More Pictures By Michael Yon

18 Responses to “More Pictures By Michael Yon”

1. The Islamic Monolith « The Van Der Galiën Gazette on November 19th, 2007 3:09 pm

   […] 19, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën Doesn’t exist. You’ve got the “Islamic Left” - progressive Muslims, secular Muslims, Sufis etc. - and […]

2. Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » A couple of Muslim links … on November 19th, 2007 3:45 pm

   […] … from Sudanese, and Muslim, blogger Drima. On the one hand, there’s More Idiotic Fatwas, with an example of the manipulation of fatwas for political purposes. On the other hand, Drima reminds us how far Islam is from being monolithic. […]

3. Andrew Brehm on November 19th, 2007 4:47 pm

   This is a difficult discussion.

   A few facts that speak for the “Islam is a death cult crowd”:

   1. Islam does indeed preach violence.

   2. Islam does indeed subjugate women.

   3. Islam does indeed have a concept of going to heaven for dying in a battle against infidels.

   4. And the Qur’an is indeed regarded as the literal word of G-d and cannot be interpreted.

   Those are facts.

   But the “death cult” crowd, like Islamic fundamentalists, misunderstand what those facts mean.

   We have to look at the facts in the context of what Islam is and history.

   1.

   Islam does preach violence, but it only preaches violence against those infidels that are the enemies of G-d. When the Qur’an mentions violence it was always the Muslims fighting pagans or the Muslims being attacked or discriminated against by pagans and fellow believers (Jews, Christians).

   The Christianity Islam was fighting a thousand years ago was not the Christianity of today (or the Christianity of Jesus’ times). It was a decadent, violent cult that discriminated against Jews, pagans, minorities, in a way that was understood to be unacceptable for Muslims.

   Today this permitted violence should be directed at the terrorists, because they are the modern incarnation of the pagan enemies of G-d.

   2.

   Arab tribes have treated their women as property for a long time (in Saudi Arabia they still do). Some of the tribes, those that followed the religion of Abraham, the precursor to Islam, granted women some rights. Muhammed and his first wife were from such tribes.

   (It should be noted that the Abrahamic Arabs of then had beliefs similar to the Jews in that they prayed only to one god but recognized other gods as maybe existing but unimportant.)

   The Qur’an has to be read in that context. It granted women more rights than they had before.

   If a man walks only 50 meters a day and I tell him to walk 100, I do it because 50 is not enough, not because 200 would be too much.

   And similarly the Qur’an changed Arab tribal law, not to limit future understanding of the necessity of equal rights for women, but to limit past restrictions.

   Men and women still have different duties according to the Qur’an, and that is the only part that refers to the future. Everything else about women in the Qur’an refers to the past. Only the different duties were confirmed, everything else was changed.

   If I recall correctly the Qur’an says men can have four wives. That law refers to the fact that before Islam, Arab tribal law allowed as many wives as a man wanted (Sephardi Jewish law still does, coming from the same tribal source). The Qur’an limits the number to four because no man can care for more women and their children. But this law does not mean that it has to be allowed for a man to marry four women.

   The number four was a limit of the higher numbers of before, not a limit of smaller numbers of later. A law that prohibits polygamy is not un-Islamic, a law that allows more than four wives is.

   (Jewish law recognizes that civil law can limit marriages to one women per man even though Jewish law allows more. The Qur’an was conceived within that context.)

   3.

   This is the easiest one.

   Islam does say that a martyr goes to heaven. However, again, when the Qur’an was conceived this referred to Muslims (or Jews or Christians) who were persecuted by pagans. If such a believer died at the hands of the pagans, if his faith is so strong that he does not give in, he goes to heaven.

   A terrorist trying to murder a Jew is doing no such thing. Islam does not say that murdering civilians is allowed nor does Islam say that Jews are pagans ior unbelievers.

   And commiting suicide is not dying at the enemy’s hands, it’s dying at one’s own hand. And Islam forbids suicide.

   The martyr concept simply doesn’t apply to terrorists.

   4.

   And this is another difficult point, the interpretation of the Qur’an. And again we have to look at the context.

   The Qur’an was written (or given by G-d) NOT as a reaction to the future but as a reaction to the situation in Arabia then (over a thousand years ago).

   The Qur’an points out what has to be done, implied is an “instead of”. It was current customs that the Qur’an referred to, not future ones.

   There is no need for reform of Islam or a new interpretation of the Qur’an, because the Qur’an already covers surprisingly much. (It even explains how the Israeli-Arab conflict must be resolved, but who cares?)

   If not quoted out of context and if seen in the context of the time, the Qur’an makes a lot of sense.

   It also has to be understood that the Qur’an consists of two separate contexts. One is the story of what Muhammed did and said, the other is what G-d wants everybody to do.

   Some of the violent parts of the Qur’an clearly apply to the current situation, there were not law to be followed later. (For example, a Muslim should not generally fight the people of Mecca, although Muhammed did.)

4. Roman Kalik on November 19th, 2007 7:03 pm

   A couple of corrections regarding Jewish law, Andrew: Old (circa 2200) Jewish law limits the number of possible wives to four, though grudgingly allowing more to those who truly demanded it. The only man ever truly allowed more wives than four was the king, and polygamy in general was never viewed with favor.

   Both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish law equally allowed polygamy, but Ashkenazi Jews simply had to live by Christian law on the matter. Thus polygamy became less widespread among Ashkenazi Jews.

   Eventually Herem (edict of expulsion to those not following it) was issued by Rabbi Gershum, a prominent *Sephardic* Rabbi during the Middle Ages, forbidding polygamy fully and citing that its damage to Jewish society could be seen clearly. It was accepted by all communities that it reached, and it reached all known Jewish communities at the time with the exception of some areas in Yemen (they didn’t hear of the edict, not refused to accept it). Thus in theory, Yemenese Jews can still practice polygamy from a Jewish religious point of view, but they usually don’t because the vast majority of Jews would disapprove.

   You can still find the odd polygamous Yemenese Jew, but they are truly a rarity.

5. JanJanssen on November 19th, 2007 9:23 pm

   If you have to see the Quran as a message only for the time of revelation, why is the Quran of any relevance now?

   If anyone would bother to read the biographies of Muhammad, then he will see that the violence that Muhammad used against his self-declared ennemies was of a far more extreme nature than those uncivilised arabs had ever experienced before.

   The question then is, what can we learn from the Quran seen in its context? Does “kill your ennemy” have any positive message for mankind?

6. Andrew Brehm on November 19th, 2007 9:44 pm

   “A couple of corrections regarding Jewish law, Andrew”

   I was generalising.

   (As far as I know Ashkenazi law allows only for one wife. Rabbis changed the law because of the Christians no doubt. When I said Sephardi, I included Temanim. It was about the principle, not the minutiae.)

7. Andrew Brehm on November 19th, 2007 9:49 pm

   “If anyone would bother to read the biographies of Muhammad, then he will see that the violence that Muhammad used against his self-declared enemies was of a far more extreme nature than those uncivilised arabs had ever experienced before.”

   Unlikely. Very little was known about the primitive backwater that is Arabia before Muhammed.

   But looking at the Arab world, I find the most violence among Wahabiists (Muslim heretics) and Arab nationalists and the ilk they influenced. I assume the original Arab tribes were similar to those, it seems to be the culture (as opposed to Islam).

   I pretty much assume that Muhammed was a target for Arab violence then just as much as any self-proclaimed prophet would be these days if he said things like G-d giving land to the people of Israel and telling them not to withdraw from it.

   (That wasn’t his main message, but it was part of it.)

   “Does “kill your enemy” have any positive message for mankind?”

   Yes. The Christians say it does not, but I am very fond of the concept indeed.

8. Roman Kalik on November 20th, 2007 5:12 am

   And like every generalization, Andrew, it wasn’t accurate. Until Rabeinu Gershum the Ashkenazi Jews didn’t have any religious limitation on polygamy, just civil limitations due to the society that they lived in.

9. Andrew Brehm on November 20th, 2007 9:28 am

   Roman,

   Are you saying that _every_ generalisation is inaccurate?

10. Roman Kalik on November 20th, 2007 11:50 am

    … make that *almost* every.

11. Andrew Brehm on November 20th, 2007 2:39 pm

    

12. TeacherLady on November 20th, 2007 5:45 pm

    I guess it’s similar to the God Hates Fags people not being representative of all Christians. Just some

13. Drima on November 21st, 2007 1:54 am

    And again Drima finds himself reading and learning more about Judaism’s interesting (and rather similar) traditions.

    JanJanssen, context dude. Muhammad’s actions, like the Quran, can be seen and interpreted differently by different people. Apparently all you see is the violence. Was there violence? Sure. Were there some things done back then that would seem strange in today’s context. Yes. Muhammad was no Jesus. You have to look at Muhammad the human being, Muhammad the Prophet, and Muhammad the statesman and politician.

    Being in the position of a statesman (something which Jesus wasn’t) meant he had to engage in war.

    Before all the wars were waged, maybe you should read up about all the events that took place and the amount of suffering he endured for years while remaining completely pacifist. Your view of Muhammad differs from mine obviously because you’re being selective in picking specific events in his life (which you also interpret differently).

    At the end of the day, my main point stands. Islam is not a monolith.

14. Andrew Brehm on November 21st, 2007 5:58 pm

    Drima,

    Roman knows a lot more about Jewish religious law than I do. I try to cover a wider field of expertise though.

    He is also observant/orthodox, I am not (to anywhere near the same degree, anyway).

15. Drima on November 21st, 2007 6:17 pm

    And on the other side of the spectrum is Raccoon, the weed smoking naughty non-observant Discordian Jew.

16. Roman Kalik on November 21st, 2007 8:18 pm

    Andrew is right there in the middle between Raccoon and I in such matters.

17. ratedrsuperstar on November 23rd, 2007 6:12 pm

    and the fact remains drima that as a ‘man of God’ Muhammed should have relied on God instead of the sword no matter what. Hence all the so called suffering of early days muslims holds no water. What good is a God that cannot fight his own battles?

18. Andrew Brehm on November 25th, 2007 1:23 am

    “What good is a God that cannot fight his own battles?”

    It is the god who allows man free will. We can either have free will or a god who interferes with what with do.

    I am not worried about Allah letting humans fight for themselves. I am more worried when people claim that man must punish man for crimes that are against G-d alone.

Leave a Reply