Does the west understand Islam?

[Rambuchan]

You could change this to say, "Does Islam understand the West?" Because both questions apply equally.

Given the amount of time most Islamic countries have spent being colonised by Western countries I'd say they're well ahead in the race for being familliar with the other.

I would say the contrary to sysyphus, for precisely those reasons.

Islamic people of all levels of society, in general, know "the west" better than than westerners understand Islam and Islamic culture. All too well in fact. They have been at the receiving end of our double crossing, double standards, occupying, imperialist bully stick for long enough - especially in the Middle East, Central Asia and Persian Gulf. That is one of the big reasons why you have such violent factions in the ranks of these Islamic countries today (leading to the warped readings of holy texts we find). They are faced with our own western violence, also from a warped reading of our core principles, on a far grander scale. It's called "resistance".

Sadly, for everyone, the same does not apply in reverse. Firstly, we simply are not subject to Islamic theology, culture, politics and economics being forced onto us at warhead point, repeatedly over generations, like they are of our way of living. We are not obliged to resist in quite the same way. In the UK, we've lost just over fifty people on home soil both during "the war on terror" and the last, say, 100 years (you can add a couple of hundred if you include Lockerbie but I'm searching for others). Compare that with the figures from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, etc etc etc - as stand alone comparisons.

Islam and the front line are very distant for westerners, relatively speaking. We have the results of these differences crashing through our TV screens and commodity price statements, they have them crashing through the roofs of their schools, hospitals, weddings, temples, and so on, not just the military and administrative installations. They experience them in economic sanctions, diplomatic double standards and our (often quite incompatible) secularist way of living is thrust upon them in their daily lives - whilst we watch it over TV dinners.

Secondly, as we in the West send our troops and secret agents over to places in the Middle East and Central Asia, we clearly have a problem with our traditions of dealing with and perceiving the theology of the enemy / colonial subject. From the Indian Mutiny to the fiasco of an idea that is "Empire Lite" - we are very, very complacent and very ignorant. Our might always means we're right and that also means we don't have to do our homework, neither on history nor theology.

That we do not fill our operational people in on what the enemy is all about in this regard is well evident today, not just in history. I've now lost count of the amount of reports I've heard on BBC Radio 4, from Islamic think tanks and consultancies working with western governments, which basically leave the message - you guys are theologically clueless at the very highest levels. (Which makes a BIG negative impact when you're trying to second guess terrorists operating according to theolological schools of thought). Consume accounts from advisors to the FBI, CIA, MI5 etc and you too will be left with one collective message from them, which can be summed up by the word: "Aghast". Here are some links roughly pertinent, it's hard getting the old programme links themselves:

~ Violence in Religion's Name
~ US Muslims 'alienated by Patriot Act'
~ http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea...on=d&q=islamic+think+tank&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go

Thing is, we keep "winning", or so we think, regardless of all of that and regardless of its consequences.

[I mainly mean UK and USA when I say "we" btw].

---

As for the other question:

Do those taking to terrorist tactics in the name of Islam understand Islam? I don't think so. And neither do many of the moderate Islamic thinkers in the links above.

 

[Sidhe]

I did ask someone to explain how you could tie Islam to terrorism, as I suspected no one can do that, this is good. Because I'm not sure which passages in particular they have taken out of context. Anyway this thread has broadened up considerrably, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Thanks to all for posting, even if it is a little contraversial, although it's hard to tell which is which, not being au fait with the faith.

Umm . . . . it isn't . That's because MobBoss is not the one claiming that the Quran is the infallible and eternally valid word of God . Muslim scholars claim that , and to hold them to that standard , the standard they have set themselves , is not hypocrisy .

I'd like to say Anaeeshm, you have fallen into the trap suggested in the article of posting sound bites but not putting them into context with the rest of the text, as people who quote the bible know this is generally thought to be pretty worthless. If you are going to qoute text please contextualise it, I really don't want to have to go and find what gives reason to the sayings or what they meant. I can codmen the whole of Christianity from the bible by pulling out random passages, it doesn't mean my argument has great worth, just that it lacks an interpritation.

Also could I ask why you hate Islam so much aneeshm, or is it a private matter?

I do find trying to paint a picture about peoples from texts wrtten over a thousand years ago rather amusing, I don't believe Islam is truly non evolutionary any more than I believe Christian fundementalism is or Catholicism or any religion for that matter. And I think laws written about old societies if they are meant to be applied today would have no context, if Muslims thought to write laws based on the times they were living in and thought to apply them for eternity then that is incredibly unwise and lacks vision. To be honest I think books like the Hadith are meant to show someone how to live a good life and behave like Mohammed, not force aged constrictions on people, why would they try to encapsulate conditional laws forever, behavioural systems maybe, moral behaviour of course. Muslim scholars must have known that some laws had to be flexible and reflect the times, their philosophers were some of the most advanced in the world? honestly if it is the case that Muslims are meant to follow these particularly contextural laws forever? Then it is because of modern stupidity, not anything Mohammed said.

Well anyway if it is true that this is so, which I somehow doubt, at least unlike some Christians they don't cherry pick what's right and wrong from the Old and New Testament according to personal need and dismiss the rest. At least they're consistent, hell I bet some fundementalists would admire that.

I bet if we go through the Koran we can find the same sorts of references to not eating shelfish, walking in sandles through the house of a host, playing music on a certain day, you know little lost laws that only applied to particular times, I'd be surprised if there weren't any.

Does the West understand Islam? No, largely because there are so many ways in which Islam is interpreted and abused.

Classical Islam, at least superficially, teaches a modicum of tolerance towards "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews). They were allowed to practice their religion and were not enslaved per se. They were second class citizens (dhimmi) and forced to pay a tax for not being Muslim (jizya).

Many modern Islamists argue that present day Christians and Jews are not "People of the Book" any more and that they have lost their protected status because they have deviated from their original religious teachings. This places them in the realm of idolators and polytheists (Mushrikûn) and unbelievers (kuffar).
The following passage was taken from the Wikipedia section on Jihad and contains examples of the Quaranic directives on dealing with Mushrikun and kuffars.

I find it hard to believe that most Muslims believe Christians have turned away from God, and are now idolaters polytheists, idolaters worship false idols, Christians worship God and one God at that, that'sa pretty big stretch one possibly only fundementalists would make. I wouldn't say all Christians aren't following or at least trying to follow their faith any more than I would say all Muslims are, this sounds like pretty hollow stuff. Any links where Muslims decry christianity as a polytheistic or Idolatrous faith, that aren't Fundementalist or radical?

 

[aneeshm]

I did ask someone to explain how you could tie Islam to terrorism, as I suspected no one can do that, this is good. Because I'm not sure which passages in particular they have taken out of context. Anyway this thread has broadened up considerrably, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Thanks to all for posting, even if it is a little contraversial, although it's hard to tell which is which, not being au fait with the faith.

If you want me to find canonical Islamic backing for terrorism , why didn't you say so in the first place ? I could have given you a lot . I'm rather tired right now , and want to go to sleep , so I'll be back tomorrow with the promised stuff .

I'd like to say Anaeeshm, you have fallen into the trap suggested in the article of posting sound bites but not putting them into context with the rest of the text, as people who quote the bible know this is generally thought to be pretty worthless.

I did not fall into any trap . I actually said that the quotes relating to the infidels I posted were out of context . But the quotes relating to women do not need much of a context , nor do the quotes which prohibit a rationalistic debate on the merits of the Quran .

If you are going to qoute text please contextualise it, I really don't want to have to go and find what gives reason to the sayings or what they meant. I can codmen the whole of Christianity from the bible by pulling out random passages, it doesn't mean my argument has great worth, just that it lacks an interpritation.

OK . Next time , I will provide the historical or textual context . But the problem is , Quranic quotes are supposed to be eternally valid and infallible . Trying to contextualise them historically takes away their divinity , and therefore their authority .

Also could I ask why you hate Islam so much aneeshm, or is it a private matter?

I don't really hate it , I just hate the suffering it has caused my country when orthodox Muslims conquered India . And the reason I constantly point out its flaws is because I hope that pointing out the patently ridiculous ( like the geocentric theory adopted by Muslim scholars even now in the seminaries ) will force people , more importantly Muslims , to reconsider their holy texts from a secular viewpoint and reform themselves as a community .

I do find trying to paint a picture about peoples from texts wrtten over a thousand years ago rather amusing, I don't believe Islam is truly non evolutionary any more than I believe Christian fundementalism is or Catholicism or any religion for that matter.

That is precisely why I refrain from painting today's Muslims with a 1350 year old Quranic brush . I think that the orthodox clergy ( the ulema ) , which holds the community hostage today , can be forced to change ( for the better ) only if their insulated little world is exposed to the light of the modern world .

And I think laws written about old societies if they are meant to be applied today would have no context, if Muslims thought to write laws based on the times they were living in and thought to apply them for eternity then that is incredibly unwise and lacks vision.

As I said before , that is the whole root of the problem - the ulema hold the entire community hostage by saying that the doors of ijtihad ( interpretation ) are closed , and that therefore the laws written in the Quran cannot be re-interpreted to suit the modern world ( because to allow such re-interpretation would be suicidal to the power of the ulema , because it would take away their hold on interpretation and therefore community opinion and law ) and must be held valid as they are for all eternity ( the justification being that the Quran is the eternal infallible word of Allah ) .

To be honest I think books like the Hadith are meant to show someone how to live a good life and behave like Mohammed, not force aged constrictions on people, why would they try to encapsulate conditional laws forever, behavioural systems maybe, moral behaviour of course.

That is the ideal situation . If only it were so . . . . .

Muslim scholars must have known that some laws had to be flexible and reflect the times, their philosophers were some of the most advanced in the world? honestly if it is the case that Muslims are meant to follow these particularly contextural laws forever? Then it is because of modern stupidity, not anything Mohammed said.

The ulema say that because the Prophet was perfect , he is an example for all time , irrespective of context .

This leads to come ridiculous results . Mountains of scholarship are expended on deciding whether a fart entails re-doing ritual ablutions ( the answer , by the way , is that if you contain the fart within yourself , then there is no need to re-do the ritual ablution before prayer , but if you let it out , then you need to re-do your ritual ablutions before praying ) , whether a dog or cat falling into a well defiles it or not ( the logic not being based on the cleanliness of the water , but on what some other previous scholar had said about it ) , how to cure a field which is not productive for some reason ( the answer is not fertiliser or manure or irrigation , but a certain mode of prayer done before commencing work in the field ) , and other things equally unrelated to religion or religious faith .

The problem is fundamental - in Islam , there is no distinction between the state and the religion , and therefore it is very difficult , even in the modern world , to separate religion and state in Muslim countries . Only two or three countries have done it successfully as yet .

Well anyway if it is true that this is so, which I somehow doubt, at least unlike some Christians they don't cherry pick what's right and wrong from the Old and New Testament according to personal need and dismiss the rest. At least they're consistent, hell I bet some fundementalists would admire that.

True .

I bet if we go through the Koran we can find the same sorts of references to not eating shelfish, walking in sandles through the house of a host, playing music on a certain day, you know little lost laws that only applied to particular times, I'd be surprised if there weren't any.

Maybe so , but you'll have a hard time convincing the Quranic scholars of Qum even now of that .

I find it hard to believe that most Muslims believe Christians have turned away from God, and are now idolaters polytheists, idolaters worship false idols, Christians worship God and one God at that, that'sa pretty big stretch one possibly only fundementalists would make.

In the eyes of Islam , the veneration of the figure of Jesus , who was just a Prophet , ( or the Cross , or of Mary in the cult devoted to her ) is idolatrous ( though this is a thing which they inherit from , ironically enough , Christianity and Judaism ) .

I wouldn't say all Christians aren't following or at least trying to follow their faith any more than I would say all Muslims are, this sounds like pretty hollow stuff. Any links where Muslims decry christianity as a polytheistic or Idolatrous faith, that aren't Fundementalist or radical?

It is only the orthodox elements within Muslim society which will declare Christianity idolatrous , and that is why what you ask for is impossible , you see .

 

[sysyphus]

I would say the contrary to sysyphus, for precisely those reasons.

Erm... Sounds like you're agreeing with me.

 

[Rambuchan]

That line does, but the rest does not. It's a kooky one I know. Or is it only kooky cos I misread you entirely? Now I'm confused.

EDIT: Just checked back. Looks like you're saying exactly what I am, just in far fewer words . Go sysyphus

 

[Princeps]

Islam is not so hard to understand. There's no trouble with the religion itself.

The trouble is within the particulars of the primary culture that practices it, starting with their extreme self-righteousness, pride, intolerance, racism, and violent tendencies.

Let see. "Western culture":

extreme self-righteousness - check, we can see it on these forums as well, sometimes.
pride - check
intolerance - check
racism - check
violent tendencies - check

If you open a history book and compare the filth of the west and east, you'll find them to be quite similar. Of course you should read a book that is not twisted by eurocentricst historians. What reads in some religious books doesn't matter.

But, make no mistake, that is the very heart of "the trouble in the Middle East".

Ridicolous. This is like saying that Africa is poor because negros are dumb. Well, that is slightly vague comparison, but the problem is hardly inherent. Middle east has gone through eras of strife, economic changes, oppressive European hegemony, Mongolian raids ETC.

 

[Urederra]

Let see. "Western culture":

extreme self-righteousness - check, we can see it on these forums as well, sometimes.

From webster:

Main Entry: righ·teous
Pronunciation: 'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of earlier rightuous, alteration of Middle English rightwise, rightwos, from Old English rihtwIs, from riht, noun, right + wIs wise
1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>

Which aception are you refering to?

If is the first one, the number of atheists in western world is far more than the number of atheists in islamic countries, which tends to 0.

If is the second one, what is wrong with having a sense of justice or morality, not attached to religious beliefs?

pride - check

So what?

intolerance - check

Intolerance - uncheck. Muslim women can wear burkas in western countries whereas western women are frowned upon or they are not allowed to wear western dresses depending on the islamic country they are.

racism - check

racism-uncheck

violent tendencies - check

violent tendencies - uncheck

Was nice to debunk your post

 

[sysyphus]

That line does, but the rest does not. It's a kooky one I know. Or is it only kooky cos I misread you entirely? Now I'm confused.

EDIT: Just checked back. Looks like you're saying exactly what I am, just in far fewer words . Go sysyphus

Me must learn write more clear.

 

[Capulet]

I'll answer the rest of your questions/arguments later, as I have limited time.

Are you not, as a muslim, allowed to lie directly to an disbeliever and its all good. Seem to recall reading that once.

The quote you were probably thinking of:

It doesn't say anything about unbelievers.

Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, *except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for **war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people" (Ahmad, 6.459. H)

The answer to your question is no, the Prophet doesn't say you can lie to unbelievers. In the Qur'an it says Allah doesn't guide those who lie.

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28

And a final question for you. As a muslim, would you like to see Sharia as the law of the land the world over?

No. I'm a strong supporter of separation of church and state. Religion and politics/government don't mix.

 

[Princeps]

Which aception are you refering to?

I'm refering to the fact that US supports vile and sadistic regimes, provides massive amounts of small arms to the illegal markets. It seems that all means are allowed by the west.

The wes views itself as being allowed to do anything when it's power is threathened. And it so often does. Also, everything is viewed in modern and western morals. It sometimes starts to feel like... what was it, uh, team
America!

United States today has declared itself as openly expansionist power, bringing of civilization and saving souls is just replaced with democracy. Liberty and Justice for All. Seems rather self-righteous to me.

Intolerance - uncheck. Muslim women can wear burkas in western countries whereas western women are frowned upon and they are not allowed to wear western dresses.

Perhaps.

racism-uncheck

Bah, hardly.

violent tendencies - uncheck

I see no Islamic armies invading Europe, or America.

There are western troops in the very heart of the Islamic world, US supports/supported oppressive regimes in the middle east, sold arms (the President of the US is the biggest arms dealer in the world), and so on, just because it was favourable to their policy.

Look, there are countless violent tendancies I could count. Holocaust, British imperialism, transatlantic slavery, europe's dealings with China. In fact, when I begin think about it, much of the muslim atrocities seem to pale in comparison.

Was nice to debunk your post

Nice try though.

 

[Urederra]

Nice try though.

Having 'check" as an argument, it was dead easy to find a counter-argument.

Have a nice day, Mr Nazi ass bandit.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

There's an actual debate here about whether or not the West is a more tolerant and advanced society?

You can bring up colonialism, mercantalism, and whatever else you seem fit to justify your sympathy towards the third and second world. But the West has continually excelled for far too numerous reasons:

And if you want to negate that fact, you're gladly encouraged by myself and others to catch the next airplane to Iran.

Oh, thats if the society that you view so tolerant of others beliefs doesn't decide to blow up that plane.

 

[batteryacid]

Nice thread so far

I think that Islamic culture knows more about western culture than the other way round, but the problem is aways the preception of things. What we view as tolerant and freedom might be perceived by others as decadent and soft etc. - depending on your socio-cultural background (I mean you only have to look at about what things people from the same cultural background can disagree- let´s take for example )

The other problem is, that in Islamic countries you have a lot of injured pride- the Islamic society possessed once a lead in culture and power, in which a strong feeling of pride developed, but because of some things (Intolerant and incompetent leader casts coming to power which suppressed the age of enlightenement ,the rise of powerful nations in Europe etc. ) they lost systematically their place in world history, now climaxing in Troops of western countries stationed in their holiest country.

The arrogant attitude of most western people and media towards muslimic societies and the feeling of being cornered by muslimic societies as well as the impotence to reduce the gap in economics and power to the west leads now to two results:
1) The freezing of medevial social and political structures to preserve a feeling of identity (which is strongly exploited by their conservative political cast to stay in power) and
2) an hateful attitude towards all values and influences that come from the west

To shorten it: the situation today is in my opinion not per se rooted in the nature of the Islam, but by Historical and Social developements in the world and in their countries