UPDATE:
The discussion has turned into one about Islamic reform, since it looks like Turkey is in the process of publishing a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam.
Muslim Leaders Write ‘Harmony’ Letter To Jews
|
-
Blog Featured In
-
Drima Elsewhere
-
Network with Drima
-
Nominated Three Times
-
Causes
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Israellycool writes about that here:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/02/25/muslim-gesture-of-goodwill-towards-jews/
“Most Muslims would hope that the suffering Jews have experienced would make them more sensitive to the sufferings of others, especially the Palestinians.”
They should understand that there is a limit to sensitivity. I for example do not have much patience for people who want to kill me.
They should understand that since it was (nominal) Muslims who kept starting wars with Israel, it is up to Muslims to repair that bridge.
Once that bridge is repaired, we can have any cooperation and friendship they want.
That’s how it worked with the Germans.
Hmmm… a very nice letter. But it just sort of says that we’re all equally to blame, etc etc.
We ain’t.
Judaism has nothing to apologize for to the rest of the world. There is nothing that needs to be changed in the attitude of Judaism to stop Jews from behaving like bloodthirsty psychopaths.
*shugs*
Moral equavalence, even when it’s a part of a seemingly nice gesture, kind of makes the hair at the back of my neck stand up.
It’s kind of like person A who has been trying to murder person B for years suddenly saying: “we should stop trying to murder each other and live in peace!”.
Kind of… suspicious.
I agree with Raccoon, of course. (And btw. what happened to your email address, man?)
As long as they don’t apologise for trying to destroy Israel (and attacking Israel before she committed any of her alleged “crimes”), there can be no real friendship.
“There is nothing that needs to be changed in the attitude of Judaism to stop Jews from behaving like bloodthirsty psychopaths.”
Which is why no Muslim state checks everyone entering a mall for bombs in fear of a Jew trying to blow people up.
For a reconciliation, I expect Muslim organisations to do the following:
1. Make a strong statement condemning the attack on Israel in 1948 as an anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic act.
2. Condemn any further attempts to “throw the Jews into the sea”.
3. Condemn the treatment of Jews in Arab countries (except Morocco) before and after the founding of Israel since the birth of Arab nationalism in the early 20th century.
4. Condemn the treatment of Arab refugees from Israel by Arab countries as un-Islamic.
5. Call on Syria to apologise for its attacks on Israel, pay reparations, and give up the Golan.
6. Condemn all attacks on Israeli civilian and military targets by any nominally Islamic groups as anti-Semitic and un-Islamic.
7. Re-affirm that Jerusalem is the holy city of Judaism, the seat of Allah’s original temple, as it was acknowledged by Muhammed and Islamic rulers until the rise of Arab nationalism.
8. Call on Israel to end the occupation of Judaea and Samaria once Israel’s safety no longer depends on control of those territories.
9. Call on Arab countries that have not yet done so to sign a peace treaty with Israel in the spirit of the Quran which acknowledges that the children of Israel have a right to settle in the land of Israel.
It’s not too much to ask. It’s not more than what the Quran demands Muslims to do anyway, and it’s not more than what Germany did after World War 2.
this reminds me of another Harmony letter muslim leaders wrote recently to the pope
Guys I think you’re missing something. This letter is meant to be something on a faith-based level, not political. So even when it says Jews, I think they’re talking about Jews as a religious group, rather than an ethnic one.
Plus if it was political, it would be directed explicitly at Israelis. One look at it, and it’s evident that they evaded any discussions on things of a strictly political nature. Letters like this are usually crafted very delicately to avoid stepping on any “land mines”. The article doesn’t go into great details so it’s not possible to dig deeper and create a bigger context but I still think it’s a positive step.
One tiny one at a time guys.
actually i would be very interested to know what you think about this one .. if you’ve already blogged about it, then i missed it
Dude, thanks a lot for that great link. I didn’t know about this. What do I think? I like it! I am especially loving the fact that they trained 450 women. I’m not for domination by men because their interpretations are usually colored by the patriarchal culture they’re immersed in. This is a subject I’m a dedicating a whole chapter to in my upcoming book.
I respect and find great value within traditionalist Islamic interpretations but many aspects are outdated. See this link for a list. Most things I’m concerned with have a lot to do with gender equality and pluralism.
“This letter is meant to be something on a faith-based level, not political.”
So why does it mention “Palestinians”?
And what are the “deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices” that exist among Jews about Muslims? Why are they addressing it at Jews? What is their in contemporary Judaism that can be regarded as a prejudice against Islam? Rabbis do not preach anti-Islamic positions.
What do the authors of the letter want Judaism to do? How can Judaism change to get rid of the prejudices and what prejudices exist there in contemporary Judaism against Muslims?
I don’t see the faith-based problem between Judaism and Islam. I see a problem between the Jewish people and Arab nationalists and a problem between the Jewish people and certain heretical Muslim groups.
When the authors of the letter address the Jews, whom do they think they are representing? Islam doesn’t have a problem with Judaism, never had. Are they representing Arab nationalists? Are they represented Muslim heresies?
If they want reconciliation with Judaism on a religious level, they don’t have to publish letters accusing Jews of mistreating Arabs, they just have to join those Muslims who stick to the Quran and never had a religious problem with Judaism:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
http://www.amislam.com/
What the authors are doing is not seek reconciliation but ignore that reconciliation is not needed or warranted.
They are not coming forward to promote peaceful togetherness, they are taking the focus away from those who are already doing it.
And they are pointing the finger at Judaism. Much like the Saudi “peace initiative” (which was simply what Israel had offered for decades), that letter is simply a proposal to do what Judaism has done for centuries.
They don’t have to tell Jews about it. They can simply do it. If they want peace between religions, they just have to stop attacking other religions. This is not something that Jews (or Christians) can do for them.
I respect and find great value within traditionalist Islamic interpretations but many aspects are outdated. See this link for a list. Most things I’m concerned with have a lot to do with gender equality and pluralism.
i was in particular impressed by this:
Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.
The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University’s School of Theology.
An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as “hadiths” - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.
“Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation,” he says.
If i get it right they are going to dispute the authenticity of some of the better known hadiths
The letter’s nice, but it also combined an attempt to appear as utterly impartial and apolitical as possible, with problematic moral relativism used for a kind of “let bygones be bygones” statement and as little mention of current Islamic problems as possible (which do affect the matter at hand, and not admitting the problem *is* an issue in itself. Imams who preach for, or just validate, suicide-bombings and direct attacks against civilians are very real, and need to be stopped) - while nevertheless entering a political issue when mentioning Palestinians.
I’m waiting for a better letter, really.
“I’m waiting for a better letter, really.”
I’m still not convinced that we need a letter.
If they want reconciliation, they should simply visit Jerusalem.
Then, in exchange, they can invite Jewish leaders to Mecca.
Nobody, it’s not really about the authenticity of the hadiths themselves but rather the circumstances in which they were mentioned.
Roman,
“but it also combined an attempt to appear as utterly impartial and apolitical as possible”
Which has pros and cons. Pros being, avoiding heated subjects that go around in circles and cons being, avoiding head-on discussion on things that need discussing.
Exactly, Drima. And here and now, Islam has issues many Muslims don’t even *admit* to be issues. Saying “let’s just move on” is great when the matter is just about circular blame games and vendettas - it stops being great when some very real problems remain, are ignored further, and end up being prettied-up and white-washed in the name of “let’s just move on”.
Also, the letter ended up breaking its own attempt at neutrality and focus on religion alone.
Very interesting about the Hadiths! I can has linkie?
Drima on February 27th, 2008 4:25 pm
Nobody, it’s not really about the authenticity of the hadiths themselves but rather the circumstances in which they were mentioned.
well … you know, this is hardly open to any other interpretation …
But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.
It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.
actually if i get it right, the hadith does not have the same authority as the koran … one can doubt the authenticity of individual hadiths … in fact i think both in sunni and shia islam there is a gradation in terms of how authoritative and reliable different hadith traditions are…. if i remember it right those by bukhari and moslem are considered the top ones by the sunnis…
Yes, true Nobody, a significant number is questionable but what I meant to say was that the for the majority it’s more to do with the circumstances in which things were said.
************************************************
Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.
“There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband’s permission and they are genuine.
“But this isn’t a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet’s time it simply wasn’t safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons.”
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said “he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone”.
So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet’s goal was.
************************************************
i see what you mean … by the way i was quite amazed when i read it for the first time … did you know that the prophet said anything like this ??? because what follows is that the muslims are a kinda doing just the opposite of what the prophet had in mind
There are many more examples I can provide you with if time permitted. I’m not shocked about the findings in that great article.
One of Islam’s biggest problem’s is that the tradition for hundreds of years has been dominated by men from patriarchal cultures. No matter how you try to be impartial, when you interpret things, your world view eventually ends up coloring the interpretation.
The way I, and millions of other Muslims see it, is that the true spirit of Islam has been buried under a huge pile of man-made garbage which through time has come to pass as “sacred” knowledge.
“which through time has come to pass as “sacred” knowledge.”
Some of it is much older than the Quran.
A lot of it is Arab tribal tradition.
In Saudi Arabia tribal traditions often officially outweigh the Quran in legal matters.
As for the letter, since there are no religious problems between Judaism and Islam (apart from the odd prophet not being acknowledged by Jews and/or the odd normal man elevated to status of prophet by Muslims), maybe those among Muslims worried about religious differences should focus on the Sunni-Shia-rift.
There has never been a war fought between Jews and Muslims over religious matters.
But there have been hundreds of wars fought (and are still being fought) between Shiites and Sunnis over their religious differences.
“If i get it right they are going to dispute the authenticity of some of the better known hadiths”
I would be happier if they could say “This one is genuine. Mohammed really said it. And he was wrong.”
Or better still “This is stated in the Quran. It may have been valid at the time, but it is wrong now.”
The Bible is full of statements and rules which only the most fanatical Christians or Jews still take seriously. Time to move on from the old Sacred Books.
# Drima on February 28th, 2008 8:25 am
The way I, and millions of other Muslims see it, is that the true spirit of Islam has been buried under a huge pile of man-made garbage which through time has come to pass as “sacred” knowledge.
how big an impact shouold this turkish project have in your view ??? as far as i can see it’s sponsored by the islamist government itself and it involves top theologians and apparently even western advisers …. if i believe the article what they are doing is nothing short of a theological revolution
“as far as i can see it’s sponsored by the islamist government itself”
This supposedly “Islamist” government is a distinct and completely different breed altogether from any other real Islamist groups out there.
I’d be happy to have them as my government on any given day. Generally speaking I’m actually a big supporter of their methods and policies.
I highly recommend you read this article.
“how big an impact shouold this turkish project have in your view ???”
In practice all over the Muslim world, not much, at least not any time soon BUT it *is* going to help lay the groundworks of snowballing progressive reform. Not just that, but people striving for reform (like me) will have a powerful rhetorical arsenal of Islamic arguments to back up our ideas and articulate them in Islamic terms. This is something that’s extremely crucial.
Drima,
The so-called fundamentalists (actually heretics) have already changed our understanding of Islam in politics.
Turkey’s ruling party is “Islamist” in the same way that Germany’s (senior) ruling party is “Christian”. Turkey just happens to be the only (perhaps) example of a “normal” Muslim country.
“Deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices have resulted in a distancing of the communities and even a dehumanizing of the ‘Other’. We urgently need to address this situation. We must strive towards turning ignorance into knowledge, intolerance into understanding, and pain into courage and sensitivity for the ‘Other’.”
As an impartial (neither Muslim or Jew) witness in the world, it seems to me that this letter is addressed to the wrong people.
Whereas Turkey has criminalized rape in marriage, in Egypt we witness ever more outlandish fatwas. Witness the breast-feeding fatwa which declared that unmarried men and women could be alone together in an office at work without violating Islamic law as long as the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times. Or the urine fatwa in which the Mufti of Egypt wrote in a book, and then retraced after an outpouring of ridicule, that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.
it’s from your link, drima .. the first time i read anything like this ..
by the way, what is this thing about a woman breast feeding her male colleagues five times a day ??? does it have anything to do with the fact that muslims pray five times a day ???
“As an impartial (neither Muslim or Jew) witness in the world, it seems to me that this letter is addressed to the wrong people.”
Indeed.
“it’s from your link, drima .. the first time i read anything like this ..”
Trust me Nobody, it’s as retarded to me just as it is for you. And by the way, a fatwa is the mere opinion of a Muslim scholar/”scholar”, *not* a hadith.
Trust me Nobody, it’s as retarded to me just as it is for you. And by the way, a fatwa is the mere opinion of a Muslim scholar/”scholar”, *not* a hadith.
i know that it’s not … i just thought it’s funny … nothing more really
back to the main subject - i think you underestimate what’s happening … if the turks ever publish such a document, the scandal will be absolutely huge … i would even believe that some truck bombing will follow … to purge the hadith of some parts and reinterpret the rest on such a scale is something the turks won’t get away with so cheaply … it’s indeed akin in some ways to the christian reformation, as this guy in the article says … and as we know the reformation had shaken europe to its foundations …
“to purge the hadith of some parts and reinterpret the rest on such a scale is something the turks won’t get away with so cheaply”
I am waiting for some Arab “Muslim” leaders to claim that the Turks are not Arabs and therefor less capable of interpreting the Quran and Hadiths, thus proving that the Arab “Muslim” leaders have not understood Islam and that the Turks probably did.
i found an old article from 2006 by the WP on the same thing … i think it’s much better than that by the BBC …
The proposed revision came from the Diyanet, Turkey’s highest Islamic authority, which controls more than 76,000 mosques in Turkey and other parts of Europe. Its president, Ali Bardakoglu, a liberal theologian appointed three years ago by the ruling conservative Justice and Development Party (known as AKP), declared that a new collection of hadiths, free of such misogyny, would be prepared by 2008. He also announced that enlightened imams would be sent to the rural, conservative regions of southeastern Turkey to preach against practices such as honor killings.
Many Muslims view hadiths as sacrosanct, although their accuracy has been a major point of contention among scholars. The hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Koran, which was transcribed during the prophet’s lifetime and canonized right after his death in Medina in the 7th century. By the 9th century, people were constructing such strange stories from the prophet that scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj decided to evaluate and catalogue them. Focusing on the reliability of the chain of transmitters, these scholars created collections of sahih , or trustworthy, hadiths.
But some modern Islamic scholars have felt increasingly uneasy about the inconsistencies and narrow-minded assertions in these collections. There are other hadiths that explain Muhammad’s great respect for his wives, for example, and insist on the rights of women. The contradiction implies a need for revision. “I can’t imagine a prophet who bullies women,” said Hidayet Tuksal, a feminist theologian in Ankara. “The hadiths that portray him so should be abandoned.”
Similarly, in proposing to create its new standard collection, the Turkish Diyanet intends to look beyond the chain of transmitters to logic, consistency and common sense. In many ways, this is a revival of an early debate in Islamic jurisprudence between rival camps known as the adherents of the hadiths and the adherents of reason — a debate that ended with the triumph of the former.
The reawakening of this medieval debate and the consequent revision of the hadith literature could be a revolutionary breakthrough.
Source
so the adherents of reason are making a comeback vs the adherents of the hadiths in turkey … the revised collection of hadiths is apparently to be released very soon, at some point this year …
“i think you underestimate what’s happening … ”
I’m not. I think it’s going to be huge because it will ignite a very necessary debate in gigantic ways but for things to later stabilize and become *practice* will take a long time.
I can’t wait for the release. I just find it strange that something like this is not getting major coverage especially in Arab media.
“I just find it strange that something like this is not getting major coverage especially in Arab media.”
You find that strange?
I would be surprised if it was covered at all!
And again the world proves to me that the great respect I have for Turkey is entirely deserved.
The Turkish initiative sounds like a promising thing. What’s mentioned in the BBC article is e.g.:
“”There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband’s permission and they are genuine.
“But this isn’t a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet’s time it simply wasn’t safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons.”
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said “he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone”.
So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet’s goal was. ”
Hooray for women being able to travel long distances alone.
A colleague of mine is just doing that in Brazil btw
“A colleague of mine is just doing that in Brazil btw”
I assume the Wahabi view is that women traveling to Brazil on their own is permissible since it can be done within three days?
There seem to be a parallel between the Turkish reformation and the european in the 16. century (Calvin, Martin Luther). Lets just hope the reformation of Islam can avoid the counterreformation and the many years of war between protestants and catholics, that followed.
Related: Danish muslims with Turkish background are distancing themselves from the leading imams in the Islamic Faith Community in Denmark. Apperently they are tired of being associated whith people, who openly despise democracy.
I would prefer, if people stopped asking for religious answers to modern world problems. That is not going to happen. But then it’s a step forward, if religion is reformed, so modern people can live with it. Maybe even the women.
” Lets just hope the reformation of Islam can avoid the counterreformation and the many years of war between protestants and catholics, that followed.”
Why avoid the counterreformation? Wasn’t the very point of the reformation that the Roman Church needed reformation? If it hadn’t reformed, what would we have except for one reformed church and one fundamentalist church?
“Related: Danish muslims with Turkish background are distancing themselves from the leading imams in the Islamic Faith Community in Denmark. Apperently they are tired of being associated whith people, who openly despise democracy.”
I can imagine.
“I would prefer, if people stopped asking for religious answers to modern world problems.”
Why? In past, every time they have, disaster struck.
Remember the Germans who looked for answers outside Christianity and in nationalism? Or the Arabs who followed secular Arab nationalist leaders instead of Islam?
What’s so great about specifically avoiding religious answers to problems?
# Drima on February 29th, 2008 1:40 pm
“i think you underestimate what’s happening … ”
I’m not. I think it’s going to be huge because it will ignite a very necessary debate in gigantic ways but for things to later stabilize and become *practice* will take a long time.
I can’t wait for the release. I just find it strange that something like this is not getting major coverage especially in Arab media.
i am more surprised by the very limited coverage of it by the western media … i would say that the western coverage of this event is non coverage … apart from a few articles i could find very little …
now when it comes to the debate that these revised hadiths can start, i would notice that the turks are basically coming up with their own version of the hadith … in fact, this is that alternative islam you were asking for all the time … the turks have done the job for you by purging the bukhari and moslem collection of the more bizarre stuff and reinterpreting the rest … you were asking for alternative islam, here you’ve got it … the turkish compilation can serve as a rallying point for you and other muslims of your orientation … you dont have to reinvent islam on your own as the turks have already done it …
i should also mention that this is the first time that i see such a systematic and thorough attempt to attack the theological foundations of religious conservatism …. usually until now you would see muslims from all sides quoting passages from the koran and the hadith supporting their own view while avoiding messing with each other at the theological level … the turkish project is different in this respect because they took it a step further… they did not satisfy themselves with pointing out that certain hadiths can be interpreted in a different way … they have also discarded other stuff on the grounds that these are later elaborations that had never happened …
“i am more surprised by the very limited coverage of it by the western media”
The western media have just spent the last 7 years telling us that fundamentalist Islam is the “real” Islam and that we must be more understanding towards it.
Should they now tell us that the Turks think that that interpretation of Islam is wrong and that the real real Islam is much more intelligent and sane than that?
Andrew Brehm on February 29th, 2008 4:58 pm
The western media have just spent the last 7 years telling us that fundamentalist Islam is the “real” Islam and that we must be more understanding towards it.
to be honest i dont have the slightest idea of what you are talking about … i read all sorts of articles about islam in the western media over the last seven years … the majority of these downplayed the significance of the fundamentalist islam and claimed (falsely) that it’s devoid of any widespread popular support and theological underpinnings …
i can tell you nothing about the real islam since i am not muslim and not even an arabic speaker … i am in no position to know what sort of islam muhammad had in mind … for me the real islam is one practiced by the muslims themselves … if muslims in iraq and pakistan are truck bombing each other every day, for me their islam is as real as this hadith project …
i won’t go into debate over what the ‘real’ islam is about but i would say that there are enough baseless accusations leveled at the west and the western media both in the muslim world and the west itself … enough of this shit …
“to be honest i dont have the slightest idea of what you are talking about”
Perhaps you have not seen the headlines?
LGF samples them. Have a look.
“i can tell you nothing about the real islam since i am not muslim and not even an arabic speaker”
Most Muslims are not Arabic speakers either.
“i am in no position to know what sort of islam muhammad had in mind”
Everyone is in the position to know that. It takes but four things:
1. Reading the Quran, preferably in Arabic.
2. Knowledge of other Semitic and other monotheistic religions that Islam evolved from and with.
3. Knowledge of the Arabic language and culture and preferably other Semitic languages and cultures.
4. Knowledge of Islamic and, preferably also, Christian history.
The only thing that is not required is being a Muslim. You don’t have to believe to understand.
And even partial understand of the four subjects required can tell you a lot about Islam.
If you don’t understand Islam you can but see what self-proclaimed Muslims do and how they want to represent the culture. And then, to feign understanding, you begin to accept outlandish idiotic rituals as “Islamic”, thereby tarnishing a once sophisticated culture and promoting the form of “Islam” that the most vocal among the fundamentalists want to see promoted.
And that, the latter, is what our media do.
The fact that western media keep referring to the current regime in Iran as a “Islamic Republic” alone will take decades to undo.
It will take years and years to convince a western audience that Islam does not equal that particular demonic regime.
Instead the media downplay the crimes of the Iranian regime in order to be politically correct and not attack Muslims.
And the Iranian regime has won. The media have accepted it as representative of Islam.
Not to mention the “Islamic” Hamas and the “Guardians of the Holy Mosques”… who decided that the Saudis are the “Guardians” of the holy mosques? Conquest did. But the media report it as if it was somehow legitimate beyond the the principle of might makes right.
suzanne, it’s not only travel that requires a man’s permission. women aren’t allowed to obtain any official documentation for their children, only the husband has the legal right to do that and if he’s not around you’re still not allowed, you have to get one of his brothers. official documentation being things like birth certificates, passports etc.
“suzanne, it’s not only travel that requires a man’s permission.”
Wow! I knew that was so in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but I didn’t think it happened, legally, in Egypt?
Everyone is in the position to know that. It takes but four things:
1. Reading the Quran, preferably in Arabic.
2. Knowledge of other Semitic and other monotheistic religions that Islam evolved from and with.
3. Knowledge of the Arabic language and culture and preferably other Semitic languages and cultures.
4. Knowledge of Islamic and, preferably also, Christian history.
The only thing that is not required is being a Muslim. You don’t have to believe to understand.
in practical terms islam is not based on the koran so much as on the hadith … you got it wrong … i think it was mentioned in one of the links … koran can help you to understand islam no more than the hebrew bible judaism … there were movements in islam that rejected all other traditions besides the koran but if we are talking about the mainstream islam, sunni or shia, it’s the hadith that’s the primary source of understanding of the koran and practice… that’s why this turkish project is so important …
of course i dont know what you consider the real islam … maybe you consider the hadith tradition unislamic and mainstream muslims are not real muslims for you … but then the whole notion of the real islam becomes meaningless because what we got here is one billion pseudo mulsims who don’t practice the real islam according to you ….
“in practical terms islam is not based on the koran so much as on the hadith … you got it wrong”
How do you _know_ that I got it wrong?
And since when is Islam supposed to be based more on the hadith than on the Quran?
“koran can help you to understand islam no more than the hebrew bible judaism”
I find the Bible a very good starting point for understanding Judaism.
“that’s why this turkish project is so important …”
And you saw me doubting the importance, when?
“of course i dont know what you consider the real islam”
That culture that existed in the middle east (and Spain) before its decline starting in the 1500s and definitely before the rise of Arab nationalism in the early 20th century.
“maybe you consider the hadith tradition unislamic and mainstream muslims are not real muslims for you … but then the whole notion of the real islam becomes meaningless because what we got here is one billion pseudo mulsims who don’t practice the real islam according to you”
Since Islam is about submission to G-d’s will, how does the number of followers of different interpretations influence the validity of the interpretations?
It is quite possible that there are one billion pseudo-Muslims, just as it was possible that, a certain time, there were millions of pseudo-Christians.
Why would that be impossible per se?
andrew, that is the law, yes.
Andrew Brehm on February 29th, 2008 7:22 pm
“in practical terms islam is not based on the koran so much as on the hadith … you got it wrong”
How do you _know_ that I got it wrong?
And since when is Islam supposed to be based more on the hadith than on the Quran?
“koran can help you to understand islam no more than the hebrew bible judaism”
I find the Bible a very good starting point for understanding Judaism.
listen man
i bet most muslims would agree that to know what that thing you call the real islam is about requires reading more than the koran … practically maybe up to 80% of the sharia is based on non koranic sources such as hadith … in fact most islamic scholars would insist that understanding many passages in the koran is impossible without the hadith … anyway, you say that after reading in the koran you’ve established that one can safely dispence with the hadith and know what the real islam is about - so it be … i would still like to make another attempt to defend the western media …
the situation is that we may have up to one billion of pseudo muslims, pseudo islamic republic of iran, pseudo islamic monarchy of saudi arabia, pseudo islamic movement of hamas and many pseudo islamic others… now you say the western media is at fault by not mentioning the pseudo islamic nature of them all, like, for example, that the islamic republic of iran is not actually islamic …
so according to you, an article that refers to iran by its official name which is the islamic republic of iran, should also mention that, even though iran calls itself islamic republic, this is not the true islam …in fact i bet that you object to our calling muslim brothers by their official name too … because it can make ignorant western readers think that we are dealing here with some islamic movement while these people are not true muslims .. and i bet to call jordan’s islamic action party and others as islamic opposition should be wrong too because this is not the true islam …
there are two problems with this approach … first of all the problem of style and readability … there is another one and an even more serious problem .. there are some people who know arabic, read all of the koran and hadith and whatever and yet they still think that saudi arabia is quite islamic … you would be amazed but there are some professors of islamic studies who think that hamas is very islamic … some quite knowledgable people even think that violence is endemic to islam … we dont have the final authority or some broad agreement even among our experts on islam regarding what the true islam is about .. in the absence of this the western media just follows the conventions common in the west and the muslim (or maybe pseudo muslim ???) world and that’s all …
@Andrew
“Why avoid the counterreformation?”
All I’m saying is, we must hope for a peaceful process of reformation and counterreformation. The European experience shows, it might turn out very violent.
“Remember the Germans who looked for answers outside Christianity and in nationalism? Or the Arabs who followed secular Arab nationalist leaders instead of Islam?”
There are other alternatives than just religion and extreme nationalism. Around where I live saying “because god says so” is not an argument for anything in public discourse. I have observed, that religious people seem to expect anarchy and Mad Max, if there is no god to keep people in line. But in general it works very well without. One just has to practice democracy as “a way of life”.
“What’s so great about specifically avoiding religious answers to problems?”
Again, religious people tend to be too certain of themselves. Virtues like fallibilism and tolerance looses to absolutism and condemnation.
Have fun.
Andrew Brehm on February 29th, 2008 7:22 pm
“in practical terms islam is not based on the koran so much as on the hadith … you got it wrong”
How do you _know_ that I got it wrong?
And since when is Islam supposed to be based more on the hadith than on the Quran?
“koran can help you to understand islam no more than the hebrew bible judaism”
I find the Bible a very good starting point for understanding Judaism.
listen man
i bet most muslims would agree that to know what that thing you call the real islam is about requires reading more than the koran … practically maybe up to 80% of the sharia is based on non koranic sources such as hadith … in fact most islamic scholars would insist that understanding many passages in the koran is impossible without the hadith … anyway, you say that after reading in the koran you’ve established that one can safely dispense with the hadith and know what the real islam is about - so it be … i would still like to make another attempt to defend the western media …
the situation is that we may have up to one billion of pseudo muslims, pseudo islamic republic of iran, pseudo islamic monarchy of saudi arabia, pseudo islamic movement of hamas and many pseudo islamic others… now you say the western media is at fault by not mentioning the pseudo islamic nature of them all, like, for example, that the islamic republic of iran is not actually islamic …
so according to you, an article that refers to iran by its official name which is the islamic republic of iran, should also mention that, even though iran calls itself islamic republic, this is not the true islam …in fact i bet that you object to our calling muslim brothers by their official name too … because it can make ignorant western readers think that we are dealing here with some islamic movement while these people are not true muslims .. and i bet to call jordan’s islamic action party and others as islamic opposition should be wrong too because this is not the true islam …
there are two problems with this approach … first of all the problem of style and readability … there is another one and an even more serious problem .. there are some people who know arabic, read all of the koran and hadith and whatever and yet they still think that saudi arabia is quite islamic … you would be amazed but there are some professors of islamic studies who think that hamas is very islamic … some quite knowledgable people even think that violence is endemic to islam … we dont have the final authority or some broad agreement even among our experts on islam regarding what the true islam is about .. in the absence of this the western media just follows the conventions common in the west and the muslim (or maybe pseudo muslim ???) world and that’s all …
@Nobody
I guess Andrew has an utopian project of turning Islam back to a golden age different from its dominant versions of today. Maybe in a sincer hope of reconciliation between the three big monotheistic religions. If only he could make muslims see, that everything could be different…
In the meantime we have to deal with people (including muslims) based on what they say and do today. After all that is all there is.
peter
there was no islamic golden age as far as i can see … it’s an illusion created by the books … throughout most of its history the islamic civilization was more advanced than the christian world and this is more or less about it …
in classical islamic historiography the first four khalifs that followed muhammad represent the golden age of the islamic khalifat … it’s worth mentioning that three out of the four have all died violent deaths … and even the first one has escaped this fate largely because he was very quick to do it himself having ruled for no more than two or three years …
when it comes to al andalus and other stuff i should say that if anything i was always more impressed by the ottomans who waged a successful jihad on europe right into the 17th century, the age of cannons and gun powder …
by all accounts the muslim world is vastly more advanced and tolerant place today than it was during its golden age … from what i know there was no decay and no stagnation of the muslim world even under the ottomans .. it’s rather that almost out of the blue the west has made a huge breakthrough leaving the rest, including the muslims, far behind … the question is not so much about what happened to the muslims since nothing in particular bad has happened to them .. it’s more about what caused this sudden surge of the western world
“I guess Andrew has an utopian project of turning Islam back to a golden age different from its dominant versions of today. Maybe in a sincer hope of reconciliation between the three big monotheistic religions.”
I don’t think it’s utopian. I think it’s very possible indeed.
“In the meantime we have to deal with people (including muslims) based on what they say and do today. After all that is all there is.”
That is indeed so, but it doesn’t mean we have to call them Muslims and grant them the privilege of being the representatives of everything Islam was or can be.
Most nominal Muslims today don’t even agree with Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam, so why do we accept Iran and Saudi Arabia as “Islamic”?
Is it too much to ask that the media should refer to Iran as a dictatorship rather than an “Islamic Republic” and to the Saudi “king” as a dictator, since that is all he is? Why legitimise their version of “Islam”? It _IS_ different from traditional Islam. Why not acknowledge that?
How does “dealing with people” come into it when the media assign the term “Islamic” to a regime that the people (most of them) don’t regard as the correct interpretation of Islam anyway?
If we want to “deal with people” and interpret Islam as they do, we’d have to follow the Sunni school and refer to Shia Islam as a heresy because most Muslims are Sunnis.
But that would mean declaring him a heretic:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2007/01/the-liberal-cleric-of-the-dahi.php
And I don’t see it that way.
He is what I call a real Muslim. Whether most self-declared Muslims are like him or not has nothing to do with that definition.
“throughout most of its history the islamic civilization was more advanced than the christian world and this is more or less about it ?”
That would be up to around 1500 AD, and during the same period the Chinese civilisation was more advanced than the Islamic one.
Andrew Brehm on March 1st, 2008 2:55 pm
. . .
Most nominal Muslims today don’t even agree with Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam, so why do we accept Iran and Saudi Arabia as “Islamic”?
Is it too much to ask that the media should refer to Iran as a dictatorship rather than an “Islamic Republic” and to the Saudi “king” as a dictator, since that is all he is? Why legitimise their version of “Islam”? It _IS_ different from traditional Islam. Why not acknowledge that?
andrew .. you plainly grew up in a country too close to the soviet camp because you display a passion for policing the language that beats even hardcore fans of political correctness … what is this preoccupation with the nomenclature ??? the saudi king is no less and no more a king than any other arab dynasty … you say you studied history, so what is the difference between a typical arab sheikhdom and dictatorship ???
and what’s about the traditional islam that makes it so different from the saudi version ??? jews and christians were expelled from meccah and madinah by the decree of omar, the second khaliph … you don’t think that the ban was invented by the saudis, do you ??? one of the umayyad’s khaliph has soon followed the suit by building the dome of the rock over the ruins of the second temple … this is how we got this shit on the temple mount .. don’t think that it’s the mufti who’s put it there… so much about That culture that existed in the middle east (and Spain) before its decline starting in the 1500s and definitely before the rise of Arab nationalism in the early 20th century. … it has never existed in the middle east …
and in spain it was all over long before the 15th century … the golden age in al-andalus was of a brief duration, something like 250 years and is mostly associated with the khaliphate of cordoba that lasted for barely a century … towards the end of that period this khaliphate has descended into a bloody civil war and completely disintegrated at 1000 and something …
with the end of the khaliphate of cordoba the jewish golden age in spain is generally considered to have come to its end too … the first pogroms against the jews in cordoba and granada happened in the same 11th century …
have you ever wondered how rambam who was born in spain in the 12th century ended writing most of his works outside spain ?? this is because his family had to flee cordoba to escape muslim persecution … from the end of the 12th century on the jews in spain had repeatedly to make a choice between conversion to islam and death … throughout this period there was a constant migration of jews and christians from al-andalus … so by the beginning of the 11th century the golden age was already over both for the muslims and for the jews there …
in short, the fabulous tolerance of al-andalus was a very short lived event that ended long before the 15 th century…. it’s just that for some reason people erroneously extend it to the whole muslim presence in spain which indeed lasted well into the 16th century and even beyond …
and in any case the multicultural paradise of cordoba is not known to have been the result of some enlightened interpretation of the islamic law … it rather looks as if the emirate/khaliphate of cordoba was a very prosperous and worldly oriented state … the khaliphs of cordoba did not bother to enforce the more discriminatory aspects of the islamic law against local dhimmis because they simply did not care so much for that law … they seem to have been in general not very religious people and far more interested in their huge harems numbering hundreds and thousands of concubines that in practicing the “true” islam ….
“you plainly grew up in a country too close to the soviet camp because you display a passion for policing the language that beats even hardcore fans of political correctness”
Sorry, but I have seen what propaganda can do.
If they repeat it often enough, people will believe it.
“so what is the difference between a typical arab sheikhdom and dictatorship???”
There might not be a practical difference. Nevertheless there IS a difference between the Islam practices by the cleric I linked to and the Islam practices by the followers of Khomeini.
“and what’s about the traditional islam that makes it so different from the saudi version ???”
In Saudi Arabia tribal law outweighs Islamic law. Traditional Islam does not work that way.
Andre Brehm wrote:
“The fact that western media keep referring to the current regime in Iran as a “Islamic Republic” alone will take decades to undo.
It will take years and years to convince a western audience that Islam does not equal that particular demonic regime.
Instead the media downplay the crimes of the Iranian regime in order to be politically correct and not attack Muslims.
And the Iranian regime has won. The media have accepted it as representative of Islam.”
When I hear about the Islamic Regime of Iran. I dont consider it to be an islamic regime as how it probably ideally would be. I consider it as a perception the Iranian regime thinks itself of as an islamic regime.
Same story as communism. Has real communism actually ever existed? I doubt it. It has all been interepretations by the authorities who believed more in the “i am more equal than you”-policy.
“When I hear about the Islamic Regime of Iran. I dont consider it to be an islamic regime as how it probably ideally would be. I consider it as a perception the Iranian regime thinks itself of as an islamic regime.”
Yes.
But why do western media have to share their perception of themselves?
“Same story as communism. Has real communism actually ever existed? I doubt it.”
It does in family households. I don’t think it has ever worked for a state.
“It has all been interpretations by the authorities who believed more in the “i am more equal than you”-policy.”
The Soviet Union treated its “citizens” like children. Plus the parents were evil.
Andrew Brehm on March 1st, 2008 9:49 pm
In Saudi Arabia tribal law outweighs Islamic law. Traditional Islam does not work that way.
well andrew.. this is nonsense … in saudi arabia islamic law outweighs any other law more than in any other arab country …
the saudis don’t have their own islamic or saudi law … i think 99% of them follow the hanbali school … this is indeed a very extreme school but it has nothing to do with tribalism … it’s one of the four mainstream sunni fiqhs …
the saudi islam may look harsher than others but it’s because hanbalism is popular with the wahhabis and so courts in saudi arabia are predominantly hanbali … but it’s the least innovative and the most orthodox of the four fiqhs … it’s as traditional as islam can be …
you dont like saudis - it’s your problem, but don’t bullshit anybody with your traditional islam ….
suzanne on March 2nd, 2008 3:14 pm
When I hear about the Islamic Regime of Iran. I dont consider it to be an islamic regime as how it probably ideally would be. I consider it as a perception the Iranian regime thinks itself of as an islamic regime.
Same story as communism. Has real communism actually ever existed? I doubt it. It has all been interepretations by the authorities who believed more in the “i am more equal than you”-policy.
suzanne … you are making an impossible comparison … marxism is not a religion … it’s a system that is supposed to deliver regardless of this or that authority… in fact if the authorities suck then it’s already a problem of the system …
the actual implementation in many places was quite along the lines of marxist leninist orthodoxy … the results were unimpressive but this is because communism does not work and not because it was not real communism
i should probably add that the four schools of fiqh were all established long before the 15th century … so they belong to this period that you define as the true or traditional islam ..
“When I hear about the Islamic Regime of Iran. I dont consider it to be an islamic regime as how it probably ideally would be. I consider it as a perception the Iranian regime thinks itself of as an islamic regime.
Same story as communism. Has real communism actually ever existed? I doubt it. It has all been interepretations by the authorities who believed more in the “i am more equal than you”-policy.”
I think the comparison is just fine, at least to some extent.
Both islam and communism are extensive ideological systems. They give hope for the good life if only you follow the truth of their founding texts. A few gifted persons are able to see the real unquestionable truth, and the rest are supposed to follow. Also both systems attract idealists who will do whatever it takes to make their ideals come through. If you upset them, they will come down on you real hard. And the habit of teaching/ indoctrinating the kids into the thruth, which should never be questioned. And the tendency for the elite to take advantage of the whole setup. And the apologetics explaining away the results.
peter
my main objection was to the idea that if the soviet union was not a paradise it’s because it was not a real communism .. i think it’s to confuse the ends with the means … the paradise was supposed to be the end result … if it did not happen it does not mean that this was not a real communism and so we may want to make another try at it …
communism was pretty much supposed to work from bottom up with the economy and social structure being the basis … if after 70 years of its existence equality, people power and other idealist nonsense was still nowhere around, it’s because the communist idea about how these could be achieved by manipulating the class structure of the society was wrong and not because it was not communism … communist experiments ended pretty much everywhere with the same results, totalitarianism being one of them … so it’s just a natural outcome of communism and no contradiction to it …
“well andrew.. this is nonsense … in saudi arabia islamic law outweighs any other law more than in any other arab country”
Nope.
Sorry.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/18/saudia16399.htm
That’s the reality in Saudi Arabia and it is a clear case of tribal law trumping Islamic law.
andrew .. i am no expert on islam but by chance i do remember reading on this in lewis’ introduction to the history of the middle east … and once again, just as the ban on jews and christians to enter maccah, it was not invented by the saudis .. it’s a part of that traditional islam that you defined by the culture that existed in the ME and spain before the 15th century …
lewis claims that it’s the only instance in which the sharia discusses social ranking, that means in the context of kafa’a that he translates as equality of social status and birth in marriage … the principle of kafa’a, he says, “may be invoked to restrain a woman from marrying a man who is below her in social status and thus dishonouring her family.”
so again, the saudis have not invented this stuff … they may persist in their being conservative hardliners but the principle was there long before this wahhabi state came into being …
i think you would be on much safer ground if you opt for something like muhammad has been misunderstood or the muslims have corrupted his message right at the beginning… because very few people know the koran and hadith so well as to wage debates about what the original islam of muhammad was about … but when you are generalizing about the modern vs traditional islam in this way somebody will immediately point to the obvious …
Leave a Comment