spent by men and women in terms of money?

The financial obligations of a man that must be fulfilled are as follows;

- He has to pay the expenses for the wedding and the dowry when he gets married to his wife.

- He has to pay for his house and land.

- To provide for his wife and his family, that is a right women have.

- He is also required to provide for his parents once they get old and need help with things like that.

- He is also not allowed to touch his wife's wealth whether she works or inherits, it is her own and he has no access to it and still has to provide for her, even if she's rich.

The financial obligations of a woman are as such:

- Nothing.

- None

- Nada

- Zilch

- Zero

So is there any wonder why a male gets twice the share than that of a female? All of the financial burdens in society are on males so it means that maybe 100% is going to be spent on his family, whereas for a woman. She has no financial burdens whatsoever and can spend it all on whatever she likes.. Be it shoes, land, education, candy or even Michael Bolton and Yanni CD's.

Which just shows once more that any attempt of imposing alleged "objective values", "objective morality" on humans will only result in resistance.

Christopher: As Ken Wilber argues, what we need is a whole lot less of religion, a whole lot less.

I believe those religions will at last crumble to dust, and that the recent revival of islam is merely like a candle flickering before dying down for good. In time of crisis, people will of course flock to whatever gurus promise them 'salvation', but this is not going to last.

What recent revival? We've been going strong for 1400 years.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis has commented that libertarian ideas work well with Islam. I see this has provoked perplexity and at times derision.

But he's not just talking, which is one of the reasons I have not challenged him on this.

Here is a very insightful essay by Professor Bernard Lewis I came across and posted here on OL back in 2006:

Freedom and Justice in Islam

Lewis does some excellent conceptual thinking and concludes that (in broad terms) the concept of what we call freedom is closer to what the Muslims hold as justice. Here is a passage he writes about the time of Napoleon Bonaparte and how the Islamic world saw liberty and equality (meaning that they didn't understand what he was talking about back then).

The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal. Of course, that still leaves three "inferior" categories of people—slaves, unbelievers and women. But in general, the concept of equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else.

As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later an Egyptian sheikh—Sheikh Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe—wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.

The whole article bears reading. It's very good. But I want to make another comment here from it.

The following passage resonates strongly with me. In these online discussions that cover where cultures clash, I usually see a premise that is totally unrealistic on all sides: the idea that an entire society has to change instantly.

When one person expresses an opinion, the people on the other side jump on it as if such an opinion will have an instantaneous impact on large segments of society. That doesn't happen. Even if people wanted it to happen, it just doesn't. But people do yell at each other as if it could.

Actual change moves much much much much much much much much much slower.

Let's spend a moment or two defining what we mean by freedom and democracy. There is a view sometimes expressed that "democracy" means the system of government evolved by the English-speaking peoples. Any departure from that is either a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured. I beg to differ from that point of view. Different societies develop different ways of conducting their affairs, and they do not need to resemble ours. And let us remember, after all, that American democracy after the War of Independence was compatible with slavery for three-quarters of a century and with the disenfranchisement of women for longer than that. Democracy is not born like the Phoenix. It comes in stages, and the stages and processes of development will differ from country to country, from society to society.

I strongly believe that discussions like the one we are having on OL are positive elements of the slow change in societies. The yelling goes away after a while, but the effect of these discussions remain, even if only as a nudge. They are important. They help identify concepts between cultures, for starters.

One of the reasons I think maintaining these discussions alive is that they are spreaders of ideas. Like it or not, we all talk to people outside of this forum about what we read and write. All of us do. They talk to others. Some write. Some broadcast. Ideas spread.

This goes for lurkers and general audience, too.

From the view of a small philosophy discussion forum, it's a drop in the ocean, I know. But it's definitely a drop.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis,

Welcome to OL. Thank you, so far, for an insightful view into your interpretation of Islam. It's certainly eye-opening. I agree wholeheartedly that the media panders to the fearful - their agendas too painfully clear.

Two points I'd like to make: interpretation and feasible longevity of the written word (any religion and philosophy).

Interpretation: Everyone has an opinion. As such, everyone's interpretation will likely be different to one degree or another. Give a screenplay to five directors and you will get five wholely different movies. This will always be a source of strife inside and outside of any religion. Without living authors to clarify their passages, we will never be 100% certain what their intent was. They are not hear to answer questions and thusly will remain unanswered. On TV, there's a female pastor, Melissa Scott, that goes to extremes at interpreting scripture. It's amazing to watch her. Her knowledge, in my opinion, is unsurpassed in my experiences. But again, it's one interpretation. I'm sure not all will agree with her.

Feasible Longevity: The Bible, Qu'ran, and ancient philosophies were written to address issues relevant to their time. Do you still think all passages hold water for today's world? Fundamentalists grasp every word as truth as if it still applies today. I would be more sympathetic if there were updated versions that cover the changing world. I'm uncertain if something like a Papal Bull, for instance, is sufficient or if there's a Muslim or Jewish version of the same.

Again, welcome!

~ Shane

An orthodox believer would say that scripture is applicable to all times and places. God revealed it, after all, with full knowledge of the future, including (relative to Sinai and Mecca) vaccination, electricity, and all the rest of the technology developed since then and to be developed in the future (relative to ourselves). Moreover, God, having the fullness of wisdom, would be able to shape the text so that it could in the fullness of time be read with full applicability to the technology and inventions of future readers. So (for instance) Genesis 1 might have been read as a literal account of creation by its earliest readers, but we with our modern knowledge can see (via cross references in other parts of the Bible) that it was not meant to be read completely literally, and that it can be seen as containing references to the Big Bang and a general outline of the evolution of life on this planet. And indeed the Zohar, although written well before modern physics, expands on the text of Genesis in a manner that evokes the Big Bang even more definitely.

Beyond that, both Judaism and Islam contain institutions which allow the scripture to be interpreted and adapted to contemporary technology, although there is no central authority as there is in Catholicism to issue a binding ruling; rather, the issues are discussed, leading religious scholars issue their opinions and gradually a consensus is built up, or else conflicting trends appear and a status quo worked out. What has thrown the process out of whack is the orthodox response to modern thought and academic skepticism about religion--so that many orthodox believers think it necessary to reject the modern whenever possible and live by 18th century rules. Of course, that does not keep them from adopting modern technology (until now--there is, at least in Orthodox Judaism, a move afoot to make the Internet forbidden in an attempt to keep followers from coming in contact with information that would counter adherence to strict Orthodox practices.)

Jeffrey S.

[BaalChatzaf]

. Of course, that does not keep them from adopting modern technology (until now--there is, at least in Orthodox Judaism, a move afoot to make the Internet forbidden in an attempt to keep followers from coming in contact with information that would counter adherence to strict Orthodox practices.)

Jeffrey S.

Not so. There are dozens if not hundreds of Orthodox Jewish sites on the internet. The only restriction --- no browsing on the Sabbath and certain of the Holidays. The only Orthodox that I know of that want to stop the clock are Haradim, who are extremely Orthodox and rather reactionary. The mainline Orthodox folk keep up with modern technology. One Orthdox Rabbi told me that putting technology to use in promoting Orthodox practices (for example computing the time of sunset of Sabbath very precisely) actually sanctifies the technology! The implication is that the technology exists for the sake of promoting Orthodox practices.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I see, yes this isn't uncommon. Some believe that PHYSICAL contact between unrelated or unmarried men and women is not allowed. But I don't see why someone would have a problem with this?

The problem is that individuals are denied the right to decide for themselves. If such small things are already controlled, it takes no stretch of imagination to think of which other things will be controlled as well.

Like all faiths, Islam too is split up in various groups fighting each other over the "right" faith.

AV:

That's not true at all. The majority of Muslims get along with each other VERY well no matter what group they are from. The problem is however in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and some parts of the Mid East where there are a minority of extremists that engage in acts like that.

I was not thinking of the average muslims, the "people in the street". I was thinking about the leaders in power.

What about the conflicts between Sunnites and Shiites for example? Which group do you belong to btw?

AV: I didn't say that he is a new Muslim, I said that at the time, he was a new Muslim. And yes, I know you might not think that being a Muslim for 12 years is being a new Muslim but it is.

How many additional years does it take to be not a "new Muslim" anymore?

AV: At that time, in the UK the lack of information he'd have had would be phenomenal. All I can say is look at him now, he clearly doesn't think like that anymore and he's as dedicated to peace as he always has been.

Is there actually evidence of Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) having wished death on Rushdie?

What do you think about the fatwah on Rushdie?

AV:

Marriage and divorce

"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper...."

The Book of Women 4:3

English translation by M. H. Shakir

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your problem is with this? It's talking about doing justice to orphans and making sure you don't take their inheritance.

Let's stick to the point of the discussion and not get sidetracked. The issue was about the unequal treatment of men and women, not about "doing justice to orphans". In the passage it says a man can marry up to four women. Women don't have the same right.

"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else).... "

The Book of Women 4:129

Translated by Rashad Khalifa

Again, what is the problem with this? Do you understand the meaning? Tell me what you think this means?

I didn't mean to quote this passage explictily; it was part of the page I put there.

Well, what does it mean? Interesting that it says a man is unable to treat all his wives equally fairly, and he is admonished not let the unpreferred one(s) leave "hanging", which I assume means feeling unhappy/uncertain about their situation and the future.

It then continues:

If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

What precisely is meant by "self-restraint" here?

AV:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... " (end quote)

The women are clearly not given the same "rights" as the men. Every attempt to explain this away is futile.

Do you understand the meaning of this?

What is there not to understand? Stage 1 is mere words ("admonish") stage 2 is refusing sexual intercourse, stage 3 is physical violence.

AV: Below is a sermon titled "Removing the Silence from Domestic Violence" by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an American Muslim scholar who spent a lot of time studying classical Arabic in the Gulf and Islamic studies in Mauritania amongst other places. Translations themselves can mean many things, that one word has several meanings.

The issue here is not about removing "silence" from domestic violence, but about a surah in the Koran dealing with domestic violence against women who are not "devoutly obedient".

"Tranlations can mean many things" is too vague. It is about the translation of specific words in a specific passage. I can't listen to the youtube link because my earphones don't work: if the sheik gives "translations" for "admonish" "refuse to share the bed" and "beat" - what are they?

AV: The best example is to look at the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's life. He never laid a finger on his wives and was known to have said, the best of men are those who are best to their wives.

Keep in mind that things like 'myth-forming', 'legend-forming', can come into play here.

For it is not uncommon for gurus to be presented in a shining light by their followers who write 'hagiographically' about them.

It also says in the same surah that male heirs are entitled to the double amount than female heirs.

AV: I'll explain this again because I don't think you read it.

In case you mean 4:11, I have read it.

A lot of people say this is unfair but let's take a look at it.

1. In Jewish and Christian law, women have no right to inheritance whatsoever unless there are no sons.

2. Up until recently, common law dictated that a man who marries a woman, automatically owns all of her wealth (An example is that of George Washington who married a rich widow).

Your point being? Does listing other unequalities make the one in question any different?

Also,

Let's take a look at what Islam says should be spent by men and women in terms of money?

The financial obligations of a man that must be fulfilled are as follows;

- He has to pay the expenses for the wedding and the dowry when he gets married to his wife.

- He has to pay for his house and land.

- To provide for his wife and his family, that is a right women have.

- He is also required to provide for his parents once they get old and need help with things like that.

- He is also not allowed to touch his wife's wealth whether she works or inherits, it is her own and he has no access to it and still has to provide for her, even if she's rich.

The financial obligations of a woman are as such:

- Nothing.

- None

- Nada

- Zilch

- Zero

So is there any wonder why a male gets twice the share than that of a female? All of the financial burdens in society are on males so it means that maybe 100% is going to be spent on his family, whereas for a woman. She has no financial burdens whatsoever and can spend it all on whatever she likes.. Be it shoes, land, education, candy or even Michael Bolton and Yanni CD's.

I disagree about "all the finacial burden in society being on males". We are talking about the here and now, not about the prophet's times. My question is: Does this old structure still apply today, even if the woman can earn her own living?

AV: What recent revival? We've been going strong for 1400 years.

I did not mean by "revival" that Islam was nearing death. I meant it to be understood as "rise".

Fair enough, but capital punishment for marital infidelity and institutionalised stoning for anything (note very special exception for Hitler) is beyond the acceptable. I’m thinking of the line from the Beatles song Revolution, “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow”.

AV: I can appreciate you feel that way, but the punishment, as I've said isn't really for infidelity, it's for making it so public and humiliating your partner like that. The example you gave before of coming home to find your wife in bed with someone else isn't likely to happen because even the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said you shouldn't go home to your house without warning your wife that you are coming first, and not to be suspicious that your wife is gallivanting around with the local soccer coach.

Where does Mohammed say that the husband is to warn his wife that he is coming home?

AV: Libertarianism to me is basically being able to do whatever you want, providing that you don't harm anyone else in the process. Small government without interference in your life by them. Low taxes because taxation is banditry and oppression. Free commerce and markets to promote prosperity. The rights of the people can not be infringed, ever. Tyranny must be opposed.

What about possible tyranny by faith?

Some more questions. I'm a "put your cards on the table" type, so if you would be so kind and answer directly with "Yes" or "No". TIA. Imo an alleged libertarian condoning stoning has some explaining to do.

So here goes:

- Would you want the sharia to become applied?

- Would you participate as a witness in stoning of defendants found guilty of e. g. adultery ("in public"), or other sexual trangressions warranting the death penalty according to the sharia?

- Would you actively participate in stoning?

- How about muslim libertarians (if they exist at all, I have my doubts, especially if they are fervent fundamentalists) wanting to liberate islam from e. g. the barbaric practice of stoning? Would you take part in such an initiative?

If not, why not?

AV: Yes, you have war waged upon you... But do you know your enemy? Or do you believe the facade?

Who is that "enemy"? Do you sympathize with this enemy?

Edited January 7, 2010 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

. Of course, that does not keep them from adopting modern technology (until now--there is, at least in Orthodox Judaism, a move afoot to make the Internet forbidden in an attempt to keep followers from coming in contact with information that would counter adherence to strict Orthodox practices.)

Jeffrey S.

Not so. There are dozens if not hundreds of Orthodox Jewish sites on the internet. The only restriction --- no browsing on the Sabbath and certain of the Holidays. The only Orthodox that I know of that want to stop the clock are Haradim, who are extremely Orthodox and rather reactionary. The mainline Orthodox folk keep up with modern technology. One Orthdox Rabbi told me that putting technology to use in promoting Orthodox practices (for example computing the time of sunset of Sabbath very precisely) actually sanctifies the technology! The implication is that the technology exists for the sake of promoting Orthodox practices.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al--

It is a relatively recent trend that's come into the news only in the last few months, and it is of course strongest amid the Haredi, so I wouldn't be surprised if you've missed it. And the rationale is not the technology per se is bad, but that the possibility of encountering non-Orthodox or gentile information is too great, and the temptation to visit porn sites is also too great, and We Rabbis Must Protect Our Followers From Learning Anything That Might Weaken Their Faith Or Expose Them To Sex. So the ban is on using the Internet, not on using computers and technology per se. For similar reasons there have been bans issued on MP4 players (because it is possible to download porno films to such devices), but not MP3 players. And unfortunately where the Haredim go, the rest of the Orthodox eventually follow from societal and cultural pressure. It's part of the general trend that has made Orthodoxy in general far stricter and more ideological than it was, say, a half century ago.

Jeffrey S.

Edited January 7, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[9thdoctor]

- How about muslim libertarians (if they exist at all, I have my doubts, especially if they are fervent fundamentalists) wanting to liberate islam from e. g. the barbaric practice of stoning? Would you take part in such an initiative?

If not, why not?

I like Xray’s posts on this thread. In Mormon history there was an interesting development in 1978, their leaders had a revelation that called for them to reverse the racist policy forbidding blacks from becoming priests in their church. Mormonism was created pre-Civil War, and racial attitudes were very different then. By the 1970’s, these views were culturally unacceptable and then surprise(!), it’s revelation time.

Can this happen in Islam? Islam lacks a centralized theological authority, and the Koran is the final word, adding to or subtracting from it carries stiff penalties, so they’re stuck with barbarisms like stoning. If someone claimed they had a new revelation it would automatically be against Islam.

Somehow the Jews have escaped this trap, Bob’s post (#35) speaks to how. Otherwise they could be stoning people in Israel for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

[sbeaulieu]

JS,

Thanks for your reply.

Ninth Doctor,

Your example highlights why I have problems with texts that are adhered to long after their writing.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

. Of course, that does not keep them from adopting modern technology (until now--there is, at least in Orthodox Judaism, a move afoot to make the Internet forbidden in an attempt to keep followers from coming in contact with information that would counter adherence to strict Orthodox practices.)

Jeffrey S.

From Perke Avoth: Who is wise? He who learns from every one.

Traditionally, Jews have been happy to learn from other if they have something worthwhile learing. The source of outside wisdom or knowledge need not be Jewish. R. Moshe ben Maimon (Mainonodes) based an argument support Judaism using the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle. A century later Thomas Aquinas did the same for Catholoicism, using Maimonodes as a guide.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 7, 2010 by BaalChatzaf