Islam and Peace

[Mike Renzulli]

I wanted to start a new thread specifically about Islam itself. It may have been addressed in previous threads but I think the need for one specifically about Islam is warranted since it hails from the Middle East.

Back in August and September I decided to cover the subject of Islam for my Objectivist club. First we saw the film The Third Jihad and then in September an ASU College Professor of Russian language who became interested in Islam and studied up on it after 9/11.

All I can say is learning about it was quite eye opening.

To sum it up, ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali best describes the religion when she recently stated:

Islam is more than a religion, it does have a spiritual dimension, but there is another dimension to Islam--a political dimension.

As our guest lecturer, Dr. Carl Goldberg, pointed out the Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and Islam.

The way that the submission is carried out is by settlement (i.e. jihad) and the institution of Sharia Law.

The four main sources of Islamic jurisprudence are the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah and Sharia of which they include specific commands to conquer and guidelines on how to do it.

The Sunnah or Hadith (I do not remember which) describe how Muhammad (who is not only the prophet of Allah but whose word is considered Allah's word) defeated his enemies in more than 60 military campaigns.

The books also describe war tactics, the concept of deception, legislation on crime prevention, punishment of behavior such as the hanging of apostates and the stoning of adulterers, and laws governing family matters such as divorce and marriage.

The way Islam is structured not only is dissent in the religion not doable (due to the specifity of the texts on which it is based) but also cannot be tolerated. The religion (if you want to call it that) is a way of life.

In terms of war, there were times that Christianity was spread by the sword but the religion can and has been reinterpreted to where it is not in the sense of military campaigns.

Islam is and it is a requirement of the religion. Many groups have suspended violent action in favor of pragmatic political activities.

If you want to see what life would be like under Islam, you need look no further than Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

If you are truly interested in learning anything in more depth than what you get from a party line or a mainstream image, in the identification stage you have to look at both pro and con sources--the most reputable ones you can find. And you have to throw in some totally neutral sources.

After that, you do your thinking and evaluating.

Then, if you become convinced of something, you have a solid body of research to back you up.

Too many people evaluate first, then seek out information and opinions to corroborate their evaluations made while they were in an uninformed state. I call this the cognitive-normative inversion and claim that it is an epistemological error. After all, how can you properly evaluate something when you don't really know what it is? I find this kind of thinking often here in our subcommunity.

I suggest you be careful that you do not do that here (but, of course, you choose). The sources you listed are merely one side. In my view, you still have some research to do.

To cite a well-worn cliche, but a good one, knowledge is power.

Michael

[Mike11]

Albert Hourani would be a good place to start.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[bmacwilliam]

Facts:

The "Prophet" was:

- a Warlord

- a psychopathic mass murderer (killed hundreds and hundreds by his own hand)

- bigomist

- most likely a pedophile (his youngest wife was 7 I think)

- pathological liar (told false stories about an invisible man and pretended it was true)

But no... I don't think there's any foreseeable problem with basing a religion on a dude like this.

Falls under the category of "What the hell did you think was gonna happen??"

[Mike11]

Normally one says excuse me after they belch.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on Bob,

Own up.

You're just envious that you perceive Mohammad to be a bully who made it to the big time.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Hi Mike,

I have done more research with regards to this. While I have no doubt in my mind the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, tolerant people unfortunately there are these striking things outlined in the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah that cannot be ignored.

More specifically I have also read Bernard Lewis and Robert Spencer about Islam as and while I hold out some hope that the religion can be reformed to where it becomes more secular, unfortunately, in the Islam's presnt culture it doesn't look like it will happen.

The reason for this is that the Islamic jihadists (as I call them) have (as Robert Spencer points out) a stronger theological basis than moderates or secularists if you will.

The only difference between Christianity and Judaism is that if a fellow Muslim openly dissents and criticizes another's actions in the context of conducting jihad the result is ostracization or excommunication from the community or even death.

There is a gentleman here locally named Dr. Zudhi Jasser who considers himself a devout Muslim however he is literally considered an outcast because he has been openly critical of the actions of groups like Al-Quaeda and other jihadists groups.

As a result of his outspokeness it has lead to him being considered an outcast in the Muslim community where I live and possibly elsewhere.

Mike,

If you are truly interested in learning anything in more depth than what you get from a party line or a mainstream image, in the identification stage you have to look at both pro and con sources--the most reputable ones you can find. And you have to throw in some totally neutral sources.

After that, you do your thinking and evaluating.

Then, if you become convinced of something, you have a solid body of research to back you up.

Too many people evaluate first, then seek out information and opinions to corroborate their evaluations made while they were in an uninformed state. I call this the cognitive-normative inversion and claim that it is an epistemological error. After all, how can you properly evaluate something when you don't really know what it is? I find this kind of thinking often here in our subcommunity.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike11]

Theology is ink on a page. People are far more motivated by economics, social mobility and social stability. Also, before you explain who is more in line with 1400 years of Islamic tradition,

The Sunnah or Hadith (I do not remember which)

... is something you will need to look into. Muslim scholars spend decades learning before they enter into this kind of debate. Curious if you would show the same respect to Judaism, there are a lot of fun passages in their books, writings and sayings.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[bmacwilliam]

Normally one says excuse me after they belch.

Really??

Care to answer a few simple questions then? (probably not)

1.) How many people did he kill - personally? Was it 500? 700? or 900?

2.) How many wives did he have?

3.) What was the age of his youngest wife? (Some say he didn't "do" her until she was older - very comforting)

4.) What do the answers to these questions say about the person?

Muslims (some or even most) may be peaceful, but the very foundation of Islam is truly about as evil as you can get.

Michael especially seems to be rather dismissive of facts.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Theology is ink on a page. People are far more motivated by economics, social mobility and social stability. Also, before you explain who is more in line with 1400 years of Islamic tradition,

The Sunnah or Hadith (I do not remember which)

... is something you will need to look into. Muslim scholars spend decades learning before they enter into this kind of debate. Curious if you would show the same respect to Judaism, there are a lot of fun passages in their books, writings and sayings.

"People are far more motivated by economics, social mobility and social stability."

Irrelevant deflection, the point, explicitly stated was

"I wanted to start a new thread specifically about Islam itself."

"Curious if you would show the same respect to Judaism,"

Irrelevant deflection, the point, explicitly stated was

"I wanted to start a new thread specifically about Islam itself."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Bernard Lewis is a very good independent source.

Anyway, what do you propose to do to help make things better?

In my view, there are two main Islam-specific intellectual issues that need to be hammered over and over. I have seen evidence that these points are considered seriously by Muslims.

1. The leftover Nazi influence within parts of the Muslim world that is at the root of Islamism and violent Islamic fundamentalism.

2. Separation of the religion Islam from Sharia in the modern world.

When I talk to Muslims about this, my comments are treated with much more consideration--and many agree--than when I discuss terrorism, jihad, etc., in the manner you see like with Robert Spencer.

I call this approach speaking their language, not just mine.

There is another aspect I try to keep present in my discussions. Islam is not just one culture. It is many different cultures, and some of them are hostile to each other. So I try to keep some kind of cultural reference as a frame. For example, some comments you can make about Iran do not really apply to Malaysia. Nor does criticism of Saudi Wahhabism work with Sufism, since Sufis are not fundamentalists. And so forth.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

It is not a matter of what I can do to help make things better but what the Muslims themselves will do.

I can critize the religion all I want but (ultimately) it is those inside Islam themselves who must work to stop the radicalism that is growing inside their faith or they should leave if they are unsuccessful in doing so.

Perhaps if I am to do anything it is to continue to criticize Islam as much as I criticize Christianity and Judaism while continuing to educate people about the religion and why we need to know about it.

However, Islam will be the one religion I will critize more because it is Islamic terrorism and the states that support their jihad that the U.S. and western countries are at war with.

I realize talking to them about things one can agree on is a good way to open a dialogue and I might do so in the manner you do myself. Yet, I am sure you are aware, to them people like you and I (in the strictest sense of the religion) are infidels and, according to the Quran, should be put to death.

In terms of your question about Mosque/state seperation it will be very difficult to accomplish this since, in Islam, the state and religion are certainly to be intertwined if not by design certainly by default.

As near as I can tell Islam has no concept of the secular view of religion/state seperation. Even in Malaysia which (as you point out) is westernized, the Monarchy and religion are one despite the country having secular courts for non-Muslims. Yet you notice there are Sharia courts in the country only for Muslims and they are not allowed to use Malaysian secular courts.

As far as the Sufis are concerned, it should also be noted that Imam Rauf who is the spokesperson for the group behing the Ground Zero Mosque has also been identified as a Sufi yet he refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group.

I also posed this same question of denouncing Hamas to Libertarian Muslim on another thread on these same boards and he also would not condemn the group either.

Mike,

Bernard Lewis is a very good independent source.

Anyway, what do you propose to do to help make things better?

In my view, there are two main Islam-specific intellectual issues that need to be hammered over and over. I have seen evidence that these points are considered seriously by Muslims.

1. The leftover Nazi influence within parts of the Muslim world that is at the root of Islamism and violent Islamic fundamentalism.

2. Separation of the religion Islam from Sharia in the modern world.

When I talk to Muslims about this, my comments are treated with much more consideration--and many agree--than when I discuss terrorism, jihad, etc., in the manner you see like with Robert Spencer.

I call this approach speaking their language, not just mine.

There is another aspect I try to keep present in my discussions. Islam is not just one culture. It is many different cultures, and some of them are hostile to each other. So I try to keep some kind of cultural reference as a frame. For example, some comments you can make about Iran do not really apply to Malaysia. Nor does criticism of Saudi Wahhabism work with Sufism, since Sufis are not fundamentalists. And so forth.

Michael

Edited November 18, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

What do you expect your criticism to accomplish?

I'm not criticizing. I'm just wondering.

btw - Rauf calls himself a Sufi. But David Duke calls himself an American. I don't think either are typical.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

What I hope to accomplish with my criticism is to continue the dialogue and education about Islam itself as well as the threat jihadists pose to the west.

It does not help any when you have high profile media personalities (like Fareed Zakaria) claiming that the U.S. overreacted on 9/11, others stating that that the threat of terrorism is not as bad as it is being made out to be or is limited to a few radical Muslims.

Yet you had Muslims who lead mostly secular lives becoming radicalized. Faisal Shahzad is a prime example.

In terms of men like Rauf, you would think a Sufi would be a bit more secular or open to criticizing Muslims who conduct acts of terror or are involved in jihad. Yet, in Rauf's case, he will not even condemn them.

It seems neither will Adonis.

Mike,

What do you expect your criticism to accomplish?

I'm not criticizing. I'm just wondering.

btw - Rauf calls himself a Sufi. But David Duke calls himself an American. I don't think either are typical.

Michael

Edited November 17, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I'm not sure, but I don't think our Libertarian Muslim friend will be back. Someone started stalking him a while back for posting here and, from what I presume, threatening him. He asked me to remove his real name on the forum wherever I could--and replace it with Libertarian Muslim--because of the search engines.

I do hope he is OK.

There are crazies on both sides of this debate.

btw - If you are really set on pursuing anti-Islam thinkers as your main fare, at least look at Daniel Pipes. In my reading, he is more knowledgeable than the others and he generally does not make the oversimplifications I have read in their works.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

If you want to see what life would be like under Islam, you need look no further than Saudi Arabia and Iran.

What if I said look no further than Baghdad circa 1250 (before the Mongol invasion), and Cordoba around the same time? Thomas Aquinas picked up on the Aristotelian renewal via the Muslim Averroes, hence, if I can borrow some hyberbole from Peikoff’s bag of tricks, comes the steam engine, telephone, bottled beer, and the internet. Meanwhile, gas chambers came from Kant, and book burnings from Augustine (the last point actually has some truth to it), so how about we pick on German Christians?

The trouble with Germans is not that they fire shells, but that they engrave them with quotations from Kant.

Haven’t we beaten this subject to death already? It looks like "Libertarian Muslim" has retired from OL, so where’s this topic going to go? While I'm thinking of it, though, the latest Peikoff podcast features his approval of the French Burqa bannings, and he says that Europe is lost, it's going to be taken over by Islam. May as well read Mark Steyn.

[Mike Renzulli]

I have read Daniel Pipes and I find him to be very good as well. However, for the record, I am not anti-Muslim but anti-Jihadist. I agree that Bernard Lewis is an excellent source as he is the foremost authority about Islam and I respect and look to Spencer as a source because he is well versed on Islamic theology yet seems to be more blunt in his assertions than Lewis. However, according to an interview of Bernard Lewis, there are very few times he and Spencer disagree with one another.

My whole point is to understand and educate people about the enemy the U.S., if not western civilization faces, and the best way to do that is by looking at Islam as a whole.

I saw the film Agora the other night. It is an excellent movie and I do not want to see the West to become the kind of society jihadists envision. If they are successful it would be just like what happened when ancient Christians sacked the Serapeum library. History would repeat itself all over again in which mankind would experience another Dark Ages.

btw - If you are really set on pursuing anti-Islam thinkers as your main fare, at least look at Daniel Pipes. In my reading, he is more knowledgeable than the others and he generally does not make the oversimplifications I have read in their works.

Michael

[Mike11]

Have you read any Arab or Muslim writers that are not part of the anti-Islam industry?

[Libertarian Muslim]

Care to answer a few simple questions then? (probably not)

I'd love to Bob.

1.) How many people did he kill - personally? Was it 500? 700? or 900?

Hmmm there's no real number which is known, True Muslims didn't boast about the amount of enemy that one killed, rather valor was seen in their actions during combat.

But if you're referring to his role during the executions doing the treason of the Bani Qurayza then the estimated number of execution was 700 men of which he did take part.

As I've mentioned numerous times, the sentence of death was not given by Muhammad, he usually didn't give such sentences even for treason, he usually exiled people. But the Bani Qurayza themselves chose their judge, a former Jewish scholar who became Muslim who judged them according to Jewish and not Islamic law.

As this was the request of the Bani Qurayza themselves Muhammad respected that.

2.) How many wives did he have?

Somewhere between 9 and 12, not all at one time but over the period of his life.

3.) What was the age of his youngest wife? (Some say he didn't "do" her until she was older - very comforting)

At least 17 years old when you look at the evidence rather than weak hadith.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7250931/Truth-About-the-Age-of-Hazrat-Ayeshas-Age

4.) What do the answers to these questions say about the person?

That you will inevitably take everything out of context to prove your bigotry?

Muslims (some or even most) may be peaceful, but the very foundation of Islam is truly about as evil as you can get.

Of course you think that, but your understanding of Islam is very limited.

Mike,

I'm not sure, but I don't think our Libertarian Muslim friend will be back. Someone started stalking him a while back for posting here and, from what I presume, threatening him.

I do hope he is OK.

Hi Michael! I'm doing well thank you and I hope you are too. I never left actually, it's just that I didn't see that much action on the board so I haven't really replied to anything. Plus I've been quite busy with work. That stalker issue seems to have subsided for the time being.

[Selene]

LM:

Excellent.

Another occurrence to be thankful for today. Glad to see you are ok, I was concerned.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

Great to see you.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

But if you're referring to his role during the executions doing the treason of the Bani Qurayza then the estimated number of execution was 700 men of which he did take part.

2.) How many wives did he have?

Somewhere between 9 and 12, not all at one time but over the period of his life.

So, even if you ignore the rest. This is not enough??

Somehow it's perfectly fine to build a religion around a scumbag like this? How rational is that?

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

During that time, multiple wives was common in all kinds of cultures.

You are committing an historical error of applying modern cultural thinking to an ancient one, then judging one person in the past for practicing something common as if he lived in modern times.

And since I know where your bigotry is headed (you already did this somewhere around here), below is something I already posted on OL (see here) I believe the Answers.com article bears posting again:

Was Muhammad a pedophile?

From the article:

The simple answer is no. However the answer is more complex than it might look on the surface.

One of Muhammad's wives was Ayesha or Aisha. Depending on what sources are used her age at marriage is sometimes put at 6 and consummation at 9. However there are a number of facts which need to be factored in.

1: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about Ayesha's age, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until 300-odd years after Muhammad's death. Other sources give Ayesha's age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.

2: Even if her age were 6 / 9, the custom of taking child brides was a part of Middle-Eastern culture. The Jews practised it as well as many of the other nations in the Middle-East and remember too that Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark.

3: Pedophilia is both a sexual dysfunction and a legal one. Muhammad's others wives were adult women with who he apparently had very good realtions. This would not normally be the case for a pedophile.

4: Customs and Traditions as well as laws were very different then from now. What is considered unacceptable now was not considered anything to comment about then.

. . .

This answer is closed to changes. This is done in rare cases when questions are being vandalized or answers have become debates.

Notice that Jews married young back then and "Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark." Would that make Joseph a pedophile (and Jews in general)?

I can do this kind of fact-checking for multiple wives, too.

It helps to check facts, but in my experience, people who hate because they like to hate are not interested in facts.

Michael

[anthony]

It's a matter of context; in those desert lands of that time, justice was savage and morality was raw. After already 1000-plus years into the Christian era, the european continent was then a bog of brutality.

I don't see any religion as holding a monopoly on "goodness and mercy".

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

During that time, multiple wives was common in all kinds of cultures.

You are committing an historical error of applying modern cultural thinking to an ancient one, then judging one person in the past for practicing something common as if he lived in modern times.

And since I know where your bigotry is headed (you already did this somewhere around here), below is something I already posted on OL (see here) I believe the Answers.com article bears posting again:

Was Muhammad a pedophile?

From the article:

The simple answer is no. However the answer is more complex than it might look on the surface.

One of Muhammad's wives was Ayesha or Aisha. Depending on what sources are used her age at marriage is sometimes put at 6 and consummation at 9. However there are a number of facts which need to be factored in.

1: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about Ayesha's age, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until 300-odd years after Muhammad's death. Other sources give Ayesha's age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.

2: Even if her age were 6 / 9, the custom of taking child brides was a part of Middle-Eastern culture. The Jews practised it as well as many of the other nations in the Middle-East and remember too that Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark.

3: Pedophilia is both a sexual dysfunction and a legal one. Muhammad's others wives were adult women with who he apparently had very good realtions. This would not normally be the case for a pedophile.

4: Customs and Traditions as well as laws were very different then from now. What is considered unacceptable now was not considered anything to comment about then.

. . .

This answer is closed to changes. This is done in rare cases when questions are being vandalized or answers have become debates.

Notice that Jews married young back then and "Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark." Would that make Joseph a pedophile (and Jews in general)?

I can do this kind of fact-checking for multiple wives, too.

It helps to check facts, but in my experience, people who hate because they like to hate are not interested in facts.

Michael

Well, you're consistent in one thing at least. You never seem to fail to miss the point.

It was "common back then" so that justifies anything? Hey Michael, if your friends jumped off a bridge... Oh, it was a "cultural thing" maybe?? I don't dispute that it was common, but maybe the guy who bucked the trend and treated his one and only wife properly was the one worthy of respect.

Multiple wives, regardless of how, when, or why is nothing more than treating women like crap - period. Justify it all you want, but the point is that it is entirely predictable and expected that a religion that has a PRIMARY figure with multiple wives would lead to a religion/culture that treats women like crap.

But that doesn't even matter. How many people did he kill? How many? That's right it was only 700 or so, no big deal. Gee, do you think a peaceful religion will develop if you worship a piece of crap like this??

EDIT: YOU talk about FACTS and conveniently skip that one???

Bob

Edited November 25, 2010 by Bob_Mac