Changing My Mind About Iran - And More On The USA

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I gave quotes from the Koran specifically so instructing. What exactly do you suppose they could mean except the above? I posed that question in my other post along with the quotes and you declined to answer it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my explanation of Surah 9:5 above.

[ QUOTE ]

I did not claim that all Muslims think similarly. I claimed that the Koran says certain specific things. The Koran is not something of which that you can just dismiss the parts you don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that Muslims are allowed to dismiss parts of it they don't like. I'm saying that it does not say the "certain specific things" you claim it says.

[ QUOTE ]

Shari'a is not antithetical to Western ideals???? Are you kidding or am I misunderstanding you? Have you ever read the Shari'a?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, Sharia is not a static and codified list of laws. It is a system of deriving laws from the Quran, the hadiths, etc. Second, I didn't mean to claim that Sharia itself is not antithetical to Western ideals. I was trying to say that a person who supports Sharia should not be forbidden to live in our country. Our Western ideals say that people can believe what they want. I think I was unclear on this point, I apologize. If this person chooses to vote in favor of Sharia, that is kosher. I would hope that he doesn't gain much support though.


[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that in the short-term an alliance with the Arabs would have been more profitable, but in the long-term the outlook for deep and lasting alliance with Islam is dimmer compared to with Israel, due to fundamental differences in the underlying religions. The discussion evolved from there (assuming I am in that thread, lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to point out that a shallow but long-term alliance with Islam might be more profitable than a deep long-term alliance than Israel. I just don't see that the alliance will inevitably fail if both parties are benefiting from it.

[Taraz]

I'm reproducing my explanation of Surah 9:5 just so that it isn't missed. Sorry for the clutter

[ QUOTE ]
Again, according to whom? People keep pointing to this verse as if it proves something about the nature of Islam itself. If you read from 9:1, the Quran itself tells you the context of this "commandment". There was a peace treaty between the Mushriqs (pagans or perhaps idolaters) in Mecca and the Muslims. The Mushriqs violated this treaty and they are given four months to make amends. If after that period of time they do not make peace, war will be declared on them. You are also ignoring the very next line of the Quran which states that if one of these pagans ask for asylum it must be granted and they must be taken to a safe place.


Given all of that, how does this apply to unbelievers as a whole? Are Christians and Jews really idolaters and pagans? What "traditional" Muslims go around killing non-Muslims? Why are there numerous examples of Islamic empires throughout history who did not systematically exterminate non-believers? Your interpretation ignores history and the entire context of the passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only wont he address specifics, but he hasn't addressed your central point that Christianity has evolved over time, and much of Islam is stuck 2000, not 1000, years back because the Quran is unambiguous, unchangeable and far more literal than even Bible literalists would adhere to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really flaunting your ignorance on this one. The Quran was written less than 2000 years ago. There have been numerous and wide-ranging movements within Islam that have changed its practices. Also, Quranic interpretation is a huuuuuge issue within Islam. It is an entire field of study and it is called tafsir. Claiming it is unambiguous, unchangeable, and literal is just a false assertion.

Wiki article on tafsir

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I gave quotes from the Koran specifically so instructing. What exactly do you suppose they could mean except the above? I posed that question in my other post along with the quotes and you declined to answer it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my explanation of Surah 9:5 above.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't Sura 9.5 that I was citing, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I did not claim that all Muslims think similarly. I claimed that the Koran says certain specific things. The Koran is not something of which that you can just dismiss the parts you don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that Muslims are allowed to dismiss parts of it they don't like. I'm saying that it does not say the "certain specific things" you claim it says.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do the passages which I cited mean, then - as I've asked before (and I'm not talking about 9.5).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shari'a is not antithetical to Western ideals???? Are you kidding or am I misunderstanding you? Have you ever read the Shari'a?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, Sharia is not a static and codified list of laws. It is a system of deriving laws from the Quran, the hadiths, etc. Second, I didn't mean to claim that Sharia itself is not antithetical to Western ideals. I was trying to say that a person who supports Sharia should not be forbidden to live in our country. Our Western ideals say that people can believe what they want. I think I was unclear on this point, I apologize. If this person chooses to vote in favor of Sharia, that is kosher. I would hope that he doesn't gain much support though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I see where you are coming from on that. I was saying that Shari'a is antithetical to Western ideals and I gues swe agree on that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that in the short-term an alliance with the Arabs would have been more profitable, but in the long-term the outlook for deep and lasting alliance with Islam is dimmer compared to with Israel, due to fundamental differences in the underlying religions. The discussion evolved from there (assuming I am in that thread, lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to point out that a shallow but long-term alliance with Islam might be more profitable than a deep long-term alliance than Israel. I just don't see that the alliance will inevitably fail if both parties are benefiting from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see that and maybe it is true; my worry is that the Koranic imperatives to eventually bring all the world under Allah's will and rule, would in time cause great conflict with the West, which would of course resist being brought under Allah's will and rule.

Thanks for your content-filled and informative posts.

[BalugaWhale]

[ QUOTE ]
Shari'a is not a static and codified list of laws

[/ QUOTE ]
john-
i think this is a key point that you are missing.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shari'a is not a static and codified list of laws

[/ QUOTE ]
john-
i think this is a key point that you are missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew that about Shari'a, but since Shari'a typically gives Muslims more rights than non-Muslims, gives men more rights than women, and limits the freedom of religious expression, Shari'a is generally incompatible with Western values.

I think we already agreed on that, so I don't see why I should have needed to add as a bynote: "(Shari'a is not uniform but it typically does the following), which is incompatible with Western values..." I think it is sound enough to merely state that Shari'a is incompatible with Western values and leave it at that, since the various versions of Shari'a are overall and typically incongruent with Western values. That doesn't mean every little bylaw within Shari'a is, but Shari'a as the basis for law is incongruent with Western values. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that Shari'a is VERY incongruent with Western values. That there exist various versions of Shari'a is not really germane to the point, unless there exist full versions that ARE really congruent with Western values, and I am pretty sure that such versions do not exist (again not talking about little bylaws which in themselves may not be incongruent, but rather the entire version of the Shari'a under examination).

So I don't really understand the reason for the quibble.

I'll guess that you just have a sensitive spot and sympathy for some friends who are Arab and/or Muslim and it bothers you somehow to critically analyze their ideology so bluntly. But objective analysis and criticism of religion and its political impact is, in my opinion, central to any long-term "getting along" between the Middle East and the West. Ignoring fundamental differences in worldview isn't going to make those differences go away. If anything, the increasing interaction of cultures due to the world becoming "smaller" is going to highlight those differences. This is material that needs to be dealt with by interchange of ideas and discussion rather than by fighting.

At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I'll add that the Islamic world needs to realize that it is unworkable to expect the West to accede to their beliefs and laws, such as laws against blasphemy or insulting the Prophet. The people marching in masses calling for the execution of the cartoon journalists, for instance, and the religious and political leaders who supported such things, need to be told loudly and clearly by the West: "No, no, you're wrong...you don't get to enforce your laws over the whole world. Under our laws, freedom of speech is important. You don't get to threaten someone with death for what you see as blasphemy, and if you do that and set foot on our soil, you will be arrested since threatening someone with death is a crime under our laws."

IMO the Islamic world needs to be forced to acknowledge the concept of reciprocity. Example: Saudi Arabia, it is highly illegal to proselytize for Christianity.At the airpoprts, you cannot bring in a Bible or Star of David. Yet Saudi Arabia finances many mosques in the USA dedicated to spreading Wahabbism. Double standard x10, right? This is the type of thinking they need to be disabused of. Reciprocity is the key to good long-term relations between any groups, and the Islamic world generally doesn't seem to "get" or understand the concept of reciprocity. It is OK for Islamic clerics to caricaturize the Jews as sons of apes and monkeys, but if someone insults their Prophet, they call for his head. This is, to put it mildly, unnaceptable BULLCRAP and it needs to be pointed out at every turn.

Now of course not all Muslims think that way or act that way, but a great many do, including heads of state and religious leaders, as well as crowds in the street. The bottom line is they are wrong and backwards and unless they get their heads into the modern world they will continue to have problems with the rest of the world. It's no coincidence that Islam has historically had "bloody borders". That doesn't absolve the West for its role in colonialism or expploitation, but until Islam "gets" the concepts of equality and reciprocity, Islam will never really get along with the rest of the world.

End of rant, but some things really bug me, and the bullcrap about calling for the heads of cartoon journalists is a prime example of why Islam has always had problems getting along with the rest of the world.

Thanks for reading, and I hope my response to your post isn't lost due to longer the sideline criticism I added. I think both are important.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]


You are really flaunting your ignorance on this one. The Quran was written less than 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are flaunting logic with this one. Mohammed was orn into an Arab tribe ~1500 years ago. His religious beliefs are a blend of primarily the Arabic, but also the Jewish and Christian beliefs that he was exposed to in his travels. All of those were formulated over the prior 500 years.

The Bible was written and updated over decades, the King James version not published until the 1600s. Does that mean the Christianity wasnt 1500 years old at that point?

If someone writes "The Quran for the 21st Century" that is in its essence just a rewording of the original that becomes the text of choice, does that make the Quran 1 year old?

[BalugaWhale]

john-
I really think you are missing that there is a HUGE divide amongst moderate muslims and non-moderate muslims. Have you ever spent any meaningful time in Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, or even Egypt? You'll find that their societies are both A) based on shari'a and B) remarkably tolerant and "western". I lived in Morocco for a decent amount of time as part of my middle eastern studes degree program and was amazed at the level of personal freedom, fairness, and understanding that came along with a shari'a society. Obviously, there are elements of Moroccan legal society (as with any of the other countries I listed, and certainly also with many "western" nations) that need improvement. Marriage laws in Morocco are outdated and generally unfair, for example, despite the passing of the marriage reform in 2004.

However, countries like Tunisia and Egypt have strong records regarding women's rights. Just because people wear headscarves doesn't mean that they are being oppressed--in many countries, it's simply a personal choice. Research Huda Shawari'a if you want to know how Egypt came to a tolerant culture towards women. Or read up on how powerful Umm Kulthum became in the 1950's and 1960's.

It's not that I am sensitive because I have some arab friends. It's that I'm very qualified when it comes to discussing the current state of arabic/islamic culture--probably a lot more qualified than you are btw--and I believe it's the source of the problem that people with an incomplete understanding of Islam, shari'a, and the modern of the Arab world are the ones making the biggest claims.

Obviously, there is a huge problem in the Arab world too with people thinking that Pres. Bush speaks for all of us, much in the same way.

By the way, for any travelers in the middle east-- being american is ok, but liking bush isn't. So don't lie and say you're canadian, just say you're a democrat.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I gave quotes from the Koran specifically so instructing. What exactly do you suppose they could mean except the above? I posed that question in my other post along with the quotes and you declined to answer it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my explanation of Surah 9:5 above.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't Sura 9.5 that I was citing, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I did not claim that all Muslims think similarly. I claimed that the Koran says certain specific things. The Koran is not something of which that you can just dismiss the parts you don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that Muslims are allowed to dismiss parts of it they don't like. I'm saying that it does not say the "certain specific things" you claim it says.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do the passages which I cited mean, then - as I've asked before (and I'm not talking about 9.5).


[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted 9:29, 9:73, and 9:123 which all deal with the same group that I described in my explanation of 9:5. It is basically the same explanation. The whole of Surah 9 is dealing with a rather specific point in the history of Islam.

It's as if I said something like this:
There are ten guys who live in my building: four New Yorkers, three Californians, and three Texans. Those Californians stole my TV. I can see it in their place. They steal from everybody. We should go beat up the Californians.

And then you come along and say:
Look, he said, "We should go beat up the Californians!". He must want to fight everybody from California, how violent!

It's actually worse than that now that I think about it. Because the word that is translated into "unbeliever" or "idolater" does not refer to Christians and Jews. This is regardless of context.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
john-
I really think you are missing that there is a HUGE divide amongst moderate muslims and non-moderate muslims. Have you ever spent any meaningful time in Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, or even Egypt? You'll find that their societies are both A) based on shari'a and B) remarkably tolerant and "western". I lived in Morocco for a decent amount of time as part of my middle eastern studes degree program and was amazed at the level of personal freedom, fairness, and understanding that came along with a shari'a society. Obviously, there are elements of Moroccan legal society (as with any of the other countries I listed, and certainly also with many "western" nations) that need improvement. Marriage laws in Morocco are outdated and generally unfair, for example, despite the passing of the marriage reform in 2004.

However, countries like Tunisia and Egypt have strong records regarding women's rights. Just because people wear headscarves doesn't mean that they are being oppressed--in many countries, it's simply a personal choice. Research Huda Shawari'a if you want to know how Egypt came to a tolerant culture towards women. Or read up on how powerful Umm Kulthum became in the 1950's and 1960's.

It's not that I am sensitive because I have some arab friends. It's that I'm very qualified when it comes to discussing the current state of arabic/islamic culture--probably a lot more qualified than you are btw--and I believe it's the source of the problem that people with an incomplete understanding of Islam, shari'a, and the modern of the Arab world are the ones making the biggest claims.

Obviously, there is a huge problem in the Arab world too with people thinking that Pres. Bush speaks for all of us, much in the same way.

By the way, for any travelers in the middle east-- being american is ok, but liking bush isn't. So don't lie and say you're canadian, just say you're a democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post and thanks for the additional insight