A Bahraini MP yesterday called for the gradual introduction of Sharia (Islamic) law to deal with all criminals. Another claimed that thieves should have their hands chopped off because “God ordered us to do soâ€Â.
However, one described the punishment as unfair if adulterers are not stoned.
The comments were made in parliament yesterday as MPs discussed amendments to the country’s Penal Code.
Fourteen MPs, led by
ShaikhMattar, have submitted a proposal to chop off the hands of people caught stealing, as well as send them to prison.They are pushing for the punishment to be included in criminal law, despite objections from other MPs who say it is a matter for Islamic scholars to decide.
ShaikhMattar first proposed the introduction of Islamic law last month, but says he wants to start with thieves first.
Click to read more of this drivel…
Comments
Pingback: Rantings of a Sandmonkey
More of the same shit. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise. The people have voted a bunch of idiots to represent them and, as such, should not expect anything but shit spewing out of the MPs mouth.
I do eagerly await, however, some bashing from Steve the American. Let’s hear more of your anti-Muslim / anti-Arab rhetoric, my friend. It’s pretty amazing how you go on pointing logic flaws and fallacies in others’ argument, yet are too simple-minded to see the gaps in yours. Hasty generalizations, wild speculations and irrelevant conclusions – just take a step back and read all your previous posts.
I look forward to reading your daily crock of shit, however. I can just picture sitting in your boxers rehearsing yet another of your “intellectual crusades” before typing it out.
Way to go bro. Edjumacate them backward Arabs.
Ha ha. Well said Nomadic.
Before we put ourselves in the conclusions lets ask will this request occur and exist? No of course because the country is currently undergoing *democracy* even though I dont think it will happen, its not impossible but unlikely really as long as our JALALT AL MALIK AL MO3atham 7afth allah ajrah lol is sitting around..(doesnt anyway realize that long sentence that follows any arabic president or king) Anyways I hope that it wont happen.. The sharia law cannot really be a practiced law basically because there are alot of forigners in Bahrain as well as non-muslims. These guys need some weed to get over themselves!
Well said Nomadic, i am also wating for STEVO to put his logic in this article.. he reminds of ohhh Fox news..
LOL MAHMOOD I LOVE THIS ICON!! DESCRIBES WHO YOU FEEL HA LOL!! well, be carfull there bro.. we need you to keep bloggin… dont mess up the key board!
Fundamentally, shari’a is God’s law, and it should have been implemented a long time ago, even before the “foreigners” arrived in any of Muslim lands, but it has been sidelined and discarded for centuries.
That tells me that it is essentially wrong and all what we’re doing is delaying its demise because no one can stand up and say enough, we’re not going to implement something that is fundamentally flowed and something that just does not have any application currently or at any time in the future.
Gizmo, Nomadic, please don’t engage in personal attacks, it won’t do anyone any good. If you have a problem with Steve’s thoughts or interpretations, or those of any other person on the blog for that matter, than you’re more than welcome to attack their ideas rather than the person.
Of course, this application of Sharia Law would affect everyone . . .
It would equally apply to the young thugs who rip off phone cards and cash from defenceless corner stores as well at the white collar criminals such as the businessmen or ministers who allegedly embezzle or fraudulently exact money from others. No, I can’t see it myself.
A class example of the idiots opening mouths to say something rather than thinking about something to say.
How long is it before you can get rid of these bozos ? However long, it’s not soon enough
When Wahabi apply this, should they start it with mister 50% and he’s brother Santa close?
Shock horror ! You’re not referring to the PM by any chance are you ? 🙂
However, one described the punishment as unfair if adulterers are not stoned.
There are Not enough Stones in Bahrain for all the Adulterers.
Maybe chopping off Private parts?
Bahrain would be full of Unics.
Mr. 50%, I think you have a point.
In Pakistan they have Islamic law, yet Mr. Musharraf, all his ministers, as well as the rest of the country’s corrupt rich people still have their stealing hands on.
Letting the big fish go and chopping off poor people’s hands for stealing bread doesn’t seem very pious to me.
Please don’t engage in personal attacks?
Have you read the guys’ posts? You must be kidding me.
If those aren’t personal attacks, I don’t know what are.
Nomadic, I’ve known Steve and have read his posts for about two years now. You are incensed at his classification of Muslims and Islam, and I am too, believe me; however, if you forget the person who wrote them and don’t shift the blame into “but they’re worse than we are and have been through history” and just take the concept and ideas that he’s talking about, can you honestly deny the fact that essentially he is speaking the truth?
Analyse what he’s saying objectively and see what conclusions you get to. Do not get emotional, or let your ego get in the way. This is extremely important so that WE recognise our wrongs and initiate steps to fix things.
I don’t think I’m completely wrong in this, but I might be. So enlighten me; re-read his post(s) objectively and then take a break and come back with an answer.
Nomadic Arab: “I do eagerly await, however, some bashing from Steve the American. Let’s hear more of your anti-Muslim / anti-Arab rhetoric, my friend. It’s pretty amazing how you go on pointing logic flaws and fallacies in others’ argument, yet are too simple-minded to see the gaps in yours. Hasty generalizations, wild speculations and irrelevant conclusions – just take a step back and read all your previous posts.
I look forward to reading your daily crock of shit, however. I can just picture sitting in your boxers rehearsing yet another of your “intellectual crusades†before typing it out.
Well, since you demand another crock of shit from me it would seem impolite for me to deny you your dearest desire. However, since you know what I’m going to say, what’s the point? You might be able to write my response better than me.
However, what you could do to further the dialogue is be more specific about these supposed flaws in my arguments. You’re really quite vague about those, perhaps because you can’t make the charge stick.
And it’s tighty whities, not boxers, by the way.
Steve
Excuse me Mahmood, but never have I ever said: “but they’re worse than we are and have been through historyâ€Â. Please don’t confuse me with what others have been posting. I have been living and working in the states for the better part of 6 years and if I had any qualms about their culture or people, believe you me, I would have left a long time ago. I have never shifted the blame to America, nor have I justified any action (or lack thereof) by pointing to what others are doing.
Steve, forgive me if I insulted you. My irritation lies in your hasty generalizations about people in the middle east. The intellectual crusades that you speak so fondly of are way too reminiscent of colonial thought. “Educating the savages that don’t know better”. The political climate is convoluted, to say the least. A simple uprising of the moderate muslims against their oppressive islamic regimes that you speak of, while ideal, is pretty complicated.
I honestly don’t really have the time to sift through and analyze each of your arguments individually – for I am at work and am trying to avoid getting fired. No, I am not sidetracking nor avoiding an argument. If you ever visit new york, however, please drop me a line. I will be more than happy to discuss with you over a few cold ones.
Oh, and also: ” re-read his post(s) objectively and then take a break and come back with an answer”. Please don’t patronize me either.
Thanks and good luck to you all.
Btw, Steve, try the boxer briefs – I’m all about those these days.
I was paraphrasing NomadicArab and generalising. Sorry for that if you took any offence. The intention however was to bring the argument to the fore and avoid a flame war.
None taken. But you were not paraphrasing me, you must’ve been reading another comment. Frankly, all I was trying to point out is you have attributed comments to myself that have nothing to do with my opinions/beliefs or prior comments.
NA and G: From my perspective, the best rebuttal argument which unequivically demonstrates the error in Steve’s overgenerallizing overkill is Mahmood himself, that is, Mahmood’s own words, deeds and faith. There is no more effective argument than that, and I for one am persuaded as to its truth.
I don’t see any personal attacks in NomadicArab’s comments. He was referring to Steve’s thoughts and ideas! I agree fully with what he has to say, and think that many on this blog feel the same way!
Nomadic Arab: “Steve, forgive me if I insulted you.”
I’ll get over it. I wept all last night but I think I’m fine now. My pillow is awful soggy, though.
Nomadic Arab: “My irritation lies in your hasty generalizations about people in the middle east. The intellectual crusades that you speak so fondly of are way too reminiscent of colonial thought. “Educating the savages that don’t know betterâ€Â. The political climate is convoluted, to say the least. A simple uprising of the moderate muslims against their oppressive islamic regimes that you speak of, while ideal, is pretty complicated.”
Sep 11 is my point of origin for criticism of Islam, Muslims, and the Middle East. Everything that supports them in their current bloody trajectory against America is fair game for criticism. There is much about all three that strikes me as savage and rightly so.
I have no colonial interest in the Middle East and wish we would fix what we can in Iraq and be done with it. What outrages me is the savage cultural imperialism of Muslims which encroaches on my liberty. For example, there is a Borders book store near my office where I stop after work several times each week. I read that they refuse to stock a certain magazine this month that features one of the cartoons of Mohammed on the cover. They forthrightly state that they are afraid that doing so could bring violence from Muslims against their employees and stores. It fills me with fury that Muslim thugs control what is available for me to read right here in America.
I also read that Borders has moved all its Korans to the top shelf because Muslims demanded that the Koran be placed above all other books. Buckling under to such intimidation from Muslims only invites more of the same. I don’t want to live in a world where Muslims jerk me around.
While I sympathize with the difficulty of overthrowing tyrannous secular and theocratic rule in the Middle East, I am more interested that such rule does not encroach on my America.
Nomadic Arab: “I honestly don’t really have the time to sift through and analyze each of your arguments individually – for I am at work and am trying to avoid getting fired.”
Break your chains, wage slave!
Nomadic Arab: “No, I am not sidetracking nor avoiding an argument. If you ever visit new york, however, please drop me a line. I will be more than happy to discuss with you over a few cold ones.”
Hmmm, a tempting invitation should I make my way back to New York City. Make my cold one a Diet Coke, please. In a glass with ice and a straw.
Nomadic Arab: “Btw, Steve, try the boxer briefs – I’m all about those these days..”
I note your advice. However, sometimes when I finished filling my crock of shit the loose cloth from my boxers got caught under the lid when I sealed it. The tighty whities just seemed more sanitary.
Steve
Again, I apologise if I read it wrongly, misquoted you, or jumped the gun.
This is the risk that all Middle East countries take when they go for democracy. There will always be Islamist bozos getting into power because the voters don’t know any better than to vote for them. Or worse: the voters actually want to live in the middle ages. Scary stuff.
Mahmood, how is Sharia law fundamentally flawed? Sharia law, I imagine, is pretty extensive, so perhaps we should focus on certain laws. Let’s take, for instance, the punishment for thieves and murderers. In this department, how is Sharia law fundamentally flawed? Why are the laws not applicable in today’s world?
Thanks!
That’s the worst thing that can happen is if they incorperate a religious law into their government. For a nation to be truly free, it must be secular. Of course, we are talking about the Middle East here, whose leaders like the power they get out of oppressing thier people.
Steve, I agree with most of your comments on here, but there was one that you made that I had to disagree with, about that all Muslims need to be held responsible for terrorism. My brother just finished his tour in Iraq, and let me tell you, the Iraqi police, translators, and many of the Iraqi people are just as brave as the coalition forces in fighting against terrorism and rebuilding Iraq to be a free nation. Too bad that many Muslims and people outside Iraq, and some inside the country, aren’t giving them the support they need. So, in that sense, I do agree that many Muslims are either advocating the acts of terrorism, or ignoring it. Those Muslims who are ignoring it need to speak out along with non-muslims against terrorism. Terrorists want nothing more than to kill innocent people and oppress the world. How can people stand by and let freedom be threatened? Nobody deserves to be oppressed and who would want to be? Liberty is the most beautiful thing on this world, we can’t just let it be destroyed, we have to always protect it. I think Thomas Jefferson’s quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” is as clear as it gets, it’s time we realize this.
Zmaray: “Mahmood, how is Sharia law fundamentally flawed? Sharia law, I imagine, is pretty extensive, so perhaps we should focus on certain laws. Let’s take, for instance, the punishment for thieves and murderers. In this department, how is Sharia law fundamentally flawed? Why are the laws not applicable in today’s world?”
If I may jump in, one reason that Sharia law is junk is that it considers non-Muslims as second class citizens, dhimmis, who have less rights than Muslims, whose testimony is not even considered against Muslims who do them harm, who have no right to build churches or other non-Muslim places of worship, who have no right to conduct non-Muslim religious services, and so on, ad infinitum.
Sharia’s flaw is that it is written to legalize Muslim rule over non-Muslims and guarantee their supremacy. It is not written to be just nor impartial nor fair. That’s why it’s pure crap.
Steve
Aside from Steve’s traditional extremist view in this regard, and his choice of words, I believe that the Shari’a we have today was borne by applying what was then topical, specific and momentary application of law, made into a general and binding law. There were a lot of laws that the Prophet has applied from time to time to correct a particular situation that Scholars now are diametrically opposite about them in this day and age, for instance, the apostasy laws were created in order to punish army deserters, rather than those leaving Islam; you know how they are applied today.
There were no jails at that time, the first was built I think by Imam Ali in his Khalifate time, hence it was much more expedient to apply an immediate punishment to a thief and be done with it, and to make an example of for the masses, than it was to build, maintain and manage a correction facility.
There are a lot of scholar who believe that the Shari’a be composed of only the Suras which have descended in Mecca, but those which descended in Madinah should be treated as only historical reference.
That’s why I think the application of Shari’a Law today, is just a hodge-podge of unthought of rules and regulations by personal clerical interpretation without good regard for neither the current time nor the spirit that it was first applied.
Mahmood, Very nice blog. The Sandmonkey has a link prominately displayed on his blog.
I very much appreciate the intellectual openess of this thread and look forward to reading others.
Forgive me if this point has been brought up before but when you referred to Steve’s remarks on sharia as “traditional extremest views” it seems, to me, to exacerbate the general problem that non-muslims have with Islam itself and the image presented to the West by it’s seemingly most devout followers such as The Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al. When we see videos of masked men waving thier AK-47’s and chanting “Allah Akbar” while they SAW another man’s head off whose only crime was the fact that he was an American we tend to re-coil at such actions while those in the Muslim world seem to celebrate such actions by replaying them over and over again on state run television.
Like Steve my current view of Islam was shaped by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and then sharpened by the words of Mohammed Atta who truley believed he was doing God’s will by murduring innocent men, women, and children. I don’t recall any political statements regarding Israeli occupation or economic conditions in Sudan. The attacks were merely meant to strike fear into the heart of the un-believing West in the name of Islam.
I am willing to accept that I could be completely wrong, but to do that I must be convinced that all the dastardly deeds conducted in the name of Islam in the last five years never really happened.
You’re most welcome here Jeff, I hope you enjoy your time and find it beneficial.
Like you, quite a number of Muslims abhor violence in general, and that perpetuated in our name in particular, regardless of motive and regardless of skewed justification.
I believe that God is benevolent and does not require anyone’s help in perpetuating any of His religions. If He wanted us to be all the same, He could just as easily have flipped a switch and we’d all become faithful followers.
However, I think in His infinite wisdom He decided to give us humans a brain to think with and choices to make to reach Him, if we so wished; hence, there is no way that anyone can convince me that there is only one exclusive path to His door.
Taking that into consideration, the criminals who saw fellow humans’ heads and have the temerity to intone His name while doing so deserve nothing from us and certainly nothing from Him. They have abrogated their responsibility to life and have fully become worse than animals not worthy of sympathy but plenty of our contempt.
It is these criminals, and their supporters, who have besmirched the reputation of Islam, a religion – by definition – of peace.
Add to those the self-appointed clerics whose only claim to fame is being school drop-outs, hardly literate, and are given the chance – and even state help – to interperate highly complex text. Is it a wonder that we have fatwas which condone bin Laden and his ilk? Is it a wonder that they freely label any and all who slightly differ from them and their skewed and illogical interpretation as heretics deserving of death?
I have faith that this is their time of reckoning. They have been exposed… now it’s our job to either re-educate them and bring them into society as responsible human beings, severely limit their power over people and the state, or maybe put them in isolated islands and give them guns and sharp knives to play with.
I opt for the limiting of their power, the best approach for doing so is divorcing religion from the State.
Besides the problem with Sharia’s inextensibility to non-Muslims, whom it treats as hated inferiors, Sharia also suffers from its inflexibility and obsolescence. Being based on the Koran, it follows that it cannot be changed once instantiated. An interpretation that makes sense in the context of the times makes no sense when modernity outruns it.
For example, a ban on pork made perfect sense in ancient times when pigs were infected with trichinosis and consumption of pork had dire health hazards. That is not true today, yet religious law does not recognize that and remains trapped in the past because there is no mechanism to change it, given that it is Allah’s law.
Likewise, many of the physical punishments make some sense in the ancient context when there were no prisons. The Romans had no prisons and their laws also emphasized physical punishment or death. These ancient punishments make no sense in the modern world where moderate and humane incarceration is an option.
Sharia, like any bureaucratic invention, accumulates more bureaucracy, like a ship’s hull accumulates barnacles. Yet, Sharia has no mechanism to prune bad laws.
For example, in the US there were laws in most cities against spitting on the sidewalk a hundred years ago. They were made to control the spread of tuberculosis, transmitted by sputum, which was a serious public health risk then. Tuberculosis has since been tamed, yet the spitting laws remain in effect for reasons most people don’t understand. The legislative bodies can amend the laws so as to obsolete them. The problem with Sharia is that since it pretends to be the will of Allah, legislation can not rescind it. This flaw hobbles a modern population with medieval laws. The ban on usury, for example, is an example of medieval law restraining the development of modern people.
Steve
Both Steve and Mahmood are right regarding Shari’a.
It’s a very tough situation. See, it goes back to Allah and Mohammed. Mohammed spoke the words of Allah, and since Allah is God, they were sacrosanct words.
Now here’s the kicker – the doctrine of abrogation. Because that exists, a canny cleric can claim that certain things are abrogated based on the readings of the text and the Sunnah. This is why ‘There is no Compulsion in religion’ holds no sway over Islamists. That, the first Sura of the Koran is abrogated in favor of the Verse of the Sword – Fight the unbelievers until all religion is for Allah.
Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was a conquering warrior. That insinuates a violence into the words he spoke. Where Jesus said carry a sword to protect yourself, Mohammed said to carry a sword to slay others. In so doing, Mohammed, lacking the good sense to tell everyone Allah told him to render under Ceasar (or maybe at this point in his Prophetic career he liked the power too much) married Islam and polity together.
Islamic law is a hodgepodge of crap that is utterly inapplicable to most modern situations. It’s designed to be applied by soley by the wise rulers. However, as can be seen ANYWHERE in the generally wisdom-deprived Islamic world, shari’a ends up protecting the strong and humiliating and exploiting the weak. Shari’a prevents a civil society from forming because it itself is uncivil. Nonbelievers are not fully people, women are not fully men, rules cannot be bent without wasta, and even then, the application of the laws are arbitrary and vindictive. Even Mohammed had ‘special privileges’ than others more than 4 wives at a time, for example.
Was Mohammed not subject to Allah’s law? Or was, as I am convinced, Mohammed merely using ‘Allah’ as an excuse to further his own cult of personality? As an example, see the Middle East’s love affairs with their leaders. When your nation has images of their ‘president for life’ plastered everywhere, you may be subject to a cult of personality. Why no images of Mohammed? A cultural rule to prevent veneration and iconization of Mohammed. That means that people at some point noticed there was a MAJOR problem with this. Even long after Mohammed DIED, some treated him as an object of veneration. It’s like people who still keep images of Mao in their house in China.
“I tell you one and one makes three. I am the Cult of Personality.”
–Woah, went a bit on a tangent–
In short summation:
Whenever I hear an Islamist scream ‘justice’, I hear ‘vengeance’. Justice, Law, Order.. these things mean different things to Islam than to the West. The problem lies with Shari’a in the first, but Sharia is built on Mohammed’s actions and words. If you get rid of Shari’a, you discredit the Prophet. Discredit the Prophet and you discredit Islam. I fail to see how that could ever be bad.
Gizmo: “Well said Nomadic, i am also wating for STEVO to put his logic in this article.. he reminds of ohhh Fox news.”
Flatterer.
Steve
steve my sweet .. how’s scooter libby doing these days?
ethan … interesting. but, worrisome. do you really think that reform in sharia is only going to come by discrediting the prophet and discrediting islam? you dont think it can be done without going into the battlefield of islamic jurisprudence? what’s a moderate to do about this?
However, I think in His infinite wisdom He decided to give us humans a brain to think with and choices to make to reach Him, if we so wished; hence, there is no way that anyone can convince me that there is only one exclusive path to His door.
Thank you for that line. It is one I have been dying to hear from a Muslim after being subjected to varying degrees of condescending remarks for being a Hindu.
And of course, I go by the “there is one Divine but many paths to be with it” line from the Hindu scriptures, so the feeling is mutual 🙂
As far as my knowledge of shari’a law is concerned, they are based on the hadiths and not just the quran. Considering that the hadiths were written by men, on what other people remembered of the prophet, i find it difficult to believe that these people didn’t bring in their biases when penning down the hadith. As such, does that make the source of the law reliable?
“Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was a conquering warrior. That insinuates a violence into the words he spoke. Where Jesus said carry a sword to protect yourself, Mohammed said to carry a sword to slay others. In so doing, Mohammed, lacking the good sense to tell everyone Allah told him to render under Ceasar (or maybe at this point in his Prophetic career he liked the power too much) married Islam and polity together. ”
Listen, people… do not talk out of ignorance. When Mohammed fought in battles, it was in self-defence and he was acting on orders from Allah, not because he merely enjoyed hacking people to death! Where the hell do you get your info from?!
I am not sure whether you are Muslim or Christian, Ethan, because I am not sure Ethan is your real name, but don’t talk out of your ass. Muslims respect Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and all the prophets equally and we believe that Mohammed completed the religion that Jesus was trying to spread…. the religion on ALLAH…
Jasra: “steve my sweet .. how’s scooter libby doing these days?”
Beats me. The issue is so tangled that I’m waiting for the dust to settle so I can figure out what the players did and if any of it was wrong.
Steve
Jasra:
I’m not saying that Islam cannot be reformed. However, in order to reform there has to be a ‘discrediting’ of the Prophet similar to what happened to Jesus. In fact, Biblical Archaeology, and placing of Jesus into a historical context outside the confines of the religion was a -good- thing. If the same were to happen to Mohammed, however, then the Koran as ‘perfect text’ myth would not hold.
And if that myth falls, Islam crumbles a LOT more than Christianity. Most Christian sects have always held that the Bible is true, but inspired by God, not authored by God himself.
To Anonymous:
Explain the Bene Quraish tribe that Mohammed ordered slaughtered.
Oh wait. Allah said it, so it must be done.
That excuse can be used to make even the most disgusting crimes, such as consummating one’s love to a 9 year old wife, palatable, eh?
And don’t give me the ‘Muslims respect Jesus’ or ‘Jesus spread Allah’s religion’ falsehood. Islam shows Jesus zero respect. It is claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin AND lived a sinless life, BUT Mohammed is ‘better’, even though Mohammed sinned.
Jesus was a Jew. His religion was that of YHWH, not Allah. You may think they are the same being, but even a cursory look at the New Testament vs. the Koran displays a distinct difference.
Anon: “When Mohammed fought in battles, it was in self-defence and he was acting on orders from Allah, not because he merely enjoyed hacking people to death! Where the hell do you get your info from?!”
Well, I don’t know where Ethan gets his info but I get all mine from the Koran, hadiths, and Muslims. It makes for grisly reading.
For example, in Koran 4:76, “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” That doesn’t sound like a defensive strategy to me. Muslims are being told to actively make war on non-Muslims.
When a captive Quraysh chieftain by the name of Uqba pleaded for his life, Mohammed had him killed with absolute glee. Pleaded Uqba, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” “Hell,” said Mohammed. Now tell me, Mr. Anonymous, how that murder was done in self defense and that Mohammed did not enjoy his death.
Mohammed was absolutely delighted when one of his followers beheaded Amr ibn Hisham (Abu Jahl) and presented his head to him.
And there is the Verse of the Sword which commands Muslims to slay non-Muslims where ever they found them. That sounds pretty clear that Muslims must kill for their faith.
Mohammed gave Muslims a specific command to make against the Byzantine empire after his death, promising them that “the first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s city (Constantinople) will be forgiven their sins.” In other words, kill the Byzantine infidels and you go to heaven. That is a policy of offense direct from the mouth of your Prophet.
I can quote quite a few bloody verses from the Koran that demonstrate that Mohammed commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims without any other cause than they are not Muslim. He certainly took pleasure in killing people for trivial reasons as well. It’s no wonder his followers are butchering people around the world today in a global bloodbath.
Steve
Jasra
Scooter is undergoing the process of being held A C C O U N T A B L E for some alleged actions. You understand the concept of holding public officials “accountable” for their actions don’t you? (wink wink!)
ps Mahmood,
How do you do the yellow smile faces and stuff????
Steve – Like you, I am literate – I get my info from the source(s) themselves. 😛
Wow that election count down clock must be just draggin on.
How popular are these guys and what are the chances that they will be discarded with the next vote?
cerebral waste ..
my comment to steve about scooter was S A R C A SM. You do understand the concept of people condemning others on the basis of standards that they dont meet themsleves? namely the US government? and the fundamental lack of evidence that drove them to war, the fundamental lack of troops that allowed for a vacum of power in iraw and the fundamental lack of tolerance for debate which let to bush pseudo sanctioning the outing of plame?!!!
ethan ..
interesting point re the discrediting. i would put it differently. i would say that the more moslems become comfortable with the fact that mohammed was a man, not just a prophet, but a man, a warrior as well,they will understand more and more why the laws come down the way that they did. from outalwing pork to cautioning against alocohol and even determining the rules for polygamy. (note that when at war, sanctioned polygamy will allow for the growth inhte number of moslems even with the ratio of men:women being severely compromised. i think with time, moslems will also understand that if the mohammed were to be born now, he would probably outlaw eating fowl (bird flu) and if he were born in africa, he would very well codemn unprotected sex (aids). the emphasis being that it is unprotected sex that is the issue and not pre marital sex.
incidentally, alot of the far right evangelicals in the us take the old and the new testament very very literally. homosexuality isnt dealt with very well. neither is adultry.and they still live by this credo. which is why, hollywood was too scared to give best movie to brokeback mountain and instead gave it to crash.
i dont think that the difference between the christians in the US and moslems in the ME lies primarily in the difference in the ethos of the two religions .. but much more fundamentally, it lies in the fact that christians in the US live under the legislative and judicial authorities of the US government …
discreit sharia, and you will set off a chain of events that will lead to much more tolerance and much less religious fervour ….
So sorry you couldn’t recognize the dripping sarcasm in my post Jasra. But I am happy to see your retort back is funny and witty though somewhat dated! Have yourself a shawarma or two and calm down!
Jasra Jedi: “incidentally, alot of the far right evangelicals in the us take the old and the new testament very very literally. homosexuality isnt dealt with very well. neither is adultry.and they still live by this credo. which is why, hollywood was too scared to give best movie to brokeback mountain and instead gave it to crash.”
Not quite so, Jasra. The American evangelicals are focused mostly on the New Testament. Most of them seem to want to forget there is an Old Testament. Basically, they like the more feminine New Testament approach of turning the other cheek while they seem to be embarassed by the masculine Old Testament approach of smiting your enemies, hip and thigh. There are some sects that dwell in the Old Testament and revel in it but most of the Christian Right just cherry picks what they want from it. They grab the Ten Commandments and scurry back into the New Testament so they don’t have to deal that stuff about not suffering a witch to live.
It is true that some Christian fundamentalists take the Muslim approach of declaring the Bible the literal word of God, but that makes them objects of sport because there are so many inconsistencies in the Bible, as in the Koran. For example, it is self-evidently wrong that the love of money is the root of all evil. Rape is evil and is not caused by the love of money.
The evangelicals don’t like homosexuality, but they don’t believe in killing homosexuals, like Muslims. They tend toward the approach of hating the sin but loving the sinner, although that approach is often imperfectly executed. None of them advocated dropping a wall on gays, as the Taliban does. Many think they can “cure” homosexuals and convert them back into heterosexuals, which is nuts.
I strongly disagree that the evangelicals don’t deal well with adultery. From what I see, they deal with it very well. They simply say one thing in public and do another in private. Those girls who denounce adultery in their Wednesday prayer meetings are out having sex on Saturday night and praying to God to forgive them in church on Sunday morning. Trust me on this, Jasra.
Right wing evangelicals have no influence in Hollywood. Crash was just a better movie than Brokeback Mountain (I didn’t see Brokeback). The Oscars have no relation to anything in America but rather depend on the politics and tastes of a few hundred industry players in Hollywood. Only occassionally does Hollywood and mainstream America intersect and then mostly by accident.
Steve
cerebral waste .. i went back and reread. couldnt find any sarcasm, let alone dripping sarcasm. 😉 usually, sarcasm is accompanied by intelligence, or even wit. but, have faith .. i shall go back and search again. however, not sure what you mean by ‘dated’ response? as far as i know, the white house’s dealing with scooter libby is not ‘dated’, it is yet to be determined. although, with condi distancing herself from rummy, and the white house probably doing the same re scooter libby ….. i think this one is going to be well worth watching ? incidentally, shawarma’s dont calm me down. being right does. and if i am wrong, a good glass of red wine usually does the trick. french preferably.
steve .. you know what? i am not quite sure that the oscars have no relation to america. i think you underestimate how many non americans use hollywood to (a) learn about america, and (b) test the pulse on what the american psyche is thinking. in other words, the passion of the christ was a tribute to mel gibson. and spoke volumes of freedom of speech in america. it almost undid the damage that was done when america forbade the airing of the bbc’s documentary ‘the accused’. ditto for spielberg’s munich. the fact that america is willing to actually reassess itself in the mirror is a very phenomenal one which we americans can only guage by looking at what has become acceptable in pop culture. essentially, you telling me that i hollywood has nothing to do with america is like me telling you that the regional newspapers in the ME has nothing to do with ME politics! i could go on .. but i think i have made my point??
as far as brokeback vs crash … hmm. i find it interesting that you judge that crash is a better movie having not even seen brokeback! kind of begs the question of how you are basing your judgement of things other than movies??? 😉
sorry mahmood ..
that should have read ‘we NON-americans can only guage by looking at what has become acceptable in pop culture’. i think i need to start doing spell checks, grammar check, and common sense checks from now on ..
Since my last comment, there have been many calling for reforming Islam by discrediting the Prophet Muhammad, thereby crumbling the religion, purging Sharia from Islam, and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that for every act of injustice by a Muslim, there is an act of justice by a Muslim; for every display of barbarism by a Muslim, there is a display of civility by a Muslim, ad infinitum (I learned a new word, thanks to Steve The American). Needless to say, this contest leads to a dead end. Nothing other than further acrimony is achieved. The question is why these debates come up so often. It seems to me that both sides are bent on disproving the other, and that too at any cost; dangerous, but true.
Why is everyone bent on disproving Islam? Well, I think that since most people, at least in the US, have started to learn about the religion after 9/11, the actions of Muslims in our times are to blame. Many, therefore, feel that Islam is at the root of all the problems inflicting the world today, and must be reformed for the security of everyone.
I do not subscribe to this view. I believe in the opposite. That is, Muslims need to return to the proper reading of the religion, and that the said actions are an aberration from the proper path of Islam. I am against the reformation of Islam, especially in the style of the Christian reformation, because I fear the religion resulting from it will not deserve to be called Islam.
This view applies to the Sharia, as well. I don’t think that modern times have given Sharia a chance. When and where has Sharia been implemented, so that it may be observed and tweeked? As for its punishments, some say they are barbaric. Who is to decide what is and what isn’t barbaric? What is more barbaric: To give a thief a quick punishment and allow him to continue his life, or leave him to rot his years in prison? Why should the people fund jails? Why should they shoulder the burden of a crime?
P.S: I am incoherent near the end. It’s because I have to suddenly rush. Please do excuse me.
Jasra Jedi: “incidentally, shawarma’s dont calm me down. being right does. and if i am wrong, a good glass of red wine usually does the trick. french preferably.”
Well, my dear, then you should feel calm all the time because I don’t know of a woman yet who has ever admitted being wrong.
By the way, everybody knows that American wine has far surpassed snooty French wine. However, I must admit that I am committing treason to America in that my preference is for any German white wine that is Spätlese. Usually that wine sits in my refrigerator for a couple years before it is poured or given away.
Jasra Jedi: “steve .. you know what? i am not quite sure that the oscars have no relation to america. i think you underestimate how many non americans use hollywood to (a) learn about america, and (b) test the pulse on what the american psyche is thinking.”
Then it’s no wonder foreign heads are full of misinformation about America and Americans. There are not many Hollywood films that represent America nor its psyche. For example, I served in the military for seven years but I have yet to see a film that portrays the military accurately. They are all like cowboy cartoons.
Jasra Jedi: “in other words, the passion of the christ was a tribute to mel gibson. and spoke volumes of freedom of speech in america. it almost undid the damage that was done when america forbade the airing of the bbc’s documentary ‘the accused’. ditto for spielberg’s munich. the fact that america is willing to actually reassess itself in the mirror is a very phenomenal one which we [non-]americans can only guage by looking at what has become acceptable in pop culture.”
Jasra, there is no media product that is banned in America except for really vile stuff like kiddie porn. An anti-Israeli documentary has no censorship barrier to overcome to be distributed in America. I have read long ago where “The Accused” has been shown privately in people’s homes, usually at meetings of leftish political types. You know, most of the world’s television programs are not shown on US TV. I suspect the reason this particular program was not is more likely due to lack of effort, lack of money to promote it, or lack of production values.
I saw “Passion of Christ” with a bunch of churchy types. They were impressed but I can’t say I’d like to watch it again. Too sadistic.
I saw “Munich.” It was a good movie but a poor documentary. It got some facts wrong. For example, the Palestinian terrorist did not bring their own weapons into the Olympic Village. The East German Olympic team smuggled them in and the Palestinians picked them up from their apartment. I don’t agree with the moral of the story either, which is that you should always opt for dialogue with your enemies rather than fight back. There are some enemies with whom you can not reason. Deluding yourself with dialogue just gets more people killed.
Jasra Jedi: “essentially, you telling me that i hollywood has nothing to do with america is like me telling you that the regional newspapers in the ME has nothing to do with ME politics! i could go on .. but i think i have made my point?? .”
A lot of Hollywood is lefty propaganda, trying to sell the public a particular point of view, which is often a view held by rather craven movie people untethered to reality. For example, Hollywood tries to sell itself as more progressive as the rest of America but they drug their feet to award Oscars to black actors. At the same time they depict the military as less progressive when the military is the leading institution with respect to integration and a model for others to follow.
I am particularly put off by the recurring theme in Hollywood movies where upstanding lawyers reform a corrupt military. US lawyers are known for anything but being ethical while US military officers are rigorously ethical.
It’s rare to see a Hollywood movie that shows a conservative as the hero or a liberal as the villian. Villains are always rogue generals or corporate chieftains or evil capitalists. They are promoting an essentially Marxist view which few in America share.
Right now, there is some hidden Hollywood agenda that prohibits showing Arabs as villians, even when the screenplays are derived from books about Arab Muslim terrorists. They change the villians to South Africans or some other safe category. I suspect they do that to avoid hurting overseas sales. Hollywood did the same thing in the 1930s, avoiding portraying Nazis as villians lest they lose sales in Germany.
Jasra Jedi: “as far as brokeback vs crash … hmm. i find it interesting that you judge that crash is a better movie having not even seen brokeback! kind of begs the question of how you are basing your judgement of things other than movies??? .”
Brokeback Mountain’s plot seems like a pretty straightforward love story except with the twist that it’s about homosexuals. It is a classic linear plot with only a few characters. The gay angle is the only thing unusual about it. Instead of boy meets girl, its boy meets boy. Then, of course, there is some obstacle blocking their romance, usually family or events or rivals. In this case, it’s society. Nothing new here except dropping the gay plot in the saddle out in the sticks instead of downtown San Francisco. You could pretty easily rewrite the story to make it a heterosexual story with one of them married, providing the romantic obstacle and keeping the forbidden love angle.
“Crash”, on the other hand, is a multiplot story with dozens of characters. Its structure is very unusual and original. Every second of it is riveting and you have to work to figure out the theme. You watch this and you have no idea where it’s going. It is much more complex.
Nigeria. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Pakistan.
Sharia fails like Communism fails. It’s just not a good system for humanity. It favors the powerful and leaves the weak and the non-believer humilated and mutilated.
No better than what current Middle Eastern governments do.
Which planet are you on? tweeked?! Shari’ah is not meant to be tweeked remember? It is the be all and end all and we have to accept it as it is, otherwise… you know the rest.
That’s basically why – as far I understand – Shari’ah does not have any place in the modern world.
Zmaray … You state ‘I do not subscribe to this view. I believe in the opposite. That is, Muslims need to return to the PROPER reading of the religion’
Whose definition of proper ???? Not mine .. Cant you see that everyone is fighting because they think that THEIR definition is the Proper definition? Starting with the Taliban and the Salafis and Ayatolla Khomeini????? Dont you think we need another arena which to determine what is appropriate and wht isnt in the 21st century??
Steve Steve Steve .. close but no cigar babes. Your anti hollywood tirade seems to be nothing more than an anti left tirade … my take on Crash vs Brokeback is that Crash was an interesting attempt for America to come to terms with race issues. Brokeback was also an intersting attempt to come to terms with homosexual issues. The choice of one vs the other means that America is still largely puritan .. not really ready for open homosexuality. And, when watching American movies, most no americans will sigh when we see a happy ending. The natural idealism of America shines through where everything always works out in the end. Very different to Bollywood movies where there is always some tragedy, or Egyptian movies where there seems to be alot of wailing because of lost love. Or French movies, that are sometimes twisted. Or some of the South African movies that are coming out, dealing more honestly with race issues than the US. So, I am sorry, but the culture that comes out of any country reflects their values and the pulse of the national pscyhe. It speaks volumes that Iran has been able to churn out movie after movie, even post revolutionary Iran whereas Bahrain has been ….. very very quiet. It says a tremedous amount. But, I don’t exect you to fully relate to the issue of culture and history .. after all, the American psyche is still only a few odd 200 years old …. 😉
Jasra
I am so sorry to hear Shawarma don’t calm you down. Must be a horrible feeling to know that the worlds best comfort food doesn’t, well, comfort you. The wine on the other hand I tend to agree with you though your assessment that Hollywood reflects America is painfully inaccurate. Though I can understand how some could draw that conclusion I just can’t understand how you could… My Lady…..
Jasra;
The choice of one vs the other means that America is still largely puritan ..
I would dispute that. The sexual revolution started in America, not in Europe. So did the gay rights thing.
i think you underestimate how many non americans use hollywood to (a) learn about america,
Unfortunately, that’s true. And it’s also true that they’ve got a head full of distortions. I’ve run into foreigners here and there who’ve got some odd ideas about America that I’ve had the not too pleasant task of trying to undo. Most Hollywood movies are chock-full of exaggerations and hyperbole. It’s a fantasy.
Steve is correct about the lawyers, however. They get very little respect in America. It’s a state they pretty much earned.
Ethan: “Nigeria. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Pakistan.
You can also add the failed Muslim states that existed in Spain, Sicily, Italy, and the Balkans. Sharia did not prove to popular with the natives there.
Ethan: “Sharia fails like Communism fails. It’s just not a good system for humanity. It favors the powerful and leaves the weak and the non-believer humilated and mutilated.
Exactly so. Sharia is deeply flawed in a number of ways. It’s a closed system which is preoccupied with blocking outside influences, which stops knowledge created elsewhere from being acquired and used. It has no concept of individual human rights, which dooms it. It’s basically a system set up to place Muslim males in charge, with Muslim women having next to no rights, and non-Muslims having less than no rights.
Mahmood: “Shari’ah is not meant to be tweeked remember? It is the be all and end all and we have to accept it as it is, otherwise… you know the rest. That’s basically why – as far I understand – Shari’ah does not have any place in the modern world.
Exactly true. Sharia suffers from the disadvantage of being based on a book considered perfect by Muslims. That makes it very difficult to ammend the law as circumstances change. It’s like an anchor in the past stopping a Muslim society from moving forward into modern life.
Jasra Jedi: “Steve Steve Steve .. close but no cigar babes. Your anti hollywood tirade seems to be nothing more than an anti left tirade …
Hollywood is a subset of the Left. They’re pretty much synonymous. And I like to think of my post as more of a rant than a tirade.
Jasra Jedi: “my take on Crash vs Brokeback is that Crash was an interesting attempt for America to come to terms with race issues. Brokeback was also an intersting attempt to come to terms with homosexual issues. The choice of one vs the other means that America is still largely puritan .. not really ready for open homosexuality.”
Most Americans would consider “Crash” just a piece of entertainment, not a vehicle to change society. It also gives a very skewed view of America as a big racist hellhole. Not so. I rarely encounter racist sentiments in my life and in those rare instances where I do, it’s whispered. Racism is considered bad manners. I’ve never witnessed a full-blown racist incident like anything portrayed in “Crash.”
I’ve been to LA a number of times and I barely recognize it from “Crash.” It’s a pretty laid back town more full of foolishness than racism.
I’d agree that most of America would rather keep its sex behind closed doors, especially homosexuality. I’ve worked in the military, teaching junior college, and now work in the business world. There were gay people in all three and everybody could figure out who they were if they gave it any thought. For the most part the straight people just chuckled and pressed on, live and let live. There is only a minority who come unglued over homosexuality.
Jasra Jedi: “And, when watching American movies, most no[n] americans will sigh when we see a happy ending. The natural idealism of America shines through where everything always works out in the end.
Most Hollywood movies have happy endings because sad endings don’t sell. Sometimes Hollywood will test a movie before release with different endings to guage audience reaction. American audiences want happy endings. They don’t go for tragedies.
Jasra Jedi: “Very different to Bollywood movies where there is always some tragedy, or Egyptian movies where there seems to be alot of wailing because of lost love. Or French movies, that are sometimes twisted. Or some of the South African movies that are coming out, dealing more honestly with race issues than the US.”
I have to say I love Bollywood movies. I have no idea what they are about or what they are saying, but they are full of cute babes singing and dancing up a storm. I haven’t seen one that is not fascinating to watch.
Jasra Jedi: So, I am sorry, but the culture that comes out of any country reflects their values and the pulse of the national pscyhe. It speaks volumes that Iran has been able to churn out movie after movie, even post revolutionary Iran whereas Bahrain has been ….. very very quiet. It says a tremedous amount.”
OK, I will accept part of your point that the origin of a film conveys the culture, though imperfectly. But the frame of reference of the viewer influences what they see and their interpretation of the movie.
A friend of mine from the Air Force grew up in South America. He said many South Americans went to American movies and never paid any attention to the plot or what was happenning in the foreground, but rather the things in the background. They would see a scene set in an American kitchen and gape at the kitchen appliances in the background. What was an electric can opener, they would ask, and why would you need one? America was like science fiction for them.
Likewise, in China, when they played the first “Star Wars” a lot of the people walked out on it because they could not understand where it was set. What was outer space? If you lived your life on a rice farm it did not relate to anything you knew.
In that sense, I think American movies lend more ammo to anti-Americans because they tend to be critical of America in a leftist sense. For example, a leftist director of a movie about Al Capone from the 50s said that he posed the scene where Scarface meets with his men like a corporate board meeting to make the point that Al and his mob were no different than the typical American corporation. Of course, they were vastly different. American CEOs don’t beat their subordinates heads in with baseball bats at board meetings. However, the movie presents a distorted view of reality eagerly accepted by the gullible and uninformed.
Jasra Jedi: “But, I don’t exect you to fully relate to the issue of culture and history .. after all, the American psyche is still only a few odd 200 years old ….”
A lot of that culture and history we don’t need. We just distilled the best of it and went with that. We don’t need to carry on with Europe’s tribal warfare, class warfare, aristocracy, resistance to new ideas, antagonism to business, and racism. We are best shed of all that. Because Europe is burdened with its past it tends to be passive, pessimistic, and reactionary. Because America’s eyes are on the future, we tend to be active, optimistic, and pro-active. That’s not a bad culture to have. And it’s much better to be making history now than to be endlessly refighting historic battles from centuries ago, dontcha think?
Steve: “US lawyers are known for anything but being ethical . . . ”
Anon: “Steve is correct about the lawyers, however. They get very little respect in America. It’s a state they pretty much earned.”
Speaking of tweaked 🙂 All of ’em, every last one? Dah whole dang group?
Hmmm.
CW: I didnt say that Hollywood reflects America. I said that Hollywood reflects American values. As for shawarma, sorry darling. I don’t consider that comfort food. For me? Nothing like a good old machbous with ‘marag samach’.
Anon: the sexual revolution started in American not Europe? HAH! Darling. Have you ever compared American women to Italian women? The Italians are sexier. And, if you are talking about equality .. well, the day your sexual revolution votes a woman into the White House as President is the day you may claim a point against Germany’s Merkel, Britain’s Thatcher, Turkey’s Ciller … (need I say more? Even the Moslems have elected women into office ..)
Steve: My dearest sweetipoo. Deep down inside I know you agree with what I am trying to say. Its OK if you are just disagreeing with me to maintain your public role as being ‘on message’. Oh, and LA not having race issues? Errrmmm .. can you say race riots when Clinton had to bring out the National Guard in California??? Or, does history start in 9/11/2001?????
Much love to all of you ..
Steve Said:
Not true. The Prophet said to go to the ends of the earth to acquire knowledge. However, if you look at the kind of knowledge that most Muslim students get in the USA, it speaks of interesting things.
Most of the Muslim students I have met as a gradutate student and professor are engineers or pre-med. There’s zero interest in the abstract sciences. That speaks volumes as to what seems to be important to Muslims culturally. The abstract sciences challenge beliefs, while the concrete sciences offer only equations to plug and chug. Mindless repetition like memorizing the Koran.
And that’s dangerous. A sharia society could have NEVER developed relativity or particle physics on its own because those disciplines require you to challenge beliefs. And Sharia refuses to be challenged.
Which is no different than pre-Islamic Arab society, except for maybe the fact that pre-Islamic Arabs were not so intolerant of others’ beliefs.
I’ll only talk about traditional Sunni Islam, since that is what I’m most familiar with. Contrary to what many people think or claim, the Shari’ah according to orthodox Sunnism, is certainly not written in stone. For one thing, let’s be clear that there is no single version of Shariah that exists. The Shari’ah is an abstract divine ideal, while fiqh (jurisprudence) is the humanly attempt to interpret and implement this abstract ideal in the world. Orthodox Sunnism recognizes four distinct legal schools — the differences are explicitly recognized and accepted by all the schools.
Further, the idea that the fiqh uses the Quran and hadith as its only sources is incorrect. For example, we know that Imam Malik also used the customs of the Medinian people as a source also. Later medieval jurists also made it explicitly clear that the basis of the Sharia is certainly not limited to the “divine sources”. Khalid Masud has done some great work recently in clarifying this. You can download a very useful paper of his titled “Muslim Jurists’ Quest for the Normative Basis of Shari’a” from here (scroll down to the bottom of the page).
Below is an excerpt Masud’s paper, where he explains the ideas of the 14th century jurist, Abu Ishaq Al-Shatibi:
Finally, the idea that each of the four Sunni legal schools have not changed since the time of their respective, is also untrue, even after the “closing of the gates of ijtihad” that people often refer to. History shows that it is quite common that a school would produce a ruling that disagrees with the ruling of the school’s founder centuries earlier. You should also read Muhammad Zaman’s “The Ulama in Contemporary Islam” where he explains how the traditional jurists handled the problems presented during the colonial and post-colonial eras.
Even among the Wahhabis, who are the foremost proponents of the “only one true unchangeable Sharia” belief, the claim does not hold true. In 1979, when the Ka’ba was briefly taken over by Wahhabi zealots, the Wahhabi jurists supported the rulers by sanctioning the use of force and bloodshed in Mecca — something that is expressly prohibited in the Quran.
So the point is that the interpretations of Sharia are not set in stone, and the schools of law even have mechanisms available regarding change according to the conditions of time and location. I think, potentially, it would be quite possible for the sharia to develop into something that would support a modern democratic state.
However, the problem is that historically much of the change has come because of the desires of the political ruler, or those of the male patriarchy. This has to change in order for the Sharia to be accepted by modern society — and I think that even this change is possible, but it will take a long time to happen. So until that change happens we have no choice but to use alternative sources of law.
Ethan: “Most of the Muslim students I have met as a gradutate student and professor are engineers or pre-med. There’s zero interest in the abstract sciences. That speaks volumes as to what seems to be important to Muslims culturally. The abstract sciences challenge beliefs, while the concrete sciences offer only equations to plug and chug. Mindless repetition like memorizing the Koran.”
That corresponds to the ancient Latin texts the Arabs of medieval times chose to copy. They copied the math, science, and medical texts and ignored the history and literature. So this is a very old trend.
Steve
So how many Indians do you get in American or European schools studying the Arts, Ethan and Steve? Or Pakistanis, or other 3rd world nationalities?
Could it simply be that as developing countries what we need is the “real science” to go forward rather than the arts and philosophy?
Generalisations again you two…
Mahmood,
Oppa! You got there first! 🙂 I was going to say that Steve The Confederate is currently in “cherry picking” mode. He has wholeheartedly accepted that all Muslims are responsible for Sep11, and naturally wants to add fuel to this fire.
Thus, he will cherry pick information and correlate to it that which defames the most. You can’t really do anything about it, anymore than you can stop a washing machine in spin mode to drain the cesspool that keeps getting larger and larger inside it.
-Ibn
Mahmood: “So how many Indians do you get in American or European schools studying the Arts, Ethan and Steve? Or Pakistanis, or other 3rd world nationalities? Could it simply be that as developing countries what we need is the “real science†to go forward rather than the arts and philosophy? Generalisations again you two…
Or perhaps the medieval reasons for ignoring infidel literature and history has carried forward: Frankish plays and stories and history are irrelevant because they are an inferior people whose stories bear un-Islamic values.
Steve
Ibn: “Thus, he will cherry pick information and correlate to it that which defames the most.”
Dontcha hate how pissy the infidels get when you slaughter a few thousand of them for Islam? All they do is criticize, criticize, criticize.
Sheesh!
Steve
Dontcha hate how pissy the infidels get when you slaughter a few thousand of them for Islam? All they do is criticize, criticize, criticize.
Hahahahaha! Steve made a funny! Even though I AM an athiest, this particular infidel doesnt go through an ethno-religious hissyfit. Betcha he prolly didnt even know that about the infidel athiest Ibn. 😀
-Ibn
What kind of hissyfit have you been throwing, then?
Curious,
Steve
Not an ethno-religious one?
-Ibn
No no Steve. Amna, my eldest daughter is doing her GCSE O Levels this year, after which she will take the A Levels before going to the UK to university. Her selection of subject and her choice of studies to pursue in university is “teen psychology” as a specialisation. This is a virtually unheard of field where we are. I understand that a lot of her compatriots are choosing similar streams, and I am encouraging her in her choice and not insisting on any particular discipline other than cautioning her that when she comes back (if she chooses to that is) she might not get a job if her choice is very vertical.
Hanan, my middle daughter seems to be treading the path of art and I suspect that she will go to university to study art. I have no idea what Arif wants to do yet as he’s too young to decide fully yet.
Talking to other parents I find that quite a number of students are thinking of the art rather than science route, and that’s not because they are stupid! So I suspect that society here in the Muslim world has enough engineers and doctors and society is adjusting itself now to take care of the artistic side of things like art, history, psychology and others in the stream.
You might want to check university stats in the West to corroborate this, but I feel that there is a shift happening in our societies now and about time too!
Mahmood: “No no Steve. Amna, my eldest daughter is doing her GCSE O Levels this year, after which she will take the A Levels before going to the UK to university.”
Mahmood, could you explain to me and any other stray Americans what those levels mean? I’ve heard them referenced before but the whole Great Britain-based educational system is a mystery to me.
Mahmood: “Her selection of subject and her choice of studies to pursue in university is “teen psychology†as a specialisation.”
Mahmood, did you keep a straight face when she told you her major? Be honest. Did you and the wife not bust out laughing in private at some point? Did you both not consider that you already had the equivalent of degrees in teen psychology?
Speaking as your educational counselor, I recommend against a psych degree for Amna. I’ve got a Psych BS and look at the mess it’s made of me. You can’t get a decent job in the psychology racket unless you have a master’s, although an undergrad degree is splendid preparation for making interesting small talk in the unemployment line.
My advice to you is to tell Amna that if she wants a degree in teen psych, she has to be engaged by the time she graduates so that she’ll have a means of support.
Mahmood: “This is a virtually unheard of field where we are.”
There might be a good reason for that, Mahmood.
Mahmood: I understand that a lot of her compatriots are choosing similar streams, and I am encouraging her in her choice and not insisting on any particular discipline other than cautioning her that when she comes back (if she chooses to that is) she might not get a job if her choice is very vertical.”
You might ask her to consider minoring in Comp Sci. Whatever field she enters, a knowledge of computers will make her more capable in it. And if it doesn’t work out in her main field, she has a backup plan for another field.
Mahmood: “Hanan, my middle daughter seems to be treading the path of art and I suspect that she will go to university to study art. I have no idea what Arif wants to do yet as he’s too young to decide fully yet.”
Art is not a bad field. You actually learn to make something for which people will pay. It’s not like history or sociology, which give you no specific job skill.
OK, I’ve had a little fun with you, Mahmood, but I take your point.
Steve
They’re smart young ladies; Amna will be doing a business degree while Hanan will combine hers with another (mundane) subject as well although she hasn’t decided yet.
Now now, Mahmood. I’m not saying anything about the arts. I’m talking from a hard science perspective. Only one of the many muslims I have ever met has been in a hard science; A7med did his research on stars in galaxies. (And he was a rather devout Palestinian, who got married to a nice Jordanian girl. I think they’re in Jordan now, though we lost contact.)
ANYWAY.. I was pointing out that there are more Muslims in the applied engineering fields – the sciences that are useless for R&D. But they are also the sciences that don’t challeneg one’s beliefs. It’s a matter of doing repetitive equations of things that have been solved, and not looking for new things.
I stand by my sentiment. I don’t think that Islam, in general, promotes the kind of learning that requires questioning one’s own tenets. Maybe Sufism. Christianity has the same problem in many of the more fundamentalist sects.
I stand by my points too Ethan. Although I appreciate what you’re saying, we currently (and for the foreseeable future) need more of the engineers, doctors, business studies graduates etc to build our countries. Once the basic infrastructure is done, I would suspect that we will naturally pursue other disciplines. I wouldn’t even mind if out of every 100, we get one or two looking into the abstracts.
Ethan ..
Please explain to me what it is about Christainity or Judaism that ‘promotes quesitoning one’s own tenets?’ vis a vis Islam? (And if you are going to use people like the 9/11 bombers, then have the decency to compare them to the settler hassidic jews, and not to someone like Elie Weisel)
And then, explain to me why an African Christian (Ehtiopia, Egypt) is significantly less comfortable questioning his/her own belief system than a WASP from New England.
And then, my dear, perhaps it will become obvious to you that the discerning factor is not the religion per se but the socio-economic-cultural-political framework that surrounds it that does not promote questioning and reinforces rote learning and a blind obedience to authority. Of the male kind, may I add. Usually a much much older male who is out of touch with the problems of the youth of today.
Ethan .. you are a very intelligent and well read person. And beleive you me, we both want to live in a world where crazy jihadists can leave us both alone. You as (i am assuming a white american male) and me as a moslem arab woman. So, my adivce to you is to pick your arguments and battles very wisely.
Islam does have a concpet of ijtihad. Which was killed off. The problem is not really as much of Islamic jurisprudence as it is of a deeper cultural problem which explains why the Arab world failed so miserably in all and any of the metrics in the Arab UNDP Report.
Fix the underlying problem whish is the socio-economic make up of society, and you fix alot of other things. And no, I dont know how to do that. I know that more people need to speak out. But, I am unsure that your methodology actually helps, because I think you are just trying to lambast Islam. Which is funny, because you generated a response from me, even though I am hardly a die hard Moslem by any stretch of the imagination. So …
Oh Jasra 😛
You missed my sentence on the subject!
Post-enlightenment Christianity has been far less of a bother in terms of intellectual repression. As I said, there are sects that do promote it, especially here in the US. The Pat Robertson crowd, AS WELL AS some of the more super liberal churches who suffer from that Leftist ‘stuck on stupid’ disease. At least I know that neither of those are wholly representative of Christianity. The fundies stick to the Old Testament dogmatism/literalism/rules and the super liberal ones can’t comprehend anything but a strictly pacifist Jesus, even to the extent of selling their soul to accomodate murderers. (See: The Anglican Church)
As for the African Christian, a lot of it has to do with experiences. Most European Christians have been inundated with books, movies and a culture that challenges their beliefs. It’s harder to be a devout Christian in Europe than a devout Muslim, really. Euopeans don’t fear mocking Christians. (Maybe because they don’t threaten to kill people).
On the other hand, you’re right about the male-dominated society. Arab (and in general, Middle Eastern) societies are tribal in nature. Always have been. Mohammed’s Islam was in a sense aneffort to create a ‘supertribe’, where everyone was a member and in general, there was equality. The only inequalities were between the tribe and the not-tribe. But there was nothing to prevent anyone from joining the tribe, so why would anyone want to be part of the not-tribe? (Except perhaps that some may find the practices of the tribe hypocritical.)
In any case, I think that if anything, the primary problem facing the Muslim world today is hypocracy saddled with endemic corruption. It’s a cocktail of problems that cannot easily be solved without a major liberalizing change in the environment. And an Islamist ‘enlightenment’ is not the right way (though it could be an slow, indirect, and dangerous to the rest of the world method to make the people sick of religion in polity)
Education will help, as would someone telling Saudi to stop crushing Islamic History. If there were honest studies of Islamic Archaeology (such as Biblical Archaeology is) that would be a breath of fresh air into an ossified and dogmatic religion as Islam has been since the 10th century when the doors of itjihad were closed. One of the best examples of this are the early Korans that were discovred in Yemen. They were not the same as the modern Koran, showing that there WAS textual development prior to the Othmanic reclension. If that’s true, then that, if NOTHING else, historicalizes the Koran as the Bible has been.
Don’t get me wrong, Jasra. I, unlike Steve, don’t wish ill on the Muslim world. I do, however dislike Islam strongly. I can safely say that I dislike most organized religions, but there’s always something to keep from each. I have found nothing like that in Islam, because everything that Islam has seems to have been plagiarized from Gnosticism, Christianity and Judaism, and taken to the extreme to show an appearance of piety over substance.
Ethan: This article might interest you as it sheds light on why accountants, engineers and doctors are the sought after jobs in Bahrain. Expand that and you will find that the rest of the Muslim/Arab world is not that different in aspirations of its young.
Ethan: “Don’t get me wrong, Jasra. I, unlike Steve, don’t wish ill on the Muslim world.”
Whoa, there cowboy. I don’t wish ill on the Muslim world. I’m for getting along with everyone. My threshhold of tolerance is passed when Muslims do violence to further their religion. When Muslims slaughter Americans by the thousands in our own home and then cheer it across all of Muslim-Land, that inspires my contempt and relentless opposition and criticism. However, should Muslims decide to live and let live, I’d be happy to change my opinion, give up my opposition, and give praise where praise is due.
Steve
Whoa, there cowboy. I don’t wish ill on the Muslim world.
Thats right. He just holds them responsible for murdering 3000+ people on Sep11th Ethan. 🙂 LOL
-Ibn
Jasra Jedi: “Please explain to me what it is about Christainity or Judaism that ‘promotes quesitoning one’s own tenets?’ vis a vis Islam?”
Nothing. The Catholic hierarchy demanded conformity to its catechism or it was excommunication city for you. It took the Renaissance to introduce skepticism as a method and the requirement that assertions be proven.
Jasra Jedi: “…And then, my dear, perhaps it will become obvious to you that the discerning factor is not the religion per se but the socio-economic-cultural-political framework that surrounds it that does not promote questioning and reinforces rote learning and a blind obedience to authority. Of the male kind, may I add. Usually a much much older male who is out of touch with the problems of the youth of today.”
If I may translate Jasra: Men are the root of all evil.
Jasra, Jasra, Jasra, if only you knew how evil women could be.
You do have a grip on something with this socio-economic-cultural-political framework idea. Irshad Manji makes the same point in a different way when she talks about the Arabization of Islam, in that Islam is being used to carry Arab values and imposing them on other cultures by conflating them with Koranic values.
But there is a chicken and egg thing here in that the literal interpretation of the Koran favored by the fundamentalist hammerheads reinforces the cultural orthodoxy which reinforces the fundamentalist interpretation and so on and so on, round and round, tighter and tighter.
Steve