|
waitwhatno posted:IRC people are made in Gods image, according to Christianity. That's why it makes sense that God can have emotions like love for humanity. But how would that even work with a non anthropomorphic divine being? How to ascribe motivations to such a being? Bear in mind in theological terms in Christianity, frequently people would say any description of God in terms we understand is allegorical at best. Christian talk of God 'loving' humanity is an attempt to explain God's feelings in a way we understand. Some prefer saying something like God's perfect love to try and make that a bit clearer or retreat into negative theology (we can't say God's love because love is human, so God's feeling that isn't human love). Generally the attitude is that that way of talking isn't right (but isn't quite wrong) but it helps convey the Message so it's acceptable. Of course in many, many cases people just anthropomorphise away without ever thinking about it more deeply. Tendai thanks for making this thread! I've just moved away from a Muslim country (Malaysia specifically) where there's all sorts of fun regarding religious issues that I won't drag into your thread because it's a specific practise of Islam that's very tied into the Malay majority ethnic identity. What I am curious about are the historical origins of Islam and scholarly understanding of Islamic history. The great History of Byzantium podcast lead me onto this and specifically the interview episode with Tom Holland, which inspired me to read In the Shadow of the Sword. His thesis regarding Mohammed himself is that he's historically analagous to Shakespeare. We have a few pretty strong dates for a few major events but otherwise there is 0 academically acceptable information about his life. Simultaneously we have a huge amount of supposition, hearsay and general folklore (for want of a better term) about him that is frequently put forward or taught as verifiable and certain historical fact. He generally argues that Islam hasn't been subjected to the same level of rigorous academic scrutiny as Christianity has been since the 19th century and as a result what is known and taught in Islamic history generally relies on oral histories written centuries after the fact without documentary evidence. He discounts the Qu'ran as a particularly good source of historical information because it almost never talks about geographical locations and when it does it rarely gives any information about them (Holland himself argues that sites such as Mecca were moved for political reasons, claiming there's evidence of a tradition in Arabic culture of shrines and holy sites being movable). I'm worried this might come off as agressive, Holland in all the writing I've read of his tries to point out that he's not attacking the religious veracity of Islam but obviously it's hard to avoid doing so with a religion that invests so much importance in a written work (Holland also claims the Qu'ran was assembled from different versions, somewhat akin to the New Testament) and a single historical origin. Basically he argues against the idea that Islam emerged as a religion fully formed from the mouth of Mohammed and that it's teachings and scripture have remained unchanged. It's not an area I know much about and some parts of his thesis, like early Muslim communities following still many of their old pagan beliefs (because they were Arabs who heard about this great new religion thing and how much conquering and booty was agoing and wanted in without really understanding it) is something which appeals to me as fitting in with how such phenomena usually appears in history (c.f. Pagan kings in England converting to Christianity and happily showing off how they'd built an altar to pray to Jesus alongside all the other ones). I don't know if he's overly critical though or what kind of historiography there is in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) world regarding Islamic history. Holland basically dismisses the entirety of the Hadith as historical documentation, which gives me some pause in thinking he's entirely right.
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Out and about and phone posting so it might be a couple of days but I'll try to get some more specific references to Holland's work. I recall him referring to one of the earliest mosque's having Quranic verses that differ slightly from the accepted ones. As I said some if what he talks about seems at least glossed over in terms of historical evidence. I'll also post some stuff about Islam in Malaysia and the interesting intersection of Muslims from Libya, Yemen, etc interacting with it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
So I'm absolutely rubbish and haven't given myself any time to make any kind of effort post regarding my experience with Muslim culture in Malaysia. So here's a brief one instead. Islam in Malaysia especially, gets tied in pretty strongly with racial politics for two reasons. One; some major political parties have been pushing racial differences as a pretty big thing, largely citing the economic underperformance of the indigenous people (Bumiputras) versus Indian and Chinese minorities and Two: Islam is regarded as a fundamental elemnt of Malay ethnic identity. If you noticed two separate terms there (bumiputra and Malay) that would be because Malays are a subset of Bumiputra but pro-Malay parties tend to use the disenfranchisement of the overall group as a reason for affording better treatment to Malays (at least that's my understanding of it based on basic news reading while there and talking to opinionated people. Everyone there is opinionated about politics if you can get them started on it). That fundamental part of the ethnic identity is important because it meets all Malays are Muslim, whether they want to be or not, and so subject to Sharia in nearly every state in Malaysia. Since (as others have noted ) apostasy is a crime and the only way to get out of it is to convince a religious court that you never had faith in Islam... well there's been a grand total of one or two successful petitions to have Muslim taken off someone's identity card. I've known quite a few Malays that are basically angostic/atheists or just don't really believe in parts of the faith (such as no drinking) but they keep quiet about it outside of friends. The country is pretty much entirely Sunni, though there are quite a few Iranian expats so I suspect there's a few Shia mosques around as well. Outside of the major cities (and especially in the Northern states) they tend to be pretty conservative. Some of the Mosques in and around KL are extremely so, I got invited to a friend's wedding and (after waiting an hour for the Imam to finish a Quranic lesson that had run late to 11pm) we were told that the non-Muslims would have to remain outside while the ceremony was conducted. This wasn't a dress thing as everyone was properly attired in order to enter the grounds of the mosque, just no non-Muslims inside. Also dogs are unclean but generally ok? Nope! A guy who started a campaign to encourage his fellow Malays to be comfortable around dogs was forced to apologise for trying to lead Muslims astray and a woman who posted a video celebrating breaking fast with her two pet dogs was arrested for disrespecting the religion. The conservative elements of the religion were a bit weird for some of the other Muslims I knew there. One Texan coworker (Sunni) said he had one female coworker grab his hand and then giggle that now he had to go rewash so he could be ready for prayers. I think these things stuck out to me as many were things non-Malay Muslims I knew thought were a bit unusual or 'not really Muslim' (in the same sense I'd get weirded out going to a church service in Spain or a Baptist one) At the risk of sounding a bit like one of those stereotypical expats who just complains about all the funny things people from other cultures do, I'll talk a little bit about some of the positive experiences as well. The wedding I went to was definitely a lot of fun, the guy was Yemeni and his wife was Malaysian Indian (who converted and stopped drinking alcohol. He definitely didn't join her). She was present at the ceremony but off to the side, the Libyans there told me this was different from Libya where the 7 days of partying and the ceremony itself would be held with everyone in separate parts of town. The bride's father would sign the agreement and the couple would meet after the marriage was completed. The dinner and party afterwards were excellent fun though not as long as is traditional apparently. Ramadan in a Muslim country was interesting too, as life generally slows down a lot everywhere and not just because people are more serious about making sure they perform all their daily prayers. People were a lot more tired and generally quieter (except for the women who would suddenly announce for a few days they were able to go eat lunch, a lot more open about somethings...)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
On that point, the law is only for Muslims but does vary by state. One of the northern states has recently our is just about to introduce hudud (so stoning, chopping off hands, etc.) There's very much a push to introduce more conservative laws and punishments ostensibly to encourage people to be more Islamic. Again it's tied into politics and a lot of money coming from more Salafist sponsored imams who want to push more fundamentalist Islam. That itself is leading to conflict as pro Malay groups are worried about the increasingly Arab nature of practice in some areas, complaining about the increasing prevalence of the Niqab and such. In terms of how strictly laws are enforced, I have one friend who is very careful to not have any alcohol in front of him if there are police nearby. I also knew one last who was arrested with her mother at a restaurant just outside KL when it was raided. They were both drinking wine and at court they were advised the typical punishment was a RM2000 fine. They plead guilty but the judge felt they weren't remorseful so gave them the maximum sentence, RM15000 fine and 5 months in prison. They got a lawyer who got that reduced to RM5000 and no jail time but as they were sentenced on a Friday they had to spend the weekend in jail. Religious law enforcement is pretty similar to regular enforcement, uneven and very open to corruption and abuse, which doesn't tell you much aside from bringing more religion into the courts doesn't fix much by itself. They definitely do have a lot more superstition. Exorcisms are quite a big thing, being possessed by ghosts or evil spirits is a pretty common explanation for mental illnesses and the a big tradition of spiritual healers. Again this is an area you see fundamentalist imams coming into conflict with Malay supremacists where they are otherwise pretty solid allies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a clear requirement in the Qur'an to dress modestly for men and women that I think the fundamentalist strains of Islam really combine with Arab culture to say this is what the prophet wanted people to wear and act. I know there are issues with Muslim communities in China wearing silk, something that for Arabs is incredibly showy and definitely would be showing off but in the China area was pretty much regular clothes. I find it really interesting as a question of cultural sensitivity and the spirit vs. The letter of the law when you have Arabs or Muslim converts who choose to adopt culturally distinct clothing. I've talked to Yemen and Saudi students who can see that wearing shorts and a tank top doesn't stick out that much in a western country and wouldn't be acceptable in most Muslim countries but the idea of the reverse isn't thinkable for them. Basically the niqab is for them a modest outfit and the fact that it's drawing stares and a lot more attention than trousers and a long shirt is just the fault of the westerners. I guess is choosing to wear outfits to identify ones religious identification very clearly something that fits with the commandment to dress modestly? It's a fine line, and I guess I see it as a strength of Islam that there are scholars debating it. Although equally you can get pointlessly strict rules lawyer types as well, a friend of mine who hadn't prayed for years decided to do Ramadan. She got up for morning prayers and everything else but was almost in tears when one of the Malaysian workers informed her that her prayers for the day didn't count as her ankles were showing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
I would say the co-worker who told her that wasn't really trying to be a dick, it was more of a 'oh man it's really great that you're being more devout but based on what you're wearing you weren't properly clean for the prayers so what you did today doesn't count. It really sucks because I can see you're trying really hard!' He seemed to be more sympathetic and didn't want her to miss out on doing her full prayer obligation (i.e. she'd have to do another day of fasting to make up for it). It was more a consequence that clearly that's the tradition he'd grown up with (and didn't seem to be alone by a long way) that if you're not fully kosher (for want of a better term in my head) then the prayers don't count and if you're not praying the fasting doesn't count. It wasn't malicious, I don't think any of the Malays I encountered acted that way with their faith, but it was common that they were incredibly strict on the form of worship above the intent. Also on the double standards thing, nothing will ever eclipse seeing an Arab guy and his wife in Kuala Lumpur. She was a couple of paces behind him in a full Niqab in 30c heat and high humidity. He was up fron in shorts, flip flops, a couple of gaudy necklaces and a sleeveless t-shirt with 'Free Mustache Rides' on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I'd say Orthodox Judaism gets into the kind of ridiculous levels of following the letter rather than the spirit of a law, to the extent that some of the Rabbinical stories are about finding ways to get around the laws (including one Rabbi managing to outwit G-d, who is suitable pleased with his clever follower). I'd say that in terms of the actual writings of most learned people and Islam itself there definitely is the idea that intention trumps practice but in my experience that can change when you're dealing with people brought up in the religion. I guess it's something which every religion deals with, where the theology and doctrines meet with the actual practices of the majority of the laity. In this case I can state that pretty much all of these Muslims thought that if you haven't observed all the correct rituals before prayers (properly washed, dressed correctly, avoided farting, etc.) God wouldnt accept your prayers. I'm not saying that's what the Qur'an or even any Imams teach, I think it probably is the case that if you don't bother to wash before prayers because you're too lazy then, according to doctrine, God won't accept your prayers because you obviously don't have any real intention behind them. I think people don't really understand that nuance though, they're taught as kids, 'you have to do A, B and C before you pray or God won't accept it.' So that's what they think. It's been interesting reading this thread, I'd like to thank everyone more knowledgeable than me (so everyone else  ) for posting cool stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:If they were "conquered" and remained under the protection of the state, then yes, they would have to pay for services and be granted the rights given them. Conquest is not particular to Islam in those days. Christians, Jews and Pagans conquered lands and imposed laws. The point being made (and what would distinguish it from the church tax) is it was specifically levied on non-Muslims. At the time this was basically a way of funding the army as soldiers were composed of Arab tribesmen who were largely in it for booty and plunder (I'm sure some were genuinely devout but... Come on, that was basically what all nomadic warrior peoples were into). So it could be seen as coercive means of conversion, basically if you're not Muslim hers a great whopping tax to pay. On the other hand that wasn't the intent and in fact was a problem for later rulers as people began converting in large numbers and their tax base crumbled. I'd say that aspect of Islam is very much a legacy of its early nature as an imperial religion based in conquest. I should say that's a pretty secular reading of why it's there, obviously there could be some underlying divine motivation but I don't think it was ever intended to spur people into converting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
I didn't say it was unduly burdensome, my point was that it wasn't coercive because it wasn't intended to get people to convert. Early Islamic taxation was a means of funding the Arab armies that came in and conquered the territory. They were separated from the populations that were there, which preserved their Arab and religious nature, and so needed some means of passing and maintaining. Levying additional taxes on the existing populations made sense and the religious distinction was an easy way to make that differentiation between the armies and the existing population. Now whether it's coercive in fact is a different question that depends more on the state of the laws in terms of additional responsibilities for Muslims within the Umma. If there were a way to live in the US without citizenship by passing higher taxes and an easy path to citizenship then I think you'd have a better comparison in the US tax analogy. Would that be coercive in terms of getting people living in the US to become citizens?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:My analogy speaks to my paying 17% tax and not living in the country, contrast to the 5-10% of those non-Muslims who actually live in their country. I think if we are to argue over how much we are forced to pay for whatever reason, Id say that the jaziya is a better deal than I have today, certainly financially. People often want to argue how unfair it was having to pay jaziya, but frankly, its really a non-issue unless we want to make an issue out of the times corrupt Calipahtes jacked up the tax unfairly. In that case, its still a non-issue because it was unislamic. It's really not an analogy then, you're not establishing similarities but comparing two situations on the same metric and trying to argue that one which is clearly not coercive (responsibility for paying taxes due to US citizenship) is worse in this metric and so the smaller tax can't be coercive. That argument doesn't work because you're comparing a single metric, tax rate, when the two situations are radically different in terms of the benefits, system it's happening within, etc. It's also ignoring the fact that the Jaziya was part of a general system that treated non-Muslims differently, I think that's a context you have to look at to understand whether there was coercion or not. Making comparisons to other systems of government at the time is fair in terms of tax burden but not particularly easy. Maybe tax rates in the Eastern Roman Empire (which was culturally and geographically probably the closes entity to the early Islamic 'states'). Latin Christianity ended up being mired in feudalism that didn't really have taxation in the same way. Later Christian nations certainly were utterly coercive in terms of forcing conversions or stripping rights from non-Christians but you can't really argue that the higher tax rate wasn't coercive because it wasn't as bad as threatening execution. Also you tend to excuse the abuses of religious power on one hand (corrupt Caliphs) while holding it as a fair example on the other (excesses of the Inquisition taking property from Jews). I think it's fair to accept any religion can be used to justify bad actions. I guess my ultimate point is that having a higher tax rate isn't necessarily coercive and I don't think it was invented as a tool of conversion. Hell I'd say the Jizaya was a pretty strong incentive to prevent conversion to Islam and I'd say was one of the reasons early Islamic states were so tolerant of non-Islamic populaces. Arab chauvinism aside, mass conversions meant killing off your tax base and would be a pretty strong argument against encouraging these conquered peoples to convert to Islam.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:FBI agents cannot infiltrate Mosques legally. It is a violation of civil rights and can jeopardize their case. It would have to be a Muslim working as an undercover informant for the FBI. The only other possibility is that some Muslims are FBI agents, some who I have known personally. A case using such an agent inside of a Mosque can be dicey. It is good that the Imam would report it. It just shows he is diligent and serious about confronting extremism. Just a point, I don't know the exact conditions but I definitely listened a This American Life episode (566 iirc) that was about an FBI informant who worked in several different locations including a mosque. He may have been officially Muslim though and wasn't technically an FBI agent. In practical term there's no difference and the dude he was basically entrapping ended up being arrested and serving time for firing a handgun on a range while on parole because there was nothing else they could find on him. Personally I understand the need to fight radicalisation, in any ideology, but I still feel uneasy about being required to report people for voicing dangerous thoughts. I say this not feeling it's wrong to do so but I don't really feel it should be another individual's responsibility either. I worry about what that does to relations within a community and to us as a society.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
On the topic of Aisha, I think it's fair to say that basically we don't know the exact ages as we lack much definitive information about Mohammed's life in general but the actual marriage and consummation seem to have been in line with the common practice of the times and those were generally not as crazy as we tend to think (i.e. super young marriages tended to be more for political/financial reasons and if they were consummated super early it was probably more to do with concern over producing an heir rather than people back then just being into kids everywhere).pidan posted:I think I've recommended this before, but read "In the shadow of the sword". It's a write up of the first decades of Islam by a western historian. But as far as I remember, he argues that pre-Islamic paganism has had relatively little influence on Islam, which takes most of its content from Judaism and Christianity, and some of its traditions from Persian religion. I actually like In the Shadow of the Sword but I'd be very wary of taking any of Holland's points at face value. He writes great stuff on Roman history and I think his thesis is interesting but he seems to take most of his information from some pretty anti-Islamic thinkers and basically starts from the premise that academic historians need to discount everything that can't be 100% verified by outside facts. By the standards he applies to the Hadith we should probably be throwing Herodotus, Livy and many other ancient historians. Now in fairness the hadith are probably closer in terms of veracity to the Gospels but it seems like you can still extract some ideas of Jesus' life from them. Holland just blanket rejects them without, in the texts at least, offering any arguments against the more strongly considered ones or anything similar. I also think Holland himself is arguing against a fundamentalist view of Islam and its history that many Muslims don't really subscribe to. Amun and others might be able to offer more but for instance I don't think it would be unthinkable that early Islamic forces would be made up of people that hadn't fully understood or accepted Mohammed's message, that there were still cultural and religious practices from polytheistic Arab religions being practised by individuals and groups within the original Islamic armies, something Holland makes a big deal about. Basically his argument is that Islam, as a human institution, formed in much the same way others did: messily and inconsistently. I think that's a fair point, it might undermine simplistic fundamentalist type understandings of Islam (that the religion as practised, probably by them primarily, is the exact set of beliefs, rituals and scripture as was told to Mohammed by God and was practised originally by all Muslims and it was only later with the spoils of Empire and Abbasids/Umayyads/take your pick of unpopular dynasty, that things started to get changed) but ultimately it just puts the historicity of Islamic scripture under the same doubts as Christian or Jewish texts. He goes on to them address some pretty out there theories (the whole thing of the Qur'an originally not being Arabic or Mohammed actually coming from somewhere near Palestine) and, since he's left everything open to doubt, seems to think that giving a lot of space to pretty dubious ideas is perfectly justified.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 01:12
|
|